CSRA RiskAnalysis Cost Sample

John Day, Nav Lock Monolith Repair
90% P&S
Option 1: with Anchor Shaft
Crystal Ball Report

Simulation started on 11/3/03 at 12:35:13
Simulation stopped on 11/3/03 at 12:35:60
Sensitiv ity Chart

Target Forecast: E36
Plans and Specs resulting Claims
31.9%
?Anchor Shafts (Construct and abandon )
27.6%
Overall Job (Bidding Climate)
9.5%
Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevatio n
9.2%
Drill Flow Breccia Consolidation Grout H
9.1%
Weather and other jobsite conditions
7.0%
Braced Excavation (incl. Contractor des i
1.4%
Modify Existing Tainter Valve #3Remove /r
1.0%
Mobilization and Demobilization
0.9%
Install T ainter Valve Shaft #3 Pre-Cast
0.8%
Concrete Demolition T V #3 Shaft (Incl. S
0.6%
Grout Monoliths 6, 8, and 27 Lock Cham be
0.4%
Load Cells and Strain Gages (incl. Wire
0.1%
Drain Line Installation (incl. Drilling
0.1%
Repair Monolith 6 Concrete Spall Area (I
0.1%
T V Weld Repair [3/8 fill]
0.1%
Repair Concrete and Cracks in elevation
0.0%
Epoxy Grout T V Shaft #3, Monoliths 8 an d
0.0%
T emp Demob & Remob
0.0%
T V Weld Repair [9/16 cjp]
0.0%
Standby for T emp Demob
0.0%
Concrete Demolition Monolith 8 and Mon ol
0.0%
T ainter Valve Wrapper
0.0%
Flow Breccia Consolidation Grouting an d
0.0%
Install Monolith 6/8 and Monolith 8/10 J
0.0%
Replace Monolith 6 uplift Pressure Instr
0.0%
Plug Rock Drain Pipe and French Drain
0.0%
Pave Embankment Dam Access Road (incl. S
0.0%
Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevatio n
0.0%
Services of Skilled Craftsmn
0.0%
Repair Monolith 27 Bulkhead Slot Concret
0.0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
Measured by Contribution to Variance
100%
Forecast: E36
Summary:
Display Range is from 6,736,607 to 9,401,632
Entire Range is from 6,251,220 to 9,933,632
After 20,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 3,637
Statistics:
Trials
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
Coeff. of Variability
Range Minimum
Range Maximum
Range Width
Mean Std. Error
Forecast: E36
20,000 Trials
Frequency Chart
126 Outliers
.021
417
.016
312.7
.010
208.5
.005
104.2
.000
0
6,736,607
7,402,863
8,069,119
8,735,376
9,401,632
Forecast: E36 (cont'd)

Contingency Analysis
$
7,032,396
Confidence
Level
Value
Contingency
0%
6,251,220
5%
7,231,566
3%
10%
7,402,887
5%
15%
7,527,590
7%
20%
7,630,292
9%
25%
7,716,363
10%
30%
7,798,895
11%
35%
7,869,458
12%
40%
7,939,069
13%
45%
8,005,411
14%
50%
8,074,771
15%
55%
8,140,537
16%
60%
8,207,003
17%
65%
8,276,751
18%
70%
8,350,223
19%
75%
8,432,349
20%
80%
8,519,636
21%
85%
8,619,660
23%
90%
8,744,227
24%
95%
8,931,577
27%
100%
9,933,632
41%
Confidence Level: 80% would mean, For a project cost of $8,519,636 using
21% contingency would have a 80% confidence level that project cost would
not exceed this amount.
Confidence Level: 80% would mean, For a project cost of $8,519,636 using
21% contingency would have a 80% confidence level that project cost would
not exceed this amount.
Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - PDT Risk Register

Project Scope
This project consists of constructing a debris boom upstream of the dam spillway and installing a temporary coffer dam around the
construction area to dewater the bridge and spillway notch construction zones for the fish passage. A prefabricated concrete bridge is planned
to extend across the notch in the spillway; and, will include a stop log water control structure and improved roadway access to the lock and
dam storage yard. The fish passage ramp and riffle structure is constructed of rock materials and will also incorporate hydraulic dredging
operations to use dredge spoil to fill voids in the large rock materials of the fishway.
This is a 100% Federal project and no lands and damage costs are included. No relocation costs were expected for this project.
Cost Impacts
For the Sample Project, any cost impact of $500K or higher should be considered at least "Significant."
Anything over $250 K should be considered at least "Marginal."
Schedule Impacts
For the Sample Project, any schedule impact of 3 months or greater should be considered at least "Significant."
Anything over 1 month should be considered at least "Marginal."
Project Cost
Risk No.
Risk/Opportunity Event
Concerns
PDT Discussions
Likelihood*
Impact*
Risk Level*
Project Schedule
Rough Order
Impact ($)
Likelihood*
Impact*
Risk Level*
Rough Order
Variance
Impact (mo) Distribution
Correlation
to Other(s)
Responsibility/POC
Affected Project
Component
Contract Risks (Internal Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled within the PDT's sphere of influence.)
PROJECT & PROGRAM
MGMT
Project Schedule in Question
This issue has had an effect on the overall performance of

Schedule developed with the assumption that sufficient
the planning and engineering, as far as schedule is
funding would be received on a timely basis. Thus far, this concerned. PDT feels that the overall project schedule is a
has not occurred.
bit optimistic.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by
Schedule
Very Likely
Significant
High
6.0 Months
Uniform
PPM-2
No Control over Staff Priorities
Emergency response and other Corps-wide priorities have

occurred that take away ability to predict and manage inhouse staff and workload.
Presents a challenge in meeting schedules and producing

design products.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by
Schedule
Very Likely
Significant
High
3.2 Months
Uniform
PPM-3
Project competing with other

projects for funding
Other priorities threaten the funding and timely receipt of

funding to complete the milestones for this project.
Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact

on costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by
Schedule
Very Likely
Significant
High
7.2 Months
PPM-4
Functional and Technical Staff

overloaded
There is an increased workload that is outpacing the

current staff level's ability to keep pace.

on costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by
Schedule
Very Likely
Significant
High
Captured by Risk
PPM-2
PPM-5
Product Development by Several

Sources/Communication
Challenges
The regional PDT includes members from other U5

Districts, as well as external agencies at the Federal and
State level.
The coordination of staff and communication presents

challenges that could impact the cost and schedule.
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
$1.1 M
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
PPM-6
Losing Staff at Critical Milestones
PDT has already experienced loss of staff, and due to

workload and competing priorities, this is likely to occur in
the future.

on costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by
Schedule
Very Likely
Significant
Likely
Significant
High
$2 M
Likely
Significant
PPM-1
Confusing and contradictory advice regarding continuously This issue presents a project management challenge in the
changing program and project requirements (i.e. Model
ability to plan, schedule, and produce, design and develop
Certification, Science Panel, Risk Assessment, ITR/ATR, documents due in some instances to indecision or lack of
EPR).
action at higher levels.
Project Manager
Project Schedule
Resource Providers
Project Schedule
Uniform
Project Manager
Project Schedule
N/A
Resource Providers
Project Schedule
1.8 Months
Triangular
Project Manager
Project Cost & Schedule
High
2.4 Months
Uniform
High
4.8 Months
Uniform
PPM-7
Timely Response to Critical

Decision
PPM-8
Internal Red Tape Causes Delays
Due to the level of scrutiny of this project, there are many

internal and stakeholder reviews of this project before it
reaches HQ.

on costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by
Schedule
Likely
Significant
High
Captured by Risk
PPM-2
N/A
PPM-9
Pressure to deliver project on an

accelerated schedule
PDT has already been under pressure to accelerate.

However, there has been insufficient funding to produce
design level products.

on costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
$1.6 M
Likely
Significant
High
1.8 Months
Uniform
The PDT feels that the structural portion will likely go out
as full and open RFP, whereas the rock portion could to go
to an 8(a) or small business.
If an 8(a) or small business was selected for the rock

portion of the work, it could significantly impact costs.
Likely
Significant
High
$2.7 M
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
3.8 Months
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
$40 K
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Not Studied
PPM-9
EST-1
Resource Providers
Project Schedule
District Management
District Management
Project Schedule
District Management
Triangular
TASB/Contracting
Contract Cost & Project

Schedule
Uniform
Geotech Lead
Contract Cost
Project Schedule
PPM-1
CONTRACT ACQUISITION
CA-1
Contract Acquisition Strategy Not

Determined
TECHNICAL
T-1
Uncertainty with Filling of Voids
This is the first time that a hydraulic dredge has been used If the technique does not perform as planned, there will be
to place material to fill voids in the rock ramp to prevent
some rework or modification necessary to complete the
seepage though the bottom of the fishway.
work.
T-2
Uncertainty with Riffle Design
There is some uncertainty with the optimal riffle design

within the fishway (straight or "U" shaped). There is a
consideration for this within the adaptive management
component of the project.
Likely
Negligible
Low
Not Studied
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
1.8 Months
Uniform
Technical Lead
T-3
Confidence in the Estimated

Quantity of Rock Required
Rock fill quantities were calculated based upon pre-flood

bathymetric surveys. The project area may have scoured
or filled during the flood.
This could affect the quantity of rock required for fill

material and lead to a change in the construction cost.
Likely
Significant
High
$2.3 M
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Not Studied
Triangular
Geotech Lead
Contract Cost
T-4
Conflicts with potential hydro-plant

and lock expansion project.
There is a potential that there will be other contracts

occurring simultaneously (hydro-plant and/or lock
expansion) that could affect the coordination and access.
Project currently assumes access to small laydown/staging area footprint. Simultaneous contracts could
impact availability and congestion.
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by Risk
PR-5
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by Risk
PR-5
N/A
Project Manager
The uncertainty regarding this design could cause

fluctuations either positive or negative.
ENVIRONMENTAL/
REGULATORY
EN-1
Historical/Cultural Site
L&D facility listed on historical sites listing. Dredge

material placement issue also could be involved as a
contingency.
Plan is currently to construct from a barge. If DMMP

required, then there could be some cultural clearance
issues. There are potential adverse effects to the L&D
facility.
Very Unlikely
Negligible
Low
Not Studied
Very Unlikely
Critical
Low
Not Studied
N/A
Environmental Lead
EN-2
Status of Permits
Floodplain work requires permitting from the States of

Illinois and Missouri.
There is a current understanding with State Authorities.

However, if they became more restrictive or changed their
minds, it could present challenges in the permit application
process.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
$66 K
Unlikely
Critical
Moderate
1.8 Months
Uniform
Environmental Lead
EN-3
Water Quality Permit
401 water quality certification will be required on this

project. State provides criteria that must be met (both
States of Illinois & Missouri).
State of Illinois is slow in issuing water quality permits.

Could significantly delay the process of obtaining the
permit. Can still begin construction while the permit is
pending.
Very Likely
Negligible
Low
Not Studied
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
3.2 Months
Uniform
Environmental Lead
Project Schedule
EN-4
Potential Endangered Species

Issue
There is a possibility that some mitigation for mussels may

be necessary on this project.
There are currently no contemplated impacts to this

project. However, relocation of mussels would be
necessary if endangered species are discovered.
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Not Studied
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Not Studied
N/A
Environmental Lead
There are no contemplated complications due to HTRW

issues under the existing footprint. However, if the
footprint changed, there could be some remediation
required.
PDT feels that if remediation is required, it would cost a

minimum of $1 M.
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Not Studied
Yes-No
Technical/Environmental
Leads
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Not Studied
Uniform
Environmental Lead
Contract Cost
EN-5
HTRW Issues
EN-6
Fishway not effective
The fishway design is based upon the best available

This type of fishway has never been constructed in the
information in the scientific literature, pre-construction
Upper Mississippi River and there is a potential that it won't monitoring studies, and the advice of experts from around
work.
the country.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Does Not Occur

at 80%
Confidence
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
$949 K
CONSTRUCTION
C-1
C-2
Challenges include keeping navigation open during

construction and minimizing impacts to the facility and the
river during construction. Nature of work includes barges,
derricks, cranes, etc. that will cause congestion and
coordination issues.
In-water Work/Cofferdam
Construction
Much of the project is contemplated to be performed from

barges. Project also requires construction of a cofferdam
and significant handling of rock.
Inefficient Contractor
There is inherent risk of getting a contractor that is not as

efficient as planned in the baseline estimate.
Could affect cost and schedule.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
$1.4 M
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
$519 K
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
$922 K
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
The plan currently assumes multiple contracts for this

acquisition.
There is the possibility for conflicts between the

contractors on this program, as well as other non-related
projects.
All materials and access is contemplated to be via river or

on the Illinois side. There is limited access to the site.
Site access issues are currently captured in the baseline

estimate.
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Not Studied
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Labor Forces from Outside Area
Marine based and bridge labor force would likely come

from outside the local area.
May increase costs due to housing and subsistence for the

labor force.
Likely
Significant
High
$1.2 M
Likely
Negligible
C-6
Material availability and delivery
There is concern regarding delivery of rock, bridge

components, etc.
Could affect costs.
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
$704 K
Likely
C-7
Differing Site Conditions
The project site has not been surveyed since the last flood
event.
There is the possibility for differing conditions due to the

effects of the last flood event.
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
$1.3 M
Likely
C-8
Contract Sequencing
PDT is not confident in the current contract phasing as

currently scheduled and contemplated.
This could have significant impact on the overall project

schedule.
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Captured by
Schedule
Local fishermen and others use the area for recreation.

Could present challenges with safety and managing the
public during throughout the project life.
Project plan currently has a fence and signage to mitigate

public loitering and interference. There is little concern of
public safety issue during construction so long as the
contractor manages and secures the project area. There
is risk that the project site will become a lingering attractive
nuisance.
Likely
Negligible
Low
Unknowns with Reviews and

Iterative Process
The PDT feels confident in the baseline estimate

preparation. However, the various review requirements
and scrutiny has an affect on the overall confidence in the
constant revisions to the baseline estimate and schedule.
Has had an impact on the overall cost and schedule

development.
Very Likely
Marginal
Estimate and Schedule Reflecting

"Most Likely" Occurrence
PDT is concerned regarding the schedule, and therefore

the validity of the baseline estimate. The effects on project
schedule are being captured by Risk Item No. PPM-1.
The uncertainty with the schedule has a significant impact Therefore, the schedule risk level was rated low in this risk
on the development of the estimate.
item.
Likely
Significant
C-3
C-4
C-5
Conflicts with Other Contracts
Site access/restrictions
Triangular
Cost
Engineering/Construction

Schedule
2.5 Months
Triangular
Cost

Schedule
1.8 Months
Triangular
Construction

Schedule

Schedule
1.8 Months
PR-5
Not Studied
N/A
Cost
Low
Not Studied
Triangular
Cost Engineering
Contract Cost
Significant
High
Captured by Cost
Risk Study
Triangular
Cost Engineering
Contract Cost
Negligible
Low
Not Studied
Uniform
Construction
Contract Cost
Likely
Significant
High
2.7 Months
Triangular
Contracting
Project Schedule
Not Studied
Likely
Negligible
Low
Not Studied
N/A
Real Estate
Moderate
Captured by Risk
PPM-7
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
3.2 Months
Uniform
Project Manager
Project Schedule
High
$961 K
Likely
Negligible
Low
Not Studied
Triangular
Cost Engineering
Contract Cost
REAL ESTATE
RE-1
Vagrancy and Loitering Issues
COST ESTIMATING/
ENGINEERING
EST-1
EST-2
PPM-7
Programmatic Risks (External Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled exclusively outside the PDT's sphere of influence.)
This area is prone to regular flooding. There is a risk of a
major flood in this area during the project timeframe. This
could affect the rock placement, as well as capturing
quantities adequately before construction.
There is a risk of flooding during construction. Contractor

will have to prepare for 10-year flood event. This could
cause dewatering delays and minor rework. However, a
significant flood event (greater than 10-year), it could
impact the project costs and schedule.
PR-1
Flooding
Likely
Significant
High
$3.7 M
Likely
Significant
High
3.2 Months
Uniform
PR-2
Market Conditions (saturated

construction market)
There are currently several competing projects that may

draw contractors away from this project and onto others,
limiting the field of prospective bidders.
There are other contemplated major projects happening

potentially simultaneously. This could significantly affect
costs.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
$947 K
Unlikely
Marginal
Low
Not Studied
Triangular
Cost Engineering
Contract Cost
PR-3
Adequacy of project funding

(incremental)
In the past, this has been a concern in obtaining funds on

a timely basis or in the expected increments. Receiving
less increment or delayed increment is a concern.
Could significantly impact cost and schedule.
Very Likely
Significant
High
Captured by
Schedule
Very Likely
Significant
High
3.3 Months
Triangular
Project Manager
Project Schedule
PR-4
Political Factors Change at

Federal, State, or Local Level
There is a concern that the rise in costs could price the

project out of the ecosystem restoration business line's
ability to execute.
If this concern became reality, the project would not occur.

This item likely will not be studied in the analysis, as if it
occurs, the project will not occur.
Likely
Significant
High
Occurrence
would prevent
the project
Likely
Significant
High
Occurrence
would prevent
the project
N/A
Project Manager
PR-5
Hydropower
Hydropower development is being considered in the

spillway which may change the flow patterns that attract
fish to the fishway entrance.
Fewer fish will use the fishway for migration if they can't
find the entrance. Entrainment mortality from hydropower
generation would negatively affect fish populations.
Likely
Significant
High
Occurrence
would prevent
the project
Likely
Significant
High
Occurrence
would prevent
the project
N/A
Project Manager
PR-6
Stakeholders choose cost or time

over quality
Stakeholders could choose to strip the adaptive

If this concern became reality, the project would not occur.
management component, or change certain features such
This item likely will not be studied in the analysis, as if it
that project assumptions are no longer valid.
occurs, the project will not occur.
Likely
Significant
High
Occurrence
would prevent
the project
Likely
Significant
High
Occurrence
would prevent
the project
N/A
Project Manager
C-3
*Likelihood, Impact, and Risk Level to be verified through market research and analysis (conducted by cost engineer).
1. Risk/Opportunity identified with reference to the Risk Identification Checklist and through deliberation and study of the PDT.
2. Discussions and Concerns elaborates on Risk/Opportunity Events and includes any assumptions or findings (should contain information pertinent to eventual study and analysis of event's impact to project).
3. Likelihood is a measure of the probability of the event occurring -- Very Unlikely, Unlikely, Moderately Likely, Likely, Very Likely. The likelihood of the event will be the same for both Cost and Schedule, regardless of impact.
4. Impact is a measure of the event's effect on project objectives with relation to scope, cost, and/or schedule -- Negligible, Marginal, Significant, Critical, or Crisis. Impacts on Project Cost may vary in severity from impacts on Project Schedule.
5. Risk Level is the resultant of Likelihood and Impact Low, Moderate, or High. Refer to the matrix located at top of page.
6. Variance Distribution refers to the behavior of the individual risk item with respect to its potential effects on Project Cost and Schedule. For example, an item with clearly defined parameters and a solid most likely scenario would probably follow a triangular or normal distribution. A risk item for which the PDT has little data or probability
of modeling with respect to effects on cost or schedule (i.e. "anyone's guess") would probably follow a uniform or discrete uniform distribution.
7. The responsibility or POC is the entity responsible as the Subject Matter Expert (SME) for action, monitoring, or information on the PDT for the identified risk or opportunity.
8. Correlation recognizes those risk events that may be related to one another. Care should be given to ensure the risks are handled correctly without a "double counting."
9. Affected Project Component identifies the specific item of the project to which the risk directly or strongly correlates.
10. Project Implications identifies whether or not the risk item affects project cost, project schedule, or both. The PDT is responsible for conducting studies for both Project Cost and for Project Schedule.
11. Results of the risk identification process are studied and further developed by the Cost Engineer, then analyzed through the Monte Carlo Analysis Method for Cost (Contingency) and Schedule (Escalation) Growth.
Project Scope
Contingency on Base Estimate
Baseline Estimate Cost (Most Likely) ->
Baseline Estimate Cost Contingency Amount ->
Baseline Estimate Construction Cost (80% Confidence) ->
This project consists of constructing a debris boom upstream of the dam

spillway and installing a temporary coffer dam around the construction area
to dewater the bridge and spillway notch construction zones for the fish
passage. A prefabricated concrete bridge is planned to extend across the
notch in the spillway; and, will include a stop log water control structure and
improved roadway access to the lock and dam storage yard. The fish
passage ramp and riffle structure is constructed of rock materials and will
also incorporate hydraulic dredging operations to use dredge spoil to fill
voids in the large rock materials of the fishway.
80% Confidence Project Cost

$40,014,944
$13,741,700
$53,756,644
Contingency on Schedule
80% Confidence Project Schedule
Project Schedule Duration (Most Likely) ->
46.0 Months
Schedule Contingency Duration ->
29.3 Months
Project Schedule Duration (80% Confidence) ->
75.3 Months
Project Schedule Contingency Amount (80% Confidence) ->
$2,111,954
This is a 100% Federal project and no lands and damage costs are included.
No relocation costs were expected for this project.
Project Contingency
Project Contingency Amount (80% Confidence) ->
Project Contingency Percentage (80% Confidence) ->
80% Confidence Project Cost

$15,853,654
40%
Project Cost (80% Confidence) ->
$55,868,598
- PROJECT CONTINGENCY DEVELOPMENT -
Contingency
$35,833,239
-10.45%
###
5%
$44,839,308
12.06%
###
$46,442,558
16.06%
###
15%
$47,497,895
18.70%
###80,000,000
20%
$48,400,180
20.96%
25%
$49,132,023
22.78%
###
###70,000,000
30%
$49,744,595
24.32%
35%
$50,360,782
25.85%
40%
$50,988,057
27.42%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
$51,575,622
$52,151,692
$52,737,247
$53,286,037
$53,856,537
$54,462,516
$55,094,405
$55,868,598
$56,665,502
$57,672,460
$59,268,192
$67,240,463
28.89%
30.33%
31.79%
33.17%
34.59%
36.11%
37.68%
39.62%
41.61%
44.13%
48.12%
68.04%
Cost
###50,000,000
###
###40,000,000
###
###30,000,000
###
###20,000,000
###
###10,000,000
###
###
0
###
###
Baseline Cost at 80%

Confidence Le vel
Corres ponding Contingency

Am ount
###
60,000,000
###
95%
90%
Confidence Levels
100%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
5%
"M os t Likely"
Baseline Cos t
15%
Value
0%
10%
0%
Confidence Level
BASELINE COST WITH CONTINGENCY DEVELOPMENT
$40,014,944
10%
Most Likely
Cost Estimate
- BASELINE ESTIMATE CONTINGENCY DEVELOPMENT -
###
###
###
###
###80,000,000
###
###
###60,000,000
###
###
###
###40,000,000
###
###
###
###20,000,000
Bas eline Estim ate Cos t

at 80% Confide nce Level
Corresponding Contingency
Am ount
"M ost Lik ely"

Bas eline Cost
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
100%
Confide nce Levels
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
0
15%
###
###
###
###
###
5%
Contingency
-9.01%
10.72%
14.19%
16.46%
18.41%
19.96%
21.25%
22.57%
23.92%
25.18%
26.41%
27.66%
28.81%
30.01%
31.31%
32.67%
34.34%
36.02%
38.20%
41.62%
58.85%
0%
Value
$36,408,945
$44,302,729
$45,692,598
$46,603,024
$47,383,181
$48,001,018
$48,517,176
$49,044,633
$49,586,489
$50,090,006
$50,584,341
$51,083,142
$51,542,773
$52,025,214
$52,543,790
$53,088,118
$53,756,644
$54,430,091
$55,298,936
$56,667,978
$63,563,297
10%
Confidence Level
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
BASELINE ESTIMATE CONTINGENCY DEVELOPMENT (Does not Include Escalation)
$40,014,944
Cost
Most Likely
Cost Estimate
- SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY (DURATION) DEVELOPMENT -
46.0 Months
Schedule Contingency (Duration) Analysis
Contingency
52.1 Months
13.25%
64
55.3 Months
20.08%
64
15%
57.4 Months
24.72%
64
20%
59.2 Months
28.62%
25%
60.9 Months
32.27%
64120
64
30%
62.3 Months
35.36%
35%
63.6 Months
38.20%
64100
64
40%
64.9 Months
40.94%
64
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
66.1 Months
67.3 Months
68.6 Months
69.9 Months
71.2 Months
72.5 Months
73.8 Months
75.3 Months
77.1 Months
79.2 Months
82.5 Months
98.4 Months
43.63%
46.24%
49.02%
51.87%
54.69%
57.49%
60.29%
63.68%
67.63%
72.05%
79.31%
113.78%
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
Project Duration at 80%

Confidence Level
Corre sponding V ariance

Duration
80
60
40
Current Proje ct
Duration
20
95%
100%
100%
90%
95%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
0
35%
Duration
5%
10%
30%
64
25%
-22.36%
20%
35.7 Months
15%
0%
5%
Value
10%
Confidence Level
0%
Most Likely
Cost Estimate
Confidence Levels
- SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY (AMOUNT) DEVELOPMENT -
Schedule Contingency (Amount) Analysis
$40,014,944
Contingency
0%
$(575,707)
-1.44%
###
5%
$536,579
1.34%
###
10%
$749,960
1.87%
###
15%
$894,871
2.24%
20%
$1,016,999
2.54%
###
###$50,000,000
25%
$1,131,005
2.83%
30%
$1,227,419
3.07%
35%
$1,316,148
3.29%
40%
$1,401,568
3.50%
45%
$1,485,617
3.71%
50%
$1,567,351
3.92%
55%
$1,654,105
4.13%
60%
$1,743,263
4.36%
65%
$1,831,324
4.58%
70%
$1,918,726
4.80%
75%
###
$48,000,000
###
###$46,000,000
Baseline Cost Plus Sche dule

Contingency at 80% Confide nce
Level
Corres ponding Schedule

Contingency
Am ount
Cost
###
$44,000,000
###
###$42,000,000
###$40,000,000
###
###$38,000,000
###$36,000,000
###
$34,000,000
###
Confidence Levels
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
###
65%
9.19%
60%
6.50%
$3,677,165
55%
$2,600,213
100%
"M ost Lik ely"

Bas eline Cost
50%
95%
###$32,000,000
###
$30,000,000
###
45%
5.93%
40%
$2,373,524
35%
90%
30%
5.59%
25%
5.28%
20%
5.01%
$2,111,954
$2,235,411
15%
$2,006,287
80%
85%
10%
Value
5%
Confidence Level
0%
Most Likely
Cost Estimate
Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Cost Risk Analysis
Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Cost Risk Analysis Model

Crystal Ball Simulation
Expected Values ($$$)
Project Cost
Risk No.
Risk/Opportunity Event
Discussion and Concerns
Likelihood*
Impact*
Risk Level*
Variance
Distribution
Correlation
to Other(s)
Low
Most Likely
Crystal Ball Simulation

Expected Values (%s)
High
Low
Most Likely
High
-2.5%
0.0%
5.8%
0.0%
0.0%
6.2%
Internal Risks (Internal Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled within the PDT's sphere of influence.)
PROJECT & PROGRAM MGMT
This issue has had an effect on the
Schedule developed with the overall performance of the planning
assumption that sufficient
and engineering, as far as schedule
funding would be received on a
is concerned. PDT feels that the
timely basis. Thus far, this has
overall project schedule is a bit
not occurred.
optimistic.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Removed from Cost Risk Study This item is captured by the

Schedule Analysis
Emergency response and

other Corps-wide priorities
have occurred that take away
ability to predict and manage
in-house staff and workload.
Presents a challenge in meeting

schedules and producing design
products.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate

Schedule Analysis
Other priorities threaten the

funding and timely receipt of
funding to complete the
milestones for this project.
Has a significant impact on

schedule, and marginal impact on
costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate

Schedule Analysis
There is an increased
workload that is outpacing the
current staff level's ability to
keep pace.

costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate

Schedule Analysis

Sources/Communication
Challenges
The regional PDT includes

members from other U5
Districts, as well as external
agencies at the Federal and
State level.
The coordination of staff and

communication presents challenges
that could impact the cost and
schedule.
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
PDT has already experienced

loss of staff, and due to
workload and competing
priorities, this is likely to occur
in the future.

costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
PPM-7
Timely Response to Critical

Decision
Confusing and contradictory

advice regarding continuously
changing program and project
requirements (i.e. Model
Certification, Science Panel,
Risk Assessment, ITR/ATR,
EPR).
This issue presents a project

management challenge in the ability
to plan, schedule, and produce,
design and develop documents due
in some instances to indecision or
lack of action at higher levels .
Likely
Significant
High
PPM-8
Due to the level of scrutiny of

this project, there are many
internal and stakeholder
reviews of this project before it
reaches HQ.

costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
PPM-9
Pressure to deliver project on an

accelerated schedule
PDT has already been under

pressure to accelerate.
However, there has been
insufficient funding to produce
design level products.

costs.
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Uniform
$0
$0
$2,000,747
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
The PDT feels that the

structural portion will likely go
out as full and open RFP,
whereas the rock portion could
to go to an 8(a) or small
business.
If an 8(a) or small business was

selected for the rock portion of the
work, it could significantly impact
costs.
Likely
Significant
High
Triangular
($2,403,729)
$0
$5,835,042
-6.0%
0.0%
14.6%
This is the first time that a

hydraulic dredge has been
used to place material to fill
voids in the rock ramp to
prevent seepage though the
bottom of the fishway.
If the technique does not perform as

planned, there will be some rework
or modification necessary to
complete the work.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Uniform
($47,228)
$0
$61,602
-0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
Triangular
($2,451,874)
$0
$4,903,748
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
PPM-1
PPM-2
PPM-3
PPM-4
PPM-5
PPM-6
Project competing with other

projects for funding
Functional and Technical Staff

overloaded
Triangular
($1,003,749)
$0
$2,333,653

Schedule Analysis
Moderate
Uniform
EST-1
$0
$0
$2,476,886
Removed from Cost Risk Study This item is captured by Risk PPM7
CONTRACT ACQUISITION
CA-1
Contract Acquisition Strategy Not

Determined
TECHNICAL
T-1
T-3
Confidence in the Estimated

Quantity of Rock Required
T-4
Conflicts with potential hydro-plant

and lock expansion project.
Rock fill quantities were

calculated based upon preflood bathymetric surveys. The This could affect the quantity of rock
project area may have scoured required for fill material and lead to a
or filled during the flood.
change in the construction cost.
Likely
Significant
High
There is a potential that there

will be other contracts
occurring simultaneously
(hydro-plant and/or lock
expansion) that could affect
the coordination and access.
Project currently assumes access to

small lay-down/staging area
footprint. Simultaneous contracts
could impact availability and
congestion.
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Floodplain work requires

permitting from the States of
Illinois and Missouri.
There is a current understanding

with State Authorities. However, if
they became more restrictive or
changed their minds, it could present
challenges in the permit application
process.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Removed from Risk Study - This

item is captured by PR-5
ENVIRONMENTAL/REGULATORY
EN-2
Status of Permits
Uniform
HTRW Issues
There are no contemplated

complications due to HTRW
issues under the existing
footprint. However, if the
PDT feels that if remediation is
footprint changed, there could required, it would cost a minimum of
be some remediation required.
$1 M.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
The fishway design is based upon

This type of fishway has never the best available information in the
been constructed in the Upper scientific literature, pre-construction
Mississippi River and there is a monitoring studies, and the advice of
potential that it won't work.
experts from around the country
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Uniform
C-1
In-water Work/Cofferdam
Construction
Challenges include keeping

Much of the project is
navigation open during construction
contemplated to be performed and minimizing impacts to the facility
from barges. Project also
and the river during construction.
requires construction of a
Nature of work includes barges,
cofferdam and significant
derricks, cranes, etc. that will cause
handling of rock.
congestion and coordination issues.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
C-2
There is inherent risk of getting

a contractor that is not as
efficient as planned in the
baseline estimate.
Could affect cost and schedule.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
C-3
The plan currently assumes

multiple contracts for this
acquisition.
There is the possibility for conflicts

between the contractors on this
program, as well as other nonrelated projects.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Triangular
C-5
Marine based and bridge labor

force would likely come from
outside the local area.
May increase costs due to housing

and subsistence for the labor force.
Likely
Significant
High
There is concern regarding

delivery of rock, bridge
components, etc.
Could affect costs.
Likely
Marginal
The project site has not been

surveyed since the last flood
event.
There is the possibility for differing

conditions due to the effects of the
last flood event.
Likely
PDT is not confident in the

current contract phasing as
currently scheduled and
contemplated.
This could have significant impact

on the overall project schedule.
The PDT feels confident in the

baseline estimate preparation.
However, the various review
requirements and scrutiny has
an affect on the overall
confidence in the constant
revisions to the baseline
estimate and schedule.
Has had an impact on the overall

cost and schedule development.
EN-5
EN-6
$0
$0
$82,286
Removed from Final Cost Risk

Study - At a probability of 15%, this
event does not occur at the 80%
confidence level.
$0
$0
$1,200,448
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
Triangular
($855,703)
$0
$1,996,641
-2.1%
0.0%
5.0%
Triangular
($1,633,615)
$0
$3,171,136
-4.1%
0.0%
7.9%
$0
$0
$945,777
0.0%
0.0%
2.4%
Triangular
$0
$0
$2,131,366
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
Moderate
Triangular
($486,721)
$0
$1,460,163
-1.2%
0.0%
3.6%
Marginal
Moderate
Uniform
$0
$0
$1,630,778
0.0%
0.0%
4.1%
Likely
Marginal
Moderate
Very Likely
Marginal
Moderate
CONSTRUCTION
C-6
C-7
C-8
Contract Sequencing
PR-5

Schedule Analysis
COST ESTIMATING/ENGINEERING
EST-1
Unknowns with Reviews and

Iterative Process
PPM-7
Removed from Risk Study - This

item is captured by PPM-7
Percentages are calculated as the

variance from the assumption value to
facilitate iteration of the model should
the cost values change throughout the
project phases. Uniform distribution
percentages reflect variation from the
total project cost.
EST-2
Estimate and Schedule Reflecting

"Most Likely" Occurrence
The uncertainty with the

schedule has a significant
impact on the development of
the estimate.
PDT is concerned regarding the

schedule, and therefore the validity
of the baseline estimate. The effects
on project schedule are being
captured by Risk Item No. PPM-1.
Therefore, the schedule risk level
was rated low in this risk item.
Likely
Significant
High
Triangular
($759,957)
$0
$2,000,747
-1.9%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11.5%
-12.2%
0.0%
8.2%
Programmatic Risks (External Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled exclusively outside the PDT's sphere of influence.)
PR-1
Flooding
This area is prone to regular

flooding. There is a risk of a
major flood in this area during
the project timeframe. This
could affect the rock
placement, as well as
capturing quantities adequately
before construction.
PR-2
Market Conditions (saturated

construction market)
There are currently several

competing projects that may
draw contractors away from
this project and onto others,
limiting the field of prospective
bidders.
There are other contemplated major

projects happening potentially
simultaneously. This could
significantly affect costs.
Unlikely
Significant
Moderate
Adequacy of project funding

(incremental)
In the past, this has been a

concern in obtaining funds on
a timely basis or in the
expected increments.
Receiving less increment or
delayed increment is a
concern.
Could significantly impact cost and

schedule.
Very Likely
Significant
High

Schedule Analysis
Political Factors Change at

Federal, State, or Local Level
There is a concern that the rise

in costs could price the project
out of the ecosystem
restoration business line's
ability to execute.
If this concern became reality, the

project would not occur. This item
likely will not be studied in the
analysis, as if it occurs, the project
will not occur.
Likely
Significant
High
This Risk Item is not being

quantitatively studied. Occurrence
would prevent the project.
Hydropower
Hydropower development is
being considered in the
spillway which may change the
flow patterns that attract fish to
the fishway entrance.
Fewer fish will use the fishway for

migration if they can't find the
entrance. Entrainment mortality
from hydropower generation would
negatively affect fish populations.
Likely
Significant
High
Stakeholders choose cost or time

over quality
Stakeholders could choose to

strip the adaptive management
component, or change certain
features such that project
assumptions are no longer
valid.
If this concern became reality, the

project would not occur. This item
likely will not be studied in the
analysis, as if it occurs, the project
will not occur.
Likely
Significant
High
PR-3
PR-4
PR-5
PR-6
There is a risk of flooding during

construction. Contractor will have to
prepare for 10-year flood event.
This could cause dewatering delays
and minor rework. However, a
significant flood event (greater than
10-year), it could impact the project
costs
Likely
Significant
High
Uniform
$0
$0
$4,619,050
Triangular
($4,892,335)
$0
$3,261,557

C-3

Placeholder for summation of risks being studied.
$40,014,944
$40,014,944
TOTAL PROJECT
COST (BASELINE)
Percentile
Forecast values
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
$36,408,945
$44,302,729
$45,692,598
$46,603,024
$47,383,181
$48,001,018
$48,517,176
$49,044,633
$49,586,489
$50,090,006
$50,584,341
$51,083,142
$51,542,773
$52,025,214
$52,543,790
$53,088,118
$53,756,644
$54,430,091
$55,298,936
$56,667,978
$63,563,297
39920822.796
47879342.361
49755944.601
51175947.967
52391087.8
53436537.928
54404040.843
55369007.171
56296401.168
57191455.73
58057715.8
58993474.558
59931683.628
60897196.228
61940032.855
62894655.254
63994740.82
65225732.27
66720886.435
68882273.726
77260091.279
Contingency
Amount
($3,605,999)
$4,287,785
$5,677,654
$6,588,081
$7,368,237
$7,986,074
$8,502,232
$9,029,689
$9,571,545
$10,075,062
$10,569,397
$11,068,199
$11,527,829
$12,010,270
$12,528,846
$13,073,174
$13,741,700
$14,415,148
$15,283,992
$16,653,034
$23,548,354
This risk models the probability of

a 10-year flood event. At a 10%
chance per year for the 3 year
construction period, this occurs
once at the 80% confidence level.
Contingency
%
-9.01%
10.72%
14.19%
16.46%
18.41%
19.96%
21.25%
22.57%
23.92%
25.18%
26.41%
27.66%
28.81%
30.01%
31.31%
32.67%
34.34%
36.02%
38.20%
41.62%
58.85%
Not Part of Study Placeholder for Project

Summation Purposes Only
Risk Refer No.

PPM-1
Risk Event
Low
Most Likely
High
Removed from Cost Risk Study - This item is captured by

the Schedule Analysis
Risk Refer No.

PPM-2
Risk Event
Low
Most Likely
High

Risk Refer No.

PPM-3
Risk Event
Project competing with other projects for funding
Low
Most Likely
High

Risk Refer No.

PPM-4
Risk Event
Functional and Technical Staff overloaded
Low
Most Likely
High

Risk Refer No.

PPM-5
Risk Event
Sources/Communication Challenges
Low
Most Likely
High
($1,003,749)
$0
$2,333,653
$0
-$1,003,749
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
This item captures the risk of cost growth due to coordination/communication challenges,
as the products are developed by several sources.
Likely assumes no change from the baseline estimate.
Low assumes improvement of PED costs by up to 10%, and improvement of construction
costs by up to 2%.
High assumes increase in PED costs by up to 20% as well as increase to construction
costs by up to 5%.
Phase
Phase 1 Construction
Phase 1 PED
Phase 1 Total
Phase 2 PED
Phase 2 Total
Total
Difference
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$2,333,653
Low
$15,149,822
$3,072,938
$18,222,760
$16,813,435
$90,000
$16,903,435
$35,126,195
($1,003,749)
Likely
$15,459,002
$3,414,375
$18,873,377
$17,156,567
$100,000
$17,256,567
$36,129,944
$0
Product Development by Several Sources/Communication Challenges

Assumption values
($990,043)
($430,892)
($174,778)
$2,662
$181,892
$381,304
$589,304
$822,936
$1,107,446
$1,469,839
$2,305,318
High
$16,231,952
$4,097,250
$20,329,202
$18,014,395
$120,000
$18,134,395
$38,463,597
$2,333,653
Risk Refer No.

PPM-6
Risk Event
Low
Most Likely
High

Risk Refer No.

PPM-7
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Risk Event
Timely Response to Critical Decision
Low
$0
$0
Most Likely
$0
$0
High
$2,476,886
$2,476,886
This item captures the risk that responses to critical decisions may not come in a timely
manner, and could impact project costs.
Low assumes no change from the baseline estimate.
6 Month
Cumulative
Interruption
Phase 1
Phase 2
Subtotals
High assumes that additional review is required, adding the cost of another review, as well
as prolonging the project such that the PDT incurs more cost in their time spent on the
project.
Monthly
PM Costs
Design Costs (14% Phase 1/1% Contracting
Construction Cost
Duration
S&A (9%)
Review Costs Total
Burn
(0.5%)
Phase 2)
(0.5%)
$15,459,002
12
$1,288,250
$38,648
$1,082,130
$38,648
$695,655
$75,000 $1,930,080.26
$17,156,567
24
$714,857
$21,446
$42,891
$21,446
$386,023
$75,000 $546,805.58
$32,615,569
36
$2,003,107
$60,093
$1,125,022
$60,093
$1,081,678
$150,000
$2,476,886
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Timely Response to Critical Decision

Assumption values
$66
$249,534
$504,993
$752,065
$991,482
$1,234,463
$1,484,703
$1,721,234
$1,984,943
$2,232,532
$2,476,735
Risk Refer No.

PPM-8
Risk Event
Low
Most Likely
High

Risk Refer No.

PPM-9
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Risk Event
Pressure to deliver project on an accelerated schedule
Low
$0
$0
Most Likely
$0
$40,014,944
High
$2,000,747
$2,000,747
This item captures the risk that pressure to deliver the project on an accelerated schedule
has impact on costs.
High assumes that pressure to deliver on an accelerated schedule may produce
unintended consequences of construction modifications due to lesser quality products due
to the expediency in producing the planning and design deliverables. Up to 5% changes
assumed as worst case.
Pressure to deliver project on an accelerated schedule

Assumption values
$25
$185,741
$395,343
$580,883
$782,841
$987,265
$1,192,191
$1,399,331
$1,605,350
$1,801,827
$2,000,675
Risk Refer No.

CA-1
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Risk Event
Contract Acquisition Strategy Not Determined
Most Likely
$0
$0
High
$5,835,042
$5,835,042
This item captures the risk that the eventual acquisition method could add costs to the
project. Currently, Phase I is contemplated to be a full and open negotiated procurement.
Phase II could potentially go out to an 8(a) or a small business.
Low assumes cost savings due to favorable procurement effects on costs. For Phase I,
assuming it could use a "trade-off" acquisition process, it was assumed that the contract
cost could be up to 10% less. For Phase II, it was assumed that setting aside to a small
business or 8(a) could decrease the contract cost by up to 5%.
High assumes increase to contract costs due to the acquisition methods used. For Phase
I, assuming it could use a "trade-off" acquisition process, it was assumed that the contract
cost could be up to 10% higher. For Phase II, it was assumed that setting aside to a small
business or 8(a) could increase the contract cost by up to 25%.
Phase
Total
Difference
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Low
($2,403,729)
-$2,403,729
Low
$13,913,102
$16,298,738
$30,211,840
($2,403,729)
Contract Acquisition Strategy Not Determined

Assumption values
($2,366,377)
($1,035,332)
($428,371)
$28,551
$459,825
$908,662
$1,421,524
$1,996,006
$2,690,897
$3,606,742
$5,765,588
Likely
$15,459,002
$17,156,567
$32,615,569
$0
High
$17,004,902
$21,445,708
$38,450,611
$5,835,042
Risk Refer No.

T-1
Notes:
Likely
Low
Risk Event
Low
($47,228)
$576,562
Most Likely
$0
$623,790
High
$61,602
$685,392
This item captures the risk of incurring additional costs due to rework if the hydraulic
dredge placement does not perform as planned.
Low assumes that the current quantity of material to dredge (215,992 CY) is more than
actual conditions. Per the standard VEQ clause (FAR 52.211-18), up to 15% less quantity
is assumed (183,593 CY).
High
High assumes that current quantity of material to dredge is less than actual conditions.
Up to 20% is assumed (259,190 CY).
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Assumption values
($47,218)
($36,434)
($25,375)
($14,118)
($2,820)
$7,900
$18,574
$29,585
$40,196
$50,837
$61,550
Risk Refer No.

T-3
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Risk Event
Low
Most Likely
High
Confidence in the Estimated Quantity of Rock Required
($2,451,874)
$0
$4,903,748
$14,080,903
$16,532,777
$21,436,525
This item captures the risk that the Midwest flooding of 2008 could have scoured rock
from the area or deposited more, altering the actual quantity of rock required from the
baseline estimate.
Low assumes that less rock is required to be placed than anticipated. Per the standard
VEQ clause (FAR 52.211-18), up to 15% less quantity is assumed.
High assumes that more rock is required than currently estimated. Up to 30% more was
assumed as worst case.
Confidence in the Estimated Quantity of Rock Required

Assumption values
($2,418,183)
($1,112,202)
($567,968)
($132,456)
$254,280
$656,869
$1,122,864
$1,654,205
$2,264,209
$3,024,604
$4,848,533
Risk Refer No.

T-4
Risk Event
Conflicts with potential hydro-plant and lock expansion
project.
Low
Most Likely
High
Removed from Risk Study - This item is captured by PR-5
Risk Refer No.

EN-2
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Risk Event
Status of Permits
Low
$0
$0
Most Likely
$0
$0
High
$82,286
$82,286
This item captures the risk that the permit application process becomes more complicated
than anticipated.
High assumes that complications in the permitting process cause up to 4 months of labor
for 4 people for 30% of their workload ~ $82,286.
Status of Permits
Assumption values
$6
$8,077
$16,394
$24,986
$33,330
$41,652
$49,729
$57,817
$66,159
$74,098
$82,285
Risk Refer No.

EN-5
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Risk Event
HTRW Issues
Low
$0
$0
Most Likely
$0
$41,972,976
High
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
This item captures the risk that HTRW remediation may be necessary, if the project
footprint changes. Assuming that there is a 15% chance of finding HTRW contamination,
this does not occur at the 80% confidence level.
High assumes the project incurs remediation costs up to $1 Million.
0
0
Risk Refer No.

EN-6
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Risk Event
Low
$0
$0
Most Likely
$0
$40,014,944
High
$1,200,448
$1,200,448
This item captures the risk that the fishway, as designed, will not be effective since this
type of structure has never been built or tested elsewhere.
High assumes that the costs increase by up to 3% for inclusion of adaptive management
features.

Assumption values
$110
$119,318
$238,535
$359,313
$480,291
$599,291
$718,543
$835,102
$949,314
$1,073,677
$1,200,404
Risk Refer No.

C-1
Risk Event
In-water Work/Cofferdam Construction
Low
($855,703)
$39,159,241
Most Likely
$0
$40,014,944
High
$1,996,641
$42,011,585
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
This item captures the risk of cost growth due to the challenges of in-water work.
Low assumes that productivity is up to 5% improved from the baseline estimate.
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
In-water Work/Cofferdam Construction

Assumption values
($836,266)
($365,538)
($171,303)
($11,156)
$138,616
$298,023
$481,695
$681,515
$921,561
$1,239,300
$1,977,083
High assumes that productivity is reduced by up to 10% due to complications and

challenges in maintaining operation of the river in conjunction with the project.
Risk Refer No.

C-2
Risk Event
Low
($1,633,615)
$38,381,329
Most Likely
$0
$40,014,944
High
$3,171,136
$43,186,079
Notes:
Likely
Low
This item captures the risk of acquiring inefficient contractors.

High
High assumes that the eventual contractors are less efficient than currently contemplated
(up to 15% less productive).
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Assumption values
($1,598,881)
($742,894)
($382,913)
($101,928)
$152,184
$427,477
$720,520
$1,027,626
$1,418,739
$1,937,381
$3,137,999
Low assumes that the eventual contractors are more efficient than currently contemplated
(up to 10% more productive).
Risk Refer No.

C-3
Notes:
Risk Event
Low
$0
$40,014,944
Most Likely
$0
$40,014,944
High
$945,777
$40,960,721
Likely
Low
High
This item captures the risk of cost growth due to challenges in working concurrently with
other contractors on related and unrelated projects.
High assumes that conflicts with other contractors reduced productivity by up to 5%.
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Assumption values
$109
$51,138
$100,467
$157,726
$215,031
$276,373
$347,189
$424,116
$518,652
$638,453
$942,258
Risk Refer No.

C-5
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Risk Event
Low
$0
$40,014,944
Most Likely
$0
$40,014,944
High
$2,131,366
$42,146,309
This item captures the risk that labor will have to be paid a premium for working out of the
area.
High assumes that all skilled craft labor must be paid a premium for travel from outside
the area amounting to $52.50 per day for lodging ($6.56/hour) and $29.25 per day for
subsistence ($3.66/hour). Rates are 75% of the current National General GSA rates.

Assumption values
$3
$108,419
$226,038
$353,797
$491,695
$637,460
$794,065
$981,921
$1,195,155
$1,460,303
$2,114,965
Risk Refer No.

C-6
Notes:
Likely
Low
Risk Event
Low
($486,721)
$9,247,702
Most Likely
$0
$9,734,423
High
$1,460,163
$11,194,586
This item captures the risk of cost growth due to extraordinary escalation on some key
items.
Low assumes that the overall material costs are up to 5% lower than currently estimated.
High
High assumes that overall material costs are up to 15% higher than currently estimated.
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Assumption values
($479,100)
($180,025)
($49,390)
$43,106
$151,166
$263,195
$390,496
$527,826
$704,374
$928,365
$1,430,677
Risk Refer No.

C-7
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Risk Event
Low
$0
$0
Most Likely
$0
$32,615,569
High
$1,630,778
$1,630,778
This item captures the risk that flood events could have created differing underground
conditions than assumed in the baseline estimate.
High assumes that differing geotechnical conditions could generate changes up to 5% of
the overall construction cost, as currently estimated.

Assumption values
$487
$161,106
$332,061
$497,770
$657,896
$827,405
$987,265
$1,142,108
$1,308,067
$1,470,202
$1,630,686
Risk Refer No.

C-8
Risk Event
Contract Sequencing
Low
Most Likely
High

Risk Refer No.

EST-1
Risk Event
Unknowns with Reviews and Iterative Process
Low
Most Likely
High
Removed from Risk Study - This item is captured by PPM-7
Risk Refer No.

EST-2
Notes:
Likely
Low
Risk Event
Estimate and Schedule Reflecting "Most Likely"
Occurrence
Low
Most Likely
High
($759,957)
$0
$2,000,747
$39,254,987
$40,014,944
$42,015,691
This item captures the risk that uncertainty with the schedule and with the baseline
scoping documents introduced potential for variance of the baseline cost estimate.
Low assumes that scoping and scheduling issues reduce the overall costs by requiring no
overtime.
High
High assumes that scoping and scheduling issues increase the overall costs by up to 5%.
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Estimate and Schedule Reflecting "Most Likely" Occurrence

Assumption values
($747,257)
($298,410)
($109,023)
$40,324
$182,590
$343,320
$519,506
$725,984
$961,428
$1,268,961
$1,981,166
Risk Refer No.

PR-1
Notes:
Likely
Low
High
Risk Event
Flooding
Low
$0
$0
Most Likely
$0
$0
High
$4,619,050
$4,619,050
This item captures the risk that flooding, if it occurs, could cause significant
rework/damage. This risk models the probability of a 10-year flood event. At a 10%
chance per year for the 3 year construction period, this occurs once at the 80%
confidence level.
High assumes that a major flood event occurs during construction, causing rework of the
cofferdam and additional dewatering, amounting to 50% of the currently estimated
cofferdam and dewatering work.
Cofferdam
$8,666,625
$4,333,313
Dewatering
$571,475
$285,738
Total
$9,238,100
$4,619,050
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Flooding
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Flooding
Assumption values
$63
$461,482
$929,506
$1,400,774
$1,872,577
$2,331,115
$2,783,411
$3,229,459
$3,690,801
$4,138,977
$4,618,459
Assumption values
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
0
0
Risk Refer No.

PR-2
Notes:
Likely
Low
Risk Event
Market Conditions (saturated construction market)
Low
($4,892,335)
$27,723,233
Most Likely
$0
$32,615,569
High
$3,261,557
$35,877,126
This item captures the risk of cost variance due to market conditions.
Low assumes that the ultimate contract costs are up to 15% lower than currently
estimated.
High
High assumes that ultimate contract costs are up to 10% higher than currently estimated.
Assumption:
Percentile
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Market Conditions (saturated construction market)

Assumption values
($4,808,841)
($2,859,535)
($2,073,903)
($1,427,318)
($901,339)
($438,902)
($14,493)
$405,356
$947,312
$1,603,884
$3,214,161
Risk Refer No.

PR-3
Risk Event
Adequacy of project funding (incremental)
Low
Most Likely
High

Risk Refer No.

PR-5
Risk Event
Hydropower
Low
Most Likely
High
This Risk Item is not being quantitatively studied.

Occurrence would prevent the project.
Risk Analysis
John Day, LOCK MONOLITH REPAIRS

5,210,615
Model
Project Description
1 Mobilization and Demobilization
Modify Existing Tainter Valve #3Remove/replace bushing with greaseless bushing/reinstall
2 Valve
3 Install Monolith 6/8 and Monolith 8/10 Joint Grout Plug (similar to water stops)
4 ?Anchor Shafts (Construct and abandon)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Concrete Demolition TV #3 Shaft (Incl. Setting bulkheads on either side of TV, dewater
shaft and culvert (Project pumps are inadequate, extra pumping capacity will be required))
Concrete Demolition Monolith 8 and Monolith 27
Plug Rock Drain Pipe and French Drain
Repair Concrete and Cracks in elevation 263 Gallery
Replace Monolith 6 uplift Pressure Instruments
Drill Flow Breccia Consolidation Grout Holes and Rock Drain Abandonment Holes
Flow Breccia Consolidation Grouting and Rock Column Drain Grouting
Epoxy Grout TV Shaft #3, Monoliths 8 and 27 Bulkhead Slots (incl. Epoxy surface
patching, installing 6' grout tubes, and epoxy grouting)
Grout Monoliths 6, 8, and 27 Lock Chamber Cracks and Lift Lines
Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevation 170' and below
Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevation above 170'
Install Tainter Valve Shaft #3 Pre-Cast Concrete Panels (incl. Panel fabrication, drilling and
grouting dowels, and grouting behind panels)
Repair Monolith 6 Concrete Spall Area (Incl. Demo, drilling and grouting dowels,
reinforcement, new cnc.)
Repair Monolith 27 Bulkhead Slot Concrete Spalls
Braced Excavation (incl. Contractor design, excavation, dewatering, anchor block
fabrication, backfill, piezometer cable rerouting)
Load Cells and Strain Gages (incl. Wire routing in to be constructed slots in lock face, and
terminus)
Drain Line Installation (incl. Drilling from within brace excavation, open excavation behind
most of lock, MH's and weirs, drilling at D/S to terminus)
Pave Embankment Dam Access Road (incl. Subgrade prep, line stripes, Guard Rail
Replacement).
Services of Skilled Craftsmn
Temp Demob & Remob
Standby for Temp Demob
Tainter Valve Wrapper
TV Weld Repair [9/16 cjp]
TV Weld Repair [3/8 fill]
Estimate
326,430
$
136,195
$
24,104
$ 1,057,633
$ 231,531
$
25,443
$ 1,410,178
$
$
$
272,389
26,782
1,762,722
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
317,344
76,706
1,293
31,011
12,404
462,225
1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
352,604
80,743
1,361
32,643
13,057
616,300
1
$
59,493
$
221,802
$ 1,642,562
$
1
$
62,798
$ 234,125
$ 1,564,345
$
1
$
$
$
$
66,103
246,447
1,564,345
1
330,918
350,384
$
$
124,482
32,412
$
$
131,804
32,412
316,563
110,343
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Construction Project Summary
11,042,515
High
375,395
EX High
424,359
$
286,008
$
30,799
$ 1,850,858
$
$
$
340,486
36,156
2,027,130
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
405,495
92,854
1,701
48,965
19,586
770,375
2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
458,385
100,929
2,042
65,286
26,114
924,450
2
$
76,018
$
283,414
$ 1,955,431
$
2
$
$
$
$
389,315
467,178
$
$
146,449
32,412
$
$
353,806
372,427
116,473
120,329
145,446
7,601
14,598
51,054
108,113
77,180
85,000
42,500
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,024
15,409
54,057
114,120
81,720
95,000
47,500
299,713
72,669
1,225
29,379
11,751
369,780
1
Plans and Specs resulting Claims
9,269,259
Weather and other jobsite conditions

Overall Job (Bidding Climate)
7,032,396
Low
323,166
EX Low
163,215
6,198,722
(300,000) $
(100,000)
EX Low
Low%
High%
30%
-15%
5%
25%
-5%
-20%
15%
5%
35%
15%
-15%
-10%
15%
30%
-10%
-10%
-10%
-10%
-40%
-10%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-25%
-5%
15%
25%
50%
50%
25%
50%
25%
50%
100%
100%
50%
100%
89,239
332,703
2,190,083
2
-10%
-5%
15%
35%
-10%
-5%
-10%
-5%
0%
-5%
15%
25%
50%
35%
40%
100%
506,110
-15%
-10%
20%
30%
175,739
48,618
$
$
190,384
64,824
-15%
-10%
20%
30%
0%
0%
50%
100%
465,534
521,398
-15%
-5%
25%
40%
122,603
153,254
171,644
-10%
-5%
25%
40%
161,607
184,032
198,188
-15%
-10%
30%
40%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,446
16,220
60,063
120,126
90,800
100,000
50,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,980
17,842
72,076
138,145
108,960
120,000
60,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,669
18,653
78,082
150,158
118,040
130,000
65,000
-10%
-5%
30%
50%
-10%
-15%
-10%
-15%
-15%
-15%
-5%
-10%
-5%
-10%
-5%
-5%
10%
20%
15%
20%
20%
20%
15%
30%
25%
30%
30%
30%
500,000
200,000
100,000
300,000
750,000
1,000,000
7,032,396
-1%
-50%
-10%
-40%
EX High
15%
-50%
200,000
500,000
(300,000) $ (100,000) $
100,000
300,000
750,000
1,000,000

CSRA RiskAnalysis Cost Sample

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CSRA RiskAnalysis Cost Sample

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

John Day, Nav Lock Monolith Repair

Crystal Ball Report

Sensitiv ity Chart

?Anchor Shafts (Construct and abandon )

Overall Job (Bidding Climate)

Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevatio n

Drill Flow Breccia Consolidation Grout H

Weather and other jobsite conditions

Braced Excavation (incl. Contractor des i

Modify Existing Tainter Valve #3Remove /r

Mobilization and Demobilization

Install T ainter Valve Shaft #3 Pre-Cast

Concrete Demolition T V #3 Shaft (Incl. S

Grout Monoliths 6, 8, and 27 Lock Cham be

Load Cells and Strain Gages (incl. Wire

Drain Line Installation (incl. Drilling

Repair Monolith 6 Concrete Spall Area (I

T V Weld Repair [3/8 fill]

Repair Concrete and Cracks in elevation

Epoxy Grout T V Shaft #3, Monoliths 8 an d

T emp Demob & Remob

T V Weld Repair [9/16 cjp]

Standby for T emp Demob

Concrete Demolition Monolith 8 and Mon ol

T ainter Valve Wrapper

Flow Breccia Consolidation Grouting an d

Install Monolith 6/8 and Monolith 8/10 J

Replace Monolith 6 uplift Pressure Instr

Plug Rock Drain Pipe and French Drain

Pave Embankment Dam Access Road (incl. S

Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevatio n

Services of Skilled Craftsmn

Repair Monolith 27 Bulkhead Slot Concret

Measured by Contribution to Variance

Forecast: E36 (cont'd)

Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - PDT Risk Register

Project Schedule in Question

This issue has had an effect on the overall performance of

No Control over Staff Priorities

Emergency response and other Corps-wide priorities have

Presents a challenge in meeting schedules and producing

Project competing with other

Other priorities threaten the funding and timely receipt of

Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact

Functional and Technical Staff

There is an increased workload that is outpacing the

Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact

Product Development by Several

The regional PDT includes members from other U5

The coordination of staff and communication presents

Losing Staff at Critical Milestones

PDT has already experienced loss of staff, and due to

Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact

Project Cost & Schedule

Timely Response to Critical

Internal Red Tape Causes Delays

Due to the level of scrutiny of this project, there are many

Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact

Pressure to deliver project on an

PDT has already been under pressure to accelerate.

Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact

If an 8(a) or small business was selected for the rock

Project Cost & Schedule

Project Cost & Schedule