Agency Administration Dept

Contractor FACILITY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PC

SWIFT Contract Number 224378

Project Name 2023 FCA/SCA COSTID UPDATE

Project Number (if applicable) N/A

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: construction costs are always changing. In order for the State's Facility and Site condition assessments to be accurate and useful, the systems background costs must be updated periodically with the latest values from RS Means Construction costs database.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 02/16/2023 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 06/30/2023 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 06/30/2023 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $59100

Amendments $59100

Contract total $59100

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Account: 411324, Business Unit: G0201, FY: 2023, Fund: 1000, DeptID: G0233230, AppropID: G021144

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) September 10, 2012 Enterprise Real Property (ERP) published a thorough and competitive RFP “RFP for Development of a
Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) Process.” After careful consideration and review of all that responded by proposal close,
FEA was selected because their evaluation scored the highest total points of any other vendor during the fair selection
process. By April 2013, FEA developed and delivered to the State of Minnesota a standardized, efficient, easy to use and
maintain, comprehensive, and cost-effective FCA process with meaningful background cost data. FEA was attentively
understanding of the State’s infancy regarding a standardized FCA and solely produced a process that is unique to the state’s
needs and vision.
The intent of this proposed background cost update project is to integrate with and supplement the current FCA and SCA
processes, costs models, and not to force a redesign or overhaul of the cost models. The current FCA process works well, but
costs have become outdated and do not reflect current market rates for materials and labor. The last background cost update
was performed in 2021. This background cost update will be using 2023 RS Means construction cost data. Due to the unique
nature, complexity, and implementation of the State’s FCA and SCA processes, ERPP needs FEAs expertise and knowledge (of
their industry and the State’s approach) to avoid a costly and disruptive redesign. FEA owns copy rights to and is the sole
provider of the Reference Field Guide that is used as a part of the FCA and SCA processes and will be updated as a part of this
project. The background costs associated with the guide will need to be altered so to represent current material and labor
rates of the State’s regions. FEA also provides a detail breakdown of material or labor fluctuations (up/down) that further
helps agencies to prioritize projects in queue to maximize dollar resources.

Evaluator Name Jedd Prokash

Evaluator Email Address jedd.prokash@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness FEA was on time and sometimes ahead of schedule with deadlines and meeting obligations. There was never a concerns with their timeliness.

Evaluate the contractor's quality FEA's quality has always been expectational and they have a very high benchmark to meet. The quality of work for this project was good, but just not as good as it was in the past. There was some rework on some of the deliverables but was corrected and it did not negatively impact any of the final deliverables.

Evaluate the contractor's cost FEA's cost was exactly as estimated. The never went over even with some of the scope creep that was added to the project from the State of MN.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance It is always a pleasure to work with FEA. they are very professional and only want the best for their customers. They will do whatever it takes to make sure of that.

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.): There was NO negative action taken during the duration of this contract.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 5 - very satisfied