Agency Natural Resources Dept

Contractor Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa

SWIFT Contract Number 252037

Project Name Parks and Trails Southern Region Resource Management

Project Number (if applicable) 221-12101

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of this contract was to conduct a variety of natural resource management activities on PAT-administered lands. Services to be conducted under this contract included, but were not limited to: prescribed burning, woody vegetation control/removal, herbicide application, seed collection/planting, herbaceous weed control, rare species surveys, tree planting and reforestation.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 07/08/2024 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 12/31/2024 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 12/10/2024 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $40000

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $40000

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Legacy

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) This work order was issued under the authority of the Master Agreement (No. 230672).

Evaluator Name Neil Slifka

Evaluator Email Address neil.slifka@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor provided the agreed upon services in a timely matter, as defined by the work order.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the contractor's work was generally commensurate with the level of experience that field crew members have developed over time. Work quality in some areas could be improved, and in some cases, work quality did improve over the course of the field season. Certain distractions (e.g., technology, excessively talkative crew members, etc.) and inattentiveness to specific instructions periodically affected the quality of work.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Contractor's cost was made clear at the time the contract/work order was established. However, due to some redundancy caused by needs to revisit sites for follow-up, or time lost to conduct needed equipment repairs in the field, the cost-benefit ratio was periodically skewed, making projects appear slightly more expensive than they would generally need to be. However, for the most part, the contractor's cost was in line with what would be anticipated.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance As indicated above, certain distractions (e.g., technology, excessively talkative crew members, etc.) and inattentiveness to specific details/instructions periodically affected the quality of work and the amount of work that was completed according to planned timelines. In general, however, the contractor's overall performance was satisfactory- especially for tasks that field crews were proficient in.

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