Vendor Performance Evaluation: Submission #15221

Submission information

Submission Number: 15221

Submission ID: 65685

Submission UUID: ac6b0fd6-ec37-4908-87fa-9fb8bdaed4f3

Submission URI: /form/vendor-performance-evaluation

Created: Thu, 01/19/2023 - 18:10

Completed: Thu, 01/19/2023 - 18:10

Changed: Thu, 02/09/2023 - 14:52

Remote IP address: (unknown)

Submitted by: admin

Language: English

Is draft: No

Current page: webform_submission_import

Webform: Vendor Performance Evaluation

Locked: Yes

Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Thompson Engineering Company

SWIFT Contract Number 56731

Project Name Comparison of Material Distribution Systems for Wi

Project Number (if applicable) 1531

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The goal of this project is to identify as many solid material distribution systems as possible and develop a plan for field testing them. Systems with pre-wetting capabilities should be included in the study, although equipment for slurries or directly liquid applications is not included in the scope of this project. Phase I will focus on identifying and cataloging these systems, as well as developing a testing plan. Phase II would conduct field testing, identify the most effective systems and develop a recommended specification for a material distribution system.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 12/28/2012 - 00:00

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

Actual end date Mon, 06/30/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $44960.00

Amendments $0

Contract total $44960.00

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 Tom Peters

Evaluator Email Address Tom.peters@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The deliverables completed were generally on time.

Evaluate the contractor's quality Overall quality was good.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Cost appears to be in line for the required services that were being delivered.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Satisfactory

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