Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor URS, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 3000008838

Project Name Detail Design – Reconstruction of Pokegama Ave. in

Project Number (if applicable) 95986

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of the contract was to prepare a detailed design plan for the reconstruction of T.H. 169 (Pokegama Avenue) in Grand Rapids. State staff was not available to meet the requested timeline for the bid letting.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 06/17/2010 - 00:00

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

Actual end date Tue, 01/03/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $370919.46

Amendments $18076.33

Contract total $360444.31

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 Todd Campbell

Evaluator Email Address todd.campbell@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Poor - The contractor’s plan quality of their 90% submittal was very deficient. The State extended the 95% deadline six times and ultimately did not accept the plan quality of the final submittal. The State spent over 1,000 staff hours to ready the plan for letting. In addition, URS requested a cost amendment for $113,377. The State could not justify this amount, and did not process an amendment. The total contract amount was not paid.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Poor

Evaluate the contractor's cost Poor Budget Management

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Poor - The contractor’s plan quality of their 90% submittal was very deficient. The State extended the 95% deadline six times and ultimately did not accept the plan quality of the final submittal. The State spent over 1,000 staff hours to ready the plan for letting. In addition, URS requested a cost amendment for $113,377. The State could not justify this amount, and did not process an amendment. The total contract amount was not paid.

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.): Contract was terminated due to non-performance

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 1 - very dissatisfied