Agency Natural Resources Dept

Contractor Manatron, Inc

SWIFT Contract Number 51962

Project Name Land Records System Development

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: (This language is largely borrowed from the “Cert” form that initiated the contract.)
The State of Minnesota owns more than 4 million acres of land and more than 12 million acres of mineral rights. The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the administration and management of most of these lands. Consequently, it has a variety of land management processes, including:
• Acquiring and disposing of ownership interests in land parcels
• Acquiring and granting easements
• Leasing, licensing, or permitting minerals extraction, timber harvesting, and other commercial and recreational uses of state lands
• Ensuring that it fulfills its obligations to the School Trust Fund and to other entities for whose benefit the state administers certain public land
• Ensuring accurate calculation and distribution of payments to local governments in lieu of property taxes
• Ensuring land-based revenue is deposited in the correct accounts and funds and land-based expenditures are drawn from the correct accounts and funds
• Ensuring that its land and resource management activities are confined to state owned or leased land
• Ensuring compliance with restrictive covenants on its land parcels
• Analyzing its land holdings to identify and pursue strategies and tactics for retaining and acquiring land that is best suited to its mission and for disposing of rights in land that is not well suited to its mission.
The DNR’s land records management processes would better support the department’s natural resources management efforts if they were redesigned and a new land records management information system were developed to support the new processes. This contract is part of a larger project to redesign those processes and develop that new land records management information system.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 05/12/2009 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:00

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

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $2501120

Amendments $449744

Contract total $2940843

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? Various

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 Karl Olmstead

Evaluator Email Address karl.olmstead@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Timeliness of work by contractor varied during the project. In the first eighteen months and in the final eighteen months, the contractor made very good progress. But in the middle part of the engagement, progress slowed and nearly stalled. I attribute the mid-project delays to the fact that the contractor was acquired by new companies twice in a short span of time and that key individuals left the contractor’s team during that time.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the software provided appears to be consistent with industry standards. The quality of intermediate work products, particularly system requirements and design documents, was satisfactory, but these proved hard for subject matter experts to evaluate. The analysis and design portions of the project would have been improved if the contractor’s employees were on site or found other ways to interact with system users more directly. The state has some reservations about the degree to which the implemented system fully aligns with its needs. Most of these stem from the state’s decision to go with a system that contains a commercial-off-the-shelf product at its core.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Contractor’s costs were reasonable. I believe the contractor devoted substantially more time to the project than it initially estimated and that the State did not have to pay for that time. Change orders added about 18% to the original cost of the contract. These were due largely to changes in state requirements during the life of the project and to state omissions during the review of design documents.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Satisfactory.

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.): In response to the slowdown in contractor progress during the middle of the engagement, the state insisted on a contract amendment that called for liquidated damages to be paid to the state if the vendor failed to achieve certain schedule targets.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied