Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor FILLMORE COUNTY

SWIFT Contract Number 64070

Project Name SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA WRAP NITROGEN PLANNING

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: To better understand the regional problem of nitrate pollution in groundwater of SE MN, surface water nitrate sensors and lysimeters were installed. This contract was for Fillmore SWCD to manage these two facets of the study.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 07/15/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Thu, 12/31/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 12/31/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $56717.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $56717.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? clean water fund

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) While the collection of nitrate samples could be performed by a different governmental unit the SWCD is unique because they worked cooperatively with WSU to contact local landowners and gain permission to install the lysimeter network on private land. They were also involved in the installation of the lysimeter network and the continuous nitrate samplers. They have significant knowledge of how the lysimeters and the samplers work and how to maintain those systems if there are issues. The SWCD has a great working relationship with WSU and the SWCD will also do the work for a very reasonable price.

Evaluator Name Shaina Keseley

Evaluator Email Address shaina.keseley@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor had good schedule maintenance overall, but the deliverables were not received on time. Invoices were submitted in a timely manner.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor did an unsatisfactory job of accomplishing the contract goals and meeting work plan objectives. The quality of the deliverables received was also unsatisfactory.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Disputed invoice (#9) from June to September 2015 due to failure to comply completely to contract language. Subtask language was not followed and therefore deliverables not received in full. One change order was needed for reallocation of funds from mileage to the Watershed Management Coordinator position were made October of 2015 in order to cover additional time needed, and acknowledge that less miles were needed than anticipated.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Issues with equipment were not communicated in a timely manner. Also, action to remedy equipment issues was not taken in each instance and when it was it was not timely. This led to poor equipment maintenance and loss of data collection. While there were issues within this contract, the contractor is a valuable partner in MPCA's watershed work. They have worked with MPCA on various past contracts without issue. The hope is that they can remedy the issues seen in this contract and correct them so future contracts can be executed. If efforts are made to show how issues that occurred during this contract would be remedied in future contracts, I would contract with this partner again. They are a valuable partner with knowledge and skills very helpful to MPCA related work in the Root River watershed.

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 2 - dissatisfied