Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Lac qui Parle – Yellow Bank Watershed District

SWIFT Contract Number 100258

Project Name Lac qui Parle Major Watershed Project Phase 2

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The primary 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 when drafting a WRAPS Report that can be utilized by local decision-makers.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 10/19/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 06/30/2019 - 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: $155060.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $67795.58

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. During this project, the watershed coordinator and local partner administrators had retired. With all of the staff turnover, some delays occurred. There was also an amendment to line the contract up with a work order with a consulting firm to write the reports. The original work order did not finish on time which resulted in a task not being completed. Also, due to Covid-19, some in-person tasks were not completed.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Satisfied. The watershed coordinator ended up being two different staff throughout the contract. This resulted in some of the work not being completed as originally planned, however, once the new coordinator was up to speed on the project, things went smoothly.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Neutral. The local partner administers all retired during the contract and the new administers determined that the work assigned to them were part of their normal work load and did not charge the contract. When this happened, it was advised by contracting staff to not reduce the contract due to the funds going back to the general fund. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a large bus tour was cancelled and the funds for this task were not spent as well. This resulted in funds being returned.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Satisfied. It was difficult to have two different watershed coordinators completing the tasks in the same work plan. However, the second coordinator did catch up to speed on the project quickly.

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