Agency Agriculture Dept

Contractor Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 76632

Project Name Phase X - Kettle River Co. Creosote Plant

Project Number (if applicable) RWA253112

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of the Contract was to excavate, load, transport, and dispose of creosote-impacted soil and debris from the former Kettle River Co. Creosote Plant Site in Sandstone, Minnesota. The work was necessary in order to remove and dispose of impacted materials that pose a threat to human health and the environment.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 04/28/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 06/30/2014 - 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: $626583.15

Amendments $-13339.32

Contract total $613243.83

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? FY14 2801 B04311R7 B041E02

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 Thomas Reppe

Evaluator Email Address thomas.reppe@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The Contractor completed the tasks of the project and the overall work in the time/schedule that was provided by the MDA. During the project, MDA staff had to communicate to the Contractor the need to have additional dump trucks at the Site in order to complete a portion of the excavation in a timely manner to allow the project to continue without work stoppage. The Contractor responded satisfactory to the request of MDA staff. However, if a suffucient number of dump trucks had been provided by the Contractor from the beginning of the project, the overall scope of work could likely have been completed sooner.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the Contractor's services and deliverables exceeded expectations and was good. The Contractor's personnel provided daily relevant communication to MDA staff and the MDA's Consultant.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The Contractor's costs and unit prices were fair and met expectations. The Contractor's personnel working on the project were dilligent and detailed in reporting the day-to-day costs being incurred. This allowed MDA staff to generate updated, detailed budget reports which allowed the project to proceed without significant work stoppages or delays.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The Contractor provided good overall performance on 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.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied