Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Bonestroo, Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 40717

Project Name Mississippi River Trail Bikeway – Phase 2

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Corridor planning and develop sign plan for Minnesota Mississippi River Trail (MRT). MnDOT CO and Districts played large roles in the project, but did not have adequate staff available for the volume of detailed route planning, plan preparation, stakeholder involvement, and mapping associated with this 800+ mile project.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 10/04/2011 - 00:00

Original end date Tue, 07/31/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 07/31/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $312979.95

Amendments $88022.03

Contract total $401001.98

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? National Scenic Byways Federal Funds; Trunk Highwa

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 Liz Walton

Evaluator Email Address liz.walton@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness This project was a prototype statewide bike route (non-TH segments). It was amended multiple times to evolve to include additional work. It was tied closely to consultant contract 96355 (TH segments). In each case the consultant’s timeliness was average, sometimes above average.

Evaluate the contractor's quality As noted under “timeliness”, this contract was for a prototype bike route. All work was of average to above average quality. The only area where work was of below average quality was related to developing the sign plan. Stantec (originally Bonestroo) prepared 3 plan sets. The first plan set required changes to make it more readable and useful. The 2nd and 3rd sets included changes and were average to above average.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Average. This work was prototypical. Both MnDOT and the consultant learned of information/strategies that will allow for future project cost (and time) efficiencies.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Above average. Innovative, very cooperative, very good presence in public outreach, timely and clear communication with MnDOT. Overall, a very good experience and product.

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 5 - very satisfied