Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Hydro-Klean, LLC

SWIFT Contract Number 3000033517

Project Name Video Inspections and Clean-up of Hydraulic Struct

Project Number (if applicable) 99016

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The State contracted with Hydro-Klean, LLC to complete hydraulic video inspections and cleaning of drainage systems. Hydro-Klean, LLC completed the location of storm water infrastructure, visual inspection, digital video inspection, global position system (GPS) location of structures, editing the existing feature location map (referred to as MAP) to include hydraulic structures found in field that were not shown on the MAP and cleaned the structures on the MAP. The inspection and cleaning were completed under State Project (SP) 8826-112 on Interstate 90 (I-90) in Austin, Trunk Highway (TH) 58 in Zumbrota and TH 43 in Rushford.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 08/19/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 06/15/2013 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 10/14/2011 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $99165.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $99165.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? TH

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 Ruth Betcher

Evaluator Email Address ruth.betcher@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The Contractor’s time management was satisfactory.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The Contractor’s quality of work was satisfactory.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The Contractor managed the cost of the Contract well and completed the project within budget. They have been paid all invoiced amounts under this Contract. There is no other invoice pending for payment and they are not submitting any other invoice.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The Contractor’s overall performance was adequate. They completed some filming of drainage facilities for the State. It was great to get the city of Austin’s storm sewer filmed for viewing. However, the State’s Project Manager was disappointed that their invoice did not did not tally up their costs correctly and State’s time was spent fixing the invoice problem.
The expectations set by the State’s Project Manager were met, but not exceeded. The Contractor did not perform on this project like they owned the project. MnDOT employees doing the filming would have cleaned more pipes and would
(CSS Reviewed 4/2/2012) 3
have pushed the camera in tighter spaces than the consultant did. MnDOT can do this because they are the owner and operator of the roadway. So if the $100000+ camera system got stuck, MnDOT forces knew they would get the camera out. The Contractor feared losing their expensive equipment so they did not push the limits. The Contractor was not cleaning as much pipe as MnDOT would have before filming.

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