Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor City of Moorhead under subcontract with SRF Consul

SWIFT Contract Number 77605

Project Name Sidewalk Design and R/W Acquisition

Project Number (if applicable) 5810

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: ADA sidewalk Design on TH 75 from 2nd street to 20th street, including Right of Way Acquisition, develop plan sheets.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 05/08/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Thu, 12/31/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 10/31/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $269151.69

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $194236.46

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 Thomas Pace

Evaluator Email Address Thomas.pace@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Good

Evaluate the contractor's quality poor

Evaluate the contractor's cost Reasonable

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Due to inexperience with MNDOT standards, SRF really struggled. Poor to below average performance. They would however be considered for future similar work with different personnel on their team.

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.): Discussions with SRF Project Manager to improve performance on MnDOT standards and expectations.

The R/W services were acceptable but SRF really struggled with plan development on this project. Their project manager had limited experience with MnDOT’s policies and design standards. As a result SRF really struggled in developing a MnDOT approved geometric layout and an acceptable plan set. Multiple reviews were completed and sent back as the recommended changes were not done. It was very time consuming for the district and central office staff. Some of the recommendations were simple ignored, resulting in a confusing plan set to bid on. The QA/QC process did not work very well or was not utilized as there were numerous errors in the plan that should have been caught during their internal reviews. Invoices and progress reports needed to be resubmitted for corrections and the original cost estimate was much higher than the final budget.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied