Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor HDR Engineering, Inc

SWIFT Contract Number 95799

Project Name 4 Unbonded Concrete Overlay Projects – three in D1

Project Number (if applicable) 1000907

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: MnDOT requires a VE study to be conducted on projects that are above a TPCE threshold of $20M. This project meets that cost threshold.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 07/01/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 02/29/2016 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 02/11/2016 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $68709.22

Amendments $0

Contract total $64012.65

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 Anjani Milkert

Evaluator Email Address minnie.milkert@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness OK

Evaluate the contractor's quality FAIR

Evaluate the contractor's cost similar to other VE contractors

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Good job managing 4 complex projects which were all at different levels of completion. More comments at the end regarding the reports.

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.): This was a difficult VE study to facilitate because there were four different projects at different levels of completeness and minimal cost information. The projects were all straightforward and very similar. The study itself went very well. Some very good recommendations were provided to the Districts for consideration.

There were QA/QC issues for this and the I35W Minnesota River CRAVE report. Both studies were conducted by HDR. Order of magnitude was the main issue. Dollars presented as: $1,234,567.00001 are just wrong and even worse when putting penny level accuracy to calculations involving tons of steel or many, many yards of concrete. Similar examples of over exaggerating accuracy appeared numerous times in the draft reports. The writer/reviewer needs to keep context in mind at all times - just because it can be calculated, doesn’t mean it should be copied from Excel and plopped into the report at face value.

Ken Smith and I discussed all of this. Ken agreed these reports were not typical and that they did not rise to the quality work HDR has provided in the past. Procedures have been put in place at HDR for improved report review prior to submitting to MnDOT.

Minnie Milkert, MnDOT State Value Engineer

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral