Agency MN Management & Budget

Contractor Enclipse - Chris Brittain

SWIFT Contract Number 61988

Project Name Enterprise Learning Management

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: MMB determined that ELM must be developed to meet all executive branch agencies’ training documentation needs. To that end a project was begun to gather requirements from agencies and make the changes necessary to meet those needs. Steps were taken to hire permanent staff to support these modules going forward, but additional staff was needed through the development phase to augment in-house staff. This contractor was hired to address this need.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 05/06/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 09/30/2013 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 05/30/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $116000

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $116000

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? ELM Implementation Project Funds

Is this a sole source contract? No

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) {Empty}

Evaluator Name Ajith George

Evaluator Email Address ajith.george@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor was often not timely in day-to-day deliverables, despite feedback given to him about this several times.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Work was not completed in a timely or satisfactory manner, so much so that the contract was terminated.

Evaluate the contractor's cost On par with market rates for a resource of the skills claimed by the contractor. But the value actually added by this contractor was unsatisfactory compared to the cost.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The individual assigned by the contract vendor (Enclipse), Chris Brittain, had poor performance on the assignment, which we recognized after just a few weeks. Therefore, we terminated the work order. It was the individual and not the vendor that was the problem. We discussed the issue with the vendor and they immediately agreed to terminate the individual at that time. Later in the year, the individual sent unprofessional, unsolicited and abusive messages to the person who was managing the work order at the state. He was reportedly also making false comments to Enclipse about this state person personally after he was dismissed. Due to this individual’s work and follow on actions we are investigating additional actions to take.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): Contract terminated early on 5/30/2013, after just a few weeks of work, due to unsatisfactory work performance and lack of value/contribution to project goals.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 1 - very dissatisfied