Agency Water & Soil Resources Board

Contractor Houston Engineering Inc

SWIFT Contract Number 82830

Project Name Mn Public Drainage Manual

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The project was initiated by Legislation to Board of Water and Soil Resources to update the Minnesota Public Drainage Manual and an associated booklet Understanding Minnesota Public Drainage Law and Overview for Decision Makers

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 09/01/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 02/27/2016 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 10/31/2016 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $218400.00

Amendments $16600.00

Contract total $235000.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? State

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 Timothy A. Gillette

Evaluator Email Address Tim.Gillette@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor underestimated the time it would take to provide the drafts for the updated Minnesota Public Drainage Manual. The timeline was extended to assure the quality of the product. The end of the extension proved to be pressurized due to the shortened time for review and editing.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Due to the contractor's intense writing and editing effort along with effective interaction with the broad stakeholder Project Advisory Committee and BWSR editors/managers the final product is of a high quality.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The Contractor surely spent more time than was billed. The value of the final wiki MPDM is greater than the monies paid to the contractor.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Since, this contract had no comparables it is hard to say. However, it is clear that the contractor's project management, writing and PAC interaction were accomplished to a high professional standard. On scale, from 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest. They would be a 9.

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.): Struggles with production in mid project caused some need to apply pressure on the contractor. However, that pressure was taken as constructive criticism and the contractor ramped up its effort.

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