Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Headwaters Science Center

SWIFT Contract Number 41199

Project Name River Watch at Headwaters Science Center SWAG Proj

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: In a collaborative effort the grantees and MPCA are jointly monitoring lakes and stream sites in accordance to the Watershed Approach adopted by the MPCA in 2008. This Surface Water Assessment Grants is administered by the MPCA under Minnesota Session Laws 2011, 1st Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section 5.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 02/03/2012 - 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: $35365.83

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $45229.85

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 2302 R3234024 R32W304 441603

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 Kelly O'Hara

Evaluator Email Address kelly.ohara@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor had excellent time management and schedule maintenance.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor was excellent at meeting the work plan objectives. The quality of data provided was also excellent. The contractor adhered to the program requirements, and showed creativity and innovation in executing the project. HSC also showed a great deal of improvement over the course of the project

Evaluate the contractor's cost The HSC was satisfactory in their budget development. Three change orders were needed to adjust for monitoring supplies, shipping expenses, and subcontractor data entry. An amendment was also needed: The original work plan was written and approved with a budget that did not include the entire awarded grant amount. When it was determined that the amount in the work plan budget would not be adequate to cover all expenses the grantee informed MPCA that there were additional grant funds available. A grant amendment was executed at that time to encorporate the entire awarded amount.

There were no disputed invoices. There were problems with sumbissions of reimbursement spreadsheets early on, but the problem was corrected at the time of the amendment.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance HSC was very new to the SWAG program as well as CWL grants of this nature. Extra attention by MPCA project managers is to be expected with new grantees such as HSC. When additional guidance was provided HSC performed to our expectations. They have performed at a much higher level with their 2013 SWAG.

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