Agency Minnesota Zoological Garden

Contractor MSA Professional Services

SWIFT Contract Number 137185

Project Name Topographic Survey - Minnesota Zoo

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of this contract was to coincide with our design of the Zoo's master plan moving forward. This information would help in designing for expansion in areas of the Zoo that are undeveloped.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 01/24/2018 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 09/30/2019 - 00:00

Actual end date Wed, 09/30/2020 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $105000

Amendments $40000

Contract total $145000

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? Capital Projects / Operation Budget

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 Jon Darsow

Evaluator Email Address jon.darsow@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The survey crew was excellent to work with. They did a great job on site communicating areas they needed access to, and worked well navigating throughout the site. They had to bounce around from time to time during the winter months to gather contour data in our wooded areas. This information had to wait until the snow subsided.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Once again the crew on the ground did a great job gathering the information and giving that information to their main office team. This is where things become a stalemate. Their main office delayed the process of handing over the deliverables, arguing there were delays in the project. The overall drawings we received were fair, we still need to do a fair amount of cleaning up of the CAD drawings. At the end I did argue they missed a few corner of buildings, but they came back saying this area was not part of the area that needed surveying (because we took out some areas of the site due to a survey done in 2014) but my argument was, these are buildings and the contract states each corner of the building needs to be located. Ultimately they wanted additional funds to perform this work.

Evaluate the contractor's cost MSA was the lowest bid for this RFP bid. Once they were rewarded the job and the contract was signed, the company had an undertaking and the PM we were dealing with was no longer employed with the company. Once that happened the new PM realized how low their bid was for this size of project. So each time there was an issue with scheduling throughout the site, they tried to amend the contract. We did agree that certain areas were delayed due to arrangements on our end, so the first amendment was approved. They also tried to get another amendment through for locate services that was in the original contract. We would not approve this, and that is why the deliverables and final payment was delayed.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Scott Olson, their surveyor did a great job, but the company as a whole did not meet or exceed our expectations.

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 2 - dissatisfied