Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor SRF Consulting Group, Inc

SWIFT Contract Number 76285

Project Name SP2785-330 GENERAL PURPOSE LANE FROM OAKLAND AVE T

Project Number (if applicable) 03729W02

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of this contract was to have a consultant provide the water resources design for SP2785-330 because Metro Water Resources did not have the staff available to work on the design.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 03/28/2014 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 01/23/2015 - 00:00

Actual end date Fri, 02/27/2015 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $411979.76

Amendments $198298.48

Contract total $610278.24

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? Trunk Highway

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) SRF did the preliminary water resources design for SP2785-330 for MnDOT.

Evaluator Name Nicholas Olson

Evaluator Email Address nicholas.olson@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness SRF was able to respond to changes quickly. Some submittals were delayed in lieu of getting other items done first.

Evaluate the contractor's quality SRF provided a quality, detailed final plan. Some plan submittals were challenging to review due to tight delivery schedule, which resulted in some incomplete submittals and/or limited consultant QA/QC.

Evaluate the contractor's cost Several amendments needed to be approved to chase the constantly changing scope and schedule of this project. Most of the additional cost was warranted, however some costs may not have been bid accurately enough, such as the time needed for multiple plan reviews and internal QA/QC checks.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance SRF provided a quality set of plans in timely manner. They were quick to react to the changing scope and schedule of the project. They took on work at their own risk to complete the design. SRF should consider adjusting how they budget their time and resources for plan review and QA/QC in order to reduce MnDOT review time.

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