Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Oracle Primavera

SWIFT Contract Number 3000033430

Project Name P1414 Primavera Feasibility, Planning & Preparatio

Project Number (if applicable) 99852

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Oracle Primavera consultants were contracted to conduct feasibility on identified MnDOT applications that are aging or technically isolated and deliver estimates to replace these applications with tools in the Primavera suite. One of these projects planned to move to implementation in this first Phase, PPMS Replacement (1322). The consultants were tasked with creating an approach to pilot and evaluate P6, a Primavera tool, as a candidate to replace PPMS and create an estimate for our steering committee and committee staff to evaluate for implementation. Deliveries also included an end-to-end Transportation project workflow that identified processes, resources and tools used in the lifecycle. Finally, the consultants were contracted to support the implementation of P6 for Construction Scheduling and Support (P1417) and evaluate replacement of tools like TRACS with Primavera’s Contract Manager.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 12/21/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 12/21/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 05/22/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $944385

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $944385

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Division Directors’ Fund (2700/32303) $250,000

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) Oracle gave an Insight Study presentation to key decision-makers in October of 2011. This group determined Oracle’s Primavera tools were the best fit for our Agency’s need. Oracle required use of their time and materials contract template for purposes of this work and the single source approach was chosen.

Evaluator Name Holly Samshal

Evaluator Email Address holly.samshal@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Poor

Evaluate the contractor's quality Average

Evaluate the contractor's cost Very High

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance 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.): The product quality and work performance was below average. Project documentation and deliverables, provided by the consultants, lacked understanding of the project scope and business objectives. For example, the vendor provided an introductory training to the project team. The training was very poorly managed. The trainer was late or ended the sessions early without reason. More importantly, the trainer did not demonstrate an understanding of the vendor’s system that MnDOT was evaluating.

The on-time of the deliverables and project-related cooperation is rated as poor. The consultants did not deliver feasibility study project artifacts, nor did the consultants complete project deliverables on-time. Even though the consultants jointly developed a project schedule with MnDOT, the consultants did not deliver project work based on this schedule. In some cases, the consultants delivered the same artifact repeatedly even though it was rejected by the project team. In one instance, an approach presentation was given three times and each time the consultants were told to present a different approach only to come back again with the same slide deck.

QA/QC Plan Conformance is not applicable in this situation. The QA/QC plan was a deliverable on the project schedule that the vendor did not deliver to MnDOT and, therefore, could not be evaluated.

Oracle was really difficult to enter into contract with. It took quite some time to negotiate a contract initially. We ended up using their forms for the contract because they would not agree to use MnDOT’s standard forms.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied