Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor University of Minnesota

SWIFT Contract Number 3000009172/3000050215

Project Name Composite Pavements Design and Construction Guidel

Project Number (if applicable) 89261 W 90

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The main objective of the proposed research is to perform life cycle cost analysis comparisons, and develop design and construction guidelines for thermally insulated concrete pavements (TICP) i.e. composite thin HMA overlays of new or structurally sound existing PCC pavements. The study also has the following secondary objectives:
1) Validation of the structural and climatic models of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) for asphalt overlays of concrete pavements. 2) Investigation of applicability of the MEPDG for design of TICP pavements. 3) Investigation of the applicability of reflection cracking and asphalt rutting models developed in California. 4) Development of recommendations for feasibility analysis of newly constructed TICP or thin overlays of the existing concrete pavements.

Project Duration

Start Date Wed, 01/30/2008 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 01/31/2011 - 00:00

Actual end date Wed, 01/30/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $438980.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $438980.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? FHWA, 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 Tim Clyne

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

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Several time extensions were required on this project, but they were mainly due to circumstances outside the PI’s control. The project TAP made a conscious decision to take the extra time needed to get a good product rather than finish on time and have the Contractor submit a product that was incomplete.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Quality of work was excellent. Reports submitted to the TL and TAP were of very high quality and in need of very few revisions. Contractor was able to work independently without excess oversight. Information was presented in a clear, concise manner.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Cost was reasonable (and probably a bargain) for the work performed.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance The Contractor’s performance was exceptional. The research team went over and above the requirements of the contract and provided very useful and insightful results. The PI used his technical knowledge and skills to his advantage throughout the project, and several graduate students and subconsultants provided quality work as well.

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