Agency Agriculture Dept

Contractor Peer Engineering, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number B17492

Project Name Abandoned Sites Investigations - FY2011

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of the contract was to investigate fourteen (14) abandoned agricultural chemical facilities located in south-central and southeastern Minnesota. The project included the preparation of work plans and final reports, and the collection of soil and groundwater samples to define the extent of agricultural chemical contamination and to identify environmental risks at these facilities.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 02/23/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Thu, 06/30/2011 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 06/30/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $106858.18

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $106858.18

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 11 208 B04 11G9 135

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 Thomas Reppe

Evaluator Email Address thomas.reppe@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The work plans and final reports prepared by Peer were submitted on-time for review/approval by MDA staff. When necessary, at the request of MDA staff, Peer expedited the submittal of the work plans/final reports.

Evaluate the contractor's quality In general, Peer provided satisfactory quality on the project. However, less than satisfactory communication between Peer's field personnel and MDA staff resulted in errors in field sampling that was not resolved until the lab results were available, and resulted in the need to re-sample. Better initial communication, and continued communication during the field sampling from field personnel could have minimized or eliminated these errors.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Peer's incurred costs were satisfactory and the project was completed within the approved budget. Peer minimizes costs by utilizing lower-wage staff to complete routine tasks. Peer management personnel acknowledged the field sampling errors, and the necessary re-sampling was conducted by Peer at no cost to the contract.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Peer provided good overall performance on the project. Peer completed the project on-time and within the approved budget.

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