Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Anoka Conservation District

SWIFT Contract Number 58525

Project Name Anoka County Un-assessed Waters Monitoring

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: We will monitor two lakes and four stream sites within the Rum River watershed. These Anoka County sites have not been previously assessed, and the MPCA seeks data for their intensive watershed monitoring program. We propose to monitor the sites at Minard Lake and Pickerel Lake, as well as at the following streams: Trott Brook, Seelye Brook, Cedar Creek and the Rum Rive. We will be following the MPCA's intensive watershed monitoring standard operating procedures and schedule.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 04/01/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 06/30/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 06/30/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $55602.05

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $55602.05

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Clean Water Fund

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 schedule maintenance, and the project was completed within the original schedule.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor provided clear and complete reports that contained data of good quality. Some samples were missed in 2013, but the contractor made up the time and samples in 2014.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor had satisfactory budget management. One change order was needed to move funds to 2014 line items, in order to make up missed samples in 2013. Early on the contractor submitted requests for ineligble expenses. In general, early invoices required guidance to align the work plan budget with the reimbursement request tracking sheet. Once this was resolved, there were not further issues.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Final data deliverables were good and all due dates were met. Difficult to negotiate with during work plan and budget development. Insisted on final breakdown of budget but left a significant amount of unspent funds upon grant completion.

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