Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor University of Minnesota

SWIFT Contract Number 3000009500

Project Name Mileage Based User Fee Policy Examination

Project Number (if applicable) 89261W235

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Contractor provided services as an educated facilitator to assemble a representative policy stakeholder team to see the wider policy and institutional mileage based user fee issues and to develop a consensus on the mileage based user fee statement. This effort was necessary to resolve policy and institutional issues that arose during the mileage based user fee demonstration project.

The end product of the project was a detailed report documenting the stakeholders and the problem statement they determined to be a priority. The final report also recommended deployment business model options.

This Contract was necessary to complete the work directed by the 2009 Legislative session and to provide the unique expertise necessary for completion.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 12/08/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 07/31/2011 - 00:00

Actual end date Sat, 03/31/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $393893.00

Amendments $393893.00

Contract total $428893.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 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 Cory Johnson

Evaluator Email Address Cory.johnson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor delivered the products on time

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor’s products were of very good quality and did not require more than one revision. In many cases the approach used was very good and allowed the products to get reviewed along the way.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor delivered the agreed products at the agreed price.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The contractors overall performance was good. Communications with the MnDOT Project manager was very good and allowed for corrective actions to be discussed and incorporated throughout the 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 4 - satisfied