Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Alfred Benesch & Company

SWIFT Contract Number B51667/3000008729

Project Name I494 - I35W TO TH100 in Bloomington VE STUDY

Project Number (if applicable) 97950

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Federal Regulations 23 CFR Part 627 requires that a Value Engineering Study must be conducted on projects whose total project cost (TPCE) is over $25M (or a bridge project over $20M). MnDOT policy is to conduct a VE study for all projects with a TPCE greater than $20M. TPCE for this project exceeded both thresholds.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 12/17/2010 - 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: $46070.16

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $46070.16

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Trunk Highway

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 Minnie Milkert

Evaluator Email Address minnie.milkert@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness See contractor quality in the next column.
Benesch was willing to make changes that MnDOT requested, but the process took a long time to resolve. A lot of effort could have been avoided had Benesch been better prepared from the beginning.
Final invoice took a LONG time to receive after repeated requests.

Evaluate the contractor's quality This VE study covered three functionally different aspects of one large project. After the initial brainstorming session, the team was broken into three small groups to evaluate ideas and to develop recommendations. The methodologies used by each small group were inconsistent. Unfortunately, as a result, the PowerPoint final presentation and the recommendations section of the report were awkward and did not flow well.
Several attendees of the final presentation commented negatively about the inconsistencies.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Similar to other contractors for same service

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance On the plus side
• The project specific workbook Muthiah Kasi developed was excellent. This tool was something that no other contractor employs and was a very nice addition.
• Both Michael Goodkind and Muthiah Kasi are CVS facilitators who are very knowledgeable with SAVE International’s VE job plan.
• Michael led the study and Kasi was a bridge team member.
On the minus side
Several MnDOT team members commented on the how value was (and was not) evaluated in the recommendations. Two of the small groups were focused only on cost. “There is more to value than just cost (e.g. an unbonded concrete overlay has a higher first cost and apparently a higher life cycle cost, but the VALUE of doing a long term project in terms of customer satisfaction can’t be measured in terms of cost). I liked the analysis that the bridge group went through with the ratings summary on the Xerxes Bridge options. Perhaps if we had done those on other proposals, I’d feel different??”
At least one MnDOT team member thought that the Benesch team should have provided more ideas. Part of the reason for bringing in outside team members is to get their ideas and learn from work done in other states.
I agree with the team members’ comments above. In addition, I believe that Benesch needs to:
• Do a better job ensuring that consistent methodology is used by standardizing the recommendations template. Include all the information needed. The template used for our study was minimal. Variations in the recommendation formats were noticeable in the final presentation PowerPoint and in the draft report.
• Further to the previous point; provide samples from previous successful VE studies. eg., project a well written recommendation to the screen and step through it for the group. It would give the team a good sense of what is expected. Descriptions of the process in Kasi’s workbook are useful, but samples are illustrative; especially for team members who have not participated in a VE study before.
• Come to the VE Study prepared with typical information. eg., the beginnings of: list of typical stakeholders (too much study time was spent listing stakeholders), noun verb parings for functional analysis, FAST diagram, Pareto diagram, etc. There are other examples. All of these could jump start the team and help them be more time efficient during the study.
• Each morning, clearly state the day’s goals. Provide timeline goals, such as - we need to be finished with this task by noon today.
• Be better prepared for things that can go wrong. During the study, the projector bulb went out. Michael left to purchase a new one. The group was left to continue developing recommendations on our own. There did not appear to be a plan B or a practical transfer of leadership.
• Make better use of team participation by displaying information to the group. Using easel post-it forms seemed clunky. The creative process was interrupted each time Michael turned to hand write comments. Projecting a document to the screen may work better, provided the person typing can keep up with the group. There are pluses and minuses to each and Benesch needs to determine how they can improve this part of their information gathering/sharing process.

This was the first VE study conducted by Benesch for MnDOT. A learning curve was expected. Although this experience was below average; I have discussed most of the above with Benesch and they seemed be willing to make improvements to their process.

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.): None

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied