Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor Mankato State University

SWIFT Contract Number 3000153699, 3000153699, 3

Project Name Salt Brine Blending to Optimize Deicing and Anti-I

Project Number (if applicable) 2829

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: This proposal presents an outline for conducting research into the field performance of salt, salt brine and alternative compounds alone and as mixtures for both deicing and anti-icing. Nearly twenty five different deicing products are currently in consideration by MnDOT, and potential benefit is offered by blends of various products.
Previous studies (MnDOT Agreement 96319) of deicer solids and liquids have shown that ice melt capacity is a substantial factor in determination of deicing and anti-icing cost effectiveness at a given temperature. However, a Phase II is needed, as other issues were reported by drivers and superintendents to strongly influence deicing and anti-icing efficiency and persistence. In particularly, factors suggested to be important include:
• Traffic level (ADT) and truck proportion;
• Weather factors including wind, sun, cloud cover and snow/ice moisture content;
• Pavement type and age;
• Deicer/anti icer particle size (droplet size) and stickiness;
• Plow cutting edge type, setup and attack angle; and,
• Application frequency.
While laboratory tests are helpful, outdoor applications to actual pavements under comparable conditions are needed to assess intuitions based on observations and anecdotal evidence.

Project Duration

Start Date Tue, 06/11/2013 - 00:00

Original end date Wed, 12/31/2014 - 00:00

Actual end date Wed, 12/31/2014 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $116444.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $116444.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? TH & Federal

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 Peters, Thomas

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

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The deliverables completed were 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 Overall performance met desired expectations. A Final Report was completed.

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