Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc

SWIFT Contract Number 173268

Project Name Calumet Spur Additional Investigation/MW Install

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc. is overseeing installation of temporary borings for collection of soil, groundwater, and soil vapor borings adjacent to the site. They are also overseeing installation of two permanent monitoring wells. Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc. is also preparing bids and specs for removal of a former gas station building on the property, so the MPCA can continue with defining extent of a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) body underneath the subsurface of the property. All subcontracted services will be following the MPCA contractor and subcontractor purchasing manual. Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Inc. will prepare a report of the findings for the additional investigation work.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 03/06/2020 - 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: $57014.92

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $57014.92

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 Stephen Frye

Evaluator Email Address stephen.frye@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfied. The contractor did a great job at keeping the project on schedule and keeping things moving along, given the amount of work that needed to be completed under this work order, and the shortened timeframe to complete the work before the end of the fiscal year.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Neutral. The contractor had some project quality issues with the bid specs that were addressed by MPCA’s Petroleum Remediation Program (PRP) contract manager. The original copy of prepared bid specs were long and repeated information in the pre-approved $10K to $50K bid forms, and required a lot of editing before they could be finalized.
Communication issues occurred when scoping drilling locations for two new monitoring wells. A driller was sent to the site multiple times without prior discussion with the MPCA.
An access agreement did not get executed for installation of one of the monitoring wells in the city right of way.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Neutral.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor did a great job with preparing the regulated materials survey report, included as an appendix in the overall bid specs for the building demolition project. Once the second work order was signed, they got to work on that almost immediately. Field work was conducted on time and work kept moving forward as needed.

There were some quality issues with preparation of the building demolition specifications, and determining the locations for monitoring well placement that were addressed with the contractor. This impacted the overall experience working with the contractor.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

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 3 - neutral