Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor WSP USA, Inc. fa Parsons Brinckerhof, Inc

SWIFT Contract Number 103072

Project Name RISK MANAGEMENT ON CALL FOR FOR BUDGET SETTING

Project Number (if applicable) 98875W51

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of this contract was to provide on-call risk management services for project/program budget setng. WSP had
helped us develop budget setng as part of the frst round of Corridors of Commerce and had the experience/expertse to do the risk assessment and analysis we didn't have in-house. We were extremely pleased with the work done on Corridors of Commerce and felt WSP was the right partner for helping us contnue our eforts.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 11/18/2015 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 01/31/2017 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 06/30/2017 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $100000.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $100000.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? FEDERAL

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 Read,Jennifer

Evaluator Email Address Jennifer.Read@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Overall we had good response from the original consultant staf. I also had response from the replacement staf about trying to contnue forward with the contract; I will admit that part of the issue in trying to contnue with the replacement staf was due to my assignment of additonal dutes within my work group. I didn't have a lot of tme to focus on bringing a new person up to
speed, although we didn't have much tme available to contnue spending the money either, due to constraints associated with the funding received for the work so realistcally that wasn't a good soluton. I do feel that had I known the original staf was leaving or as soon as he lef, there may have been opportunites to be more proactve on putng a game plan together regarding
how to proceed. But I only found out he lef when I emailed him about some informaton I was looking for and received an auto response saying he no longer worked at WSP. That was very disappointng to me, that WSP never contacted me as MnDOT's administrator for this partcular WO, to let me know that there was a change in staf and to discuss how to proceed.This also
centers around my response of not hiring WSP again - we had a unique relatonship with the original staf working on this, and I don't know that WSP really has staf now to fulfll the work we would look to have done with the original staf's departure.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of work done by the consultant met our needs as we identfed them. I was overall pleased with what I received from the original consultant staf, and I didn't receive any negatve feedback about the replacement staf from the CMGC group (the replacement staf completed the work on the High Bridge CMGC risk assessment that was not completed by the original staf).
However, the CMGC work was a diferent process than the risk management work I was doing.

Evaluate the contractor's cost We had a set amount to work with in terms of cost, so we looked to WSP to let us know how much work could be done for that value. I feel the overall value provided based on cost was excellent. It's unfortunate we weren't able to spend all of the money we had available and that the original consultant staf lef WS

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance dissatisfied

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 3 - neutral