Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor University of Minnesota

SWIFT Contract Number 3000027487/3000076033

Project Name Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Phase II

Project Number (if applicable) 89261W 130

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The main objective of this study is to validate the laboratory test procedures, models, and pavement design procedures that come out of Phase I of this study. This will be accomplished by monitoring two new test sections at the Minnesota Road Research Facility (MnROAD). Phase I was aimed at developing a fracture mechanics-based specification for a better selection of asphalt binders and mixtures with respect to their resistance to crack formation and propagation. This fracture mechanics approach will also be used to investigate the detrimental effects of aging and moisture on the fracture resistance of asphalt materials.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 06/17/2008 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 01/31/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 08/31/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $475000.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $475000.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Pooled 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 Tim Clyne

Evaluator Email Address Tim.clyne@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor met the final project deadlines, but not without a lot of prodding from the TL. I had to threaten to cancel the contract without payment in order to receive the last few deliverables. Many of the task reports all came in at once at the end, rather than according to the project timeline.

Evaluate the contractor's quality : Contractor did an amazing amount of work in this project, but I’m not sure if they answered all the questions posed by MnDOT. A lot of theoretical modeling work was done, but it sometimes lacked the “so what?” practical application. Final specification recommendations were presented, although not very clearly or in the format we were looking for.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Costs were reasonable, especially considering a multi-year project split among 4 universities.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance This contract did not go as well as expected. From the very beginning, the PI needed a lot of guidance and direction from the MnDOT TL to provide us practical solutions to our problems. Even the Literature Review was a challenge for the PI to communicate how the recent research he cited applied to our project. Even though the PI should have been leading and coordinating work among the 4 universities, our inquiries into work done by the subcontractors was met with statements like “You’d have to ask Bill about that.” The TL had to do a fair amount of public relations work to keep the participating State DOT TAP members satisfied However, one major positive outcome from this project was the development of the DCT test and specification for asphalt mixtures. MnDOT has already begun to use this test as an indicator of thermal cracking performance, and it will be very important in our continued efforts to provide better performing pavements.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): Describe any negative action taken during the Contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): The following two emails were sent by the TL to the PI to “encourage” them to meet their deadlines:
March 2, 2012
Hi Mihai.
In short, the answer to your request is no. When we talked at our last TAP meeting 5 months ago you assured me that you would all be able to complete the work within this first time extension. I would feel very uncomfortable going to our state DOT partners and asking them for another extension, as it would make them leery about partnering with MnDOT in future projects. I understand that all of the laboratory testing has been completed for quite some time, and now you're left to sift through the data and develop the mixture specification. It's unclear to me what pieces of the data analysis and specification development are delayed and why. The contract states you are to "recommend one fracture test" and "develop limiting criteria for selecting asphalt mixtures resistant to low temperature cracking ... based on fracture tests." I'm envisioning something like what's in the attached slides. I suggest you use whatever means necessary to ensure that all of the task reports and final report are completed within the allotted time.
Thanks – Tim

April 13, 2012
Hi Mihai, Bill, Chris, & Hussain.
As you are aware, the expiration date for the LTC II project is May 31, just a little over 6 weeks away. You have turned in 4 of the 7 tasks to date, with Tasks 4, 6, and 7 outstanding. You have already heard from me that we desperately want to get this project finished and that our (MnDOT’s) reputation and ability to attract partners to future studies hinges on completing this project well and on time. Therefore I put forth the following course of action:
1. Task 3 has been submitted and I will approve when Bruce sends me the paperwork (Bruce?). I have some comments I’ve collected from TAP members that I will bring over to the U this afternoon.
2. Please complete and submit Tasks 4, 6, and 7 by May 21st.
3. Please prepare and submit a No Cost Time Extension for an additional 3 months that will allow for editing and publishing of the Final Report. By preparing it now, MnDOT Research Services will be able to process the amendment in a timely manner. However, this extension will only be granted if all of the outstanding task reports are submitted by May 21st. Failure to meet this deadline will result in termination of the contract without the remaining funds being paid to the University.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks - Tim

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied