Agency Human Services Dept

Contractor Huot Construction and Services Inc.

SWIFT Contract Number 215015

Project Name REBID 3 - Water Metering House, St. Peter Regional Treatment Facility

Project Number (if applicable) 55SR0120

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: The purpose of the contract was to procure the services of a general contracting firm to aid in the construction and completion of adding a water meter for the lower campus in St. Peter to correct pressure and surging issues from being tied into the upper campus system. Included in this project was not only the installation of the water meter riser system, but also the replacement of 3 aged underground main valves, and the installation of a tempered building structure to house the water meter. Due purchasing requirements for a project of this value and the involvement of several trades, this project required the use of a general contracting firm.

Project Duration

Start Date Thu, 06/23/2022 - 00:00

Original end date Fri, 10/28/2022 - 00:00

Actual end date Tue, 10/10/2023 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? No

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $210000

Amendments $8526.20

Contract total $218526.20

Did project finish within budget? No

What was the funding source? Asset Preservation

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 Troy Williams

Evaluator Email Address troy.m.williams@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness The contract went into effect on 6/23/2022, but due to the length of time the permit plan review process took, we elected to hold off on actually starting the work until the spring of 2023 to avoid any added costs due to winter conditions. The actual start date of the work was 5/1/2023, and the substantial completion date for the contracted work items was 10/10/2023. For a contract of this size, and only consisting of some underground water main work, water main risers to the water meter, and construction for the 16x24 building underground work up to the slab, their duration for substantial completion of their contracted items took nearly 5 months when it realistically should have taken less than half that duration. The actual structure and finishes of the building were completed by the facilities physical plant staff, so once the building slab was in place, the GC's scope of work was essentially complete.

Evaluate the contractor's quality There only 2 subcontractors used on this project; underground utility/earthwork, and a concrete sub. The excavator's utility and earthwork met our standards. However, the general contractor, Huot, was never on site during any of this sub's installation or working activities. The quality issues arose specifically with the foundation, frost walls, and concrete slab performed by Huot's subcontractor, Pakman Concrete. The work was bad enough that we as the agency required the footings and walls be torn out and re-done. Photos can be delivered if required, but the footings were far from square, the walls were misaligned with the process piping, and there was no vibrating completed as evident by all the voids and honeycombing. Add to all this the fact that the rebar and anchor bolts installed were the incorrect products, lacked correct quantity, and was never even inspected by the code inspector. In fact, nobody even ever called for any inspection by the code inspector. Some of this perhaps could have been prevented with more involvement from the General Contractor, but again, they never had anyone on site while any of their subs were completing work until after we ran into issues with the quality of the concrete.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The overall cost of the project was over the original budget but was not an issue specific to the general contractor. Due to the rising inflation issues, it was approved to provide the additional funding to finally proceed with this project after being rebid for the 4th time.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance When we as the facility and agency questioned Huot about the plan details for the concrete items, their response of “I didn’t notice that” showed that they had not thoroughly reviewed and understood the set of plans, nor that they even understood some standard construction requirements such as the need for a concrete slab vapor barrier by code. Other evidence that showed us they were not prepared, lacked thoroughness, and in general lacked the capability to run this simple project was that they ended up being doubled up on a sub’s scope of work and re-completed concrete details and finishes still not fully in compliance with plans. Huot's representative admitted they did not realize they had both a mason and a concrete sub both under contract to build the frost walls (one being a masonry wall and the other being a poured wall) until the day before the work was scheduled. After we informed the General Contractor that we thought it sounded to us like they were doubled up on scope, they confirmed that was the case and proceeded to cancel the contract with their mason the day before they were scheduled to arrive on site to perform their work. Some of the engineer required plan details were still missed after the second concrete wall pour, including some missed and misplaced anchor bolts, and the lack of rebar in the stoop walls to tie into the stoop slab. These items were noted and agreed upon that they could be core drilled and epoxied into place after the fact with review and approval from the testing agency. The final concrete slab and walls were still lacking quality (evident by the uneven slab surface and thickness, and the honeycomb voids in the walls that the engineer required be knocked loose and patched) but were acceptable enough to serve as a space to house a water meter, and acceptable enough for us to agree to proceed to get to a completed project. Huot Construction was hired as a general contractor for this project but did not act as one aside from coordinating when their two subcontractors needed to come on site to complete work. This lack of project oversight cost the project significant delays, and also put a greater burden on facility staff when it came time for them to build on top of the contractor's concrete work.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? No

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): No negative action was ever officially taken with this contract, but it was discussed at one point about what our options are and what the pros and cons were of doing so.

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 1 - very dissatisfied