Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Cardno TBE, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 70527

Project Name I-94 St. Michael to Rogers Subsurface Utility Engi

Project Number (if applicable) 4715

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of the contract was to provide subsurface utility engineering information as required for a design-build project.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 10/15/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 01/31/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 03/31/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 150.5

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $93384.02

Amendments $0

Contract total $83043.69

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? TH

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) There are only two firms on the pre-qualified list. The firm with the office closest to the project was chosen for convenience and anticipated cost savings.

Evaluator Name Claudia Dumont

Evaluator Email Address Claudia.dumont@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness FAIR

Evaluate the contractor's quality GOOD

Evaluate the contractor's cost Fair. The out of state crews could have stayed closer to the work site to eliminate driving 45 miles from Apple Valley to Rogers.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractor seemed to be over-extended. There were delays getting crews on the project early in the contract. Cold weather delays later required a contract extension for time.

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.): : Comments are always encouraged, but if you provide a Rating of 1 or 2 on any of the rating items below, comments are required (utilize the “Comments” section below). . Deliverables Complete and On Time: as stated above, the contractor wasn’t able to get crews on site earlier in the contract to deliver by January 31st. The contract was extended an additional two months.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral