Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Stantec (f.k.a. Bonestroo)

SWIFT Contract Number B37705

Project Name Highway 15 Transportation Corridor Study

Project Number (if applicable) 95939

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The Department of Transportation (Districts 3, 7 and 8 (Brainerd, Mankato and Willmar)) needs a comprehensive Transportation Study to determine the future transportation needs of a corridor along highway 15. The corridor is between interstate highway 90 and interstate highway 94. The study is needed to plan for future transportation improvement projects by the State, Cities or Counties along the corridor.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 01/06/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 03/01/2011 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 07/01/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $59795.76

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $59795.76

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Trunk Highway

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 Jarrett Hubbard

Evaluator Email Address jarrett.hubbard@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Initial work submittals were timely, but re-work often caused delays. (See the comments section)

Evaluate the contractor's quality Satisfactory, but often after re-work or excessive input by State's Project Manager. (See the comments section)

Evaluate the contractor's cost Satisfactory.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The Contractor's willingness and eagerness to provide a good product was above average initially, however that positive aspect was overshadowed by issues related to inexperience and misinterpretation of the contract's objectives, resulting in below average satisfaction with the Contractor. (See the comments section) This contract experienced several problems through its life. The rating numbers and descriptions above indicate some of the problems experienced, but fail to describe reasons for the problems. To provide a full understanding of the problems encountered, the following information should be taken into account.
1) The State acknowledges that the Scope of Services for this contract was somewhat vague, and that indeed the District's objectives for the contract may be viewed as somewhat unique to the District.
2) The Contractor's Project Manager had relatively little experience with a project of this type, and this was exacerbated by the fact that his supporting staff also did not have extensive experience in the area. Further aggravating this difficulty was the contractor's experience with traffic engineering and analysis, which lead them to try to deliver solutions, or potential projects, as opposed to summarization planning level reporting of issues and their priority levels.
3) The Contractor's previous experience with the corridor and its supporting coalition group ("The Coalition"), inadvertently led them to misinterpret the objectives of this contract. In effect, the Contractor's experience with the corridor and the "Coalition" may have been a detriment to the District's desire for a new, high level study of the corridor.

Details relating to ratings given.
1) Regarding the question "Would you engage the Contractor’s services again?". The "Yes" answer is based on the firm's broad range of services, and good reputation in many areas of transportation. Strictly in regard to Transportation Planning, the answer would be "No", unless an experienced transportation planner was assigned, and an extremely clear statement of the contract objectives was provided.
2) Regarding "Below Average" ratings for Product Quality. This reflects often having to perform re-work, and an excessive amount of the State Project Manager's time to bring items up to acceptable levels of quality.
3) Regarding "Poor" ratings for Conformance with MnDOT Standards/Requirements. This reflects the work being aimed at a general misinterpretation of many contract objectives.
4) Regarding "Below Average" ratings for Deliverables Complete and On Time. This reflects the need for a time extension amendment.
5) Regarding "Below Average" ratings for QA/QC Plan Conformance. This reflects the common occurrence of multiple iterations of performing work before arriving at acceptable work.

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 2 - dissatisfied