Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Terracon

SWIFT Contract Number 63179-15-03

Project Name WORK ORDER CERT, REM, SUPERFUND, ROCHESTER GROUNDW

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Operation and maintenance of SVE system, and groundwater monitoring.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 07/02/2014 - 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: $109000.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $72853.21

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? State

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) Terracon has been lead consultant on this remedial project since conception.

Evaluator Name Ed Olson

Evaluator Email Address edward.olson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Timeliness was good, and the contractor had a good handle on their schedule.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The reports received were satisfactory.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor did an unsatisfactory job of managing the budget. Invoices were lengthy, drawn out so as to show task completions and thus, no retainages. Change orders were needed because of unspent funds in Task S - System Repair/Maint. ($8300.00) was reallocated to Task S - Lab Analysis ($8300.00) as the Work Plan did not initially include fund for lab work from 2/28/15 through 6/30/15.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Project communication was largely with a PM that retired and thus the record is limited from which to evaluate communication. Overall the project was satisfactory.

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.): project budget was reduced for development of WO approved for FY16.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral