Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor University of Minnesota - Duluth

SWIFT Contract Number 50858

Project Name Comparative Performance Study of Chip Seal and Bon

Project Number (if applicable) 89261w191

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Primary concerns focus on the following performance characteristics: 1) Materials quality and performance quality of materials in a given system, including both the sealing material (e.g. polymer in a PCS system) and the aggregate component; 2) Skid resistance afforded by the overlay system, evaluated by friction measurement over the first few years of service life; 3) Improved safety provided by higher friction as manifested in accident reduction at the application sites; 4) Effectiveness of the sealing component to reduce or eliminate chloride ingress into the deck as a consequence of the use of deicing chemicals; 5) Examination of issues relating to moisture trapping at the seal coat/concrete interface which may cause premature degradation of the concrete and 6) Cost/Benefit considerations as related to the above.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 07/08/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 08/31/2014 - 00:00

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

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $90872.00

Amendments $-11687.00

Contract total $69826.00

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) na

Evaluator Name Tom Peters

Evaluator Email Address Tom.Peters@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Amendment to extend work schedule for 10 additional months.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Overall quality cannot be adequately determined..

Evaluate the contractor's cost Cost appears to be in line for the required services that were being delivered. The overall scope and cost were decreased due to the elimination of two tasks.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall performance did not completely meet original desired expectations due to contractor’s inability to obtain access to obtain cored sample from Mn/DOT's Districts within the contract schedule time frame. Subsequent time needed by the Lab to test those samples would have resulted in the total length requiring over 5 years and therefore, it was necessary to eliminate these tasks. A Final Report was also not completed. No corrected action was taken other than eliminating the original Tasks 5 and 6, thus decreasing the overall contract amount.

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.): na

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 3 - neutral