Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Mead & Hunt, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 37294

Project Name Rehabilitation Feasibility Study of Bridge #9412

Project Number (if applicable) 99792

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: State retained a qualified professional historian to work collaboratively with State’s consulting engineer and with State to advise on the preparation of the Rehabilitation Feasibility Study for Bridge 9412 (a historic property) to assist in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are no MnDOT or State staff who meet the required professional qualifications (36CFR61) and have sufficient time to perform this type of study along with their normal workloads.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 11/09/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 07/31/2012 - 00:00

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

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 305.5

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $63980.47

Amendments $0

Contract total $63980.47

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 Elizabeth J. Abel

Evaluator Email Address elizabeth.abel@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness All work was performed in a timely manner and within schedule. The contract required two amendments to extend the expiration date, but this was due to issues beyond the contractor’s control. The contractor took the initiative in keeping the Project Manager informed regarding potential schedule changes in a timely manner.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The excellent quality of the contractor’s work was reflected in the high quality of the Rehabilitation Feasibility Study document. The high quality of the study very much facilitated the regulatory compliance process.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor’s costs are reasonable for this type of work. The contract outcome was very good value for the cost.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Contractor did an excellent job of maintaining good communication between the Project Manager, the MnDOT District staff, and the collaborating consulting engineers. The contractor kept the Project Manager apprised of key issues, work progress and work schedule in a timely manner.

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