Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor KODET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP

SWIFT Contract Number 49159

Project Name MAPLE GROVE TRUCK STATION AND

Project Number (if applicable) 94174

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Architectural and Engineering Design Services for the New Maple Grove Truck Station and Vehicle Maintenance Shop including Schematic Design, Design Development Phase, Construction Document Phase, Bidding Phase and Construction Administration.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 04/17/2009 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 05/01/2011 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 04/14/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $730000.00

Amendments $528300.00

Contract total $1258300.00

Did project finish within budget? No

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 Gail Ann Witzel

Evaluator Email Address Gail.ann.witzel@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Project was to have been bid in January 2012. Due to cost overruns on the Consultant’s Final Estimates, the project was revised and bid April 2012. The cost overruns were not anticipated until the Mechanical and Electrical consultants were brought in to the project at the end of Design Development Phase. The revisions provided bids within budget but cost the project two months of construction season.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Design and Construction Documents required several reviews by MnDOT for coordination of Specifications and Details. Mechanical and Electrical documents were not internally coordinated nor with each other. Surveyor’s work and Civil documents did not anticipate City utilities locations. Mechanical and Electrical document’s did not anticipate City requirements. The above cost the project time and money.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The fees paid over the life of this project were very generous. The prime consultant did not share adequately with its subconsultants to provide the level of service required and was not willing to absorb fee overruns due to the Prime Consultant’s management of the subconsultants.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The aesthetical Design of the building is quite handsome. Design excellence was an overriding factor for this Consultant taking precedent over budget priorities for the Owner’s program requirements.
The Consultant’s Construction Administration personnel were thorough and responsive. They persisted with a difficult General Contractor to get the building completed.
Specifications were reviewed by MnDOT and thoroughly revised several times for clarity, product requirements and contract language. This was a strong deficiency of this firm.
Expensive and unnecessarily complex detailing was reviewed by MnDOT and revised several times to provide cost-efficient construction.
This Consultant did not manage its subconsultants adequately to provide timely and coordinated service.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): The Consultant was responsible for the cost overrun of the final estimate due to the late introduction of Mechanical and Electrical design work. They applied for additional fees due to an increased cost of the project, based on percentage. These were denied.
The Consultant persisted in drawing and detailing expensive design options for roof light monitors and aluminum trellises over the objection of MnDOT and to the detriment of project program elements within the budget. MnDOT bid these items as Alternates and removed them from the project after bidding.
This Consultant did not adequately act in the Owner’s interests in disputes with the General Contractor.
The Consultant filed a lawsuit against MnDOT to collect fees for its subconsultants for additional services for which the Base Contract provided or which were otherwise not authorized. This was settled by mediation.
1. Product Quality
• Fulfilled terms of Contract (no more, no less)

2. Work Performance
• Was behind schedule and over budget

3. Conformance with MnDOT Standards/Requirements
• Required repeated direction on products/services from MnDOT

4. Deliverables Complete and On Time
• Provided deliverables below standard and needed rework to comply

5. Project related Cooperation
• Fulfilled terms of Contract (no more, no less)

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied