Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Upper Minnesota River Watershed District

SWIFT Contract Number 98960

Project Name MN River Headwaters WRAPS Phase 2 Project

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The goal of this project is to partner with stakeholders in the development of a comprehensive Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) Report. This will require sound working relationships between local government units, watershed citizens, and state and federal government. Gathering input from these groups will be critical in drafting a WRAPS Report that can be utilized by local decision-makers.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 10/12/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 06/30/2020 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 06/30/2020 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $228013.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $127844.30

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 Katherine Pekarek-Scott

Evaluator Email Address Katherine.pekarek-scott@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfied. The watershed district administrator retired during the middle of the project and the watershed coordinator left shortly before that. A new coordinator was hired, however, it took time for her to get up to speed on the project and watershed ecology. Also, due to the COVID 19 pandemic, some of the tasks at the end of the project were delayed.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Neutral. The work plan was originally written by a watershed coordinator with more civic engagement capacity than the one hired half way through the project. While the second coordinator learned quickly, the final result was not the original vision.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Neutral. The delay from having a new watershed coordinator resulted in less funds being spent on staff time. The original work plan also had funds allocated for partners to participate in meetings and conduct watershed inventories. While the work was completed by the partners, they did not charge their time to the project. There were changes in staff with the local partners and the new staff determined that the work was part of their normal workload and felt that it should not be paid through this contract. Also, due to COVID, some of the tasks were not completed as defined in the work plan, such as the citizen networking group, which resulted in less funds being expended for them.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Neutral. There were unforeseen circumstances that took place that resulted in unused funds and final product deliverables not exactly as planned. However, the new watershed coordinator has learned quickly and is becoming a good leader for the watershed district.

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