Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor HDR Engineering, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number B28688

Project Name Preliminary and final design for the rehabilitatio

Project Number (if applicable) 94281

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This contract provided design services for the rehabilitation, repair, and conversion of Bridge 4175 to a pedestrian
structure. This was an ARRA project on an accelerated timeframe, so in-house design personnel were unavailable to complete the work.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 06/09/2009 - 00:00

Original end date Thu, 09/30/2010 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 09/30/2010 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $371547.41

Amendments $17300.35

Contract total $388847.76

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 Paul Stenberg

Evaluator Email Address Paul.Stenberg@STATE.MN.US

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness NEUTRAL

Evaluate the contractor's quality NEUTRAL

Evaluate the contractor's cost NEUTRAL

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance March 11, 2011

Agreement #94281, Shakopee Ped Bridge Comments:
General – This project contained a number of difficult challenges. Primary among them were the time
constraints, the historical aspects, and the truss renovation. This project was funded by ARRA
(stimulus) funds which dictated a quick start and a fast delivery which thus define the challenge
of a very compressed time schedule. Repairing a deteriorated steel truss is a difficult
engineering design challenge by itself. Adding the restoration of historical details made it even
more difficult. HDR entered into this contract knowing the challenges of the project. None of the
challenges were a surprise.
The scoring on this rating form shows that HDR did well on portions of the project, but it also
shows that HDR could have done a better job. There were some problems in the design and drafting
areas and some in the project management area. These problems are evidenced by the number of
revised sheets in the plan set and the number of supplements to MnDOT’s construction contract. The
problems are also reflected in the addendums to HDR’s design contract.
Design and Drafting - - The truss repair details that HDR prepared were generally good and HDR did
a good job on the truss inspection and truss inspection report. But, on the other hand, HDR did not
do so well on the following specific items:
1. The deck removal items were not always shown correctly. This resulted in an addendum to the
Advertisement for Bids to eliminate work termed as ‘scarify’.1
(CSS/CM Last Updated 01/07/2014)
Professional/Technical Contract Evaluation
Note: this form does NOT need to be completed for any interagency agreement, OR for projects less than $25,000.
Project Managers: Once you provide approval on the final invoice, you must complete all sections of this form, other than
rating Items 7-9 of the graph on Page 2. Once complete; e-mail the form to the Authorized Representative for your contract.
Please note, this rating may be used in future consultant selection procedures and all completed Professional/Technical
Contract Evaluations are sent to the Contractor for their information. Be sure to include comments below, and make sure
they are concise and factual. Attach support documentation if necessary.
Authorized Representative: Complete the remainder of the form and e-mail it to pt-evals.dot@state.mn.us (*DOT_PTEvals
in Outlook).
(Note: the boxes within the form are clickable. Double click on the box to “check” it.)
Department of Administration Evaluation Information
Agency:
Transportation
Contractor:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Financial Numbers (as applicable):
CFMS No.: B28688
SWIFT Contract No.: N/A
SWIFT PO No.: 3000008725
Project Name:
Preliminary and final design for the rehabilitation of
Bridge 4175
Project Number: (MnDOT Contract No.)
94281
Summarize the purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary to enter into a contract:
This contract provided design services for the rehabilitation, repair, and conversion of Bridge 4175 to a pedestrian
structure. This was an ARRA project on an accelerated timeframe, so in-house design personnel were unavailable to
complete the work.
Project Start Date:
06/05/2009
Original End Date:
09/30/2010
Actual End Date:
09/30/2010
Did the project finish on time?
YES NO
Total Billable Hours (if available): Did the project finish within budget?
YES NO
Original Contract Amount:
$371,547.41
Amendment Amount(s):
$17,300.35
Contract Total:
$388,847.76
Funding Source (ie Trunk Highway, Bond, Federal etc.):
Trunk Highway
Was this contract a single source?
YES NO
If applicable, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services:
N/A
Project Manager Name:
Arlen Ottman / Paul Stenberg
Project Manager’s E-Mail Address:
Evaluate the Contractor’s Timeliness:
See attached pages
Evaluate the Contractor’s Quality:
See attached pages
Evaluate the Contractor’s Cost:
See attached pages
Would you engage the contractor’s services again?
YES NO
Evaluate the Contractor’s Overall Performance:

3
(CSS/CM Last Updated 01/07/2014)
Rating Definitions
ABOVE AVERAGE AVERAGE BELOW AVERAGE POOR
• Delivered product/service
correctly, efficiently, timely
and without excessive
assistance or direction from
MnDOT
• Performed beyond
expectations
• Provided deliverables that
exceed standards
• Informed MnDOT’s Project
Manager of project status
regularly
• Resolved any problems that
occurred
• Needed little or no direction
• Was responsive to requests
• Suggested improvements
• Fulfilled terms of
Contract (no more, no
less)
• Provided deliverables that
met standards
• Delivered project on time
and budget
• Informed MnDOT’s
Project Manager of key
milestones
• Minimally met or did
not meet contract terms
• Provided deliverables
below standard or
needed rework to
comply
• Was behind schedule or
over budget
• Required direction on
products/services from
MnDOT to produce
• Required excessive
guidance or direction
• Was unresponsive to
requests
• Was unable or
unwilling to resolve
minor setbacks
• Provided deliverables
that do not follow
standards or do not
meet requirements or
expectations
• Not on time or within
budget through no
fault of MnDOT
March 11, 2011
Agreement #94281, Shakopee Ped Bridge
Comments:
General – This project contained a number of difficult challenges. Primary among them were the time
constraints, the historical aspects, and the truss renovation. This project was funded by ARRA (stimulus)
funds which dictated a quick start and a fast delivery which thus define the challenge of a very
compressed time schedule. Repairing a deteriorated steel truss is a difficult engineering design
challenge by itself. Adding the restoration of historical details made it even more difficult. HDR entered
into this contract knowing the challenges of the project. None of the challenges were a surprise.
The scoring on this rating form shows that HDR did well on portions of the project, but it also shows that
HDR could have done a better job. There were some problems in the design and drafting areas and
some in the project management area. These problems are evidenced by the number of revised sheets
in the plan set and the number of supplements to MnDOT’s construction contract. The problems are
also reflected in the addendums to HDR’s design contract.
Design and Drafting - - The truss repair details that HDR prepared were generally good and HDR did a
good job on the truss inspection and truss inspection report. But, on the other hand, HDR did not do so
well on the following specific items:
1. The deck removal items were not always shown correctly. This resulted in an addendum to the
Advertisement for Bids to eliminate work termed as ‘scarify’.
2. The work locations for Type 3 and/or 4 Concrete Removal were not shown on the drawings even
though the work was included in the Schedule of Quantities on the plans. This resulted in a
supplement to the construction contract.
3. The conduit system was designed in a manner which did not account for the interference with
several obvious structural members of the truss. This resulted in a supplement to the
construction contract.
4. The expansion joint locations were not adequately detailed, especially at the sidewalk. This
resulted in field modifications.
5. The term ‘field verify’ was used on the plans in several locations but the exact meaning was not
clearly described. One example of this is on sheet 53R, Note 1. This resulted in a supplement
to the construction contract.
6. The design plans did not fully consider the installation process for the button head bolts which
were an important historical feature of this project. The tool for this type of bolt requires a
certain amount of clearance and the design did not account for this clearance. In order for the
nuts to be properly tightened, the bolts were installed backwards with the button head away
from view which diminished the historical effect. See sheet 53, Section B-B.
7. The plans did NOT identify load restrictions on the truss during construction. HDR’s inspections
and computations showed that because of severe section loss on several key structural
members, the truss had no capacity to carry any loads. This information was not shown on the
plans nor was it mentioned in the Special Provisions (SB Section written by HDR). This resulted
in MnDOT mistakenly including a note in the Special Provisions (S Section) allowing normal
construction loads on the bridge which subsequently misled the contractor in the planning of
the construction work. This resulted in a major supplement to the construction contract.
Project Management - - HDR’s management of the project was not up to normal standards. The issues
noted above with plan errors and omissions are staffing related and seem to indicate that HDR did not
assign enough engineering and technical staff to complete the plan with an adequate level of checking
and QA/QC effort. Plan errors like the conduit location and the installation of button head bolts should
have been avoided.
HDR’s project management staff allowed the contract budget hours and budget dollars to be exceeded
without any forewarning to MnDOT. This is a serious contractual issue that put HDR at risk of not being
paid for their work. It also negatively impacted MnDOT because it had to make emergency financing
adjustments.
HDR did not notice the warning signs that were evident on the Progress Report for the period ending
8/29/09 that showed that the Final Design Task was seriously off target. The numbers showed a wide
discrepancy between work completed and budget hours used, 31.6% versus 85%. MnDOT called the
Project Manager to express concern but the PM reassured MnDOT that both the task and the project
were on budget. A few days later, the next invoice was received by MnDOT and it showed that the Final
Design work had progressed to 37.9%, but the Task Hours had jumped to 139%! The hours for the
whole project were listed at 105% meaning that the contract budget was exceeded.
These concerns and specific examples justify the evaluation score.

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.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied