Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

25
APPENDIX P: Project Costs and Schedule Risk Analysis Report

Transcript of Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

Page 1: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

APPENDIX P: Project Costs and Schedule Risk Analysis Report

Page 2: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

LCA CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO

NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF THE HOUMA

NAVIGATION LOCK

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR

ST. LOUIS DISTRICT, ST. LOUIS, MO Prepared for:

St. Louis District, St. Louis, MO __

Prepared by:

Paige Scott __________________

Date: __03 May 2010

________

Page 3: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1

1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 3

2. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 3

3. REPORT SCOPE ...................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Project Scope .................................................................................................... 4 3.2 USACE Risk Analysis Process .......................................................................... 4

4. METHODOLOGY/PROCESS .................................................................................... 5

4.1 Identify and Assess Risk Factors ....................................................................... 6 4.2 Quantify Risk Factor Impacts ............................................................................. 7 4.3 Analyze Cost Estimate and Schedule Contingency ........................................... 8

5. KEY ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................ 9

6. RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS ..................................................................................... 9

6.1 Risk Register ..................................................................................................... 9 6.2 Cost Risk Analysis - Cost Contingency Results ............................................... 11 6.3 Schedule Risk Analysis - Schedule Contingency Results ................................ 13 6.4 Combined Cost and Schedule Contingency Results........................................ 15

7. MAJOR FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS .................................................................... 16

8. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Work Breakdown Structure by Feature ............................................................ 6 Table 2. Studied Risk Register ....................................................................................... 8 Table 3. Cost Confidence Table .................................................................................... 10 Table 4. Schedule Confidence Table ............................................................................ 13 Table 5. Combined Confidence Table ........................................................................... 14 Table 6. Project Contingencies (Base Cost Plus Cost and Schedule Contingencies) .. 15

FIGURE

Figure 1. Cost Sensitivity Chart ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 2. Cost Confidence Curve .................................................................................. 11 Figure 3. Schedule Sensitivity Chart ............................................................................. 12 Figure 4. Schedule Confidence Curve........................................................................... 13 Figure 5. Project Confidence Curve ............................................................................. 15

Page 4: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

ii

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A Detailed Risk Register

Page 5: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report discusses the cost and schedule risk analysis (CSRA) process and results for the Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) Feasibility Study. The ARTM project is located in the vicinity of Houma. A CSRA was performed to study project elements that could have an impact on the project cost and schedule. The CSRA measures that impact with a contingency calculation outcome based on an eighty (80) percent confidence level for both cost and schedule that are measured in terms of dollars and months, respectively. The ARTM Study Area is comprised of over 500 square miles of southern Louisiana in the vicinity of Houma. The western limit of the study area is the Atchafalaya River at Morgan City in St. Mary Parish. The eastern limit of the ARTM study area is bordered by Bayou LaFourche in LaFourche Parish. A large extent of the study area lies in Terrebonne Parish adjacent to and south of State Highways 182 and 24. The ARTM project is one of the Louisiana Costal Authority (LCA) projects, and is authorized by Title VII of the WRDA of 2007. Currently, the ARTM project is at feasibility design development phase. The ARTM diversion project involves construction of 56 structures and other water management features. There are two water diversion type structures that are at critical points in the Terrebonne Marshes. The Central Diversion Structure (CS1) which involves constructing six 10' x 10' gated box culverts on Bayou Butler under Highway 57. The Eastern Culvert #5 (EC 5) is composed of a bridge with five 83 foot spans with two 68.5 foot spans accommodating Highway 24. Associated with this bridge are five 80 foot Obermeyer gated openings, for a total flow opening width of 400 feet. The project also includes dredging, bank protection, berms, soil plugs, and other culvert structures.

• A cost and schedule risk analysis is conducted by identifying and assessing risk items for use in the risk analysis. These quantitative impacts of these risk items are then analyzed using a combination of professional judgment, empirical data, and analytical techniques. The total project cost contingency is then analyzed using the Crystal Ball software. Monte Carlo simulations are performed by applying the risk factors (quantified as probability density functions) to the appropriate estimated cost and schedule elements identified by the PDT. A PDT meeting was held at the RAY Building in St. Louis, Missouri, for the purpose of identifying and assessing risk factors. The meeting included the Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Cost Engineer, and Hydraulic Engineer/Technical Manager.

Some key project assumptions were made to complete the risk analysis. To complete the schedule analysis, it was assumed that the planning, engineering, and design phase of the project would last one year, allowing the first phase of construction to start in 2012. This assumption also affects the cost estimate escalation amount used. In the cost analysis & estimate, it was assumed that the project would be constructed under multiple contracts with a prime contractor and multiple subcontractors.

Page 6: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

ES-2

The cost and schedule risk analysis resulted in a recommended cost contingency of $51,103,261 and a schedule recommended contingency of 58 months. Those two results are combined to produce a total project contingency. The recommended total project contingency is 34%, or $68,353,130, based on the 80% confidence level. This contingency was applied to the detailed estimate for the Recommended Plan (RP) for the ARTM project.

Page 7: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-1

1. PURPOSE

This report discusses the cost and schedule risk analysis (CSRA) process and results for the Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) Feasibility Study. The ARTM project is located in the vicinity of Houma. A CSRA was performed to study project elements that could have an impact on the project cost and schedule. The CSRA measures that impact with a contingency calculation outcome based on an eighty (80) percent confidence level for both cost and schedule that are measured in terms of dollars and months, respectively.

2. BACKGROUND

The ARTM Study Area is comprised of over 500 square miles of southern Louisiana in the vicinity of Houma. The study is western limit is the Atchafalaya River at Morgan City in St. Mary Parish, eastern limit of the ARTM study area is bordered by Bayou LaFourche in LaFourche Parish. A large extent of the study area lies in Terrebonne Parish adjacent to and south of State Highways 182 and 24.

The ARTM restoration project would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Grand Bayou Basin. This will be accomplished by enlarging the connecting channel (Bayou L’Eau Bleu) to capture as much of the surplus flow (max. 2000 to 4000 cfs) that would otherwise leave the Terrebonne Basin. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures may be included. The ARTM project is one of the Louisiana Costal Authority (LCA) projects, and is authorized by Title VII of the WRDA of 2007. Currently, the ARTM project is at feasibility design development phase.

3. REPORT SCOPE

The scope of the risk analysis report is to calculate and present the cost and schedule contingencies at the 80 percent confidence level using the risk analysis processes as mandated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1150, Engineering and Design for Civil Works, ER 1110-2-1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering, and Engineer Technical Letter 1110-2-573, Construction Cost Estimating Guide for Civil Works. The report presents the contingency results for both cost and schedule risks for all project features. The study and presentation can include or exclude consideration for operation and maintenance or life cycle costs, depending upon the program or decision document intended for funding.

