Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor University of Minnesota

SWIFT Contract Number 32745

Project Name Partially Grouted Riprap Lab Flume Study (Matrix R

Project Number (if applicable) 99008 WO 2

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This project is to test partially grouted riprap in a flume to determine product limitations and recommendations for use in spill-through abutments.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 11/01/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 01/31/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 04/30/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $124831.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $124831.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? LRRB

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 Nicole Bartelt

Evaluator Email Address Nicole.bartelt@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Some problems with timeliness, although primarily due to facilities issues (SAFL reconstruction). See comments below.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Good quality control, see comment below

Evaluate the contractor's cost Good, worked within project budget to get the most “bang for our buck”

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The overall project performance was satisfactory. We got some good information on how matrix riprap performs, and that it is very robust. However, the overall project length was extended due to facilities issues and the final report probably could have been wrapped up sooner. Good cooperation and discussion among the team. Worked with some unexpected findings and retooled the study to complete as much work as possible within the budget.

Realized timeframe/schedule would be impacted, so two amendments were completed for time extensions, all deliverables completed within final schedule.

Contract Administration/Authorized Representative.
There were two amendments processed on this project. The amendments were a result of the reconstruction of the laboratory.

Regretfully, the laboratory should have notified the agency of the impending delays and communicated clearly that the project needed to be put on hold until that time they were up and running again. Repeatedly amending the contract and not being able to accomplish the tasks in the contracted time expended quite a bit of time and expense for MnDOT Contracting Staff and the UMN.

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