Guide for the Process of Managing Risk on Rapid Renewal Projects (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

238 CONTENTS Executive Summary 240 1.0 Introduction 240 1.1 Purpose and Objectives 240 1.2 Approach 241 2.0 Project Description 242 2.1 Project Summary 242 2.2 Base Project Schedule 242 2.3 Base Project Cost 242 2.4 Base Project Disruption 243 2.5 Trade-offs 243 2.6 Base Project Performance Analysis 244 3.0 Premitigation Risk Identification and Assessment 245 3.1 Assumptions and Exclusions 245 3.2 Premitigation Risk Register 245 4.0 Premitigation Risk Analysis 246 5.0 Risk Reduction Planning 247 6.0 Postmitigation Risk Analysis 247 7.0 Contingency Management 248 8.0 Recovery Planning 249 9.0 Risk Management Plan Implementation 249 10.0 Conclusions 250 Attachments Attachment 1 Project Description 250 Attachment 2 Base Project Performance 257 E RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

239 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment 3 Unmitigated Risk Register 262 Attachment 4 Unmitigated Mean-Value Project Performance 291 Attachment 5 Risk Reduction Plan 295 Attachment 6 Mitigated Mean-Value Project Performance 312 Attachment 7 Contingency 316 Attachment 8 Recovery Plans 317 Addendum X 319

240 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY QDOT is planning to reconstruct and expand segments of two existing (intersecting) highways, US-555 and SH-111, through a rapidly developing suburban area. QDOT wants to minimize cost, schedule, and disruption through construction and maximize longevity after construction. To achieve these objectives, QDOT will use design–build project delivery as well as encourage accelerated construction methods. To further improve and control ultimate project performance when innovative methods are being used, QDOT conducted formal risk management. Such risk man- agement involves appropriately anticipating and planning for potential problems (risks) as well as opportunities (negative risks), and is documented in this project risk management plan. This risk management plan consists of the following elements: • Description of the project; • Identification of current risks and assessment of their factors; • Analysis of project performance and ranking of risks in terms of their contribution to this project performance; • Identification of ways to proactively reduce significant individual risks and evalu- ation of their cost-effectiveness; • Selection, planning, and implementation of cost-effective ways to proactively reduce significant individual risks; • Establishment and management of cost and schedule contingency to cover (to a high level of confidence) remaining risks throughout the project; • Establishment and management of “recovery” plans (in case contingencies are insufficient); and • Establishment of organizational structure and resources to successfully implement the risk management plan. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Objectives The primary purpose of this risk management plan is to provide appropriate plans (and adequate justification of those plans) for improving and controlling “perfor- mance” (i.e., cost, schedule, disruption, and longevity) of the project, by focusing on controlling project risks (both individually and collectively). Quantification of the uncertainty in project performance, for example, to help establish budgets, milestones, and contingencies at QDOT-specified confidence levels, is not currently part of the scope of this risk management plan but could be added later (e.g., by addendum).

241 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 1.2 Approach The approach taken in developing this plan consists of the following steps: • Project Description (Section 2). Develop an adequate understanding of the project (as documented in a specific format) and its likely base (without “risk”) perfor- mance (i.e., regarding schedule, cost, and disruption through construction, and postconstruction longevity). As part of this, develop a simple but adequate cost- and disruption-loaded project schedule. • Premitigation Risk Identification and Assessment (Section 3). Develop a compre- hensive and nonoverlapping set of project performance risks, which are possible events that, if they occur, can change project performance, and categorize the list by when during project development the risks would occur. For each of the risks, adequately assess the factors defining those risks, including the likely impacts (e.g., change in unescalated cost to a particular project activity) if the risk occurs, and the likelihood of the event (as defined by those impacts) occurring. • Premitigation Risk Analysis (Section 4). Determine likely project performance, including the risks, and especially the relative significance of the various risks in affecting that performance (“sensitivity”), before any additional mitigation. • Risk Reduction Planning (Section 5). Identify possible actions to proactively reduce individual risks, focusing on the most significant risks, and evaluate their cost- effectiveness. Select and adequately plan (i.e., assign responsibility and resources) the set of cost-effective actions. • Postmitigation Risk Analysis (Section 6). Determine likely project performance, including the risks, and especially the relative significance of the various risks in affecting that performance (“sensitivity”), considering additional mitigation. • Contingency Management (Section 7). Establish contingency requirements (cost and schedule allowances) for the various phases of project development, based on likely project performance considering collectively the residual risks for each phase if the risk reduction plans are adopted and implemented. Also establish adequate procedures for how those contingencies will be controlled. • Recovery Planning (Section 8). Establish plans for what to do if contingencies turn out to be insufficient (e.g., defer scope through contract options) during various phases of project development. Also establish adequate procedures for how those plans will be triggered. • Risk Management Plan Implementation (Section 9). Identify the organizational structure and resources required to successfully implement this risk management plan. Each of the above steps is briefly discussed in the following sections, with details pre- sented in attachments. A filled-in planning template for a hypothetical project is avail- able at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/168369.aspx.

242 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Summary QDOT is planning to reconstruct and expand segments of two existing (intersecting) highways, US-555 and SH-111, through a rapidly developing suburban area. The ex- isting highways are nearly 40 years old, have increasingly inadequate capacity, and are expensive to maintain. These facilities are the only viable east-west (US-555) and north-south (SH-111) routes for commercial traffic for several miles in either direction. Therefore, it is imperative that the necessary improvements be made quickly and with minimal disruption. QDOT would also like to minimize construction costs and future repair cycles and maintenance requirements, as well as eventual replacement issues. To achieve these objectives, QDOT plans to encourage contractor innovation through the use of performance-based specifications and incentives, and to procure with an innovative project delivery method (i.e., design–build or D-B). It is expected that accelerated bridge construction techniques, minimally disruptive maintenance of traffic, and innovative pavement design, among other rapid renewal elements, will be considered for this project. A detailed project description, including major assumptions and conditions, is pre- sented in Attachment 1. 2.2 Base Project Schedule As presented in Attachment 2 (which includes Tables E.1, E.2, and E.3), for the as- sumptions outlined above, the base project schedule (without risk) was developed from QDOT’s latest project schedule, using a standard simplified project flowchart for D-B with base durations, lags, and milestones for the various activities. QDOT’s project schedule was first reviewed and “de-biased,” removing any float. In general terms of overall preconstruction and construction schedules, the base project schedule (before risk and opportunity) is 18 months from present time to reach contractor no- tice to proceed (NTP), then 17 months for D-B design and construction, with a target completion date of November 1, 2012. The project team is also assuming a 50-year time to replacement (which takes 2 years). 2.3 Base Project Cost As presented in Attachment 2 (Tables E.1 and E.3), for the assumptions outlined above, the base project cost (without risk) was developed from QDOT’s latest cost estimate and allocated to the activities in the D-B standard simplified project flowchart, to cre- ate a simple cost-loaded schedule. QDOT’s project cost estimate was first reviewed and de-biased, removing any contingency. The base total project cost (through delivery, without contingency) is approximately $16.4 million in current (uninflated) dollars. By major project component or phase, the base costs (in current uninflated dollars) are approximately as follows: • For capital project delivery: — $1.2 million for QDOT preconstruction effort (including preliminary design, contract procurement, environmental documentation, and permitting);

243 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS — $2.0 million for right-of-way (ROW) acquisition; — $1.0 million for utility relocations; — $11.9 million for D-B design and construction plus QDOT contract administration. • For postconstruction: — Operations and maintenance costs average about $0.5 million per year. — Replacement costs are about the same as the current project delivery costs ($16 million). On average, mean inflation is about 3.0% per year for engineering, 3.0% per year for ROW and 3.0% per year for construction. Mean extended overheads (i.e., delay costs) associated with schedule delays are about $0.10 million per month for pre construction and about $0.23 million per month during construction, based on average “burn rates.” 2.4 Base Project Disruption As presented in Attachment 2 (Tables E.2 and E.3), for the assumptions outlined above, QDOT estimates its total disruption (through replacement) at about 2.8 million hours. By major project component or phase, the mean disruptions are approximately deter- mined (considering how much of that phase experiences disruption, how many people are affected during disruption and the impact) as follows: • Utility relocation: 0.2 million hours. • Construction: 0.5 million hours. • Operations and maintenance: 1.4 million hours. • Replacement: 0.7 million hours. 2.5 Trade-offs As presented in Attachment 2 (Table E.3), QDOT has established the following trade- offs for combining performance (cost, disruption, schedule, and longevity): • The “value” (or user costs) of disruption (in terms of how much QDOT is willing to pay now to avoid disruption) is about $10 per person-hour. • The value of the planned completion date (in terms of how much QDOT is willing to pay now to prevent delay) is about $0.1 million per month. • The value of longevity (in terms of how much QDOT is willing to pay now to prevent discounted longevity costs) is about $1.00 per net present value (NPV) dollars. • The net long-term (during operations and replacement) discount rate (for deter- mining longevity NPV dollars) is about 5.0% per year.

244 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 2.6 Base Project Performance Analysis As presented in Attachment 2 (Table E.3), the following mean base project perfor- mance measures were determined (using a Microsoft Excel workbook template) based on the D-B standard simplified project flowchart (Figure E.1), using mean input values (as discussed above): • Mean base project schedule (start and end dates, float); • Mean base project cost (both uninflated and inflated) through construction; • Mean base project disruption through construction; • Mean base project longevity (combined measure of postconstruction project cost, schedule, and disruption); and • Mean combined project performance (combined measure of cost, schedule, and disruption through construction, and postconstruction longevity, for subsequently determining severity of risks). The mean base performance produced by quantitative risk analysis might differ from that produced by the template for several reasons: (a) the quantitative risk analysis is typically done in more detail; and (b) the means of the input ranges used in quantitative risk analysis might differ from the directly assessed mean inputs used in the template. Figure E.1. Standard simplified design–build flowchart for QDOT’s US-555/SH-111 mean-value risk assessment. 13 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_final for composition.docx Figure E.1. Standard simplified design–build flowchart for QDOT’s US-555/SH-111 mean-value risk assessment. <H1>3.0 Premitigation Risk Identification and Assessment <H2> 3.1 Assumptions and Exclusions Assumptions are necessary for any analysis, and the results of the analysis must clearly state the assumptions on which they are based. Risk assessments attempt to include all relevant issues so that the results are as inclusive and robust as possible (i.e., the results will “stand the test of time”). The more risks that are excluded, the more “constrained” or “conditional” the results are. However, in many cases an owner has good reason to exclude particular issues from the analysis. The major assumptions for (and exclusions from) this risk assessment are shown in the bulleted items below. All results presented are conditional on these assumptions being true (unless noted specifically).  Uncertainty in the timing or availability in funding (e.g., cash-flow constraints or contractor financing) was excluded. These issues could be addressed with separate model scenarios.  “Project-canceling” risks were excluded (e.g., significant change in purpose and need). A  – lag  (remaining)  from  finish  of  Environmental  Permits   to  B  -­‐ lag  (remaining)  to  finish  of  Procurement C  – lag  (remaining)  from  finish  of  Environmental  Permits  to  D  -­‐ lag  (remaining)  to  finish  of  ROW/Util/RR G  -­‐ lag  (non-­‐overlap)  after  start  of  Final  Design  to  start  of  Construction  and  H   -­‐ lag   (remaining)  after  finish  of  Final  Design  to  finish  of  Construction I  -­‐ lag  (remaining)  after  finish  of  ROW/Util/RR  to  finish  of  Construction J  – lag  (remaining)  from  finish  of  ROW/Util/RR  to  K  -­‐ lag  (remaining)  to  finish  of   Procurement <D> Planning Scoping Enviro Proc,   Prelim Design D/B  Final Design Procure-­‐ ment D/B  Con-­‐ struction Opera-­‐ tions Replace-­‐ ment Enviro Permits ROW,   Util,  RR 4 5 2 3 1 Design/Build  (D/B) <E> <F> <K> <J> <I> <H><G><A><C> <B>Time è Notes:  1,2,3  =  funding 4  =  project  delivery 5  =  replacement Enviro Proc  =  Environmental  Process Util,  RR  =  Utilities,   Railroad Notes:    <x>  =  lag E  -­‐ lag  (remaining)  after  finish  of  ROW  Fund  to  finish   of  ROW/Utilities/RR F  -­‐ lag  (overlap)  from  finish  of  ROW/  Util/RR  to  start   of  Construction

245 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 3.0 PREMITIGATION RISK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT 3.1 Assumptions and Exclusions Assumptions are necessary for any analysis, and the results of the analysis must clearly state the assumptions on which they are based. Risk assessments attempt to include all relevant issues so that the results are as inclusive and robust as possible (i.e., the results will “stand the test of time”). The more risks that are excluded, the more “con- strained” or “conditional” the results are. However, in many cases an owner has good reason to exclude particular issues from the analysis. The major assumptions for (and exclusions from) this risk assessment are shown in the bulleted items below. All results presented are conditional on these assumptions being true (unless noted specifically). • Uncertainty in the timing or availability in funding (e.g., cash-flow constraints or contractor financing) was excluded. These issues could be addressed with separate model scenarios. • “Project-canceling” risks were excluded (e.g., significant change in purpose and need). In other words, the question being addressed is, “How much will the project cost and how long will it take if it is funded and completed as currently planned?” 3.2 Premitigation Risk Register In a facilitated environment, the project team and project-independent subject-matter experts identified a comprehensive, nonoverlapping set of risks and opportunities rela- tive to the project base, first by brainstorming and then by categorizing, editing, and/ or adding. These risks to project cost, schedule, and disruption were documented in the risk register. Each risk and opportunity is defined by several risk factors: • The cost, duration, and/or disruption changes to specific flowchart activities (i.e., the “impact scenario”) if the risk occurs, and • The probability of occurrence (as defined by the impact scenario), recognizing that the chance that the risk event does not occur (i.e., no impacts) equals 1.0 minus the probability of occurrence. The group (by consensus) characterized each of these risk factors in a mean-value (i.e., probability-weighted average) sense, via either mean values (e.g., in dollars and months) or predefined mean risk ratings (e.g., H, M, L). These factor assessments were also documented in the risk register. The full risk register (before mitigation) and associated risk-factor rating scales are presented in Attachment 3: • Table E.4 presents the risk-factor rating-scale definitions (from the Microsoft Excel workbook template); and • Table E.5 presents the risk register, in terms of a categorized list of risks (from the Microsoft Excel workbook template) that has been edited and added to so that the list is comprehensive and nonoverlapping, and their mean-value or mean-

246 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS rating-factor assessments before additional mitigation (from the Microsoft Excel workbook template). A mean-rating-factor or mean-value risk assessment approach (as used here) provides single mean values or ratings of project performance, essentially ignoring uncertainties and correlations among those uncertainties. To formally address such uncertainties and correlations and to produce ranges (probability distributions) rather than single mean values, a quantitative risk analysis should be conducted. 4.0 PREMITIGATION RISK ANALYSIS The base performance factors (as summarized in Chapter 2) and the risk factors before mitigation (as summarized in Chapter 3) were appropriately combined (using the Mi- crosoft Excel workbook template) to determine the following: • Approximate mean values of base + risk project performance before any addi- tional mitigation, including: — Project schedule (duration, start and end dates, and float by activity, and key milestone dates); — Project cost (unescalated and escalated, by activity and collectively); — Project disruption (by activity and collectively); — Project longevity (combination via trade-offs of postconstruction schedule, cost, and disruption); and — Project combined performance (combination via trade-offs of escalated project cost, schedule, and disruption through construction, and longevity). • Mean severity of each risk, in terms of its contribution to mean combined project performance before any additional mitigation, and ranking of risks on that basis. Severity is an expression of how much QDOT would logically be willing to pay (on average, for various reasons) to eliminate that risk. The following results are presented in Attachment 4: • Premitigation base + risk project performance is presented in Table E.6. How- ever, these mean values of project performance are very approximate (for various reasons) and should be used with caution. More accurate results would require quantitative risk analysis, which is currently outside the scope of this risk manage- ment plan. The top risks are presented in rank order of mean severity, in tabular form (Table E.7) and graphically (Figure E.3).

247 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 5.0 RISK REDUCTION PLANNING In a facilitated environment, the project team and project-independent subject-matter experts: • First identified possible ways to reduce the significant risks (and exploit the signifi- cant opportunities), as discussed in Chapter 4; and • Then assessed (by consensus) the various factors that define the cost-effectiveness of each action in reducing risks (or exploiting opportunities), thereby improving project performance. These factors include — Mean changes in the base factors (cost, schedule, and disruption by activity) as- sociated with implementing the action (regardless of effectiveness), for example, Action A will cost about $1.0 million to implement; and — Mean changes in the risk factors (cost, schedule, and disruption impacts by activity, and probability of occurrence) as a result of that action, for example, Action A will reduce the probability of Risk R occurring by about 1/2. These actions, and their assessed factors, were documented in the risk reduction plan. The cost-effectiveness of each action was then determined (in terms of its net change in combined project performance) by appropriately combining the above information (along with trade-offs, using the Microsoft Excel workbook template). Cost-effective actions were then selected and plans developed for them, including responsibility and schedule for completion. The risk reduction plan, presented in Attachment 5, includes the following: • The possible risk reduction actions for the highest-ranking risks are identified in Table E.8. • The assessed cost-effectiveness factors for each action are documented in Table E.8. • The calculated (using the Microsoft Excel workbook template) cost-effectiveness of each action is presented in Table E.9. • The selected cost-effective set of actions and plans for implementing them are presented in Table E.10. • The calculated (using the Microsoft Excel workbook template) postmitigation risk register (in terms of mean value/ratings) for the selected set of actions is presented in Table E.11. 6.0 POSTMITIGATION RISK ANALYSIS The base performance factors (as summarized in Chapter 2) and the mitigation imple- mentation and risk factors after mitigation (as summarized in Chapter 5) were ap- propriately combined (using the Microsoft Excel workbook template) to determine the following:

248 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS • Approximate mean values of base + risk project performance considering addi- tional mitigation, including — Project schedule (duration, start and end dates, float by activity, and key mile- stone dates); — Project cost (unescalated and escalated, by activity and collectively); — Project disruption (by activity and collectively); — Project longevity (combination via trade-offs of postconstruction schedule, cost, and disruption); and — Project combined performance (combination via trade-offs of escalated project cost, schedule, and disruption through construction, and longevity). • Mean severity of each risk, in terms of its contribution to mean combined project performance considering additional mitigation, and ranking of risks on that basis. Severity is an expression of how much QDOT would logically be willing to pay (on average, for various reasons) to eliminate that risk. These following results are presented in Attachment 6: • Mitigated base + risk project performance is presented in Table E.12. However, these mean values of project performance are very approximate (for various reasons) and should be used with caution. More accurate results would require quantitative risk analysis, which is currently outside the scope of this risk management plan. • The top risks are presented in rank order of mean severity, in tabular form (Table E.13) and graphically (Figure E.4). 7.0 CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT Contingency funds and float are needed on top of the base cost and schedule, respec- tively, to adequately cover (with appropriate confidence) the risks that actually occur during a project. Clearly, such contingencies generally cannot be based on worst-case as- sumptions, because that would usually be unaffordable (e.g., commit too much money and time, possibly starving other projects). Instead, a reasonable level of confidence is needed, appropriately reflecting the “pain” of exceeding available contingency; that is, the more pain that is involved, the higher the confidence level should be. In the past, cost contingencies have often been based strictly on judgment (with industry guidance), as a percentage of the project cost; however, such empirically derived contingencies have often proven to be inadequate, although occasionally they prove to be excessive. Often, there is no explicit schedule contingency, resulting in missed milestones. The amount of cost and schedule contingency needed for each phase would ide- ally be developed by quantitative risk analysis, in which the uncertainty in project cost and schedule would be determined and the values associated with a specified confidence level (which would be a QDOT policy issue) could be identified. In the absence of such analyses, judgment must be used. Hence, the contingency required for this project through each project phase was identified in a facilitated workshop

249 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS with the project team and project-independent subject-matter experts, considering the risks for each phase (see Attachment 7). A specific protocol has been established for managing contingency expenditures and release (see Attachment 7). 8.0 RECOVERY PLANNING Various actions can be taken throughout project development if contingency becomes insufficient. For example, if remaining schedule contingency has become (or is be- coming) insufficient to cover the remaining risks, work can sometimes be accelerated ( albeit at a premium price) by working more or longer workshifts or critical path scope can be deferred (e.g., through contract options). As another example, if remaining cost contingency has become (or is becoming) insufficient, then generally either additional funds must be obtained (e.g., from program reserve) or some scope must be deferred (e.g., through contract options). The amount of recovery needed for each phase would ideally be developed in the same way as contingency should be, that is, by quantitative risk analysis. In the absence of such analyses, judgment must be used. Hence, the recovery required for this project through each project phase was identified in the same facilitated workshop with the project team and project-independent subject-matter experts as for establishing contin- gency, considering the risks for each phase (see Attachment 8). The recovery actions (and their approximate net recovery value) that are available and that satisfy the requirements for this project through each project phase were identified in a facilitated workshop with the project team and project-independent subject-matter experts (see Attachment 8). A specific protocol has been established for implementing the recovery plans (see Attachment 8). 9.0 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION To successfully implement this risk management plan, and thereby realize improved project performance, the following is required: • DOT commitment to the risk management plan. • Designated project risk manager, with adequate authority and resources to carry out this risk management plan to — Monitor and periodically update the risk register, that is, regarding changes in risk factors and in associated results. — Monitor and periodically update this risk management plan, that is, regarding: ▪ Status/progress and results of selected risk reduction actions and possible redirection; ▪ Adequacy of remaining contingency and recommendations regarding contin- gency management and implementation of recovery plans; and ▪ Status/adequacy of recovery plans.

250 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Monitoring is typically done via short interviews with select project staff (e.g., as part of weekly or monthly project progress meetings), whereas updating re- quires additional effort (e.g., short workshop). Adequate information systems are required to support implementation of the risk management plan, for example, regarding gathering, interpreting, and distributing relevant information. 10.0 CONCLUSIONS A suitable risk management plan has been defensibly developed for the QDOT US- 555/SH-111 project to improve and control project performance (i.e., schedule, cost, and disruption through construction and postconstruction longevity). This plan con- sists of three main elements: 1. A program of actions intended to proactively and cost-effectively reduce the sig- nificant project risks, where the risks were meaningfully evaluated in terms of their severity with respect to the project’s combined performance (combination via trade-offs of schedule, cost, and disruption through construction and post- construction longevity). 2. Establishment and management of cost and schedule contingency throughout project development to cover the remaining risks (collectively) with a high level of confidence. 3. Establishment and management of recovery plans throughout project develop- ment in case the remaining contingency is insufficient. In addition, the requirements for successfully implementing this risk management plan have been identified, for example, organizational structure and resources. ATTACHMENT 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION QDOT is planning to reconstruct and expand segments of two existing (intersecting) highways, US-555 and SH-111, through a rapidly developing suburban area (see Fig- ure E.2). The existing highways are nearly 40 years old, have increasingly inadequate capacity, and are expensive to maintain. These facilities are the only viable east-west (US-555) and north-south (SH-111) routes for commercial traffic for several miles in either direction. Therefore, it is imperative that the necessary improvements be made quickly and with minimal disruption. QDOT would also like to minimize construction costs, future repair cycles and maintenance requirements, and eventual replacement issues. To achieve these objectives, QDOT plans to encourage contractor innovation through the use of performance-based specifications and incentives, and to procure with an innovative project delivery method (i.e., design–build or D-B). It is expected that accelerated bridge construction techniques, minimally disruptive maintenance of traffic, and innovative pavement design, among other rapid renewal elements, will be considered for this project.

251 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Figure E.2. QDOT US-555/SH-111 project schematic before and after upgrade. 33 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_final for composition.docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_final for composition.docx effort, and thus cost, schedule, and disruption) to the current project; that is, there are no elements that would be especially difficult to replace. [Insert Figure E.2 here] [Caption] 34 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_final for composition.docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_final for composition.docx Figure E.2. QDOT US-555/SH-111 project schematic before and after upgrade. <H1>Attachment 2. Base Project Performance Project performance of interest generally consists primarily of  Schedule (especially through construction);  Cost (both unescalated and escalated, especially through construction);  Disruption (especially through construction); and  Longevity (combination of schedule, cost, and disruption after construction).

252 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Detailed Scope (Including Alternatives) • Upgrade the existing unlimited-access, two-lane US-555 into a limited-access, four-lane highway. This includes reconstruction of the existing roadway section. — The limits of the upgrade are still not established, but the current assumption is from just west of West Street (1 mile west of SH-111) to just east of East Street (1 mile east of SH-111), including signalized intersections at each street. — US-555 will have four 11-ft lanes and no shoulders. A concrete median barrier will separate eastbound and westbound lanes. Concrete pavement is assumed for longevity; however, QDOT is open to innovative designs (e.g., composite pavement) from the contractor. QDOT currently assumes that FHWA will ap- prove a design exception / deviation to build the facility with 11-ft lanes and no shoulders. — QDOT anticipates that US-555 will be widened to the north of the existing fa- cility where possible because right-of-way is more readily available to the north. Even with no shoulders as assumed, and if the roadway embankment is sup- ported by retaining walls as assumed, widening to the north will affect a 10- to 15-ft-wide strip of existing Class 3 wetlands along the east half of the upgrade. The cost estimate assumes this alternative. • Upgrade the existing unlimited-access, two-lane SH-111 into a limited-access, four-lane highway. This includes reconstruction of the existing roadway section. — The limits of improvement for SH-111 are from just north of North Avenue (1/2 mile north of interchange) to just south of South Avenue (1/2 mile south of interchange), including signalized intersections at each avenue. — SH-111 will also have four 11-ft lanes and no shoulders. A concrete median barrier will separate northbound and southbound lanes. Concrete pavement is assumed for longevity; however, QDOT is open to innovative designs from the contractor. QDOT currently assumes that FHWA will approve a design excep- tion or deviation to build the facility with 11-ft lanes and no shoulders. — QDOT envisions that the contractor could propose one of two major alterna- tives to accomplish this upgrade while meeting its objectives for the project: ▪ Rebuild on existing alignment. Build a detour for SH-111 around the existing facility, switch traffic onto the detour, then rapidly construct the approach embankments, abutment, and the new bridge (overpass) using accelerated bridge construction (ABC) techniques on the existing alignment, then switch traffic back onto the new facility on the original alignment and demolish the detour. This alternative is most likely and is assumed in QDOT’s current cost estimate. ▪ Split or shift alignment. Instead of widening on the existing alignment, re- align (and perhaps separate northbound and southbound) around the ex- isting alignment. This would allow rapid construction of approach em- bankments and bridge structures out of traffic and would keep traffic on

253 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS the existing facility in the meantime. However, this approach would require more right-of-way (with greater business impacts) and is therefore not fa- vored by QDOT. The city in particular is opposed to this alternative, as are at least two known public groups. Note that this alternative likely would not require ABC techniques. • Convert the at-grade intersection of US-555 and SH-111 into a grade-separated interchange. — QDOT anticipates that SH-111 will be carried over the top of US-555. — The type of interchange has not been finalized (the interchange design will be a function of the selected alignment for SH-111 as mentioned previously). QDOT plans to issue performance-based specifications to enable contractor innova- tion, but currently assumes (and estimates) the following consistent with build- ing on the existing alignment: ▪ Single-point urban interchange. The existing ROW will accommodate this design, but this design might not provide the most operational benefit. Hence, other interchange designs might be feasible. ▪ The structure type for the interchange has not been finalized, but the cur- rent assumption is a two-span, precast concrete–girder structure. QDOT anticipates that the contractor will propose some sort of ABC to complete the abutment and bridge construction more rapidly than with traditional methods. ▪ The design currently assumes drilled-shaft foundations for the structural piers. However, potentially poor soil conditions might require ground im- provement as well. ▪ No on-site fill material is available for construction of the approach embank- ments, which are assumed to be retained fill to minimize ROW impacts. • Realign the arterial (Main Street) intersection to be perpendicular to US-555 (from its current significant skew). Realignment of Main Street will require new ROW near the at-grade and signalized intersection. In addition, realigning Main Street will affect several old structures. The baseline assumption is that these structures do not contain any asbestos and are not eligible for listing on the National Regis- ter of Historic Places. The existing intersection of SH-555 with 12th Street will be removed (i.e., there will be no access to SH-555 from 12th Street). Funding The project is fully funded at this time. Federal funding is involved. Design • Design Level. The project is in preliminary engineering (<10% design). If design– build (D-B) delivery method is chosen, QDOT would complete preliminary design (to 30% design) before turning the project over to the D-B contractor.

254 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS • Structural. See above. • Geotechnical. See above. • Drainage. See below. • Pavement. See above. • Systems: — Lighting. The design currently assumes new lighting only in the interchange area. However, there is some push for new lighting throughout the project (most of this area is currently lit, but some of the lighting would have to be moved during the widening). — Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). ITS upgrades will be completed sepa- rately (in the future) as part of a corridor-wide upgrade. • Design Deviations. See above. Environmental • Environmental Documentation. The team is conducting an environmental assess- ment (EA) based on the assumption of nonsignificant ROW, wetlands, and poten- tial historic impacts (because QDOT does not know what alignment/alternative the contractor will propose, it is assuming conservative impacts). Field studies are under way. The plan is to complete the draft EA before issuing the request for proposal (RFP) for D-B, and to have the EA finalized before issuing a notice to proceed for D-B. • Wetlands. See above. • Streams. US-555 crosses Wandering Creek half a mile west of Main Street. The existing crossing is a small box culvert that is still serviceable, and QDOT is not planning to replace it because QDOT believes it can be extended. However, on recent projects, the state fisheries agency has required QDOT to replace similar culverts with new larger culverts. • Endangered Species Act. No known issues. No listed fish species are believed to inhabit Wandering Creek this far upstream. • Floodplain. None. • Stormwater. The project assumes curb-and-gutter stormwater runoff collection, with assumed conveyance to the city’s existing combined stormwater/sanitary sewer system. The city has indicated that it might ask the project to pay for some upgrades to its system in exchange for the increased load, but this cost has not been included in the estimate. See also Utilities. • Contaminated/Hazardous Waste. There could be some unanticipated contami- nated soil or groundwater (likely hydrocarbons) in the interchange area. The estimate includes a small allowance for remediation of this material if exposed through foundation excavation. QDOT has not yet decided whether it will accept the risk of additional contamination, or allocate this risk to the contractor.

255 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS • Section 106. Potential historical buildings. See Detailed Scope. • 4(f). No known issues. • Permitting. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit is required for the planned wetland impacts. The base assumes this will be an individual permit, but if the de- sign can be modified, wetland impacts could be less than anticipated and a nation- wide 404 permit might suffice. QDOT will secure the necessary 404 permit before issuing the NTP to the D-B contractor. Right-of-Way and Other Agreements • Right-of-Way. As described above. The area is quickly developing within project limits, with development happening more rapidly near the US-555/SH-111 inter- change. The cost estimate is based on today’s estimated property values, but this might be insufficient to cover the increased values from planned developments. • Utilities. A number of utilities (e.g., city water and sewer, electric power, telecom- munications fiber optic, and natural gas lines) are believed to cross the project, primarily beneath the proposed interchange. QDOT currently assumes (and esti- mates) that these utilities will be relocated at the utilities’ expense. These reloca- tions would occur in advance of construction and QDOT assumes that the utilities will relocate their lines in a timely manner. However, utility coordination is just getting started, and: — There is some indication that the telecommunication utility may seek a cost- sharing arrangement because it just completed the fiber-optic upgrade. — The city does not have money to relocate its water and sewer lines and might not be able to relocate in the time needed by the project. It is possible that the city will try to negotiate (with QDOT) a combined solution for relocation of the water and sewer lines and use of the sewer system by QDOT. • Railroad. None. • Other Stakeholders. FHWA, the city, business owners, developers, traveling pub- lic, and residents. Procurement • Delivery Method. The project delivery method has not been selected, but the cur- rent assumption is a single D-B contract to facilitate contractor innovation and to improve QDOT’s chances of meeting its objectives for the project. QDOT might also use contractor incentives to reward a shortened construction schedule and minimized user impacts during construction. (Note that incentives are not in- cluded in the cost estimate; there is significant resistance by some within QDOT to using incentives with D-B procurement.) • Contract Packaging. See above. • Market (general and specialty). Current market conditions are uncertain. Because of the type and size of the project, and other projects currently under way or being

256 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS bid, as well as the local contractor situation, QDOT anticipates four “good” pro- posals in response to its RFP, which could enhance competition. However, the successful proposals for two other recent QDOT D-B projects in this region bid higher costs than QDOT’s internal estimates. Construction • Construction Access/Restrictions (including seasonal, events, and workshifts). There are no significant restrictions along mainline US-555 and SH-111. Con- struction access and staging areas are good. • Maintenance of Traffic. To maintain mobility and minimize “user costs” (disrup- tion) during construction, capacity equivalent to two lanes of US-555 and two lanes on SH-111 should be maintained during construction. However, QDOT an- ticipates that the contractor could propose alternatives, such as directional or full closures over short durations, to complete construction while minimizing disrup- tion to the traveling public and minimizing construction schedule. • Construction Phasing. This has not been worked out in detail (QDOT does not know how the D-B contractor will build the project), but it is assumed that the interchange and roadway work can proceed simultaneously. QDOT hopes that the construction schedule for structures can be minimized through use of ABC. Postconstruction (Longevity) • Operations and Maintenance. Operations and maintenance (O&M) for this road- way is expected to be typical, primarily involving periodic repaving (e.g., every 10 years) and system (e.g., drainage system) maintenance as required. Such work can generally be done with limited lane closures and thus little disruption. • Replacement. Roadway replacement (especially structures) is anticipated to be required after about 50 years. Such replacement is expected to be very similar (in terms of activities and effort, and thus cost, schedule, and disruption) to the current project; that is, there are no elements that would be especially difficult to replace.

257 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2. BASE PROJECT PERFORMANCE Project performance of interest generally consists primarily of • Schedule (especially through construction); • Cost (both unescalated and escalated, especially through construction); • Disruption (especially through construction); and • Longevity (combination of schedule, cost, and disruption after construction). Such performance is a combination of base (without risk) and risk components. This attachment discusses the base component; the risk component is discussed in Attachment 3. The base component is typically derived from project team estimates (e.g., of schedule, cost, and disruption), which are reviewed and possibly revised to remove any bias (e.g., conservatism) and stripped of any other contingency (which will be replaced by the risk component). However, for now, the focus is only on per- formance through construction. Project Schedule Estimate The current project schedule estimate consists of the following key elements (as of December 1, 2009): • Remaining preliminary design and environmental process, 12 months long; • Environmental permitting, 6 months long, which starts after preliminary design and environmental process are completed; • ROW/utilities/railroad, 12 months long, which starts after preliminary design and environmental process are completed, but cannot be finished until environmental permitting is done and ROW funding is available; • Procurement, 6 months long, which starts after preliminary design and environ- mental process are done and construction funding is available, but cannot be com- pleted until environmental permitting is done and ROW/utilities/railroad is within 6 months of completion (i.e., QDOT is prioritizing ROW acquisition to get key parcels before issuing NTP to contractor, and so, procurement can be finished when only half of the ROW acquisition remains); • D-B design, 6 months long, starts after procurement is completed; • D-B construction, 16 months long, which starts after environmental permitting is done and at least 1 month after start of D-B design and with no more than 6 months remaining of ROW/utilities/railroad, and cannot be finished until at least 6 months after end of D-B design and at least 10 months after end of ROW/ utilities/railroad; • Operations, 50 years long, starts after construction is completed; • Replacement, 2 years long, starts after operations is completed.

258 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Project Cost Estimate The current project cost estimate (through construction) is shown in Table E.1. For postconstruction, O&M costs average about $0.5 million per year, and replacement costs are about the same as the current project delivery costs ($16 million), all in 2009 dollars. Project Disruption Estimate The current project disruption estimate is shown in Table E.2. Base Project Performance The various inputs for the standard simplified D-B flowchart for this project (see Fig- ure E.1) are summarized in Table E.3 in which they are used to calculate mean project performance (by activity and collectively): cost (unescalated and escalated), schedule (milestone dates), disruption, and longevity (postconstruction cost, schedule, and dis- ruption), as well as combined performance. However, as previously noted, the focus for now is on performance through construction only.

259 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TABLE E.1. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost ($) Description of Work Items Cost (2009 $) Construction Preparation 21 acre 4,800.00 Clearing and grubbing 99,360 26,397 S.Y. 8.40 Removing cement concrete pavement 221,735 26,397 S.Y. 4.80 Removing asphalt concrete pavement 126,706 Grading 33,393 C.Y. 9.60 Roadway excavation incl. hauling 320,573 27,960 C.Y. 4.20 Common borrow incl. hauling 117,432 3,107 C.Y. 14.40 Gravel borrow incl. hauling 44,741 31,067 C.Y. 1.20 Embankment compaction 37,280 Drainage 42 each 2,160.00 Grate inlet Type 1 or 2 90,720 6 each 3,600.00 Drop inlet Type 1 21,600 21,120 L.F. 78.00 Plain st. culv. pipe 0.109 in. thick, 36 in. diam. 1,647,360 50 L.F. 1,800.00 St. stru. pipe arch 8-gauge, 20 ft 0 in. span 89,100 Structure 3,972 S.F. 145.00 Bridge no. (easy bridge) 575,940 Surfacing 27,047 ton 12.00 Crushed surfacing base course 324,564 Cement concrete pavement 16,696 C.Y. 110.00 Cement concrete pavement 1,836,560 882 S.Y. 146.00 Bridge approach slab 128,772 Asphalt concrete pavement 1,100 ton 36.00 Miscellaneous asphalt concrete pavement 39,600 Erosion control and planting 2 acre 2,400.00 Seeding, fertilizing, and mulching 4,800 1 est. 85,000.00 Temporary water pollution/erosion control 85,000 1,564 C.Y. 13.20 Topsoil Type B 20,645 1 est. 150,000.00 Miscellaneous landscaping Traffic 15,840 L.F. 120.00 Special concrete barrier Type 5 1,900,800 8 each 14,400.00 Permanent impact attenuator 115,200 214,000 L.F. 0.12 Paint line 25,680 1 L.S. 24,000.00 Permanent signing 24,000 Other items 4,000 L.F. 18.00 Temporary barrier glare screen 72,000 1 est. 12,000.00 Roadside cleanup 12,000 1 est. 6,000.00 Trimming and cleanup 6,000 (continued)

260 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Construction Subtotal A (before mobilization [mob], traffic control, and other miscellaneous items) 7,988,167 1 L.S. 399,408.36 Mobilization 399,408 1 L.S. 587,130.29 Traffic control (at 7% of subtotal A + mob.) 587,130 1 est. 1,006,509.07 Other misc. items (12% of subtotal A + mob.) 1,006,509 Construction Subtotal B (including mobilization, traffic control and other misc. items) 9,981,215 Design–builder design fees (10% of B) 998,121 Design–build construction total C 10,979,336 Construction administration (8% of C) 878,347 Agency Design, Environment, Permitting, and Procurement (10% of C + Construction admin.) (includes previous costs of $200,000) 1,185,768 Right-of-way 2,000,000 Utility relocations 1,000,000 Project Subtotal D (before contingency) 16,043,452 Note: Through construction only. TABLE E.1. PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (continued) TABLE E.2. PROJECT DISRUPTION ESTIMATE Activity Duration of Activity (months) Percentage of Activity Duration Affected People Affected/Day Delay/Person (hours) Disruption (million hours) Utilities 12 10 10,000 0.5 0.2 Construction 16 20 10,000 0.5 0.5 Operations 600 1 15,000 0.5 1.4 Replacement 24 10 20,000 0.5 0.7 Note: Including postconstruction.

261 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS QDOT US 555 / SH 111 Risk Management Plan   TABLE E.3. BASE PROJECT PERFORMANCE Note: From rapid renewal risk management planning template (http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/168369.aspx), through construction only. See also Figure E.1 for project flowchart.

262 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 3. UNMITIGATED RISK REGISTER The risk register for the project (as described in Attachments 1 and 2) was developed (by consensus) by a facilitated group of project team members and project- independent subject-matter experts, as follows: • Risks were first brainstormed and then categorized, edited, and added to create a comprehensive and nonoverlappng set (see Table E.5 for the resulting set, and for initial steps, see the populated template for a hypothetical project online at http:// www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/168369.aspx). As previously noted, performance (and thus risks) through construction only is the focus. • The factors that define risks (i.e., impacts and probability of occurrence) before any additional mitigation (“unmitigated”) were then assessed for each of the risks in terms of mean value or mean ratings (see Table E.4 for rating-scale definitions for assessments, Table E.5 for the assessments for each risk, and the template for the hypothetical project online for a summary of those assessments).

263 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS N ot e: F ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ). TA B LE E .4 . RI SK -F AC TO R RA TI N G SC AL E DE FI N IT IO N S T ab le E .4 . R is k- Fa ct or R at in g Sc al e D ef in iti on s N ot e: F ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t p la nn in g te m pl at e (h ttp :// w w w .tr b. or g/ m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ).  

264 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) P la n n in g PL 1 Ex cl ud ed Pr o jec t f un din g d ela ye d or re du ce d Th e pr oj ec t is c ur re nt ly fu nd ed fo r an a m ou nt t ha t Q D O T fe el s is ad eq ua te . H ow ev er , i f a dd iti on al fu nd in g is r eq ui re d (i. e. , i f c os ts in cr ea se fo r va rio us r ea so ns ), m ig ht b e a de la y in o bt ai ni ng t he ad di tio na l f un di ng . H ow ev er , Q D O T’ s ob je ct iv e is t o ev al ua te t he p ro je ct ’s r is k as su m in g fu nd in g is a va ila bl e w ith ou t de la y. H en ce , Q D O T w an ts t o ex cl ud e un ce rt ai nt y in fu nd in g at t hi s tim e (b ut m ig ht la te r tr ea t th at un ce rt ai nt y by d efi ni ng s ep ar at e “m od el s ce na rio s” t o ev al ua te t he im pa ct o f v ar io us p ot en tia l f un di ng d el ay s) . O th er w is e, e xc lu de t he r is k th at fu nd in g is c an ce le d or s ub st an tia lly re du ce d (s o th at s co pe r ed uc tio n is r eq ui re d, w hi ch w ou ld le ad t o a “d iff er en t” p ro je ct ). PL 2 O pp os iti on to re m ov in g ac ce ss to U S- 55 5 fro m 1 2t h St re et Se ve ra l b us in es se s re ly o n th is a cc es s an d m ig ht p ro te st o r ch al le ng e th e re m ov al o f t he a cc es s. H ow ev er , r em ov al o f t ha t ac ce ss is ne ce ss ar y fo r th e pr oj ec t. H en ce , t hi s de si gn d ec is io n is u nl ik el y to b e re ve rs ed . H ow ev er , s om e m iti ga tio n m ig ht b e re qu ire d as co m pe ns at io n. L +V L to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 0 (c on tin ue d) N ot e: S ee T ab le E .4 fo r ris k- fa ct or r at in g sc al e de fin iti on s; fo r ris ks t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly . A ll co st im pa ct s ar e as se ss ed in c ur re nt t er m s. C os t es ca la tio n is ha nd le d au to m at ic al ly t hr ou gh t he s im ul at io n m od el , a pp ro pr ia te ly c on si de rin g un ce rt ai nt y in in fla tio n ra te s an d th e af fe ct ed p ro je ct a ct iv iti es . E xc ep t fo r so ft co st u nc er ta in tie s th at a re a dd re ss ed s ep ar at el y, a nd u nl es s no te d ot he rw is e, a ll co st im pa ct s in t hi s ta bl e ar e fu lly lo ad ed w ith a pp ro pr ia te m ar ku ps . P ot en tia l m ar ku ps in cl ud e ite m s th at m ay b e tr ea te d as a p er ce nt ag e of t he c on st ru ct io n su bt ot al in t he c os t es tim at e, s uc h as s al es t ax , m ob ili za tio n, c on st ru ct io n en gi ne er in g, d es ig n, a nd a llo w an ce s fo r m is ce lla ne ou s ite m s.

265 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) PL 3 El se w he re O p p o si ti o n t o “ sp li tt in g ” al ig n m en t o f SH -1 1 1 i n t h e in te rc h an g e ar ea Th e ci ty d oe s no t lik e th is a lte rn at iv e. Th is is su e is c ap tu re d as a fa ct or in flu en ci ng t he p ro ba bi lit y th at t hi s sp lit w ill o cc ur ; s ee R is k PD 2. PL 4 M in or O th er s ta k eh o ld er i ss u es n o t ca p tu re d s ep ar at el y Sc o p in g SC 1 M in or C ha ng e in E as t- W es t pr oj ec t lim its Pr oj ec t m ig ht b e re qu ire d (e ith er fo r po lit ic al o r op er at io na l r ea so ns ) to im pr ov e lo ng er o r sh or te r st re tc h of U S- 55 5 th an a ss um ed in t he ba se e st im at e. Th e pr oj ec t te am a nd Q D O T be lie ve t ha t th is is u nl ik el y be ca us e fu nd in g is n ot a va ila bl e fo r su ch a s ig ni fic an t ch an ge , a nd t he n ee d is no t cl ea r (f or t he p ro je ct t o pe rf or m a s de si re d) . SC 2 M in or C ha ng e in N or th -S ou th p ro je ct li m its Pr oj ec t m ig ht b e re qu ire d (e ith er fo r po lit ic al o r op er at io na l r ea so ns ) to im pr ov e lo ng er o r sh or te r st re tc h of S H -1 11 t ha n as su m ed in t he ba se e st im at e. Si m ila r to d is cu ss io n fo r Ri sk S C 1. TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

266 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) SC 3 A d d it io n al l o ca l im p ro ve m en ts r eq u ir ed Fo r ex am pl e: • M or e im pr ov em en ts o n M ai n St re et a w ay fr om U S- 55 5 • M or e im pr ov em en ts o n N or th A ve nu e an d/ or S ou th A ve nu e aw ay fr om S H -1 11 • M or e im pr ov em en ts o n W es t St re et a nd /o r Ea st S tr ee t aw ay fr om U S- 55 5 Sc he du le im pa ct s ar e de si gn -r el at ed . M +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +L to P re lim in ar y D es ig n 0 SC 4 M in or In cr ea se d ae st he tic s fo r US -5 55 /S H- 11 1 in te rc ha ng e Fo r ex am pl e, “ ga te w ay ” ap pe ar an ce , d ec or at iv e lig ht in g. T he p ro je ct al re ad y in cl ud es r ea so na bl e ae st he tic s, a nd a s ig ni fic an t ga te w ay th em e is w el l o ut si de t he p ro je ct ’s b ud ge t. T he c ity w ou ld t he re fo re ha ve t o pa y fo r su ch im pr ov em en ts , w hi ch it is u nl ik el y to b e ab le t o af fo rd . SC 5 R ep la ce c ul ve rt ov er W an de rin g Cr ee k Ba se a ss um es t ha t th e st at e fis he rie s ag en cy w ill a llo w w id en in g th is cu lv er t, e sp ec ia lly s in ce n o lis te d fis h sp ec ie s ar e be lie ve d to li ve t hi s fa r up W an de rin g C re ek . T he fi sh er ie s ag en cy h as , h ow ev er , r eq ui re d re pl ac em en t of s im ila r cu lv er ts o n ne ar by p ro je ct s. M +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 0 (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d)

267 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) SC 6 Pr o v id e ne w li gh tin g th ro u gh ou t p ro jec t Ba se a ss um es n ew li gh tin g on ly in t he in te rc ha ng e ar ea . T he t ea m in cr ea si ng ly b el ie ve s th at n ew li gh tin g w ill b e re qu ire d th ro ug ho ut (m ai nl y be ca us e th ey w ill h av e to r el oc at e ex is tin g lig ht in g to w id en th e ro ad w ay a ny w ay ). H +M to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 0 SC 7 M in or In te lli ge n t t ra ns po rta tio n sy st em (IT S) ad de d to th is p ro jec t U nl ik el y; n ot fu nd ed a nd t he s ys te m w id e IT S de ve lo pm en t is la gg in g th is p ro je ct . Pr el im in ar y De si gn a nd E nv iro n m en ta l P ro ce ss Fo r a ll re le va n t r is ks in th is c at eg or y, th e fo llo w in g co nd itio ns a pp ly: Ea ch r is k in cl ud es a ll re la te d or c or re la te d de si gn , e nv iro nm en ta l, rig ht -o f- w ay , a nd c on st ru ct io n im pa ct s. Im pa ct s sh ow n ar e in a dd iti on to a ny a ss es se d ba se u nc er ta in tie s. TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

268 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) PD 1 Sh ift a lig nm en t o f U S- 55 5 at e as t e nd o f p ro jec t Th is w ou ld r ed uc e w et la nd im pa ct s by s hi ft in g al ig nm en t to t he so ut h. H ow ev er , t he re is s om e re si st an ce ( ci ty ) to s hi ft in g th e al ig nm en t th is w ay b ec au se o f t he n um be r of b us in es s di sp la ce m en ts it w ou ld c au se . I t co ul d al so c au se a p ro bl em w ith g eo m et ry a t th e in te rs ec tio n of E as t St re et . Th e gr ou p th er ef or e th in ks t ha t th is is u nl ik el y to o cc ur . I f i t di d, ho w ev er , t he im pa ct s w ou ld in cl ud e re du ce d w et la nd im pa ct s, in cr ea se d RO W c os ts ( m os tly d ue t o ad di tio na l d em ol iti on a nd bu si ne ss r el oc at io ns ), a nd a dd iti on al d es ig n tim e. T he c ha ng e in co ns tr uc tio n co st w ou ld b e m in im al . VL +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 PD 2 M in or Sp li t al ig n m en t o f SH -1 1 1 a t U S- 5 5 5 i n te rc h an g e In st ea d of w id en in g on e xi st in g al ig nm en t; w ou ld a llo w fo r m or e ra pi d co ns tr uc tio n bu t re qu ire s ad di tio na l R O W . Be ne fit s (r ed uc ed c on st ru ct io n du ra tio n) p ro ba bl y do n ot o ut w ei gh th e de tr im en ts ( ad di tio na l R O W , l es s ef fic ie nt t ra ffi c flo w , r ed es ig n) . Th e ci ty a nd a t le as t tw o pu bl ic g ro up s do n ot li ke t hi s al te rn at iv e. Th er ef or e, it is u nl ik el y to o cc ur .

269 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) PD 3 Ch an ge in c on fig ur at io n of S H- 11 1/ US -5 55 in te rc ha ng e Q D O T’ s pr el im in ar y de si gn ( SP U I) is o ne o f s ev er al v ia bl e al te rn at iv es , an d it is e xp ec te d th at t he c on tr ac to r co ul d pr op os e a su ita bl e al te rn at iv e. It is u nc er ta in h ow m uc h su ch a c ha ng e m ig ht c os t re la tiv e to t he c ur re nt ly a ss um ed a lte rn at iv e (c ou ld b e m or e, c ou ld be le ss ), b ut Q D O T w ill n ot a cc ep t a de si gn t ha t is s ig ni fic an tly m or e ex pe ns iv e. In cl ud es p ot en tia l c ha ng e in s tr uc tu re a nd fo un da tio n ty pe /s iz e, bu t as su m es t ha t an a pp ro pr ia te a cc el er at ed b rid ge c on st ru ct io n te ch ni qu e w ill b e us ed . 0 0 (C ou ld b e a si gn ifi ca nt in cr ea se o r de cr ea se w ith e qu al lik el ih oo d; he nc e, o n av er ag e, n o ch an ge ) 0 0 PD 4 G ro u n d im pr o v em en t r eq ui re d in in te rc ha ng e ar ea Q D O T H Q D es ig n is a ls o co nc er ne d th at a r ec en t ch an ge t o th e se is m ic d es ig n cr ite ria ( w hi ch is s til l b ei ng e va lu at ed ) m ig ht r eq ui re lo ca liz ed g ro un d im pr ov em en t to m iti ga te fo r liq ue fa ct io n po te nt ia l. Th e pr oj ec t te am t hi nk s th is is u nl ik el y, b ut c ou ld h av e si gn ifi ca nt im pa ct s if it oc cu rs . L +M to D -B C on st ru ct io n +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

270 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) PD 5 Sh ou ld er s re qu ire d on U S- 55 5 Fo r ex am pl e, if F H W A a nd Q D O T H Q D es ig n bo th d o no t ap pr ov e th e no -s ho ul de r ex ce pt io n/ de vi at io n. Th e pr oj ec t te am is r ea so na bl y co nfi de nt t ha t th is d es ig n ex ce pt io n w ill b e ap pr ov ed , b as ed o n re ce nt , s im ila r ap pr ov al s fo r ot he r ne ar by pr oj ec ts . H ow ev er , i f s ho ul de rs a re r eq ui re d, t he im pa ct s ar e si gn ifi ca nt : ad di tio na l R O W w ou ld b e re qu ire d, c on st ru ct io n co st s w ou ld in cr ea se , th e dr af t en vi ro nm en ta l a ss es sm en t (E A ) m ig ht h av e to b e m od ifi ed (w et la nd im pa ct s w ou ld in cr ea se ), a nd d es ig n tim e (b ef or e re qu es t fo r pr op os al ) w ou ld in cr ea se . VL +H to D -B C on st ru ct io n +M to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 PD 6 Sh ou ld er s re qu ire d on S H- 11 1 Fo r ex am pl e, if Q D O T H Q D es ig n do es n ot a pp ro ve t he n o- sh ou ld er ex ce pt io n/ de vi at io n. Si m ila r to t he d is cu ss io n an d as se ss m en ts fo r Ri sk P D 5. Fo r th e qu an tit at iv e ris k an al ys is : R is k PD 6 is c or re la te d w ith R is k PD 5. If Ri sk P D 5 do es n ot o cc ur ( sh ou ld er s no t re qu ire d on U S- 55 5) , t he n it is li ke ly t ha t sh ou ld er s w ill n ot b e re qu ire d on t hi s fa ci lit y ei th er . I f Ri sk P D 5 do es o cc ur , t he n sh ou ld er s w ill li ke ly b e re qu ire d fo r SH -1 11 as w el l. VL +H to D -B C on st ru ct io n +M to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0

271 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) PD 7 M in or A d d it io n al c o st f o r si g n al iz ed i n te rs ec ti o n s Ex cl ud es a ny c ha ng e in t he n um be r of in te rs ec tio ns t ha t is c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly in r is ks r el at ed t o pr oj ec t lim its ( i.e ., Ri sk s SC 1 an d SC 2) . PD 8 C h an g e in p av em en t se ct io n a n d /o r ty p e Th e ba se a ss um es c on cr et e pa ve m en t to p ro vi de lo ng ev ity ( on e of t he pr oj ec t’s g oa ls ). Q D O T is t he re fo re m os t lik el y to s pe ci fy a c on cr et e pa ve m en t. A sp ha lt pa ve m en t m ig ht b e se le ct ed t o pr ov id e co m pa tib ili ty w ith ex is tin g pa ve m en t (b ey on d th e pr oj ec t lim its ) an d to s av e in iti al c os t. H ow ev er , Q D O T co ns id er s m ax im iz in g lo ng ev ity ( in cl ud in g lif e- cy cl e co st s) a h ig he r pr io rit y th an s av in g in iti al c ap ita l c os t. M −M to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 0 PD 9 M in or R eh ab il it at e in st ea d o f re co n st ru ct in g e xi st in g r o ad w ay (e .g ., o ve rl ay i n st ea d ) Se e G ui de , A pp en di x A , A pp en di x B, o r Ta bl e B. 9. Ex is tin g ro ad w ay is 2 0 ye ar s ol d; m ig ht n ot b e co st -e ffe ct iv e to re ha bi lit at e w he n ne w la ne s ha ve t o be b ui lt an yw ay . I n ad di tio n, re ha b is n ot a s lik el y to m ee t th e pr oj ec t ob je ct iv e of m ax im iz in g lo ng ev ity o f t he fa ci lit y. N ot e: fo r th e qu an tit at iv e ris k an al ys is , t hi s ris k is c or re la te d w ith R is k PD 8 (im pa ct s ar e a fu nc tio n of t he o ut co m e of t ha t ris k) . TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

272 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) PD 10 M in or C h an g e in s to rm w at er d es ig n s ta n d ar d s Th e de si gn in co rp or at es t he la te st s ta nd ar ds , w hi ch a re o nl y 2 ye ar s ol d. H en ce , i t is u nl ik el y th at n ew s ta nd ar ds w ill e m er ge in t hi s pr oj ec t’s t im e fr am e. PD 11 Ca nn ot u se c ity s ew er s ys te m fo r pr o jec t r un of f ( or ci ty ch ar ge s fo r u se ) Th e ci ty m ig ht d en y us e or c ha rg e Q D O T fo r va rio us u pg ra de s to th e sy st em t o ac co m m od at e st or m w at er r un of f f ro m t hi s pr oj ec t. Th e pr oj ec t te am a nd Q D O T m an ag em en t ar e “a lm os t ce rt ai n” t ha t th e ci ty w ill u lti m at el y al lo w u se o f t he c ity ’s s ys te m ( th e ci ty n ee ds th is p ro je ct , a nd t he a dd iti on al lo ad o n th e se w er s ys te m is n ot su bs ta nt ia l), b ut w ill m os t lik el y as k fo r m on ey t o he lp u pg ra de it s sy st em . Q D O T w ou ld p ro ba bl y ca pi tu la te a s th is is t he b es t op tio n fr om a c os t an d tim e pe rs pe ct iv e. T hi s co st w ou ld o cc ur d ur in g th e pr oj ec t’s “ ut ili ty r el oc at io ns ” ph as e. Th is is su e is c or re la te d w ith t he li ke ly r eq ue st b y th e ci ty t o he lp p ay fo r a w at er - an d se w er -li ne r el oc at io n (s ee R is k RU 2 un de r U til iti es ris ks ). F or t he q ua nt ita tiv e ris k an al ys is , t he g ro up a ss es se s th at if R is k RU 2 oc cu rs ( i.e ., Q D O T de ci de s to h el p pa y fo r re lo ca tio n) , t he n th is ris k is m uc h le ss li ke ly t o oc cu r. M +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds +L to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d)

273 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) PD 12 St ru ct ur es a ffe ct ed b y M ai n St re et re al ig nm en t a re e lig ib le fo r N at io na l R eg is te r o f H is to ric P la ce s C an r ea so na bl y ca pt ur e th e ra ng e of c re di bl e po ss ib ili tie s w ith t he fo llo w in g se t of p ot en tia l ( m ut ua lly e xc lu si ve ) sc en ar io s or o ut co m es : A . N ot h is to ric s tr uc tu re s (b as e as su m pt io n) B. H is to ric s tr uc tu re s, b ut n o si gn ifi ca nt im pa ct t o pr oj ec t co st o r sc he du le ( e. g. , d oc um en t, t he n ac qu ire ) C . H is to ric s tr uc tu re s, c re at in g si gn ifi ca nt im pa ct t o pr oj ec t co st or s ch ed ul e (e .g ., ha ve t o re lo ca te s tr uc tu re s; s tr uc tu re s ar e co nt am in at ed ; o r ha ve t o sh ift p ro je ct a lig nm en t to a vo id ) L +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 PD 13 C h an g e in e n vi ro n m en ta l d o cu m en ta ti o n O nl y tr ea t th is is su e he re if n ot c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly b y sp ec ifi c tr ig ge rs or is su es e ls ew he re ( e. g. , d es ig n ch an ge s) . B as e as su m es a n EA , bu t an e nv iro nm en ta l i m pa ct s ta te m en t (E IS ) m ig ht b e re qu ire d if im pa ct s ar e gr ea te r th an a ss um ed . C an r ea so na bl y ca pt ur e th e ra ng e of c re di bl e po ss ib ili tie s w ith t he fo llo w in g se t of p ot en tia l ( m ut ua lly ex cl us iv e) s ce na rio s or o ut co m es : A . C om pl et e EA a s pl an ne d (b as e as su m pt io n) B. C om pl et e EA w ith a dd iti on al e ffo rt , b ut w ith n o si gn ifi ca nt ch an ge s to t he p ro je ct C . EI S re qu ire d, b ut w ith n o si gn ifi ca nt c ha ng es t o th e pr oj ec t D . EI S re qu ire d, r es ul tin g in s ig ni fic an t ch an ge t o th e pr oj ec t de si gn , RO W , a nd /o r co ns tr uc tio n L +M to Pr el im in ar y D es ig n/ En vi ro n m en ta l P ro ce ss +H to Pr el im in ar y D es ig n/ En vi ro n m en ta l P ro ce ss 0 TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

274 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) PD 14 D el ay s co m p le ti n g e n vi ro n m en ta l d o cu m en ta ti o n Fr om v ar io us c au se s if no t al re ad y ca pt ur ed s ep ar at el y (i. e. , s ig ni fic an t de si gn c ha ng es ; c ha ng e in t yp e of e nv iro nm en ta l d oc um en ta tio n, Ri sk E P2 ). Fo r ex am pl e: • A dd iti on al im pa ct s id en tifi ed • Pr oc es s de la ys ( in te rn al o r ex te rn al r ev ie w s, c om m en ts , a nd /o r ap pr ov al s) M N o di re ct c os t (s ch ed ul e- re la te d on ly ) +M to Pr el im in ar y D es ig n/ En vi ro n m en ta l P ro ce ss 0 PD 15 En co un te r un an tic ip at ed c on ta m in at io n in in te rc ha ng e ar ea If en co un te re d, li ke ly t o be h yd ro ca rb on -b as ed s oi l a nd /o r gr ou nd w at er c on ta m in at io n. M +V L to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 0 PD 16 A dd iti on al w et la nd m iti ga tio n re qu ire d fo r pl an ne d al ig nm en t A dd iti on al m iti ga tio n co ul d be r eq ui re d fo r va rio us r ea so ns . F or ex am pl e: • C ha ng e in m iti ga tio n re qu ire m en ts ( ra tio s, b uf fe rs ) • C ha ng e in w et la nd c la ss ifi ca tio n • Im pa ct s di ffe re nt t ha n as su m ed ( i.e ., un de re st im at ed o rig in al ly ) (t hi s co ul d ha pp en fo r th e cu rr en t or s hi ft ed a lig nm en t) N ot e th at fo r th e qu an tit at iv e ris k an al ys is , t hi s ris k is p ar tia lly a fu nc tio n of a ny p ot en tia l s hi ft in a lig nm en t at t he e as t en d of t he pr oj ec t (R is k PD 1) . I f R is k PD 1 oc cu rs a nd t he b as e w et la nd im pa ct s ar e re du ce d, t he p ro ba bi lit y of t hi s ris k is r ed uc ed . M +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 0

275 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) En vi ro n m en ta l P er m it s EP 1 M in or C h al le n g e to e n vi ro n m en ta l d et er m in at io n o r p er m it s Fo r an y re as on n ot c ap tu re d el se w he re . C ou ld c om e fr om o rg an iz ed pu bl ic g ro up s fo r va rio us r ea so ns . H ow ev er , v er y un lik el y fo r th e ba se pr oj ec t (c ha nc es c ou ld in cr ea se fo r so m e al te rn at iv es s uc h as s hi ft in g th e al ig nm en t at t he e as t en d of t he p ro je ct , b ut t he se im pa ct s ar e ca pt ur ed in t ho se r is ks ). EP 2 D el ay o bt ai ni ng th e 40 4 pe rm it Fr om e ith er in te rn al o r U .S . A rm y C or ps o f E ng in ee rs p ro ce ss d el ay s (r ev ie w , a pp ro va l) or d efi ci en ci es in Q D O T’ s ap pl ic at io n. N ot e th at t hi s ris k is a ss um ed t o be a pp ro xi m at el y in de pe nd en t of R is ks P D 1 an d EP 6 (d el ay is su es c ou ld o cc ur r eg ar dl es s of t he ou tc om es fr om t ho se r is ks ). L N o di re ct c os ts (s ch ed ul e- re la te d on ly ) +M to En vi ro nm en ta l Pe rm its 0 R ig h t- o f- W ay RU 1 Un ce rt ai nt y in R OW in fla tio n ra te Re gi on al ly ; b ef or e co ns id er in g th e lo ca liz ed e ffe ct s of a cc el er at in g de ve lo pm en t, w hi ch is c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly . D es pi te a s ag in t he e co no m y, p ro pe rt y pr ic es h av e he ld s te ad y, a nd ap pe ar t o ev en b e in cr ea si ng s lig ht ly . H ow ev er , t hi s co ul d ch an ge (e .g ., if th is a re a is la gg in g th e ec on om y) . O ve r th e sh or t te rm o f th is p ro je ct , l oc al in di ca to rs a nd t he R O W p ro fe ss io na ls a nt ic ip at e an av er ag e in cr ea se o f a pp ro xi m at el y 3% /y ea r in t he a re a. H +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 0 TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

276 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) RU 2 A cc el er at in g p ac e o f d ev el o p m en t in i n te rc h an g e ar ea Be yo nd t he r eg io na l R O W in fla tio n ra te c ap tu re d in R is k RU 1. Se ve ra l n ew d ev el op m en ts a re p la nn ed in t he a re a, a nd a t le as t on e co ul d be im pl em en te d be fo re t hi s pr oj ec t is le t. T he im pa ct t o th is pr oj ec t w ou ld b e in cr ea se d ac qu is iti on a nd p er ha ps r el oc at io n co st s co m pa re d w ith w ha t is c ur re nt ly a ss um ed in t he e st im at e. M +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 RU 3 Un w ill in g se lle rs Ba se c os t ex cl ud es c on de m na tio n co st s or a llo w an ce . T hi s ris k is se pa ra te fr om R is k RU 2. Pa rt ic ul ar ly in t he U S- 55 5/ SH -1 11 in te rc ha ng e ar ea , p ro pe rt y ow ne rs m ig ht n ot w an t to r el oc at e, le ad in g to in cr ea se d co st t o ac qu ire R O W (e .g ., ha ve t o go t hr ou gh c on de m na tio n) . N ot e th at c on de m na tio n do es n ot n or m al ly e xt en d th e rig ht -o f- w ay a cq ui si tio n tim e fr am e, b ec au se Q D O T ca n us ua lly q ui ck ly g ai n po ss es si on -a nd -u se o f c on de m ne d pr op er tie s. H +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 0

277 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) RU 4 In R U 2 A d d it io n al r el o ca ti o n o r d em o li ti o n r eq u ir ed Ex cl ud es a dd iti on al r el oc at io n or d em ol iti on t ha t m ig ht b e re qu ire d to ac co m m od at e ch an ge s in d es ig n or s co pe , w hi ch a re c ap tu re d as p ar t of t ho se s ep ar at e ris ks . E xc lu de s co nt am in at io n, w hi ch is c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly . Fo r ex am pl e, r el oc at io ns fr om m ul tit en an t pr op er tie s co ul d be co m pl ex . Th e gr ou p as se ss es t ha t th is p ot en tia l a dd iti on al c os t an d tim e w as ca pt ur ed in R is k RU 2. RU 5 M in or A d d it io n al R O W r eq u ir ed f o r p la n n ed p ro je ct Ex cl ud es a dd iti on al R O W t ha t m ig ht b e re qu ire d fo r ch an ge s in de si gn o r sc op e, w hi ch a re c ap tu re d as p ar t of t ho se s ep ar at e ris ks . Fo r ex am pl e, in iti al e st im at es fo r re qu ire d RO W fo r th e as su m ed de si gn w er e in co rr ec t or in co m pl et e. Th e gr ou p as se ss es t ha t th e po te nt ia l s ig ni fic an t ch an ge s w er e ca pt ur ed a s pa rt o f o th er r is ks . RU 6 O th er d el ay s to R O W p la n n in g Fo r re as on s no t ca pt ur ed a s pa rt o f o th er s pe ci fic r is ks . F or e xa m pl e, la te c ha ng es in d es ig n re su lt in c ha ng es in R O W p la ns o r in te rn al Q D O T de la ys t o RO W p la n de ve lo pm en t. M N o di re ct c os ts (s ch ed ul e- re la te d on ly ) +L to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

278 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) U ti li ti es RU 7 Te le co m u til ity w an ts a c os t-s ha rin g ag re em en t Th e Te le co m ’s p re se nc e in t he p ro je ct R O W p re da te s Q D O T’ s, s o Q D O T ca nn ot fo rc e re lo ca tio n. T he T el ec om ju st r ec en tly r ep la ce d its fib er o pt ic b ac kb on e, s o it is n ot li ke ly t o re pl ac e it w ith ou t so m e so rt of c os t sh ar in g (o r at le as t re pl ac e it w ith in t he t im e fr am e ne ed ed b y th is p ro je ct ). M +L to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 0 RU 8 Q D O T he lp s ci ty p ay fo r w at er - an d se w er -li ne r el oc at io n Se e G ui de , A pp en di x A ( ra pi d re ne w al s tr at eg ie s an d m et ho ds ). To h el p m ai nt ai n pr oj ec t sc he du le , Q D O T m ig ht h el p pa y fo r th e se w er -li ne r el oc at io n. T hi s “r is k” is t he re fo re r ea lly a p ro je ct o r po lic y de ci si on w ith in Q D O T’ s co nt ro l. Th is d ec is io n co m es a t a m on et ar y co st b ut a vo id s sc he du le d el ay ( as r efl ec te d to t he r ig ht ). N ot e th at fo r th e qu an tit at iv e ris k an al ys is , t he o ut co m e of t hi s ris k af fe ct s th e lik el ih oo d of o cc ur re nc e fo r Ri sk P D 11 . H +M to R O W , U til iti es , Ra ilr oa ds 0 0 RU 9 M in or O th er u til ity re lo ca tio ns n ot c om pl et ed o n tim e Fo r is su es n ot c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly in o th er r is ks . Fo r va rio us r ea so ns , i nc lu di ng d el ay ed n eg ot ia tio ns , d es ig n, o r re lo ca tio n w or k its el f. (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d)

279 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) RU 10 M in or D am ag e ex is ti n g u ti li ty o r en co u n te r u n an ti ci p at ed u ti li ty d u ri n g c o n st ru ct io n Po ss ib le , b ut t he t im e im pa ct s ar e qu ic kl y m iti ga te d. T he c os t im pa ct w ou ld b e th e D -B c on tr ac to r’s r es po ns ib ili ty . C o n tr ac ti n g a n d P ro cu re m en t C P1 Un ce rt ai nt y in c on st ru ct io n- co st in fla tio n ra te Ex cl ud es c on tr ac tin g m ar ke t co nd iti on s an d m at er ia l s up pl y is su es , w hi ch a re c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly in R is ks C P2 a nd C P3 . T hi s is su e in cl ud es u nc er ta in ty in t he g en er al r eg io na l a nd n at io na l t re nd s in co ns tr uc tio n- in du st ry c os t ch an ge s ov er t im e (g en er al in fla tio n) , w ith re as on ab le a dj us tm en t fo r th is r eg io n. H +M to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 0 TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

280 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C P2 U n ce rt ai n D -B c o n tr ac ti n g m ar k et c o n d it io n s at t im e o f b id Se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al Pr oj ec ts , o r Ta bl e B. 14 . Se pa ra te fr om g en er al c on st ru ct io n in fla tio n an d m at er ia l s up pl y is su es , w hi ch a re c ap tu re d in R is ks C P1 a nd C P3 , r es pe ct iv el y. T hi s is su e in cl ud es u nc er ta in ty in p ric in g st ra te gy a nd o th er c on tr ac to r co m pe tit io n fa ct or s. Q D O T ex pe ct s fo ur p ro po sa ls o r bi ds , w hi ch c ou ld im pr ov e co m pe tit io n. H ow ev er , r ec en t ex pe rie nc e fo r si m ila r pr oj ec ts is t ha t bi ds a re c om in g in a bo ve Q D O T’ s En gi ne er ’s E st im at es . C an r ea so na bl y ca pt ur e th e ra ng e of c re di bl e po ss ib ili tie s w ith t he fo llo w in g se t of p ot en tia l ( m ut ua lly e xc lu si ve ) sc en ar io s or o ut co m es : A . M ar ke t co nd iti on s ar e fa vo ra bl e (c om pe tit iv e) , a nd b id s co m e in be lo w t he b as e es tim at e B. M ar ke t co nd iti on s ar e si m ila r to t ha t as su m ed in t he e st im at e (m in im al c ha ng e fr om b as e) C . M ar ke t co nd iti on s ar e no t co m pe tit iv e, a nd s o bi ds a re h ig he r th an t he b as e bu t st ill a cc ep ta bl e (b el ow t hr es ho ld fo r ca nc el in g th e pr oc ur em en t) D . M ar ke t is n ot c om pe tit iv e, a nd n o ac ce pt ab le b id s ar e re ce iv ed , re qu iri ng r eb id di ng a nd p er ha ps r ep ac ka gi ng t o ge t ac ce pt ab le bi ds . 25 % (N ot e: t ea m th ou gh t ra tin gs w er e in su ffi ci en t to de sc rib e th is ris k) +1 0% o f b as e co ns tr uc tio n co st to D -B C on st ru ct io n +1 to P ro cu re m en t 0 (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d)

