Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor HYDRO-KLEAN, LLC

SWIFT Contract Number 84123

Project Name CLEAN AND VIDEO STORM SEWERS &CULVERTS ALONG TH 2,

Project Number (if applicable) 6817

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Purpose: Clean and video storm sewers along TH 2, 73, and 65.
Why: State does not have the equipment and/or manpower available to do the work

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 10/09/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 05/31/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 11/06/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $87340.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $87299.74

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 Dave Mohar

Evaluator Email Address david.mohar@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfied

Evaluate the contractor's quality Neutral

Evaluate the contractor's cost Neutral

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Neutral- Below are the comments the project manager received from our MnDOT field inspector who was with the contractor on a daily basis:

Regarding the Jet Vacuuming and revideoing of the 9 culverts on US. 2 and the 2 culverts on TH.73 in Floodwood. I have been on the job for about 3 weeks and have been involved in all aspects of this contract.
Last week’s crew came with experienced operators running the 2 operations that were in process, although there was some issues with the dump site and having to decant the water numerous time which hampered efficiency (which I believe they credited us 4 hours), but the crews were very experienced in the videoing and the jet vacuuming of the culvert lines.
This week’s crew that showed up to do the same 2 operations, came with only 3 people, whereas last week we had 5 experienced people. Two of the 3 people that showed up this week had less than 7 months with the company and the other guy had 6 years at the company, but said he had only ran the vacuum truck about 3 times. Although he was very experienced with the videoing operation, he can’t run 2 operations at once.
Looking at the production of the 2 experienced crews the previous week on TH.73 in Floodwood by vacuuming and videoing 16 culverts in 1 day and looking at the production of the crew this week by vacuuming and videoing 11 culverts in 3 days, makes me wonder that if the contract had been written as a bid item or a lump sum item verses us paying by the hour that Hydro-Klean would have bid it appropriately and sent more experienced employees and completed the job faster, which would of possibly saved us, the tax payer money.
I know that there could be a lot of variables that could make operations take longer, but I watched all the videos of the culverts in Floodwood and feel there wasn’t any difference in the amount of debris and/or sediment that were in the culverts that were done. Only difference to me was experience level and efficiency. I have been here almost 25 years working construction/materials and running multimillion dollar projects that I feel confident in my assessment.
In the future we should look at how we write these contracts up, if at all possible.

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.): During the course of the contract, the contractor showed up with a vacuum tank that was almost full and spent a considerable amount of time decanting water. The contractor agreed to remove some of the charges from the bill for that day.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied