Agency Natural Resources Dept

Contractor Environmental Resources Management (ERM)

SWIFT Contract Number B54561/37206/3000010195

Project Name PolyMet NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The State (DNR) was in need of professional and technical services to assist in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange. Under Minnesota Statute § 15.061 and Minnesota Rules part 4410.2100, subpart 10, the State (DNR) is empowered to engage such assistance. _For this project, assistance included preparation of EIS documents as well as technical review of supporting information and documents prepared by the proposer, PolyMet Mining, Inc., or its representatives.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 04/04/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 04/02/2013 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 03/31/2016 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 112044.80

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $2100000

Amendments $15259.786

Contract total $17359786

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? labor/expenses reimbursed by PolyMet Mining, Inc.

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) ERM has been under contract with the DNR since April 3, 2006 to perform the services associated with a joint state-federal EIS. An ERM-produced Draft EIS was published, but the DNR in concert with its federal partners determined that conditions warranted preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS, followed by a Final EIS. A rationale as to why the retention of ERM for the NorthMet EIS is in the State’s interest is provided in the following discussion.
Since April of 2006, ERM has obtained sole access and detailed working knowledge about content of the NorthMet EIS. This knowledge would be difficult, if not impossible, to transfer to another consulting firm because the NorthMet EIS has great scientific and project management complexity. In the judgment of the DNR, ERM’s knowledge, skills, and experience are proprietary (exclusively owned by them) due to their unique understanding of the EIS’s content and is critical to the smooth transition from the DEIS to the SDEIS.
It is also in the judgment of the DNR that a thorough evaluation of the NorthMet EIS process is in the interest of the citizens of the State of Minnesota. The competitive consultant selection process is not well positioned to account for the operational knowledge accrued by ERM over the course of the EIS contract to date. If another firm were to be awarded the contract, knowledge valuable to the public about the NorthMet project may be lost. The loss of an important source of information and expertise concerning State’s first copper-nickel mine may result in severe and unforeseen adverse consequences to the natural environment.
It is also DNR’s opinion that ERM continues to provide the range and breadth of expertise that is not readily available, which was evidenced by the original RFP and contractor selection process. The original contracting required two RFPs, with ultimately only two firms deemed qualified from the second RFP process. ERM continues to field the expertise necessary for the project, and has committed additional resources when needed. ERM importantly proposes to maintain its current team into the new contract. The team of experts is national in nature, with staff housed in seven (7) states. This includes two sub-consultants, one of which is housed in Colorado. In total approximately two-dozen specialists comprise the core project team.
As just noted, ERM was selected for the first contract under the State-required competitive, RFP-based process. Experience suggests that even if the agency engaged in another round of competitive bidding with a new RFP, given ERM’s historic role with the process, it is unlikely that other firms would decide to bid on the project. ERM would enter such a process with knowledge, expertise, and experience that would be difficult for any other firm to match.
Another factor to be considered relates to how the NorthMet EIS is funded. All reasonable costs incurred by the State over the course of the EIS, including any State Professional/Technical Services Contract obligations, are reimbursed by the Project Proposer through a State Income Contract. From the proposer’s perspective with the requirement to pay for the entire process, they would be paying twice for “start-up effort” if a contract were awarded to another firm while simultaneously incurring the intangible cost of losing ERM’s knowledge with the project.

Evaluator Name Lisa Fay, EIS Project Manager

Evaluator Email Address lisa.fay@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness ERM was timely in meeting deadlines, often under expedited timeframes.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of deliverables produced by ERM met or exceeded DNR’s expectations.

Evaluate the contractor's cost ERM's costs were reasonable.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance ERM met all of the terms and objectives of the contract. ERM’s assistance was instrumental in DNR’s completion of the EIS process. The ERM team was responsive to DNR’s needs and provided invaluable technical expertise.

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.): None.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 5 - very satisfied