Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Technosoft Corporation

SWIFT Contract Number 48580

Project Name CSAH NEEDS II

Project Number (if applicable) 122

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: MnDOT entered into an agreement with Technosoft to deliver a web-based solution for computing and distributing annual county and municipal street construction and maintenance project funding. There was a lack of IT resources available to deliver the needed solution within the timeframe State Aid needed.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 07/01/2013 - 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: $1262560

Amendments $-5000.00

Contract total $1257560

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? STATE AID

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 Holly Samshal

Evaluator Email Address holly.samshal@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Very Dissatisfied

Evaluate the contractor's quality Dissatisfied

Evaluate the contractor's cost Neutral

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Dissatisfied--

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): Several attempts were taken to get Technosoft back on-track with better timeliness and quality of deliverables (intention to terminate letters, withholding of payments for quality deliverables). These measures got Technosoft to finally deliver a substantial portion of the solution to the end-users (Data Collector) in 2013. Therefore, the State gave Technosoft a final opportunity to deliver the entire product scope and entered into a contract extension in June of 2013. Technosoft failed to deliver the final solution and the contract expired on December 31, 2013.--After the initial contract deliverables in late 2012, Technosoft continued to over-commit on deliverables and under-deliver on quality. The biggest struggle was coordinating day-to-day task direction with the vendor team that had an onshore/offshore coordinated delivery plan. Primary development and quality assurance (testing) occurred in Chennai, India, which proved to be a challenge. Even after Technosoft moved a quality lead and project lead onshore, for a period of time, the timeliness and quality of the deliverables were still poor. Technosoft’s inability to deliver quality products on-time, negatively impacted State Aid’s annual needs cycle and forced staff to support manual processes much longer than planned in the initial project scoping. Finally, to deliver the full-scope solution to State Aid, the State entered into other contracts with developers and a quality analyst, after contract 00122 ended.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied