Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 80558

Project Name Metro-Wide Pond Restoration and Improvement; Metro

Project Number (if applicable) 5785

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Provide construction inspection and contract administration services for: 1) a Metro-wide pond restoration and improvement project, and 2) a Metro-wide rural intersection lighting improvement project.

Qualified inspectors were unavailable due to the magnitude of MnDOT’s 2014 construction program.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 07/25/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 01/30/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 06/30/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $99391.30

Amendments $0.0

Contract total $99391.30

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Trunk Highway

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 Sara Johnson

Evaluator Email Address sara.johnson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The Contract with this Contractor had to be extended an additional 6 months in order to complete the finals process for the project documentation. With the extension to the Contract, the Metrowide Lighting project was not turned in until the very last day. Phone calls made to the Contractor were always timely, and they were responsive to meeting with MnDOT and the Construction Contractor in resolving any issues that arose during the project.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Daily diary entries made during construction were minimal in information. Force Account documentation for equipment and labor was not detailed. Multiple inspectors were used during the duration of the Metrowide Pond project which led to inconsistency during inspection.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The Contractor stayed below budget.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The Contractor was responsive to meeting with MnDOT onsite to deal with project issues as they arose. They were not familiar with TRACS, or MnDOT’s process to final out a construction project. The daily documentation of work lacked information. Some of the inspectors lacked experience in handling some of the project issues as they arose, which led to more time spent by MnDOT meeting onsite to help resolve the problems.

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.): n/a

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied