Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Architectural Alliance, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 26553

Project Name Chaska / Carver County Truck Station design

Project Number (if applicable) 93395

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Contractor provided architectural and engineering design services for the MnDOT / Carver County truck station in Chaska. State agencies are required by statute to engage the services of a design consultant for projects exceeding a designated value.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 11/21/2008 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 10/31/2010 - 00:00

Actual end date Wed, 11/20/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $682650.00

Amendments $267706.00

Contract total $950356.00

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? TH, BOND

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 David Jones

Evaluator Email Address david.r.jones@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Acceptable

Evaluate the contractor's quality Sometimes above average;sometimes average;sometimes below average

Evaluate the contractor's cost High, with extenuating circumstances

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance This contract, which ran five years, provided architecture/engineering design and construction administration services for an unusually difficult and challenging building construction project. Reducing MnDOT¡¦s overall experience with this vendor to a one single digit number cannot represent the complexity of the project; the reader must refer to the comments on page four and other information included on this form.

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.): The inflexibility of the four point evaluation system above may provide a misleading impression of this contractor¡¦s performance. Please refer to page four of this document for more complete and nuanced evaluationAdditional comments to Evaluation of Architectural Alliance; Contract No. 93395
Contractor provided architectural and engineering design services for the MnDOT / Carver County truck station in Chaska. This contractor had previously designed the county¡¦s public works facility in Cologne.
Scope of work included master planning an undeveloped site for use as a maintenance facility. The property, acquired as part of the US Highway 212 project, had been previously used as a staging area for the highway constructor and as a farmstead.
This contractor was selected by the State Designer Selection Board in July 2008 to provide a full range of architectural and engineering services. Design documents were completed and the construction contract was let in December 2009. Building construction commenced in April 2010 and continued until the initial building contractor was terminated in September 2011 with the project approximately 60% complete. The bonding company assumed the role of the building contractor; majority of the construction was finished in September 2012.
This contractor performed at an average to above average level throughout the design phases. Aesthetic quality of the design is high, especially for this building type. The building design features an innovative rainwater harvesting system and its incorporation of day lighting is exemplary. Other than the exception noted below, this contractor was professional, cooperative, and easy to work with.
Performance of sub-consultants to this contractor ranged from fair to good. Poor coordination of the building automation system, failure to submit documents for plan review, and a chronic inefficiency designed into the geothermal system are marks against the mechanical engineer. Electrical engineering services were average; work of the structural and civil engineers was in the high average to above average range.
This contractor¡¦s performance during construction administration was uneven:
„¼ Termination and project re-start with a second construction team required additional effort and time; this contractor remained committed to the project for the duration.

„¼ This contractor¡¦s commitment was essential to ultimate completion of the construction project.

Note: The contract term was extended and compensation increased on more than one occasion.

„º „» This contractor satisfactorily performed all construction administration services required by the contract.

„º „» Two issues with the completed building remain unresolved: a chronic roof leak and excessive air infiltration under
certain weather conditions; it has not yet been determined if these are flaws of design or execution.

„½ During the time of the building contractor¡¦s termination and subsequent legal action against MnDOT, this contractor failed in its duty to ¡¥act as an Owner¡¦s representative¡¦ by making verbal or written statements which were in direct conflict with the Owner¡¦s interests. These statements served to undermine the Owner¡¦s position with regard its action against the building contractor; their negative effects lingered until the day of settlement.
This contract ran for the maximum duration of five years. For most of that period, this contractor performed at a high level. The result of its work is an attractive, pleasant workplace which should serve MnDOT well for several decades. Although of relatively short duration, the contractor¡¦s severe deficiency at a critical moment in the project are a cause for concern when considering this vendor for future work.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 2 - dissatisfied