Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor University of Minnesota

SWIFT Contract Number 56041

Project Name Development of stormwater effluent turbidity monit

Project Number (if applicable) 89261W250

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The research project will develop and evaluate methods to address new EPA guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of sediment control practices by monitoring the turbidity of effluent discharged from highway construction projects.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 06/27/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Wed, 07/31/2013 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 07/31/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $193500.00

Amendments $0

Contract total $193500.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? TH

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 Dwayne Stenlund

Evaluator Email Address Dwayne.stenlund@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness No issues. Key was developing good communication, and early presentations/discussion forums with TAP that allowed research to flow where results indicated

Evaluate the contractor's quality Very high. Results of estimating suspended sediment from soils types found on construction projects will be used by every soil scientist determining soil erodibility and the EPA/MPCA on determining allowable sediment loss based on stormwater permit performance

Evaluate the contractor's cost I am not the best one to determine research cost. Turbidity monitoring equipment and connected flow determinations, rainulators, and labor are costly. With all the research contractor participants, over the length of time to install BMPs in the lab and field, analyses the data, perform corrective actions, develop implementation protocols, it seems to me that the contract was too low in contract amount.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Evaluate the Contractor’s overall performance:
Above average. Very interesting results, with additional areas that need further research (how to select the best sites for monitoring during constant changes to the grade, how to determine a replicate sample for a multi-mile project, how to monitor slope water discharge to perimeter controls, how to estimate potential sediment yields, how to incorporate a feedback loop that will inject a chemical flocculant). When the EPA selects a NTU standard related to storm water discharges from construction activities, the department will be ready to implement specifications for automated samplers.

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 5 - very satisfied