Agency Public Safety Dept

Contractor University of Minnesota - Duluth, GISL

SWIFT Contract Number B35570

Project Name Flood Study

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The Geographic Information Sciences Lab, University of Minnesota Duluth, partnered with the Polis Center at the Indiana University to produce a statewide flood study using the FEMA supplied HAZUS-MH hazard analysis tool. The study was required to update the Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan which is due for review by April 2011.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 11/18/2009 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 10/19/2010 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 11/17/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $98500.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $98500.00

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? Federal

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) This is a single source as the result of a process starting in the summer of 2008 as part of the application to FEMA for funding. The funding for this project comes from a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance program grant. Feasibility research took place prior to the application for the grant since FEMA requires details that will ensure successful completion of the project. The objective of the research was to determine if the goals of the project were feasible. One of the goals is to establish a HAZUS-MH resource center in the state of Minnesota. This process will be described in this section. Determining if an institution of higher learning had the ability and the interest to participate in this project was a critical step in the application process. If none had been found, the project goals would have been reengineered in order to develop a realistic application for the FEMA funding.

The first question was to determine if universities had facilities and staff willing and capable to perform the analysis for the flood study and to establish a HAZUS-MH resource center in the state. A web search was done to locate GIS facilities in higher education. This search resulted in contacting three facilities. The Remote Sensing Laboratory at the U of M, the chair of the Geography Department at U of M’s main campus, and GISL were contacted. The Remote Sensing Lab and the Geography Department declined. The GISL responded favorably. Upon meeting with GISL staff, it was learned that HAZUS-MH training was hosted at GISL. Discussions demonstrated background knowledge of HAZUS-MH, its capabilities, and the problems associated with using this software. The staff also participates in the Minnesota Geographic Information Systems, Land Information Systems (GIS-LIS) Consortium. The GIS-LIS consortium supports the use of HAZUS-MH in the state and also proves that GISL understands that the project supports hazard mitigation in local communities. One of the staff has a background in hydrology which is needed to perform critical reviews of the analysis generated by HAZUS-MH. From this point of view, GISL looked like the prime candidate. The GIS-LIS consortium identified no other universities participating in HAZUS-MH. Even though some colleges and universities had either GIS programs or hydrology programs none were found to have both in the same section as the GISL program at UMD. Further discussions with the GISL determined their ability and desire to participate in the state-wide flood study and to accept the transfer of the HAZUS-MH technology from another institution of higher learning. GISL also discussed this program with the Polis Center since the Polis Center has been doing HAZUS-MH for the state of Indiana and other states for years. The determination that the GISL at UMD is the sole source in the state is based on all the facts found in the feasibility research done prior to the FEMA application.

To further validate the feasibility of the project GISL and the Polis Center developed a detailed scope of work as part of the application process. The centers worked jointly to develop the scope of work to promote further understanding of the project and to determine GISL’s ability and willingness to participate in the project. The scope of work revealed that GISL will coordinate data resources for the project due to their knowledge of data information storage in the state. This cooperative effort was a step in the application process but is not seen as a binding contract since all parties understood that the state contract rules applied.

The net result through this process is that GISL was found to be uniquely qualified and able to participate in the state-wide flood study.

Evaluator Name James McClosky

Evaluator Email Address James.McClosky@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contract was extended an additional year to allow UMD to complete all the tasks; there was data required from Polis before the tasks could be completed.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The work completed by UMD for this project will be very beneficial to HSEM with the state's flood mitgation plan.

Evaluate the contractor's cost There is a cost overrun for this project due to emergent work related to the Minnesota State Mitigation Plan review. UMD was asked to complete Tasks 1 and 2 but to only complete part of Task 3. The part of Task 3 that was completed was the flood model reports for each county in the state that UMD worked on with Polis. The portion of Task 3 that was not completed is the overall state report and maps to be used in the state mitigation plan. UMD will also travel to St. Paul to presents the results of the modeling. FEMA Hazard Mitigation funding under Hazard Mitigation Grant Program DR-1830 will fund the remaining tasks along with local share.

There will be a new contract when FEMA approves the application for DR-1830. The reason this contract is being closed is that the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation program does not fund cost over-runs.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance All work has been completed to the satisfaction of HSEM on this 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 5 - very satisfied