Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Stark Preservation Planning

SWIFT Contract Number B37040; 15809

Project Name Hastings Bridge Replacement

Project Number (if applicable) 95703

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The Federal Highway Administration is providing funding to State for a project to replace the Hastings Bridge (No. 5895) on TH 61 across the Mississippi River in Washington and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, and therefore State must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. State’s Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) has identified a number of properties in the area of potential effect which are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with these determinations. State’s CRU has determined that the project will have an adverse effect to the Hastings Bridge, and may have adverse effects to the East Second Street Commercial Historic District, the West Second Street Residential Historic District, the Dakota County Courthouse, the Hastings National Bank, the Dietrich Becker Wagon Shop and other historic properties. State’s CRU has requested that Contractor provide mitigation and design review services. This work is needed to advance the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act, required when there is any federal agency involvement. A Contract is needed because Mn/DOT does not have the time or expertise required to complete the project.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 12/22/2009 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 06/30/2013 - 00:00

Actual end date Sun, 12/21/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $160533.00

Amendments $0.00

Contract total $160533.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Bond Funds

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 Craig M. Johnson

Evaluator Email Address craig.johnson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness Contractor promptly responded to all requests

Evaluate the contractor's quality Excellent

Evaluate the contractor's cost Well within budget

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Contractor provided a well-done MHPR and interpretive panels, and offered very useful advice on planning and design work.

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