Agency Natural Resources Dept

Contractor University of Minnesota, Earth Sciences Dept.

SWIFT Contract Number 93410

Project Name Minnesota Taconite Tailings Basin Model

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The DNR selected the contracted party to develop a geochemical-tracer-based model that can be used to quantify the long-term source, release, and transport of sulfate from taconite tailing basins. This pilot study involved incorporating existing data sets collected from a taconite tailing basin into a newly developed model for sulfate transport. Program files and a final report describing the model and its results was required, along with an objective evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the model and recommendations for improvements. The DNR has the responsibility for ensuring that environmentally sound mining methods are used for permanent storage of mine wastes. The contracted study helped to provide a pathway to more accurate assessment of sulfate production, release, and transport from taconite tailing basins.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 07/01/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Thu, 06/30/2016 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 10/02/2016 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $39908.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $39908.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Environmental Cooperative Research Match

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) The contracted University of Minnesota research group is led by Dr. Crystal Ng, an expert in constructing hydrologic flow models that couple together chemical, geological, and physical measurements. She was identified for this study and then selected specifically because the project aligns both with her specialty and current interests and availability of a student worker. The work was highly specialized, requiring advanced knowledge in geochemical and hydrological principles and the ability to construct computer models. The performance of this research by any other party would not have resulted in any savings of time or money.

Evaluator Name Megan Kelly

Evaluator Email Address megan.j.kelly@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness All formal and informal deadlines were met by the contractor. A three month no-cost extension was granted so the contractor would have time to incorporate more recent information into the final product.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor met our expectations for high quality work.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The overall project cost was reasonable and part of the benefit of working with this contractor. Work was completed within budget.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance All terms and requirements of the contract were met, and we are satisfied with the overall experience and product deliverables. The contractor participated in regular meetings to discuss progress, and presented results both informally and formal settings. A report draft was reviewed by the DNR and all comments were addressed in the final report.

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