Agency Health Department

Contractor Eastern Research Group Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 70333 / 3-18330

Project Name Alternative Risk Assessment Methods Phase II

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The Health Risk Assessment Unit evaluates and communicates the potential for human health risks from exposure to environmental chemicals in drinking water. To date, this has required toxicological data on the chemicals of concern. This project was intended to develop a decision tree that could be used to provide risk context when no such chemical specific toxicological data was not available. This would allow MDH to provide such risk context to the public and regulators. This should minimize the number of situations where MDH would not be able to provide rapid advice on a given chemical of concern.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 08/15/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 02/15/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 02/15/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $200000

Amendments $-100000

Contract total $100000

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 2302 H1232708 H12554P

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 Helen Goeden

Evaluator Email Address helen.goeden@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The first deliverable was on time, however, the subsequent interim materials were delivered months late. From that point on, all deliverables besides the final deliverable were delivered late. We suspect that many of the delays in receiving the expected products were due to problems Eastern Research Group, Inc. was having with their subcontractor. Managing subcontractors was the duty of our original contractor. These project management issues resulted in the overall later than expected date of delivery for each deliverable.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the work that our original contractor Eastern Research Group, Inc. was adequate and met our expectations. However again, a large piece of the project was subcontracted by our original contractor and this portion of the project fell well below our expectations. The subcontractors work did not address our needs and provided little substance beyond our original working knowledge. Ultimately, this lack of quality of the subcontractor's work reflects on the poor project management of our original contractor.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor's rates described in the initial proposed budget appeared reasonable and these costs were mirrored in the invoices that we received.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance While we did receive useful materials and deliverables from the contractor, the less than desired project management and the issues during the project with the timeliness of MDH receiving the deliverables fell short of our expectations.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): The original contract was amended to lower the amount of the contract and to truncate the expected tasks. No termination or pursuit of suspension were sought.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied