Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Parsons Brinckerhoff

SWIFT Contract Number 43018

Project Name Design-Build Book 2 Template

Project Number (if applicable) 98875W06

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The goal of this contract is to develop templates for each Section of the Design-Build Book 2 document. The templates of Book 2 will have five primary goals; to eliminate material that is a “carry-over” from a particular project that is not applicable to other projects; to reduce redundancy from functional discipline manuals; to simplify management of standard and acceptable language in Sections; and to develop as feasible within the template, options for the team developing the project specific Book 2
Section to choose from in various instances based on project specifics and minimize project specific Book
3 editing needs. A common goal of all work on any Book for procurement is to convert passive voice phrasing to active voice when encountered. As part of developing the template Section layout, location of project specific scope material will be considered and finalized to ease industry work load associated with specific scope being difficult to discern from traditional boiler plate Section information.

Project Duration

Start Date Sun, 04/01/2012 - 00:00

Original end date Wed, 10/31/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 12/31/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $247442.00

Amendments $100000.00

Contract total $347442.00

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? 2700/T700083/T7946687

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) This is a work order for an established Alternative Delivery GEC

Evaluator Name Peter Davich

Evaluator Email Address Peter.a.davich@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The longest delay in the project (roughly 1 year) was due to the departure of the original MnDOT project manager and extended vacancy of the position. Once the project was back up to speed, there was a heavy period of projects. Both MnDOT and PB struggled to keep the Book 2 project on schedule in the fall of 2013. When challenges arose, MnDOT chose to delay completion a couple times rather than push the product out and risk quality problems. All in all, PB kept up fairly well through the occasional schedule resets. In other circumstances, PB could have pushed the schedule more on their end, but the necessary involvement of the DBPM and other MnDOT staff did not make this a reasonable expectation.

Evaluate the contractor's quality All in all, good. The major goals of the effort were achieved, and some useful innovations were pioneered along the way i.e. the prompt text. The product has been used twice to deliver RFPs, and they have run fairly smoothly. There have been smaller issues related to individual Active voice conversations or intensions that didn’t quite work in practice, but that wasn’t unexpected. The quality was good.

Evaluate the contractor's cost PB’s estimating processes in this period needed adjustment, as several contracts needed amendments to meet the original scope and MnDOT’s expectations including this one. In retrospect, the level of effort put in was necessary and the cost was justified to deliver the desired product. The final cost was reasonable, despite the amendment. PB’s estimating processes required work (and this adjustment has since been made).

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Good. The appropriate personnel were assigned to the project, the schedule was difficult but managed as well as possible, and the quality was good. Per the below ratings there wasn’t an outstanding highlight in any particular area, but the intention of the contract was fully met.

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.): NONE

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied