Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor URS Corporation

SWIFT Contract Number 3000025141

Project Name Metro-Wide Noise Wall Assessment

Project Number (if applicable) 98084

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of this contract was to provide MnDOT Maintenance with data regarding the current condition of all noise walls more than 10 years old in the Metro District, including the structural conditions (both posts and planking, i.e. rot, deterioration, leaning, connections (nails and screws), soil erosion, etc.) as well as paint/stain condition and general condition.

Though MnDOT has experience in designing and installing noise walls, assessing the condition of existing noise walls has not been done in Minnesota or by MnDOT personnel. MnDOT therefore required the services of a consultant with the necessary skills and experience to provide an accurate assessment of the condition of older noise walls and to create a database for MnDOT to use to program maintenance and replacement as necessary.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 04/28/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Wed, 11/30/2011 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 3484

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $344928.71

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $344928.71

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 Peter Wasko

Evaluator Email Address peter.wasko@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness URS delivered all tasks on time

Evaluate the contractor's quality The quality of the work was very good. Tasks were competed in order of importance

Evaluate the contractor's cost Costs were good for the study and database

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall URS did a very good job with the study and database. The database was quite extensive. URS came up with many good approaches to the study which improved the overall report.

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