Agency Commerce Dept

Contractor Siemens Industry, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 240150

Project Name Energy Storage System Capacity Study

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Legislation passed in 2023 (see Minnesota Sessions Laws 2023, Chapter 60 (HF2310), Article 12, Sec. 74) requires the Department of Commerce to produce a study of the energy storage system capacity required to achieve the state renewable energy standard and carbon-free goals under Minnesota Statutes, section 216B.1691. Further, the legislation requires the Department to host a meeting to obtain recommendations from stakeholders and the public on policies and programs to accelerate energy storage system deployment to achieve the storage capacity the study determines to be required. The purpose of the contract was to fulfill the report and engagement requirements mandated by legislation.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 12/05/2023 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 03/31/2024 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 03/31/2024 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $193399.00

Amendments $0

Contract total $161553.50

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Funding for this contract was provided by the Minnesota Legislature’s budget appropriations for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

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) N/A

Evaluator Name Laura Lyons

Evaluator Email Address laura.lyons@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The schedule for this contract was very tight to meet legislated deadlines. The contractor either met the timeline objectives established at contract initiation, or they met revised timelines that were discussed between Siemens and the State as the project progressed. Deliverables were completed within the established project dates.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Acceptable. Portions of the modeling, report, and engagement were very high quality. Other portions of the modeling and report needed additional clarification from staff due to unclear assumptions and model inputs. The final deliverables required a few reviews but reached a quality final product.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Very reasonable.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor’s overall performance was high. This was an aggressive schedule to maintain and complex deliverables to finalize. The contractor was flexible when it was determined that the first stakeholder engagement meeting might not completely satisfy statutory requirements, so they held a second meeting that gathered valuable input. Future project managers with this contractor should ensure the contractor establishes routine check-in meetings to discuss timelines and progress of deliverables. All timelines were met, but more routine updates from the contractor could have provided additional clarity towards the end of the project.

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.): N/A

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied