Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor HZ United, LLC

SWIFT Contract Number 59569

Project Name Noise Analysis – near St. Peter

Project Number (if applicable) 3240

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: To obtain a Noise Analysis – TH 22 and TH169 near St. Peter. Noise analysis, date collection, modeling and preparing a report. Polling, tallying and preparing a memo. Also to provide traffic counts for SP5211-59 and SP 4012-36.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 03/22/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 05/27/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 03/06/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) 647

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $49174.00

Amendments $0

Contract total $49174.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? TH

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 Andrew Lawver

Evaluator Email Address andrew.lawver@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contractor’s noise reports were significantly past the due dates stated in the original contract. A revised schedule was prepared, but the third noise report was delivered significantly past that revised due date.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The first noise report required significant revisions. The noise reports’ quality improved from the first report to the third report

Evaluate the contractor's cost The Contractor reported more hours than the contract allowed, but the work was within the scope of the contract, and the extra hours were not compensated.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance A key contractor employee working on the project was abruptly unavailable for the rest of the project. This caused the contractor to be late on project due dates and required more revisions in the noise reports, as other employees got ‘up to speed’ on the project and its deliverables. The contractor’s report quality improved in the second and third noise reports. The third noise report required less revision, but was delivered significant past even the revised due dates.

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 3 - neutral