Agency Natural Resources Dept

Contractor (Minnesota )Environmental Intiative

SWIFT Contract Number B51471

Project Name Ag Leadership Dialouge

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The (Minnesota) Environmental Imitative was hired to facilitate a multi-stakeholder engagement process to seek common ground and agreement on areas where agriculture could provide leadership on environmental performance and stewardship associated with farming.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 12/13/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 05/31/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $84522

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $84502

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Multi-agency (DNR, MPCA, MDA, BWSR)

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) (Minnesota) Environmental Initiative was available through a state Master Contract. An RFP submission was considered but rejected. The master contract process was established in order to enable access to these professional facilitation services that are difficult to specify and evaluate based on objective criteria.

Evaluator Name Mark Lindquist

Evaluator Email Address mark.lindquist@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor's timeliness was acceptable. The project was extended significantly, but mitigating factors included a state government shut down, contractor having staff turnover and most significantly the conflict between some of the stakeholders proved less tractable than anticipated.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor quality was very good. The one challenge that occurred was that staff turnover at the contractor resulted in both project staff changing mid-project. This did create some degree of turbulence, but these were issues beyond the contractors control and did replace projects staff quickly with new, qualified staff.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor costs were generally reasonable. Project costs were based on the rates established within the Master Contract. There were some tasks that, were perhaps, moderately over budgeted. However, that was not obvious until well into the contract.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor's overall performance was solid. The issue and process is difficult and the involved stakeholders are very motivated to stay entrenched. The first phase of the project which involved only agricultural stakeholders produced significant and valuable results.

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.): None

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied