Agency Public Safety Dept

Contractor University of Minnesota Duluth

SWIFT Contract Number 59726

Project Name Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Update of the State all Hazard Mitigation Plan. UMD was needed to assist HSEM meets the FEMA requirement of an updated plan. Contractor was needed to complete updated risk assessment and incorporate GIS analysis as HSEM does not have the technical expertise or authority to utilize GIS and HAZUS flood risk assessment software. Additional duties of UMD included analyzing local hazard mitigations plans that state staff was not able to do due to current heavy workload due to number of open disasters.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 04/01/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 01/02/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 06/30/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $126499.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $124140.23

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Federal Funds

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) UMD updated the previous State of Minnesota All Hazard Mitigation Plan and has all the data from the HAZUS flood risk analysis level one and understanding of FEMA requirements. Similar to the previous contract, HSEM mitigation staff was looking for a state agency or university to partner with on this project. The HAZUS-MH software takes a great deal of dedication to become proficient to be useful for mitigation planning purposes. UMD was chosen because they were willing to take on this project, and, had staff proficient in GIS, hydrology, and HAZUS-MH. UMD staff was active in the GIS community in the state and had the ability to gather data essential for the study. According to statute 471.59 HSEM and UMD could use an interagency agreement, however, UM only accepts Professional Technical contracts from state agencies. A sole source was developed to enter into a P/T contract.

Evaluator Name Jennifer Nelson

Evaluator Email Address jennifer.e.nelson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Due to the compressed time schedule of the plan and the turn-around time, UMD did an acceptable job. Some delays occurred towards the end of project with response to request for information.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Sufficient. Due to the compressed timeline, the project is sufficient. Given lack of time the performance was only acceptable, as we did not have time to really engage with them and specifically state what improvements we would have liked – we just updated the information in the plan in-house.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Reasonable and under budget.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Sufficient. Plan was approved by FEMA, but state staff did have to do a lot of formatting to plan.
Another difficulty due to the compressed time frame was that UMD did not fully understand several assessments that were required and these were completed by HSEM staff. The outcome is that it should not be assumed that UMD is not a subject matter expert in regards to state mitigation planning.

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 billing cycle of the university and tracking of time led to a denial and resubmission of final invoice.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral