Agency Administration Dept

Contractor Wold Architects and Engineers

SWIFT Contract Number 87087

Project Name House Media Relocation - Peer Review

Project Number (if applicable) 02SO0012

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Peer review of project requiring redesign - requested by director.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 12/23/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 01/31/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 01/31/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $800.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $800.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? '13 Bond

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) Within guidelines and vendor familiarity with building.

Evaluator Name Glen Heino

Evaluator Email Address glen.heino@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of 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.): n/a

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied