Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 78798

Project Name Downdrag Computational Modelling

Project Number (if applicable) 5937

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The contract was for 2D and 3D computational modelling, analysis, and interpretation of pile-soil interaction data from MnDOT test sites. Project performance data from strain gages located on bridge foundation piling was used in conjunction with installation information, constructing sequencing, as-built information and construction notes to model the effects of bridge construction on pile behavior and correlate the model with field information as part of a project case study for the development of improved practice with respect to LRFD design policy. The contract was necessary as this type of work requires special modelling expertise and software.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 06/02/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 06/29/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 06/29/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 255.50

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $39889.42

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $39789.01

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 The contractor completed the work on time. Meetings were held in a timely manner during the execution of the work and interim deliverables were completed on or ahead of schedule.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor’s quality was excellent. The work provided exceeded expectations. The background work and modelling met project needs and the annotated visual aids and narratives were prepared well. Through the review process, the contractor was receptive to implementing suggested improvements for clarity and ease of use to meet project goals. The contractor team was efficient and effective in meeting the contract requirements. Documents were transmitted in the required formats.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor cost provided excellent value for money. The quality and comprehensiveness of work exceeded expectations.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance In total, the contractor’s performance was exemplary. The contractor assembled a team that addressed the project scope and need in a very short time for project delivery. Meetings were held as often as necessary to help direct the work. Overall communication was excellent and there was a very good collaborative process and delegation of responsibilities to allow multiple portions of the work to proceed simultaneously, eliminating bottlenecks that could have compromised the aggressive project schedule. The contractor provided good quality work that was a robust consideration of the project problems and also provided necessary narratives and graphics to convey the findings successfully.

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.): {Empty}

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