Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Regents of the University of Minnesota

SWIFT Contract Number B02648

Project Name Storm Water Infiltration- Soils amended w/Compost

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This research is necessary to protect the health and environment of Minnesota citizens.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 06/28/2007 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 12/01/2009 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $40000.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $40000.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? R32/330/D537/GF

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 Christopher Klucas

Evaluator Email Address christopher.klucas@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor's maintenance of the grant schedule was unsatisfactory. The project was completed within the original schedule, but deliverables were not received on time and staff turnover led to complications with the timeliness of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor provided clear and complete reports with good-quality data. The work plan objectives were met.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The budget was managed well. The contractor submitted invoices correctly; there were no disputed invoices. One change order and one amendment were needed: the change in grant managers necessitated some charges to the budget. However, overall the goals and objective of the project remained the same and were met in the project.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance This project had one major difficulty: the day of the award, the principal grantee (the Department of Agriculture) had a staffing change and the contract manager was no longer able to manage the grant. The U of M became the grantee and manager of the project. This has pretty much been a nightmare as the U of M changed its accounting system during the time frame of the grant, and there have been many, many difficulties in trying to figure out who was doing what and dispursing the funds. This resulted in the project starting a year late, and the extended time needed to pull together the final report. All work was completed within the time frame of the grant, but because this project depended on the growing season and not the fiscal year, the final results were not known until September 2009.

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