Agency Corrections Dept

Contractor Klein McCarthy Architects

SWIFT Contract Number 444667

Project Name Update PreDesign 46 Bed Seg Unit

Project Number (if applicable) 78922SHX

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Update Predesign due to new administration goals and scope, update estimates, add Predesign of kitchen cafeteria to scope

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 04/11/2011 - 00:00

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

Actual end date Fri, 09/16/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $8600.00

Amendments $7000.00

Contract total $15600.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Agency (DOC)

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) Scope was to update their previous report. There was an economy in utilizing previous research. Fee is within allowable single source range.

Evaluator Name Glen Heino

Evaluator Email Address glen.heino@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Excellent – The Consultant performed in a better than average manner that demonstrating a good understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance outweighs any negative performance. The Consultant contributed a great deal to the success of the project. The preliminary report was received in time for the Agency's funding planning purposes.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Excellent – The Consultant performed in a better than average manner that demonstrating a good understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance outweighs any negative performance. The Consultant contributed a great deal to the success of the project. The scope and costs were clearly presented.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Satisfactory – The Consultant performed in an average manner that demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance is equal to any negative performance. The Consultant has contributed to the success of the project. An adequate amount of meetings and face time with users, and bringing on a food service consultant to gain expertise in an area not fully in the original scope.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Excellent – The Consultant performed in a better than average manner that demonstrating a good understanding of the owner’s requirements and contract requirements. The consultant’s overall performance outweighs any negative performance. The Consultant contributed a great deal to the success of the project. I use an excellent rating if I feel I'd hire them again.

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 5 - very satisfied