Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor HDR Engineering Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 3000076541 (FY 13)

Project Name Preliminary and Final Design for replacement of Ca

Project Number (if applicable) 97139

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This Contract was for project development of the Cayuga and Maryland Avenue bridge projects through final design and concept development of traffic alternatives along the I-35E corridor from downtown St. Paul to the northern suburbs.

The Cayuga bridge is on the Chapter 152 list of bridges considered to be fracture critical, and needs to be replaced. The legislature approved funding to advance the project sooner than anticipated.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 12/17/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Sat, 06/30/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 04/30/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 67536

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $6057271.26

Amendments $2335426.39

Contract total $8392697.65

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? State Bond 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 Josephine (Joey) Lundquist

Evaluator Email Address Joey.Lundquist@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The consultant accomplished the tasks assigned in the timeframe we asked for. The project was delivered on time.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Dan Dorgan and Steve Jensen were excellent project managers for the project and produced and excellent product.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The cost was what was to be expected from a consultant.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall, I was happy working with HDR and the sub-consultants. They accomplished the task assigned and got us the answers and construction plans we asked for.

However, there are many negative aspects of having a contractor prepairing construction plans with so many subcontractors:
- The plans are split into many pieces and required more sheets than if one consultant had one it.
-The cross sections in the plans were more complicated due to how the project was split between the sub-consultants .
-There was much more coordination than if we were working with one company (they each had to be consistent with each other and have coordination meetings with the sub-consultants).
-It was more expensive due to the extra coordination with sub-contractors (would have been much cheaper and more efficient with one consultant doing the design).

I would not recommend having so many sub-consultants on a project in the future.

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