Agency Corrections Dept

Contractor Ericksen Ellison & Associates, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 87353

Project Name design fo Makeup Air Unit Bldg 60 Roof MCF-ML

Project Number (if applicable) 78ML0028

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Mechanical Engineering required to design new make-up air unit to replace one discovered to need abandonment for re-roofing project.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 01/02/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 02/29/2016 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 02/29/2016 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $5800.00

Amendments $3000.00

Contract total $8800.00

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/economy in that engineer on site for another project.

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