Agency MN.IT

Contractor Surdex Corporation; Chesterfield, MO

SWIFT Contract Number 106275 (T-number: 16AAP)

Project Name Metropolitan Council 2016 Aerial Imagery

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The goal of this project was to produce new digital aerial imagery for a region of East Central Minnesota centered on the Twin Cities metropolitan area meeting the explicit requirements of the Metropolitan Council. The Council requires four-band digital ortho-rectified aerial photography acquired over the seven county Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area to be collected in the spring of 2016, under leaf-off and snow- and ice-free conditions, at a pixel resolution of 30-centimeter (~1-foot) that meets ASPRS accuracy standards in the standard mapping and GIS work category. Over the past few decades, The Council has contracted for imagery each Census year and once mid-decade from which to gather up-to-date generalized land use data for the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. The Council now requires spring 2016 imagery so that land use information can be collected for a current mid-decade update. MN.IT, through the enabling legislation of MNGeo, is mandated to assist in coordinating and guiding the efficient use of public resources to develop effective statewide geospatial information technology, data and services. MN.IT and The Council have, therefore, entered into an inter-agency agreement to complete this project.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 03/08/2016 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 12/31/2016 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 11/01/2016 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $125900

Amendments $0

Contract total $125900

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Metropolitan Council (through MC IAK 15P161)

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 Christopher Cialek

Evaluator Email Address chris.cialek@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Deadlines in the vendor’s project plan were ambitious, but pretty closely met. Data processing went quickly; data inspection and repairs took a little longer than anticipated, but involved five independent stakeholder reviewers. Response to modification requests in metadata was slower than would have been expected, but had no detrimental effect on the project timeline. Requests from the State and Met Council for status information and issue resolution were addressed promptly.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of final deliverables is fully satisfactory. The quality of communication and vendor/stakeholder relationships was very good.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Cost was below the median proposed cost of the nine vendors considered. The project evaluation team agreed that the value provided by the selected vendor was superior to the other eight and, therefore, selected this vendor over three lower quotes.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Vendor’s overall performance was very good; professional, knowledgeable, receptive and responsive to client questions and concerns, and proactive in the use of time-saving technologies.

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 5 - very satisfied