3.1 Project Scope

Title VII of the WRDA of 2007 authorizes the LCA program. The authority includes requirements for comprehensive coastal restoration planning, program governance, project modification investigations, a Science and Technology (S&T) program,

Page 8: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-2

restoration project construction, a program for beneficial use of dredged material, feasibility studies for restoration plans, and other program elements. In total the LCA program has authority for 25 elements falling into various categories including investigations, research, demonstrations, and construction. The ARTM diversion project involves construction of 56 structures and other water management features. There are two water diversion type structures that are at critical points in the Terrebonne Marshes. The Central Diversion Structure (CS1) which involves constructing six 10' x 10' gated box culverts on Bayou Butler under Highway 57. The Eastern Culvert #5 (EC5) is composed of a bridge with five 83 foot spans with two 68.5 foot spans accommodating Highway 24. Associated with this bridge are five 80 foot Obermeyer gated openings, for a total flow opening width of 400 feet. The project also includes dredging, bank protection, berms, soil plugs, and other culvert structures.

The report includes the project technical scope, estimates, and schedules as developed and presented by the St. Louis and New Orleans Districts. Consequently, these documents serve as the basis for the risk analysis. In general terms, the construction scope consists of the following:

• Major project features studied from the civil works work breakdown structure (CWWBS) include:

• 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES • 02 RELOCATIONS • 08 ROADS, RAILROADS, AND BRIDGES • 09 CHANNELS AND CANALS • 11 LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS • 15 FLOODWAY CONTROLS AND DIVERSION STRUCTURES • 16 BANK STABILIZATION • 18 CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION • 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN • 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • • The ARTM project is currently at a feasibility study design phase with a

Recommended Plan (RP) after considering several alternatives.

3.2 USACE Risk Analysis Process

The risk analysis process follows the USACE Headquarters requirements as well as the guidance provided by the Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise for Civil Works (Cost Engineering DX). The risk analysis process reflected within the risk analysis report uses probabilistic cost and schedule risk analysis methods within the framework of the Crystal Ball software. The risk analysis results are intended to serve several functions, one being the establishment of reasonable contingencies reflective of an 80 percent confidence level to successfully accomplish the project work within that established contingency amount. Furthermore, the scope of the report includes the identification

Page 9: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-3

and communication of important steps, logic, key assumptions, limitations, and decisions to help ensure that risk analysis results can be appropriately interpreted.

Risk analysis results are also intended to provide project leadership with contingency information for scheduling, budgeting, and project control purposes, as well as provide tools to support decision making and risk management as the project progresses through planning and implementation. To fully recognize its benefits, cost and schedule risk analyses should be considered as an ongoing process conducted concurrent to, and iteratively with, other important project processes such as scope and execution plan development, resource planning, procurement planning, cost estimating, budgeting, and scheduling.

In addition to broadly defined risk analysis standards and recommended practices, the risk analysis is performed to meet the requirements and recommendations of the following documents and sources:

• ER 1110-2-1150, Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects. • ER 1110-2-1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering. • ETL 1110-2-573, Construction Cost Estimating Guide for Civil Works. • Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Process guidance prepared by the

USACE Cost Engineering DX. • Memorandum from Major General Don T. Riley (U.S. Army Director of

Civil Works), dated July 3, 2007. • Engineering and Construction Bulletin issued by James C. Dalton, P.E.

(Chief, Engineering and Construction, Directorate of Civil Works), dated September 10, 2007.

4. METHODOLOGY/PROCESS

The ARTM Team consists of a Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Hydraulic Engineer, Structural Engineer, Cost Engineer, Hydraulic Modeler, Planning and Policy member, Environmental members, Real Estate, HTRW members, project managers, and oversight team members. Team members who took part in the risk analysis process include the Project Manager, Real Estate, Environmental member, Cost Engineer, and Hydraulic Engineer/Technical Manager. The ARTM study started in January 2009 and will conclude in December of 2010.

The MCASES detailed cost estimate and the construction schedule have successfully passed an Agency Technical Review (ATR). As such, the risk analysis outcome is based upon an approved product and has passed an ATR.

The risk analysis process for this study is intended to determine the probability of various cost outcomes and quantify the required contingency needed in the cost estimate to achieve any desired level of cost confidence. A parallel process is also used to determine the probability of various project schedule duration outcomes and quantify the required schedule contingency (float) needed in the schedule to achieve any desired level of schedule confidence.

Page 10: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-4

In simple terms, contingency is an amount added to an estimate (cost or schedule) to allow for items, conditions, or events for which the occurrence or impact is uncertain and that experience suggests will likely result in additional costs being incurred or additional time being required. The amount of contingency included in project control plans depends, at least in part, on the project leadership’s willingness to accept risk of project overruns. The less risk that project leadership is willing to accept the more contingency should be applied in the project control plans. The risk of overrun is expressed, in a probabilistic context, using confidence levels.

The Cost Engineering DX guidance for cost and schedule risk analysis generally focuses on the 80-percent level of confidence (P80) for cost contingency calculation. It should be noted that use of P80 as a decision criteria is a risk adverse approach (whereas the use of P50 would be a risk neutral approach, and use of levels less than 50 percent would be risk seeking). Thus, a P80 confidence level results in greater contingency as compared to a P50 confidence level.

The risk analysis process uses Monte Carlo techniques to determine probabilities and contingency. The Monte Carlo techniques are facilitated computationally by a commercially available risk analysis software package (Crystal Ball) that is an add-in to Microsoft Excel. Cost estimates are packaged into an Excel format and used directly for cost risk analysis purposes. Because Crystal Ball is an Excel add-in, the schedules for each option are recreated in an Excel format from their native format. The level of detail recreated in the Excel-format schedule is sufficient for risk analysis purposes that reflect the established risk register, but generally less than that of the native format.

The primary steps, in functional terms, of the risk analysis process are described in the following subsections. The key assumptions in the ARTM risk analysis are provided in section 5. The risk analysis results are provided in section 6.

4.1 Identify and Assess Risk Factors

Identifying the risk factors via the PDT are considered a qualitative process that results in establishing a risk register that serves as the document for the further study using the Crystal Ball risk software. Risk factors are events and conditions that may influence or drive uncertainty in project performance. They may be inherent characteristics or conditions of the project or external influences, events, or conditions such as weather or economic conditions. Risk factors may have either favorable or unfavorable impacts on project cost and schedule.

Checklists or historical databases of common risk factors are sometimes used to facilitate risk factor identification. However, key risk factors are often unique to a project and not readily derivable from historical information. Therefore, input from the entire PDT is obtained using creative processes such as brainstorming or other facilitated risk assessment meetings. In practice, a combination of professional judgment from the PDT and empirical data from similar projects is desirable and is considered.

Page 11: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-5

A formal PDT meeting was held at the RAY Building in St. Louis, Missouri, for the purpose of identifying and assessing risk factors. The meeting on March 1, 2010 included the Project Manager, Real Estate, Environmental member, Cost Engineer, and Hydraulic Engineer/Technical Manager Geotechnical Engineer, Cost Engineer, and Hydraulic Engineer/Technical Manager.

The first half of the formal meeting focused on risk factor identification using brainstorming techniques and some facilitated discussions based on risk factors common to projects of similar scope and geographic location. The second half of the formal meeting focused on risk factor assessment and quantification.

Additionally, numerous calls and informal meetings were conducted throughout the risk analysis process on an as-needed basis to further facilitate risk factor identification, market analysis, and risk assessment.

4.2 Quantify Risk Factor Impacts

The quantitative impacts of risk factors on project plans are analyzed using a combination of professional judgment, empirical data, and analytical techniques. Risk factor impacts are quantified using probability distributions (density functions), because risk factors are entered into the Crystal Ball software in the form of probability density functions.

Similar to the identification and assessment process, risk factor quantification involves multiple project team disciplines and functions. However, the quantification process relies more extensively on collaboration between cost engineering, designers, and risk analysis team members with lesser inputs from other functions and disciplines.

The following is an example of the PDT quantifying risk factor impacts by using an iterative, consensus-building approach to estimate the elements of each risk factor:

• Maximum possible value for the risk factor. • Minimum possible value for the risk factor. • Most likely value (the statistical mode), if applicable. • Nature of the probability density function used to approximate risk factor

uncertainty. • Mathematical correlations between risk factors. • Affected cost estimate and schedule elements.

In this example, the risk discussions focused on the various project features as presented within the USACE Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure for cost accounting purposes. It was recognized that the various features carry differing degrees of risk as related to cost, schedule, design complexity, and design progress. The example features under study are presented in Table 1:

Page 12: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-6

Table 1. Work Breakdown Structure by Feature

01 LANDS AND DAMAGES 02 RELOCATIONS

08 ROADS, RAILROADS, AND BRIDGES

09 CHANNELS AND CANALS 11 LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS

15 FLOODWAY CONTROL & DIVERSION STRUCTURES

16 BANK STABILIZATION

18 CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION

30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN

31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

The resulting product from the PDT discussions is captured within a risk register as presented in section 6 for both cost and schedule risk concerns. Note that the risk register records the PDT’s risk concerns, discussions related to those concerns, and potential impacts to the current cost and schedule estimates. The concerns and discussions are meant to support the team’s decisions related to event likelihood, impact, and the resulting risk levels for each risk event.

4.3 Analyze Cost Estimate and Schedule Contingency

Contingency is analyzed using the Crystal Ball software, an add-in to the Microsoft Excel format of the cost estimate and schedule. Monte Carlo simulations are performed by applying the risk factors (quantified as probability density functions) to the appropriate estimated cost and schedule elements identified by the PDT. Contingencies are calculated by applying only the moderate and high level risks identified for each option (i.e., low-level risks are typically not considered, but remain within the risk register to serve historical purposes as well as support follow-on risk studies as the project and risks evolve).

For the cost estimate, the contingency is calculated as the difference between the P80 cost forecast and the base cost estimate. Each option-specific contingency is then allocated on a civil works feature level based on the dollar-weighted relative risk of each feature as quantified by Monte Carlo simulation. Standard deviation is used as the feature-specific measure of risk for contingency allocation purposes. This approach results in a relatively larger portion of all the project feature cost contingency being allocated to features with relatively higher estimated cost uncertainty.

For schedule contingency analysis, the option schedule contingency is calculated as the difference between the P80 option duration forecast and the base schedule duration.

Page 13: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-7

These contingencies are then used to calculate the time value of money impact of project delays that are included in the presentation of total cost contingency in section 6. The resulting time value of money, or added risk escalation, is then added into the contingency amount to reflect the USACE standard for presenting the “total project cost” for the fully funded project amount.

Schedule contingency is analyzed only on the basis of each option and not allocated to specific tasks. Based on Cost Engineering DX guidance, only critical path and near critical path tasks are considered to be uncertain for the purposes of contingency analysis.

5. KEY ASSUMPTIONS

To complete the schedule analysis, it was assumed that the planning, engineering, and design phase of the project would last one year, allowing the first phase of construction to start in 2012. This assumption also affects the cost estimate escalation amount used. In the cost analysis & estimate, it was assumed that the project would be constructed under multiple contracts with a prime contractor and multiple subcontractors.

The cost estimate and risk analysis have not undergone an ATR review to date. As such, the risk analysis is based on the current detailed cost estimate for the Recommended Plan.

The risk analysis studied the high and moderate impact levels for the activities listed on the risk register. The low impact level activities were not studied because of the minimal impact of the activities on the cost or schedule duration.

6. RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

The following sections discuss the risk register, cost risk analysis results, schedule risk analysis results, and the combined cost and schedule risk analysis results.

6.1 Risk Register

A risk register is a tool commonly used in project planning and risk analysis and serves as the basis for the risk studies and Crystal Ball risk models. A summary risk register that includes the risk events studied in the ARTM Risk analysis is shown in Table 2 below. The risk register reflects the results of risk factor identification and assessment, risk factor quantification, and contingency analysis. A more detailed risk register is provided in appendix A. The detailed risk register in appendix A include low level and unrated risks, as well as additional information regarding the specific nature and impacts of each risk.

Page 14: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-8

Table 2. Studied Risk Register

It is important to note that a risk register can be an effective tool for managing identified risks throughout the project life cycle. As such, it is generally recommended that risk registers be updated as the designs, cost estimates, and schedule are further refined, especially on large projects with extended schedules. Recommended uses of the risk register going forward include:

PDT Discussions Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*te a s s (Internal Risk Items are those PROJECT & PROGRAM MGMT

PPM-1 Congressional FundingThe concern is that the PED and Construction funding is

uncertain, post feasibility

The current selected plan exceeds the congressional funding authorization. Funding may be delayed as another

authorization will need to occur. Likely Marginal Moderate

PPM-4 Accelerated Feasibility ScheduleFeasibility study has been delivered on an accelerated

project schedule

Due to the accelerated schedule, a project item may have been overlooked that could impact the project cost or

schedule Likely Significant High

PPM-5 Local Agency IssuesConcern if local sponsor (state) is able to produce their

funding contributionSix LCA projects will require their funding contributions

from the state at roughly the same time Unlikely Critical Moderate

PPM-6 Priority Issues Congressional priorities may change

Completion of the LCA projects may drop down on Congress's priority list, which could delay funding to the

project or require design changes. Likely Significant HighCONTRACT ACQUISITION RISKS

CA-2 Numerous Separate ContractsThe plan has 59 elements which could be divided into

separate contracts

the cost estimate, several separate contracts could

potentially increase mob & Demob costs and affect unit prices for the project. Likely Marginal Moderate

TECHNICAL RISKS

TL-1 Feasibility Level Design Design assumptions were based on existing data

Little new data was used for design on the project. Exiting data in the project area was used for the design

assumptions Likely Marginal Moderate

TL-3 Geotech BoringsBorings were used in the geotech that were not at the exact

feature location

While some borings were located at the feature locations, others were not which could result in differing site

conditions affecting design & project scope. Likely Marginal Moderate

TL-4 Structural QuantitiesChanges in the Geotech analysis could affect the structure

foundations

If site conditions differ greatly from the borings used, piling quantities used for foundation work could increase or

decrease Likely Marginal ModerateLANDS AND DAMAGES RISKS

LD-3 Utilities The project may encounter unknown pipelines in the marsh.

The unknown pipelines will have cost impacts to the project depending on who is responsible for the cost to relocate

the pipelines. Likely Marginal ModerateREGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENT

RE-1Environmental & Water Quality Issues

Water quality issues related to salinity and impacts on oysters/fisheries.

Concerns by local commercial fishing/oyster interests could delay implementation of the project. Likely Marginal Moderate

RE-3Cultural Sites, Endangered species, & wetlands

There is potential for discovery of culturally significant sites throughout project area.

Discovery of site(s) could impact schedule by delaying construction. Likely Marginal Moderate

CONSTRUCTION RISKS

CON-1 Contract ModificationsThere may be modification issues that have not been

captured in current risksModifications could be issued for remobilizations, delays,

and quantity assumptions Likely Marginal ModerateESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE RISKS

EST-1 Berm ProductivityThe containment berm productivity could greatly affect the

estimateThe productivity assumptions can vary due to various

possibilities, affecting the schedule & estimate Unlikely Significant High

EST-2Culvert Construction Productivity

The culvert construction productivity could affect the estimate & schedule

The productivity assumptions can vary due to various possibilities, affecting the schedule & estimate Unlikely Marginal Moderate

EST-3 Dredging ProductivityDredge estimating program assumes a certain productivity

based on dredge size. Productivity may vary.The productivity assumptions can vary due to various

possibilities, affecting the schedule & estimate Unlikely Significant High

EST-4 Fuel Fuel Fluctuations can impact marine and land based costs.Fuel is a major cost driver on dredging projects and has

fluctuated greatly in the past 2 years. Likely Significant HighProgrammatic Risks (External Risk Items are

PR-1 Acts of God Severe weather may impact cost or schedule

Hurricanes or strong storms could impact construction or cause the need for rework. Milder weather conditions have been addressed with a productivity markup in the estimate. Likely Critical High

PR-2 Market ConditionsMarket conditions and competing projects may affect bid

competition & equipment availability

Currently, 6 other LCA marsh restoration projects are planned and there are a limited number of dredges

available for the marsh area. Likely Significant High

PR-3 Community Objections Public objections may delay project

The public perceives the project as having induced flooding, some features are in urban areas, and disruption

of oyster harvesting could have political implications Likely Marginal Moderate

PR-4 Stakeholders Stakeholders have differing opinions of the project size.

Some stakeholders would prefer a larger project and some stakeholders would prefer a smaller project. Objections to

the project size could cause a delay Likely Marginal Moderate

Project Cost

ConcernsRisk No. Risk/Opportunity Event

Page 15: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-9

• Documenting risk mitigation strategies being pursued in response to the identified risks and their assessment in terms of probability and impact.

• Providing project sponsors, stakeholders, and leadership/management with a documented framework from which risk status can be reported in the context of project controls.

• Communicating risk management issues. • Providing a mechanism for eliciting risk analysis feedback and project

control input. • Identifying risk transfer, elimination, or mitigation actions required for

implementation of risk management plans.

In simple terms, a correlation is a dependency that exists between two risks and may be direct or indirect. An indirect correlation is one in which large values of one risk are associated with small values of the other. Indirect correlations have correlation coefficients between 0 and -1. A direct correlation is one in which large values of one risk are associated with large values of the other. Direct correlations have correlation coefficients between 0 and 1.

Correlations are important to understand the logic used in the risk analyses. The mathematical correlations used in the Monte Carlo simulations are as follows:

• Present any risk event correlations, addressing their relationships. • Present the final risk register or the condensed version. At a minimum

include those risk events studied (an appendix can include the complete risk register):

• Risk event identifying number. • Risk or opportunity event. • PDT concerns. • PDT discussions. • Project cost likelihood, impact, and risk level. • Project schedule likelihood, impact, and risk level,

6.2 Cost Risk Analysis - Cost Contingency Results

A cost risk analysis was conducted on the twenty risks on the risk register, shown in Appendix A, which had a cost impact of moderate or high. The risk was analyzed using the low, most likely, and high estimates for each risk item and the items associated variance distribution. The analysis produced a sensitivity chart of the risk items and confidence levels from 0 to 100% and the associated contingency amount.

The cost sensitivity chart is shown in Figure 1 below. The sensitivity chart shows the influence of each risk items on the resulting cost contingency. The risk items are ranked according to their importance to the cost contingency. As shown in the Cost Sensitivity Chart, the Market Conditions item had the most influence on the cost contingency. The items that had the least amount of influence on the cost contingency are:

Page 16: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-10

• Accelerated Feasibility Schedule • Geotech Borings • Dredging Productivity • Structural Quantities • Berm Productivity • Other Risk Items

Figure 1. Cost Sensitivity Chart

The cost risk analysis also produced a confidence table in ten percent increments of project confidence associated with contingency dollars. The confidence table is shown in Table 3 below. As seen in the table, all but one of the associated contingency dollar amounts is positive. The contingency dollar amounts range from just over negative $25 million to well over $99 million. The recommended cost contingency amount is $51,103,260.

Table 3. Cost Confidence Table Confidence

Level Contingency

($) 0% ($25,191,648)

10% $14,077,767 20% $21,146,527 30% $26,524,147 40% $31,197,091 50% $35,666,274 60% $40,224,992 70% $45,238,159 80% $51,103,261

Page 17: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-11

90% $58,917,830 100% $99,904,260

From the table, a confidence curve was also established that shows the relationship of percent confidence with contingencies in dollars. That curve is shown in Figure 2. As seen in the curve, the contingency amount increased sharply between confidence levels 0% and 10% as well as levels 90% to 100%. All of the other confidence levels show a steady increase in the contingency amount.

Figure 2. Cost Confidence Curve

6.3 Schedule Risk Analysis - Schedule Contingency Results

A schedule risk analysis was conducted on the twenty-one risks on the risk register, shown in Appendix A, which had a schedule impact of moderate or high. The risk was analyzed using the low, most likely, and high estimates for each risk item and the items associated variance distribution. The analysis produced a sensitivity chart of the risk items and confidence levels from 0 to 100% and the associated contingency amount.

The schedule sensitivity chart is shown in Figure 3 below. The sensitivity chart shows the influence of each risk items on the resulting schedule contingency. The risk items are ranked according to their importance to the schedule contingency. As shown in the Schedule Sensitivity Chart, the Dredging Productivity item had the most influence on the

($40,000,000)

($20,000,000)

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Con

tinge

ncy

($)

Confidence Level

Cost Confidence

Page 18: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-12

schedule contingency. The items that had the least amount of influence on the schedule contingency are:

• Accelerated Feasibility Schedule • Ancillary Owner Rights • Acts of God • Unknown Utilities • Records/inaccuracies • Local Agency Issues • Contract Modifications • Cultural Sites, Endangered Species, & Wetlands • Numerous Separate Contracts • Other items

Figure 3. Schedule Sensitivity Chart

The schedule risk analysis also produced a confidence table in ten percent increments of project confidence associated with contingency months. The confidence table is shown in Table 4 below. As seen in the table, all but one of the associated contingency month amounts are positive. The contingency month amounts range from negative

Page 19: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-13

seven months to over eight years. The recommended schedule contingency amount is 58 months.

Table 4. Schedule Confidence Table

Confidence Level

Contingency (mo)

0% (7) 10% 29 20% 35 30% 39 40% 43 50% 46 60% 50 70% 53 80% 58 90% 63

100% 100

From the table, a confidence curve was also established that shows the relationship of percent confidence with contingencies in months. That curve is shown in Figure 4. As seen in the curve, the contingency amount increased sharply between confidence levels 0% and 10% as well as levels 90% to 100%. All of the other confidence levels show a steady increase in the contingency amount.

Figure 4. Schedule Confidence Curve

(20)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Con

tinge

ncy

(mo)

Confidence Level

Schedule Confidence

Page 20: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-14

6.4 Combined Cost and Schedule Contingency Results

The cost and schedule risk analysis resulted in a recommended cost contingency of $51,103,261 and a schedule recommended contingency of 58 months. To obtain the overall project contingency, the cost risk analysis confidence table and the schedule risk analysis confidence table are combined. That combined table is shown in Table 5. To obtain the final contingency dollar amount, the schedule contingency is converted from months into dollars by using the time value of money.

Table 5. Combined Confidence Table

Confidence Level

Contingency ($)

Contingency (mo)

0% ($25,191,648) (7) 10% $14,077,767 29 20% $21,146,527 35 30% $26,524,147 39 40% $31,197,091 43 50% $35,666,274 46 60% $40,224,992 50 70% $45,238,159 53 80% $51,103,261 58 90% $58,917,830 63

100% $99,904,260 100

7. MAJOR FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS

The cost and schedule risk analysis resulted in a recommended cost contingency of $51,103,261 and a schedule recommended contingency of 58 months. Those two results are combined to produce a total project contingency. The total project contingencies for confidence levels 0 to 100% are shown below. Table 6 presents project contingencies, which include base cost plus cost and schedule contingencies. Figure 5 illustrates the total project cost risk analysis in confidence curve. The recommended total project contingency is 34%, or $68,353,130, based on the 80% confidence level. This contingency was applied to the detailed estimate for the Recommended Plan for the ARTM project.

Page 21: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-15

Table 6. Project Contingencies (Base Cost Plus Cost and Schedule Contingencies)

Confidence Level Project Cost

Contingency ($)

Contingency (%)

0% $171,000,832 ($27,273,529) -14% 10% $220,977,063 $22,702,702 11% 20% $229,830,292 $31,555,931 16% 30% $236,297,559 $38,023,198 19% 40% $242,260,148 $43,985,787 22% 50% $247,621,533 $49,347,172 25% 60% $253,369,930 $55,095,569 28% 70% $259,275,332 $61,000,971 31% 80% $266,627,491 $68,353,130 34% 90% $275,292,118 $77,017,757 39%

100% $327,920,775 $129,646,414 65%

Figure 5. Project Confidence Curve

The risk items that had the most influence on the resulting total project cost contingency were the Market Conditions and Dredging Productivity items. These items are discussed in more detail in the Mitigation Recommendations section.

The above risk analysis results are intended to provide project leadership with contingency information for scheduling, budgeting, and project control purposes, as well as to provide tools to support decision making and risk management as projects

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Estim

ated

Pro

ject

Cos

t

Confidence Level

Project Cost Risk Analysis

Page 22: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

P-16

progress through planning and implementation. These conclusions were reached by identifying and assessing risk items for use in the risk analysis. These quantitative impacts of these risk items are then analyzed using a combination of professional judgment, empirical data, and analytical techniques. The total project cost contingency is then analyzed using the Crystal Ball software. Monte Carlo simulations are performed by applying the risk factors (quantified as probability density functions) to the appropriate estimated cost and schedule elements identified by the PDT.

8. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

An important outcome of the cost and schedule risk analysis is the communication of high risk areas which have a high potential to affect the project cost and/or schedule. For the ARTM project, those risks are the Market Conditions for cost and Dredging Productivity for the schedule. These two risk items can be mitigated, reducing the risk of an increased project cost.

To mitigate the risk of the market conditions can be assessed during the planning, engineering, and design phase of the project to determine the best contract acquisition date in relation to similar scoped projects. This will enable the PDT to reduce the risks associated with the market conditions. To reduce the risk of dredging productivity, detailed productivity studies of similar sized dredges could be completed. After these studies are complete, the cost engineer will be able to more accurately calculate the dredging production rate.

Page 23: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

A-1

APPENDIX A

DETAILED RISK REGISTERS

Register is split into two parts.

Page 24: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

A-2

PDT

Dis

cuss

ions

Like

lihoo

d*Im

pact

*R

isk

Leve

l*R

ough

Ord

er

Impa

ct ($

)Li

kelih

ood*

Impa

ct*

Ris

k Le

vel*

Rou

gh O

rder

Im

pact

(mo)

Cor

rela

tion

to O

ther

(s)

PRO

JEC

T &

PR

OG

RAM

M

GM

T

PP

M-1

Con

gres

sion

al F

undi

ngTh

e co

ncer

n is

that

the

PE

D a

nd C

onst

ruct

ion

fund

ing

is

unce

rtain

, pos

t fea

sibi

lity

The

curre

nt s

elec

ted

plan

exc

eeds

the

cong

ress

iona

l fun

ding

au

thor

izat

ion.

Fun

ding

may

be

dela

yed

as a

noth

er a

utho

rizat

ion

will

need

to o

ccur

.Li

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eP

roje

ct M

anag

erP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

PP

M-2

Reg

iona

lized

Tea

mTh

e fe

asib

ility

stud

y w

as c

ompl

eted

by

a re

gion

aliz

ed te

am.

Team

mem

bers

not

from

the

New

Orle

ans

area

wer

e no

t fa

milia

r with

mar

sh re

stor

atio

n pr

ojec

ts b

efor

e th

e st

art o

f the

pr

ojec

t. T

he P

DT

is c

once

rned

pro

ject

asp

ects

may

hav

e be

en

left

out.

Unl

ikel

yM

argi

nal

Low

<1%

Unl

ikel

yM

argi

nal

Low

<1%

PP

M-3

Coo

rdin

atio

n &

C

omm

unic

atio

n D

iffic

ultie

sTh

is p

roje

ct w

as o

ne o

f the

firs

t lar

ge s

cale

regi

onal

ized

pl

anni

ng p

roje

cts.

A le

arni

ng c

urve

was

invo

lved

for a

ll PD

T m

embe

rs a

t the

sta

rt of

the

proj

ect

Unl

ikel

yM

argi

nal

Low

<1%

Unl

ikel

yM

argi

nal

Low

<1%

PP

M-4

Acc

eler

ated

Fea

sibi

lity

Sch

edul

eFe

asib

ility

stud

y ha

s be

en d

eliv

ered

on

an a

ccel

erat

ed p

roje

ct

sche

dule

Due

to th

e ac

cele

rate

d sc

hedu

le, a

pro

ject

item

may

hav

e be

en

over

look

ed th

at c

ould

impa

ct th

e pr

ojec

t cos

t or s

ched

ule

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

PP

M-5

Loca

l Age

ncy

Issu

esC

once

rn if

loca

l spo

nsor

(sta

te) i

s ab

le to

pro

duce

thei

r fun

ding

co

ntrib

utio

nS

ix L

CA

pro

ject

s w

ill re

quire

thei

r fun

ding

con

tribu

tions

from

the

stat

e at

roug

hly

the

sam

e tim

eU

nlik

ely

Crit

ical

Mod

erat

eU

nlik

ely

Crit

ical

Mod

erat

eP

roje

ct S

pons

or(s

)P

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

PP

M-6

Prio

rity

Issu

esC

ongr

essi

onal

prio

ritie

s m

ay c

hang

e

Com

plet

ion

of th

e LC

A p

roje

cts

may

dro

p do

wn

on C

ongr

ess'

s pr

iorit

y lis

t, w

hich

cou

ld d

elay

fund

ing

to th

e pr

ojec

t or r

equi

re

desi

gn c

hang

es.

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

CO

NTR

ACT

ACQ

UIS

ITIO

N

RIS

KS

CA

-1U

ndef

ined

Acq

uisi

tion

Stra

tegy

No

acqu

isiti

on s

trate

gy h

as b

een

defin

edD

ue to

the

larg

e si

ze o

f the

pro

ject

, the

PD

T fe

els

the

acqu

isiti

on s

trate

gy w

ill be

unr

estri

cted

.U

nlik

ely

Mar

gina

lLo

w<1

%U

nlik

ely

Mar

gina

lLo

w<1

%C

ontra

ctin

g

CA

-2N

umer

ous

Sep

arat

e C

ontra

cts

The

plan

has

59

elem

ents

whi

ch c

ould

be

divi

ded

into

sep

arat

e co

ntra

cts

Whi

le s

ome

sepa

rate

con

tract

s ha

ve b

een

cons

ider

ed in

the

cost

est

imat

e, s

ever

al s

epar

ate

cont

ract

s co

uld

pote

ntia

lly

incr

ease

mob

& D

emob

cos

ts a

nd a

ffect

uni

t pric

es fo

r the

pr

ojec

t.Li

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eC

ontra

ctin

gP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

TEC

HN

ICAL

RIS

KS

TL-1

Feas

ibilit

y Le

vel D

esig

nD

esig

n as

sum

ptio

ns w

ere

base

d on

exi

stin

g da

taLi

ttle

new

dat

a w

as u

sed

for d

esig

n on

the

proj

ect.

Exi

ting

data

in

the

proj

ect a

rea

was

use

d fo

r the

des

ign

assu

mpt

ions

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eLi

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Tech

nica

l Lea

dP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

TL-2

Civ

il Q

uant

ities

Qua

ntiti

es fo

r ber

m a

nd c

ulve

rt co

nstru

ctio

n co

uld

vary

The

PD

T fe

els

that

the

curre

nt q

uant

ities

will

vary

ver

y lit

tle

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

nN

eglig

ible

Mar

gina

lLo

w<1

%N

eglig

ible

Mar

gina

lLo

w<1

%G

eote

chni

cal/C

ivil

Des

ign

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

TL-3

Geo

tech

Bor

ings

Bor

ings

wer

e us

ed in

the

geot

ech

that

wer

e no

t at t

he e

xact

fe

atur

e lo

catio

n

Whi

le s

ome

borin

gs w

ere

loca

ted

at th

e fe

atur

e lo

catio

ns,

othe

rs w

ere

not w

hich

cou

ld re

sult

in d

iffer

ing

site

con

ditio

ns

affe

ctin

g de

sign

& p

roje

ct s

cope

.Li

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eTL

-4G

eote

chni

cal/C

ivil

Des

ign

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

TL-4

Stru

ctur

al Q

uant

ities

Cha

nges

in th

e G

eote

ch a

naly

sis

coul

d af

fect

the

stru

ctur

e fo

unda

tions

If si

te c

ondi

tions

diff

er g

reat

ly fr

om th

e bo

rings

use

d, p

iling

quan

titie

s us

ed fo

r fou

ndat

ion

wor

k co

uld

incr

ease

or d

ecre

ase

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eLi

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

TL-3

Stru

ctur

al D

esig

nP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

TL-5

Mec

hani

cal G

ates

Som

e of

the

gate

s ar

e ve

ry la

rge

in s

ize

as w

ell a

s on

e ga

te is

an

Obe

rmey

er A

ir B

ladd

er G

ate

Larg

e ga

tes

are

desi

gned

as

slui

ce g

ates

, but

afte

r tal

king

with

a

man

ufac

ture

r, ro

ller g

ates

wer

e pr

iced

for p

ract

ical

ity.

The

Air

Bla

dder

gat

e re

quire

s sp

ecia

l labo

r to

asse

mbl

y w

hich

may

not

be

ava

ilabl

e in

the

area

Unl

ikel

yM

argi

nal

Low

<1%

Unl

ikel

yM

argi

nal

Low

<1%

Mec

hani

cal D

esig

n

TL-6

Dre

dgin

gS

ome

pipe

runs

cou

ld b

e lo

nger

than

est

imat

ed a

nd q

uant

ities

co

uld

vary

.

The

PD

T fe

els

that

onl

y a

few

pip

elin

es m

ay b

e lo

nger

than

es

timat

ed a

nd th

at th

e qu

antit

ies

may

var

y ve

ry li

ttle

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

nU

nlik

ely

Mar

gina

lLo

w<1

%U

nlik

ely

Mar

gina

lLo

w<1

%G

eote

chni

cal/C

ivil

Des

ign

Con

cern

s

Con

trac

t Ris

ks (I

nter

nal R

isk

Item

s ar

e th

ose

that

are

gen

erat

ed, c

ause

d, o

r con

trolle

d w

ithin

the

PD

T's

sphe

re o

f inf

luen

ce.)

Proj

ect C

ost

Proj

ect S

ched

ule

Ris

k N

o.R

isk/

Opp

ortu

nity

Eve

ntVa

rianc

e D

istr

ibut

ion

Affe

cted

Pro

ject

C

ompo

nent

Res

pons

ibili

ty/P

OC

Page 25: Sample Risk Analysis Report - LCA - Louisiana Coastal Area

A-3

LAN

DS

AND

DAM

AGES

R

ISK

S

LD-1

Anc

illary

ow

ner r

ight

s

Sev

eral

pro

ject

feat

ures

are

pro

pose

d on

pro

perty

hav

ing

mul

tiple

ow

ners

or h

avin

g ow

ners

hips

/inte

rest

s lis

ted

as

unkn

own.

Con

dem

natio

n ac

tions

tend

to b

e tim

e-co

nsum

ing

Ver

y Li

kely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%V

ery

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

9R

eal E

stat

eP

roje

ct S

ched

ule

LD-2

Rec

ords

/Inac

cura

cies

Inac

cura

cies

are

ant

icip

ated

in lo

cal la

nd re

cord

s at

som

e pr

ojec

t site

sC

urat

ive

title

act

ions

tend

to b

e tim

e co

nsum

ing

Ver

y Li

kely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%V

ery

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

e6

Rea

l Est

ate

Pro

ject

Sch

edul

e

LD-3

Util

ities

The

proj

ect m

ay e

ncou

nter

unk

now

n pi

pelin

es in

the

mar

sh.

The

unkn

own

pipe

lines

will

have

cos

t im

pact

s to

the

proj

ect

depe

ndin

g on

who

is re

spon

sibl

e fo

r the

cos

t to

relo

cate

the

pipe

lines

.Li

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

e

Rea

l Est

ate

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

REG

ULA

TOR

Y AN

D

ENVI

RO

NM

ENTA

L R

ISK

S

RE

-1E

nviro

nmen

tal &

Wat

er

Qua

lity

Issu

esW

ater

qua

lity

issu

es re

late

d to

sal

inity

and

impa

cts

on

oyst

ers/

fishe

ries.

Con

cern

s by

loca

l com

mer

cial

fish

ing/

oyst

er in

tere

sts

coul

d de

lay

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

proj

ect.

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eLi

kely

Sig

nific

ant

Hig

h12

Env

ironm

enta

l Com

plia

nce

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

RE

-2A

dapt

ive

Man

agem

ent

Feat

ures

The

proj

ect i

nclu

des

seve

ral f

eatu

res

that

may

be

adap

tivel

y m

anag

ed.

Nec

essi

ty o

f ope

ratin

g st

ruct

ures

in u

nfor

esee

n m

anne

r or w

ith

unfo

rese

en fr

eque

ncy

coul

d in

crea

se c

osts

for l

ocal

spo

nsor

. Th

is c

ost r

isk

does

not

app

ly to

the

gove

rnm

ent e

stim

ate

and

ther

efor

e, w

ill no

t be

stud

ied

in th

e co

st o

r sch

edul

e m

odel

.Li

kely

Sig

nific

ant

Hig

hLi

kely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%E

nviro

nmen

tal C

ompl

ianc

eP

roje

ct C

ost

RE

-3C

ultu

ral S

ites,

End

ange

red

spec

ies,

& w

etla

nds

Ther

e is

pot

entia

l for

dis

cove

ry o

f cul

tura

lly s

igni

fican

t site

s th

roug

hout

pro

ject

are

a.D

isco

very

of s

ite(s

) cou

ld im

pact

sch

edul

e by

del

ayin

g co

nstru

ctio

n.Li

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

6E

nviro

nmen

tal C

ompl

ianc

eP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

RE

-4P

roje

ct in

a S

tate

Par

kS

ever

al fe

atur

es a

re lo

cate

d w

ithin

bou

ndar

y of

or w

ill im

pact

P

oint

e au

Chi

en W

ildlif

e M

anag

emen

t Are

a U

nfor

esee

n im

pact

s to

WM

A c

ould

del

ay p

roje

ct

impl

emen

tatio

n.U

nlik

ely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%U

nlik

ely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%E

nviro

nmen

tal C

ompl

ianc

e

RE

-5N

egat

ive

Com

mun

ity

Impa

cts

Sev

eral

feat

ures

will

requ

ire ro

ad to

be

relo

cate

d du

ring

proj

ect

cons

truct

ion

Unf

ores

een

impa

cts

to tr

affic

cou

ld d

elay

con

stru

ctio

n an

d/or

in

crea

se c

osts

.Li

kely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%Li

kely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%E

nviro

nmen

tal C

ompl

ianc

e

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

RIS

KS

CO

N-1

Con

tract

Mod

ifica

tions

Ther

e m

ay b

e m

odifi

catio

n is

sues

that

hav

e no

t bee

n ca

ptur

ed

in c

urre

nt ri

sks

Mod

ifica

tions

cou

ld b

e is

sued

for r

emob

ilizat

ions

, del

ays,

and

qu

antit

y as

sum

ptio

nsLi

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eC

onst

ruct

ion

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

CO

N-2

Site

Acc

ess

& S

tagi

ng A

reas

The

proj

ect s

ite h

as li

mite

d ac

cess

poi

nts

and

stag

in a

reas

.

The

site

acc

ess

has

been

add

ress

ed in

the

cost

est

imat

e, b

ut

coul

d af

fect

the

proj

ect s

ched

ule

by in

crea

sing

the

time

for

trans

ition

ing

equi

pmen

t. S

tagi

ng a

reas

are

als

o lim

ited

at th

e pr

ojec

t site

. S

ome

stag

ing

may

hav

e to

occ

ur b

y ba

rge,

whi

ch

has

been

add

ress

ed in

the

proj

ect e

stim

ate.

Like

lyN

eglig

ible

Low

<1%

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Con

stru

ctio

nP

roje

ct S

ched

ule

CO

N-3

Lim

ited

Ski

lled

Trae

sS

kille

d la

bor f

or c

erta

in tr

ades

may

not

be

avai

labl

e in

the

imm

edia

te p

roje

ct a

rea

The

PD

T fe

els

that

con

tract

ors

will

brin

g in

the

skille

d la

bor t

hey

need

to c

ompl

ete

the

wor

k, li

miti

ng th

e ris

k im

pact

sLi

kely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%Li

kely

Neg

ligib

leLo

w<1

%C

onst

ruct

ion

ESTI

MAT

E AN

D

SCH

EDU

LE R

ISK

S

ES

T-1

Ber

m P

rodu

ctiv

ityTh

e co

ntai

nmen

t ber

m p

rodu

ctiv

ity c

ould

gre

atly

affe

ct th

e es

timat

eTh

e pr

oduc

tivity

ass

umpt

ions

can

var

y du

e to

var

ious

po

ssib

ilitie

s, a

ffect

ing

the

sche

dule

& e

stim

ate

Unl

ikel

yS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Unl

ikel

yS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Cos

t Eng

inee

ring

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

ES

T-2

Cul

vert

Con

stru

ctio

n P

rodu

ctiv

ityTh

e cu

lver

t con

stru

ctio

n pr

oduc

tivity

cou

ld a

ffect

the

estim

ate

&

sche

dule

The

prod

uctiv

ity a

ssum

ptio

ns c

an v

ary

due

to v

ario

us

poss

ibilit

ies,

affe

ctin

g th

e sc

hedu

le &

est

imat

eU

nlik

ely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Unl

ikel

yM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eC

ost E

ngin

eerin

gP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

ES

T-3

Dre

dgin

g P

rodu

ctiv

ityD

redg

e es

timat

ing

prog

ram

ass

umes

a c

erta

in p

rodu

ctiv

ity

base

d on

dre

dge

size

. P

rodu

ctiv

ity m

ay v

ary.

The

prod

uctiv

ity a

ssum

ptio

ns c

an v

ary

due

to v

ario

us

poss

ibilit

ies,

affe

ctin

g th

e sc

hedu

le &

est

imat

eU

nlik

ely

Sig

nific

ant

Hig

hU

nlik

ely

Sig

nific

ant

Hig

hC

ost E

ngin

eerin

gP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

ES

T-4

Fuel

Fuel

Flu

ctua

tions

can

impa

ct m

arin

e an

d la

nd b

ased

cos

ts.

Fuel

is a

maj

or c

ost d

river

on

dred

ging

pro

ject

s an

d ha

s flu

ctua

ted

grea

tly in

the

past

2 y

ears

.Li

kely

Sig

nific

ant

Hig

hLi

kely

Neg

ligib

leLo

wC

ost E

ngin

eerin

gP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

PR

-1A

cts

of G

odS

ever

e w

eath

er m

ay im

pact

cos

t or s

ched

ule

Hur

rican

es o

r stro

ng s

torm

s co

uld

impa

ct c

onst

ruct

ion

or c

ause

th

e ne

ed fo

r rew

ork.

Mild

er w

eath

er c

ondi

tions

hav

e be

en

addr

esse

d w

ith a

pro

duct

ivity

mar

kup

in th

e es

timat

e.Li

kely

Crit

ical

Hig

hLi

kely

Crit

ical

Hig

hP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

PR

-2M

arke

t Con

ditio

nsM

arke

t con

ditio

ns a

nd c

ompe

ting

proj

ects

may

affe

ct b

id

com

petit

ion

& e

quip

men

t ava

ilabi

lity

Cur

rent

ly, 6

oth

er L

CA

mar

sh re

stor

atio

n pr

ojec

ts a

re p

lann

ed

and

ther

e ar

e a

limite

d nu

mbe

r of d

redg

es a

vaila

ble

for t

he

mar

sh a

rea.

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

PR

-3C

omm

unity

Obj

ectio

nsP

ublic

obj

ectio

ns m

ay d

elay

pro

ject

The

publ

ic p

erce

ives

the

proj

ect a

s ha

ving

indu

ced

flood

ing,

so

me

feat

ures

are

in u

rban

are

as, a

nd d

isru

ptio

n of

oys

ter

harv

estin

g co

uld

have

pol

itica

l im

plic

atio

nsLi

kely

Mar

gina

lM

oder

ate

Like

lyS

igni

fican

tH

igh

Pro

ject

Cos

t & S

ched

ule

PR

-4S

take

hold

ers

Sta

keho

lder

s ha

ve d

iffer

ing

opin

ions

of t

he p

roje

ct s

ize.

Som

e st

akeh

olde

rs w

ould

pre

fer a

larg

er p

roje

ct a

nd s

ome

stak

ehol

ders

wou

ld p

refe

r a s

mal

ler p

roje

ct.

Obj

ectio

ns to

the

proj

ect s

ize

coul

d ca

use

a de

lay

Like

lyM

argi

nal

Mod

erat

eLi

kely

Sig

nific

ant

Hig

hP

roje

ct C

ost &

Sch

edul

e

Prog

ram

mat

ic R

isks

(Ext

erna

l Ris

k Ite

ms

are

thos

e th

at a

re g

ener

ated

, cau

sed,

or c

ontro

lled

excl

usiv

ely

outs

ide

the

PD

T's

sphe

re o

f inf

luen

ce.)