Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number B02766

Project Name T.H. 41 over Minnesota River Final Environmental I

Project Number (if applicable) 90916

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of this Contract was to provide a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed new T.H. 41 Minnesota River crossing between T.H. 169 and T.H. 212.

A contract was necessary because MnDOT staff with the necessary expertise were unavailable to provide this one-time service when needed. This was an intensive undertaking, both technically and with public participation. In addition, this is a controversial project due to possible wetland impacts and a rare calcareous fen in the area. In order to gain approval from the local watershed district, the use of a more neutral party than state employees was desirable.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 06/29/2007 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 06/30/2009 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 12/30/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 1911

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $240350.64

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $240350.64

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Trunk Highway

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) In September 2002, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. was awarded a contract (Mn/DOT Agreement No. 83346) to provide a two phased transportation corridor and river crossing study for T.H. 41 across the Minnesota River between T.H. 212 and T.H. 169. The project was initially split into two phases. Phase 1 was the scoping study, intended to identify a set of transportation corridor alternatives, develop conceptual plans, evaluate impacts and prepare a scoping document from the perspective of making a location decision. Phase II was to be a tiered EIS sufficient to define preferred transportation corridor improvements and garner local, regional, state and federal approvals necessary to preserve right-of-way for the preferred transportation corridor improvement.

The purpose of Phase 2 was to produce the draft and final environmental impact statements, and also included significant additional wetlands-related tasks, in particular at Seminary Fen. It was originally assumed that Seminary Fen was sufficiently far from the project area that it need not be considered. However, due to the sensitive and delicate nature of this fen, and the risk that this project could damage it, consideration of the fen is a crucial element in obtaining permits from affected watershed districts, the Army Corps of Engineers, etc. The Seminary Fen study added considerable work and time to the contract.

During the course of the scoping study, MnDOT requested that two additional build alternatives be studied and carried forward into the environmental impact statement. This work also added time to the contract.

In summary the project would soon be complete through the Draft EIS. The contract was then be near the five year statutory limit for professional/technical contracts. The Final EIS needed to be completed, and could not be finished before the five year limit is reached. When it became apparent the Final EIS could not be completed within the five year statutory limit, tasks for the Final EIS were removed from the original contract. The Draft EIS/Final EIS split was picked as the transition point for the original contract to a new contract. MnDOT Contract No.90916 was be a continuation of services from MnDOT Agreement No. 83346.

SRF Consulting Group, Inc. was clearly and legitimately the single source of the proposed services for the following reasons:
• Additional tasks outside the control of SRF, particularly the work on Seminary Fen, and the time to complete those tasks were added to the original contract. The result is the Final EIS could not be completed within the five year statutory limit. Therefore, an amendment to the existing contract was not feasible. Had it not been necessary to perform the additional work, all tasks would have been completed within five years.
• The Final EIS was an intense undertaking, both technically and with public participation. SRF was completely familiar with the project, having done all work done through the Draft EIS. If the remaining work were to be awarded to a new consultant, there would likely have been a considerable amount or re-work, resulting in significant additional time and costs to the State.
• This is a controversial project, particularly when dealing with local watershed districts. SRF had developed trust in dealing with these stakeholders. Switching to a different consultant at this point could have upset the various interest groups and aggravated the political situation.

Evaluator Name Diane Langenbach

Evaluator Email Address diane.langenbach@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness SRF was very responsive and flexible when the collaboration process to build agreement on a corridor took much more time than expected

Evaluate the contractor's quality SRF delivered a quality product both on the technical process and the stakeholder engagement process.

Evaluate the contractor's cost SRF’s costs were appropriate for the size of the FEIS and the complexity of building stakeholder agreement on a future T.H. 41 Minnesota River crossing corridor

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance SRF, with support from Anne Carroll (public participation subconsultant) did excellent work on this project.

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 5 - very satisfied