Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 82998

Project Name Minnesota State Rail Plan 2015 Update

Project Number (if applicable) 6072

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The State Rail Plan is required to be updated every 5 years by federal law. New federal Plan guidance was also issued in October, 2013, that requires a new format and expanded content to be compliant. A qualified national consultant was necessary to perform the research, update, and outreach because of limited resources within MnDOT.

Project Duration

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

Original end date Fri, 05/01/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 05/01/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $248422.55

Amendments $0.0

Contract total $248422.55

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? xxxxx

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) xxxxx

Evaluator Name Dave Christianson

Evaluator Email Address Dave.christianson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor performed in a timely and responsive manner throughout.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Quality was excellent, especially given short timeline and limited budget.

Evaluate the contractor's cost On budget, without disputes or over-runs.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall performance demonstrated good knowledge of federal requirements and intimate relationship with rail industry and issues in Minnesota. Work was on a par with original 2010 State Rail Plan, which received national awards and recognition. CS and their sub, Kimle Horn, provided good interaction as plan development proceeded, were dogged in pursuing necessary information and interviews, and were fully engaged in pro=active and responsive discussions about direction of the Plan work. Support for outreach was above average and very timely. Prime was notable for bringing in a retired partner who had managed original 2010 Plan, and offered both valuable insight, opinions, and federal working contacts. Entire consultant staff was highly experienced and fully engaged without exception.

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.): xxxxx

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 5 - very satisfied