Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor City of Jackson

SWIFT Contract Number 84857

Project Name Final Design Roadway and Bridge (32011) Planset- J

Project Number (if applicable) 5760

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Develop a biddable final planset for the replacement of bridge number 6741 and associated approach grading on and along TH71 in Jackson

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 10/15/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 12/31/2016 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 01/15/2016 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $523122.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $523122.00

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 Christopher Bower

Evaluator Email Address christopher.bower@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor submitted deliverables on schedule, and responded to questions or any issues promptly. This project was on a compressed schedule, and Bolton and Menk (BMI)/AECOM did excellent work by delivering on the reduced timeframe.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Construction has not yet started, so there may be additional issues that come up in the future, but to date there have been two major plan quality issues:

1) The railing quantity issue (each of the two railing items was 390 Linear Feet to high in the plan). This will be an approximately $20,283.90 (+ tax?) expense to the Department. The associated Supplemental Agreement has been approved by OCIC. The bridge design consultant (AECOM) and Bolton and Menk (and multiple MnDOT offices) should have caught this error.
2) There was an error in the plan cross sections and earthwork calculation that should have been caught. This issue is currently in a supplemental agreement and under contention since this change substantially increases the amount of embankment (borrow) need for the project. This error is also potentially in the $13,000 - $30,000 range with $13,000 being the actual increase based on contract values and $30,000 being the increase if the increased embankment has to be negotiated in price.

We don’t expect perfection in a plan, but these were two fairly obvious issues that really should’ve been caught during either the Contractor’s or MnDOT’s QC/QA process. For the next contract, a bigger emphasis will be placed on QC/QA.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Good – the project came in on budget (it was a lump sum contract and no changes were required).

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance As discussed above, BMI did a great job in preparing the plans in the shortened timeframe. MnDOT staff were impressed with BMI’s timely responses to issues and technical expertise. BMI required very little direction and worked independently to foresee and proactively address issues.
Their traffic control plans weren’t prepared to the level of detail that we expect initially, but after some further discussions BMI made significant improvements before the plan was advertised. The district has certain preferences for how traffic control plans should look, and after working it out on this contract I don’t foresee any similar issues on future contracts. A supplemental contract was required to do additional signing revisions post-letting. However this contract wasn’t due to any failures on BMI’s part during project design, these changes are due to new information not available during project design.
There were some issues with the storm sewer design, which was based off of old records and dated surveys. MnDOT shares some responsibility for that, having provided some of the data in question and not raising it as a potential issue.

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 4 - satisfied