Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Ronald Schwartz

SWIFT Contract Number 41208

Project Name South Fork Watershed Restoration and Protection Mo

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 Thu, 03/01/2012 - 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: $191441.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $191441.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 2302 R3234024 R32W304 441502

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 Ronald Schwartz

Evaluator Email Address johanna.fierke@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor finished the project within the established schedule, and deliverables were received on time.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of data was excellent, and the contractor accomplished the contract goals.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor did a satisfactory job of developing a budget. There were some disputed invoices: The contractor originally billed MPCA for work done for WRAPS project. Grantee thought since the WRAPS work was to occur that they could bill the work to the SWAG project. Work was done prior to submital of reimbursment request but payment was denied. Minor corrections were also required for lab budgets

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall, this project was over budgeted for the amount of work written into the workplan by nearly $50k. Discussion with grantee occurred shortly after the second interim report was received. Grantee was informed that work was completed for objectives 1, 2, and 3 of their workplan. CROW conducted work during the first half of 2014 that was related to their WRAPS project and billed this work to these objectives. Requested funds for these amounts were denied. Often had a difficult time reaching CROW by either phone or email. Quality of deliverables was high and data collection and management was good/excellent.

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