Agency Military Affairs Dept

Contractor Wold Architects and Engineers

SWIFT Contract Number WOL400003

Project Name Improvements at the AASF#1, Holman Field, St. Paul

Project Number (if applicable) 9911

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The AASF Building was built in the 1930s and has had numerous smaller renovations completed over the years with a major renovation done in 1986. This project scope included overhead electrical and compressed air hose reels; repair of hangar ceilings; hangar light fixtures; resurface hangar floors; repair of the control tower; front entrance stucco repair; VIP lounge sound transmission; provide ADA accessibility; renovations at the SIPR and Flight Planning Rooms; new vehicle access gates; motorized stormwater valve for the refueler truck parking area (later omitted); office for the supervisor of flight operations; upgrade to building management system. Architects and Engineers must be licensed by the State of Minnesota in order to perform these services. No other method is available. The Department of Military Affairs does not have in-house staff to accomplish the necessary architectural and engineering work.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 05/20/2009 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 05/11/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 03/15/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $132500.00

Amendments $23686.00

Contract total $156186.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 97% Federal Funds / 3% State Funds

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 Dennis Arntson

Evaluator Email Address Dennis.Arntson1@us.army.mil

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The Consultant did a great job in providing us a design in a very short period of time. Very little time was available to get this project out on the street for bidding.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Consultant's quality was satisfactory when you take into account the amout of time allowed for design. Since little time was given, many errors wree in the design that could have been avoided if more time was given. Their effort in construction administration kept the best interest of the Owner. Most time was spent on change orders that could have been avoided.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Cost was satisfactory. Well within expectations.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Was average.

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.): None.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied