Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 3000104190

Project Name Minnesota Statewide Ports and Waterways Plan

Project Number (if applicable) 2377

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: MnDOT has actively been involved in supporting public port facilities and connections throughout the state, due to the vital place in our freight transportation infrastructure for the waterborne movement of raw materials and products on the Great Lakes and Mississippi River systems. These two major transportation links provide the most cost-effective method available for linking Minnesota to a host of domestic and worldwide markets, and make possible the economic success of a wide range of basic industry including agriculture, metallic minerals mining, and energy. Minnesota has a legislatively mandated program, the Port Development Assistance Program, to administer this support, but the program does not have identified funding, nor does MnDOT have a state policy plan for governing this activity. All other modes, including highways, railroads, and aeronautics, have statewide Plans, as part of the Transportation Plan family of plans, to identify and evaluate program directions and investment.

Specific goals of the Plan will be to update the OFCVO Port Directory, discuss commodity flows and economic benefits, integrate activities of the public and private port facilities in the state, evaluate intermodal connections, and review and recommend potential changes or upgrades to the Port Development Assistance Program and other MnDOT or state activities.

Project Duration

Start Date Mon, 01/28/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 09/30/2013 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 06/30/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $94952.77

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $94952.77

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 Matthew Pahs

Evaluator Email Address matthew.pahs@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Good

Evaluate the contractor's quality Good

Evaluate the contractor's cost Good

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Good

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