Agency Agriculture Dept

Contractor Regents of the University of Minnesota, Office of

SWIFT Contract Number 0000197383-50,53

Project Name First Detector Program Expansion and Development

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This project will expand the Minnesota First Detector program to include new and emerging, high-consequence specialty crop pests (pests of both national and state concern will be considered), increase the amount of field based training, utilize First Detectors for additional activities such as presence/absence surveys, and develop a system to facilitate First Detector communication.

Minnesota benefits from an award winning Forest Pest First Detector Network. There are hundreds of trained volunteers on the lookout for forest pests of federal and/or state regulatory concern, such as emerald ash borer, Asian long horned beetle, gypsy moth and thousand cankers disease of walnut. First Detectors are trained to identify pests, follow up on reports, collect samples, and work with the public to help triage pest reports. The forest Pest First Detector program was involved in the first detection of EAB in Minnesota in St. Paul in 2009 and Shoreview in 2011 and the first detection of a gypsy moth caterpillar in Minnesota in Duluth in 2010. As of December 2011 there were over 400 trained First Detectors in Minnesota. The total public value for the program in was $81,000 in 2009, $87,000 in 2010 and $88,000 in 2011 (as calculated using Independent Sector for time and mileage volunteered). The Minnesota program is a leader and has served as a model for six other state First Detector programs.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 11/30/2012 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 08/31/2013 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 08/31/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $35550.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $32271.46

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Federal: USDA, Farm Bill Funding

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) The First Detector Network is part of the National Plant Diagnostic Network. Each state has a coordinator for this network. The University of MN Extension is the coordinator for Minnesota and as such is responsible for training First Detectors. No other entity has this link to the National Plant Diagnostic Network. Also the website for First Detector Communication www.MyMinnestoaWoods.edu is maintained by the University of Minnesota Extension

Evaluator Name Mark Abrahamson

Evaluator Email Address Mark.abrahamson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The timeliness was excellent for most aspects of the project, however the web development for myminnesotawoods.edu did occur very late in the project and created some problems in fully utilizing the available funds.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of work was excellent for all aspects of the contract.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The cost of the work conducted was appropriate for the type of work that was done. In fact, all work was completed and the total costs were approximately 20% less than anticipated.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall the contractor’s performance was very good. The quality of work was excellent and the program staff are easy to work with. The challenge in implementing this contract was in tracking the contractor’s costs and anticipating what the final cost of the project would be. This was problematic because the contract funds were part of a federal award that was only available for a period of time. Funds that were unused by the contractor could have been used for additional work at MDA had the shortfall been fully known earlier in the project.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? Yes

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): The final costs were less than the available funds in the contract. This was not known until late in the contract’s lifespan. Had it been known earlier that contracted funds would be unspent, those funds could have been used to conduct work at MDA.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied