Agency Natural Resources Dept

Contractor Conservation Corps of MN and IA

SWIFT Contract Number 168519

Project Name Prescribed burning SE Minnesota

Project Number (if applicable) 501-12900

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Conduct prescribed burning in fire dependent native plant communities on public and private lands in SE Minnesota in order to maintain or restore habitat for Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Contract later amended to include the mechanical removal of invasive species and encroaching woody brush.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 10/28/2019 - 00:00

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

Actual end date Wed, 06/30/2021 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $25000.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $25000.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Legacy

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 Neil Slifka

Evaluator Email Address neil.slifka@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor generally met timeline for completion of the work. Due to COVID, the contract needed to be amended, as Rx burning was more or less put on hold for a portion of the contract period- contract was amended and extended to include invasive species removal. Under the amended contract, CCM crews did conduct prescribed burns as directed and completed work in a timely manner.

Evaluate the contractor's quality In general, the quality of the contractors work met expectations. Periodically, crews would need additional guidance, information or training in the field to meet project specifications. Crews had good oversight and internal training from CCM district managers and specialists.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractors cost was what was anticipated and they attended to the project budget.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall performance of the contractor is what we generally anticipate from CCM crews. They accomplished the requested work, were flexible and most crew members gained valuable skills on-the-job, which was reflected in the quality and amount of work completed over the duration of the contract.

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