Agency Corrections Dept

Contractor Nova Consulting Group

SWIFT Contract Number 95711

Project Name Air Monitoring for Roof Abatement MCF-ML

Project Number (if applicable) 78ML0028

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Air monitoring required for abatement in prep for re-roofing construction project.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 05/21/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Wed, 08/19/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Wed, 08/19/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $3250.00

Amendments $-2145.00

Contract total $1105.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? '12 AP

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) within guidelines for distributing Haz Mat monitoring work.

Evaluator Name Glen Heino

Evaluator Email Address glen.heino@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project.

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.): n/a

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied