Agency Commerce Dept

Contractor Industrial Economics, Incorporated

SWIFT Contract Number 90325

Project Name Developing evidentiary record before the OAH &PUC

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Developing the evidentiary record before the OAH and PUC based on the PUC’s request on the issue of the appropriate values for SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 under Minn. Stat.§ 216B.2422 subd. 3:
This contract was intended to fulfill the request by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for the Department to retain a consultant(s) to develop updated criteria pollutant (PM2.5, SO2, and NOx) externalities values under Minn. Stat. §216B.2422. The Commission further directed that the consultant use reduced-form modeling in developing the criteria pollutant values. The Commission issued this Order in part based on the Department’s report in the environmental externalities docket (Docket Nos. E999/CI-14-643 and E999/CI-00-1636).

The Department sought qualified individuals and/or firms through a request for proposals (“RFP”) to assist the Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in using reduced form models to develop externality values estimates for emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 from Minnesota electric generators to be used for utility integrated resource planning and other utility proceedings.

The chosen Consultant was asked to further defend the methods for estimating these values as well as the value estimates themselves in a contested case proceeding before the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 03/30/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 09/30/2016 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 09/30/2017 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $138774.00

Amendments $0

Contract total $138774.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? FinDept ID 5468 Fund ID 200 Appr ID Z99

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 Susan Medhaug

Evaluator Email Address susan.medhaug@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Adequate, although the subcontractor’s availability was limited at times.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Adequate.

Evaluate the contractor's cost I have no context for evaluating cost (contractor was sole bidder).

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Adequate.

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.): NA

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral