Agency Natural Resources Dept

Contractor Wenck Associates Inc

SWIFT Contract Number 44225/3000016437

Project Name Fargo-Moorhead EIS

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of the contract was to assist the DNR in preparation of the Fargo-Moorhead Flood Risk Management scoping and EIS documents and provide project management. Under Minnesota Statute § 15.061 and Minnesota Rules part 4410.2100, subpart 10, the State (DNR) is empowered to engage such assistance.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 04/12/2012 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 02/01/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 08/23/2016 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $83970

Amendments $890472

Contract total $974442

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Income contract with City of Moorhead

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 Jill Townley

Evaluator Email Address jill.townley@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Overall, the contractor met timeline expectations and was occasionally faced with expedited timeframes. There were instances when the contractor failed to meet deadlines and did not have a reasonable justification. The contractor sometimes threatened DNR with “stop work” until all materials were in-hand, which DNR did not find acceptable given that other ancillary work could still be completed.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Generally, the Contractor’s project manager (PM) was attentive, responsive and regularly participated in meetings. However, the PM would sometimes show up to status meetings unprepared and with little substance. The PM was organized, kept detailed records, and was flexible with State invoicing needs. The Contractor (PM and technical staff) required excessive direction and guidance during tasks. Many deliverables had to be redone due to underdeveloped or deficient writing. Numerous rounds of editing were required because writing was disorganized and was hard for reviewers to follow. The quality of work product was often unsatisfactory (i.e.; summaries instead of interpretations; showing a lack of technical analysis). General QA/QC of work products should have been completed by the Contractor but instead fell to DNR staff reviewers. Outside reviewers (project partners, non-DNR) also complained about the poor quality of work. DNR developed a lack of trust that work products would be completed to acceptable standards and often transferred work away from the Contractor and assumed them in-house.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Overall, the Contractor’s rates were reasonable. The project manager often failed to understand the level of effort needed for work tasks, which resulted in frequent requests to use contingency or transfer cost savings between tasks. This made tracking the project’s budget very complicated. In the early stages of the Project, the Contractor attempted to invoice for staff hours required to redo work products that were deemed unsatisfactory (an action that was denied). Contractor was flexible with P/T contract amendments/reductions.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall, the Contractor’s performance was poor. The Contractor lacked the understanding of what was needed under the contract and did not demonstrate independent analytical thinking, and failed to show initiative with gathering available/expected technical resources and developing robust writing. The project manager (PM) required an excessive amount of guidance and direction which increased the project management time needed by DNR. The PM was very responsive (always returned phone calls and emails) and was willing to put in additional long days to meet deadlines when required. In times of high stress and approaching deadlines, PM worked well with DNR staff to accomplish tasks. Contractor’s Principal Oversight was open to hearing DNR concerns about poor performance, but DNR did not see tangible results or follow-through regarding those concerns.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): .): In February 2015, DNR considered terminating the contract with the Contractor because of past poor performance and lack of trust to complete future tasks on-time and within DNR standards/expectations (examples are given in the topics above). If DNR terminated the contract, it would have extended the final product deliverable date. Therefore, the decision was made to retain the Contractor’s services, but at a reduced level. Many tasks were removed from the Contractor and reassigned to DNR staff. Additionally, around May 2015, one of the Contractor’s employees, Blain Johnson, submitted an opinion article to a local newspaper expressing his personal criticism for the Project. DNR was to maintain a neutral position on the Project and conduct a neutral environmental review. Mr. Johnson’s article caused the project proposer to have concern about DNR’s credibility as a robust RGU. Although the Contractor handled the incident well and took action in-house to prevent a recurrence, this incident caused difficult communications and distraction for the DNR.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied