Agency Agriculture Dept

Contractor University of Minnesota - Kozarek

SWIFT Contract Number 63918

Project Name Analyzing and optimizing denitrification in agricu

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The goals of this project are to identify what drives denitrification hot spots and hot moments in the Minnesota agricultural landscape, evaluate the interaction of these drivers with engineered surface water features, and to provide guidance to Minnesota farmers on how to design, operate and maintain surface water engineering features to optimize denitrification. To meet these goals, a combination of laboratory experiments, outdoor experiments, and field monitoring/demonstration will be utilized to gain a scientific understanding of the denitrification process across a range of spatial scales from microbial processes to field-scale processes.
Specifically, we will address following objectives:

1: Identify physical, chemical, and microbiological variables that drive hot spots and hot moments of denitrification on the Minnesota agricultural landscape

2: Quantify the spatial and temporal distribution of denitrification hot spots within surface water features on the agricultural landscape

3: Quantify the applicability of in situ and real-time nutrient analyzers to document nutrient loading and removal on the agricultural landscape

4: Provide guidance to Minnesota farmers on how to design, operate and maintain engineered surface water features to maximize denitrification hot spots

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 07/26/2013 - 00:00

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

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

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $396935.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $394435.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? State - Clean Water Fund

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 Heidi Peterson

Evaluator Email Address heidi.peterson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The project timeline was not maintained efficiently. The final report was 3 months late, even after extending the final project due date by 6 months.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Although the project was behind schedule, it was not due to a lack of effort or work. I feel it was due to more of the obstacles that take place with such an involved and complex project. Several peer reviewed journal articles will come out of the project and they did give a number of presentations and participate in good collaborative activities.

Evaluate the contractor's cost For the length of the project, the cost was as expected (actually they reduced the fees due to a student receiving another academic grant). I appreciated their honesty and willingness to reduce their contracted amount so that we could pass it onto a new project.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance They did great work, took pride in their results. However, they were just sometimes slow to respond.

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 4 - satisfied