Agency Agriculture Dept

Contractor Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 92201

Project Name Phase XI - Kettle River Co. Creosote Plant

Project Number (if applicable) RWA253112

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of the Contract was to excavate, load, transport, and dispose of creosote-impacted soil and debris from the former Kettle River Co. Creosote Plant Site in Sandstone, MN. The work was necessary to remove and dispose of impacted materials that posed a threat to human health and the environment.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 05/22/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 06/30/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 06/30/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $606292.28

Amendments $-105391.18

Contract total $500901.10

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? FY15 2801 B04311R7 B041E02

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 Contractor completed the tasks of the project and the overall work in the time/schedule that was provided by the MDA. At the beginning of the project, before work began, the schedule had to be condensed by 2 weeks due to delays in the contracting process. The Contractor immediately responded in a timely and appropriate manner to ensure that the project would be completed by the original end date.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the Contractor's services and deliverables were good. The Contractor's personnel provided daily communication to MDA staff and the MDA's Consultant providing oversight. During the project, the Contractor had to require their subcontractor to provide satisfactory, clean backfill material to the site because the subcontractor had tried to use potentially contaminated soil. The Contractor worked with their subcontractor to make sure that soil being brought on the site was not impacted, as requested by the MDA and outlined in the project's Bid Specifications.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The Contractor's overall costs and unit prices were very fair and met expectations. The Contractor was diligent in providing detailed reporting to MDA staff on a daily basis, allowing the MDA to generate updated budget reports and to prepare appropriate Work Change Directives and the Supplemental Agreement.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The Contractor provided good overall performance on 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.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 5 - very satisfied