Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor KFH Group, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 3000135575

Project Name Minnesota Intercity Bus Study Update

Project Number (if applicable) 3522

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of this contract was to update the 2010 Minnesota Intercity Bus Network Study in light of current conditions and newly available data. The project also sought to enhance and strengthen the document in order to delineate a clear path toward implementation of Section 5311(f) program policies and investments.
The urgency of the 2013-2014 study update was guided partly by the rules of the Federal Transit Administration, which require an assessment of intercity bus needs no more than four years prior to a State releasing unused funding to more general transit purposes. MnDOT had intercity bus funding that would lapse before it could be spent on eligible projects, so the study update was a necessary step in the process of releasing those funds for other transit purposes.
Given the specialized nature of the study, and limits on available staff time within the Office of Transit, it was necessary to seek consulting services in order to provide the expertise and human resources necessary to produce a quality document in a timely fashion.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 07/19/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 01/31/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 01/31/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $150214.34

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $150214.34

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 80% Federal Transit Administration funds/20% Trunk

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 Shaun Morrell

Evaluator Email Address shaun.morrell@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Satisfactory, with room for improvement. The contractor delivered the final updated study on time. Most of the intermediate deliverables were submitted by the required deadlines. For some of these intermediate steps, as well as weekly project management tasks and monthly invoicing, MnDOT PMs frequently had to remind the consultant before tasks were completed.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Content: Good. Form: Average. The study’s findings and recommendations are based solidly on defensible methods, research, and data. Stylistically, the deliverables were an improvement over the previous study. However, the contractor’s tendency is toward dense, text-heavy presentation for an “insider” audience, where visually appealing maps, charts, and plain language narratives would have been more effective at communicating the information.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contract was completed on budget.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Overall, project managers were pleased with the final outcome of the project. KFH Group’s expertise in rural intercity bus is unequalled. MnDOT staff can feel comfortable standing by the findings and recommendations of updated study.
From a project management perspective, the contractor is somewhat disorganized. Weekly conference call agendas were ad hoc, travel plans were last minute, and reminders were necessary for routine tasks such as submitting invoices.
Generally, the contractor’s methods are tried-and-true, based on a deep understanding of program history and policy, and grounded in a traditional philosophy toward rural intercity bus. On the flip side, the contractor is somewhat slow to embrace new ways of doing things.

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