Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor CH2M Hill, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 57617

Project Name Kennedy Bridge Planning Study

Project Number (if applicable) 605

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This contract was necessary to aid the State in the comprehensive study of alternatives to address the repair or replacement of the US 2 “Kennedy Bridge” crossing of the Red River of the North between Minnesota and North Dakota. The structure, built in 1963 is a fracture critical Parker steel high truss and several design considerations were necessary for consideration including the condition of the truss, condition of Pier 6 and its foundations, the condition of the deck and railing, and the condition of the approach spans. Additionally, non-technical considerations included historic impacts, environmental impacts, USACE flood/hydraulic considerations, closures and maintenance of traffic needed to be considered in the context of both rehabilitated and replacement structures. Several documents were needed to support the decision-making process for both NDDOT and MnDOT (MnDOT is the lead agency). As part of the scope preparation of materials and presentations were needed in support of project management meetings, study advisory committee (SAC) meetings, public meetings, and meetings with the East Grand Forks and Grand Forks city councils

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 01/28/2013 - 00:00

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

Actual end date Wed, 04/30/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $324297.44

Amendments $0

Contract total $324297.44

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 Derrick Dasenbrock

Evaluator Email Address derrick.dasenbrock@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Evaluate the Contractor’s Timeliness:
The contractor performed work in a timely manner for the work required including preparation of support materials for meetings, preparation of minutes, preparation, review, and submittal of interim and final deliverables.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor performed quality work for the project; there were regular progress meetings and updates and changes were made without hassle and/or significant effort. The content provided for both technical and non-technical portions of the work was of good quality, consistent with the scope of work, and met the project goals and needs.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor’s cost for the work was reasonable given the rates established for key roles on the project. Some of the sub-contractor costs appeared higher than I would have expected given some of the deliverables- but on further review of the billable hours and rates the overall charges appeared to reconcile with the work delivered

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall, the contractor appeared to dedicate appropriate staff in terms of both time and talent to the various portions of the work, bringing in other engineers to work on particular portions of the study and adjusting the staff throughout the work depending on the deliverables required and the portions of the project under study at different periods in the project timeline. The contractor did quality work on the technical considerations related to the quality of the truss system and the condition of Pier 6 (an early portion of the study) as well as on the rehabilitation and replacement alternatives. The contractor also collaborated well with MnDOT and NDDOT staff as well as the SAC stakeholders. Significant effort was needed to resolve comments on draft documents coming from multiple sources and developing deliverables that met various needs. A relatively minimal amount of contract oversight was required allowing more project management time to me given to the study content and deliverables.

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.): There were no negative actions taken during the contract. A contract time extension was needed, although this was at MnDOT request to allow for a longer review and final document development time as there were a large number of project stakeholders with input which the State felt would be beneficial to include to ensure a smooth project development process following the study. Doug Abere and Dale Thomas at CH2MHill provided timely project updates and were very pro-active (rather than reactive) with respect to a number of stakeholder needs. The contractor worked well in keeping MnDOT informed and coordinating presentations with the District and the bridge office. The contractor also was able to use teleconferencing services to open the PMT and SAC meetings up to additional participants (as well as holding on-site meetings). Additionally, the contractor met and exceeded original scope needs with ‘dual’ meetings in East Grand Forks and Grand Forks on a number of occasions.

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