Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor BAY WEST INC.

SWIFT Contract Number 63186-15-3988422

Project Name REMEDIATION, MACHINE SHOP, LITCHFIELD - LEAK 19052

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Petroleum storage tank release investigation including performing a Limited Site Investigation and report preparation/submittal.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 01/23/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 06/30/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 06/30/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $28244.25

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $28244.25

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? unknown

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 Nancy Hennen

Evaluator Email Address nancy.hennen@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor had excellent schedule maintenance. All work plan objectives were met. All deliverables were received on time, and invoices were submitted on time.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The deliverables received were of excellent quality. The contractor did an excellent job of accomplishing the contract goals and adhering to program requirements. The reports received were clear and complete.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor overall had good budget management. There were a few disputed invoices: Short pay $10, lab overcharge; Short pay $87.36, overcharge mileage; Short pay $137, lab billing errors. THree change orders were needed to adjust the budget: one to rebudget labor for well sampling, one to rebudget to add mileage, and one to rebudget to add soil samples.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Jay worked well with a RP who required additional contact time and field work notification. As a result the project moved forward with no delays. The area to work on is pre-viewing the invoices prior to submitting them for payment. If this had been done then the lab issues and mileage line item would likely have been corrected prior to submittal to the state and short pays would have been unnecessary. Overall their performance was good.

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