281 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C P3 El se w he re M at er ia l s up pl y is su es Va rio us lo ca l f ac to rs c ou ld a ffe ct t he a va ila bi lit y of m at er ia ls fo r th is pr oj ec t. F or e xa m pl e: • C an no t lo ca te a n ap pr op ria te fi ll so ur ce • Fi ll so ur ce is fa rt he r aw ay t ha n as su m ed • A gg re ga te p ric es a re h ig he r th an a nt ic ip at ed • St ee l p ric es a re h ig he r th an a nt ic ip at ed • C em en t pr ic es a re h ig he r th an a nt ic ip at ed Th e gr ou p be lie ve s th at a ll of t he se is su es a re c ap tu re d in e ith er R is k C P1 o r C P2 . C P4 M in or C h an g e in p ro je ct d el iv er y m et h o d Se e G ui de A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al Pr oj ec ts . C on tr ac t ot he r th an t hr ou gh t he a ss um ed s in gl e D -B c on tr ac t. O nl y tr ea t he re if n ot a lre ad y ca pt ur ed u nd er t he m ar ke t co nd iti on s ris k (C P2 ). It is u nl ik el y th at Q D O T w ill c ha ng e to a t ra di tio na l d el iv er y m et ho d (e .g ., de si gn –b id –b ui ld ) gi ve n th e ra pi d re ne w al -t yp e ob je ct iv es fo r th is p ro je ct . O th er d el iv er y al te rn at iv es a re u nl ik el y, e ith er b ec au se en ab lin g le gi sl at io n do es n ot e xi st o r Q D O T do es n ot h av e ad eq ua te ex pe rie nc e w ith t ho se d el iv er y m et ho ds . TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

282 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C P5 M in or A cc el er at e p re co n st ru ct io n a ct iv it ie s to r ea ch n o ti ce t o p ro ce ed ( N T P ) so o n er Se e G ui de , A pp en di x A a nd A pp en di x B. If no t ca pt ur ed s ep ar at el y un de r D es ig n, E nv iro nm en ta l, an d/ or R O W ris k ca te go rie s. To r ea ch N TP m or e qu ic kl y, Q D O T co ul d ad op t a m or e ag gr es si ve pr ec on st ru ct io n st ra te gy . F or e xa m pl e: • M ov in g to N TP b ef or e pe rm itt in g is c om pl et e. • C ou ld s ee k st re am lin ed e nv iro nm en ta l p ro ce ss o r de si gn a pp ro va l pr oc es s (s ee G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl e B. 3) . H ow ev er , i t m ig ht b e to o la te t o im pl em en t th es e fo r th is p ro je ct ( w ou ld h av e be en b et te r to p la n fo r th is in a dv an ce o f s ta rt in g w or k on t he p ro je ct ). Th e gr ou p be lie ve s th at a m or e ag gr es si ve p er m itt in g ve rs us N TP st ra te gy is p os si bl e, b ut in tr od uc es it s ow n ris ks ( i.e ., if N TP is is su ed be fo re t he e nv iro nm en ta l p er m its a re c om pl et e, t he n th e co nt ra ct or co ul d ha ve g ro un ds fo r si gn ifi ca nt c la im s if pe rm it co nd iti on s ch an ge re la tiv e to t he R FP ). H en ce , i t is u nl ik el y fo r Q D O T to p ur su e th is st ra te gy .

283 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C P6 M in or U se i n ce n ti ve s to a cc el er at e D -B c o n st ru ct io n Se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al Pr oj ec ts , o r Ta bl es B .2 a nd B .1 4. Th e te am b el ie ve s th at Q D O T is u nl ik el y to a pp ly a dd iti on al in ce nt iv es ; u se o f D -B d el iv er y m et ho d an d pe rf or m an ce -b as ed s pe cs sh ou ld p ro vi de a de qu at e fle xi bi lit y an d in ce nt iv e fo r th e co nt ra ct or t o co m pl et e th e pr oj ec t w ith in Q D O T’ s de si re d tim e fr am e. C P7 Is su es w it h D -B d es ig n o r su b m it ta ls Fo r ex am pl e: • In te rn al Q D O T or F H W A d el ay s re vi ew in g an d ap pr ov in g su bm is si on s • Er ro rs o r om is si on s in D -B s ub m is si on s M N o di re ct c os t (s ch ed ul e- re la te d on ly ) +M to D -B D es ig n 0 TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

284 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C P8 O th er p ro b le m s w it h D -B c o n tr ac t p ro cu re m en t Se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al Pr oj ec ts , o r Ta bl es B .2 a nd B .1 4. A si de fr om is su es c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly ( e. g. , a s pa rt o f m ar ke t co nd iti on s ris k) . N ot e th at p ro je ct -c an ce lin g is su es a re e xc lu de d. M os t of t he re m ai ni ng id en tifi ed is su es w er e as se ss ed t o be lo w li ke lih oo d an d re la tiv el y lo w im pa ct fo r th is p ro je ct . H en ce , t he g ro up c om bi ne d th em in to o ne la rg er is su e an d as se ss ed t he ir co m bi ne d po te nt ia l im pa ct s. E ve n so , t he g ro up b el ie ve s th at a s ig ni fic an t pr ob le m is u nl ik el y (e sp ec ia lly g iv en Q D O T’ s re as on ab le h is to ry fo r su ch pr oc ur em en ts ). If so m et hi ng d id o cc ur , t he m os t lik el y im pa ct t o sc he du le w ou ld b e du rin g D -B p ro cu re m en t. Fo r ex am pl e: • Bi d pr ot es t (p re aw ar d or p os ta w ar d) • U nc le ar c on tr ac t do cu m en ts • C on tr ac to r de fa ul t • Bo nd in g or in su ra nc e is su es • Q D O T un fa m ili ar ity w ith D -B c on tr ac tin g • A pp ro ac h to s pe ci fic at io ns ( e. g. , p er fo rm an ce -b as ed s pe cs ) L N o di re ct c os t (s ch ed ul e- re la te d on ly ) +L to P ro cu re m en t 0 (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d)

285 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C o n st ru ct io n C N 1 D -B c o n st ru ct io n p h as in g s ig n ifi ca n tl y d if fe re n t th an as su m ed Ex cl ud es s pe ci fic c ha ng es t o sc he du le a nd p ha si ng r el at ed t o ch an ge s in d es ig n, e tc . t ha t ar e ca pt ur ed u nd er o th er r is ks . Th e ba se s ch ed ul e is n ot b el ie ve d to b e ov er ly o pt im is tic o r ag gr es si ve . I t’s im po ss ib le t o kn ow a t th is p oi nt h ow t he D -B w ill ac tu al ly c on st ru ct t he p ro je ct , s o th e ac tu al s ch ed ul e an d ph as in g co ul d be s ig ni fic an tly d iff er en t th an c ur re nt ly a ss um ed . 25 % (N ot e: t ea m th ou gh t ra tin gs w er e in su ffi ci en t to de sc rib e th is ris k) N o di re ct c os t (s ch ed ul e- re la te d on ly ) −2 to D -B C on st ru ct io n −0 .1 to D -B C on st ru ct io n C N 2 A dd iti on al M ai nt en an ce o f t ra ffi c re qu ire d Se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al Pr oj ec ts , o r Ta bl e B. 10 . Ei th er b ec au se t he o rig in al p la n do es n ot w or k an d ne ed s to b e m od ifi ed , o r th e pl an w or ks b ut s im pl y ne ed s to b e au gm en te d. H +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +V L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +M to D -B C on st ru ct io n TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

286 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C N 3 Pr o bl em s w ith p la nn ed a cc el er at ed b rid ge c o n st ru ct io n (A BC ) te ch ni qu e Q D O T as su m es t he c on tr ac to r w ill e m pl oy A BC ( re ga rd le ss o f t he st ru ct ur e ty pe s el ec te d fo r th e in te rc ha ng e; h en ce , t hi s is su e is ap pr ox im at el y in de pe nd en t of R is k PD 3) . T he p er fo rm an ce o f t hi s pl an ne d ra pi d re ne w al m et ho d (A BC ) is d iffi cu lt to p re di ct b ec au se th e m et ho d th e co nt ra ct or w ill u se is n ot k no w n, a nd m an y A BC te ch ni qu es a re s til l e vo lv in g. • Po te nt ia l p ro bl em s in cl ud e (s ee G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl e B. 5) : • Se le ct ed t ec hn ol og y do es n ot w or k as p la nn ed ( te ch ni ca l i ss ue ) D el ay s pr oc ur in g te ch no lo gy N ot e th at t hi s ris k do es n ot a pp ly if t he S H -1 11 a lig nm en t is s pl it at th e in te rc ha ng e (c on st ru ct io n is o ut o f t ra ffi c; A BC is n ot u se d) . H +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n

287 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C N 4 U n ab le t o c o n st ru ct i n te rc h an g e em b an k m en ts a s ra p id ly a s as su m ed Ba se a ss um es r ap id c on st ru ct io n te ch ni qu es fo r th e ap pr oa ch em ba nk m en ts o f t he S H -1 11 o ve rc ro ss in g at t he in te rc ha ng e w ith U S- 55 5. Th e pe rf or m an ce o f t hi s pl an ne d ra pi d re ne w al m et ho d (r ap id em ba nk m en t co ns tr uc tio n) is d iffi cu lt to p re di ct fo r th e fo llo w in g re as on s (s ee G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl e B. 6) : • U nc er ta in ty in s ub su rf ac e co nd iti on s (s of t so ils a re s us pe ct ed ); • U nc er ta in ty in w ha t m et ho d th e co nt ra ct or w ill c ho os e; a nd • U nc er ta in ty in p er fo rm an ce o f t he s el ec te d m et ho d fo r ac tu al su bs ur fa ce c on di tio ns ( e. g. , m et ho d do es n ot p er fo rm a s in te nd ed ). It is t he re fo re u nc le ar a t th is p oi nt h ow m uc h be ne fit w ill b e ac hi ev ed re la tiv e to t ra di tio na l e m ba nk m en t co ns tr uc tio n. If t he m et ho d do es n ot w or k, r em ed ia l m ea su re s w ill b e ne ed ed t o ac ce le ra te em ba nk m en t co ns tr uc tio n, b ut w ith s om e lo ss o f t im e. M +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +M to D -B C on st ru ct io n +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

288 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C N 5 D iffi cu lt fo u n da tio n in st al la tio n Se pa ra te fr om g ro un d im pr ov em en t is su es . In fo rm at io n is li m ite d in t he in te rc ha ng e ar ea ( ad di tio na l g eo te ch ni ca l in ve st ig at io n is s ch ed ul ed fo r la te r) . H ow ev er , a ne cd ot al in fo rm at io n in di ca te s th at n ea r- su rf ac e gr ou nd c on di tio ns a re p oo r en ou gh t o re qu ire d ee p fo un da tio ns ( as su m ed in t he b as e) . C ou ld e nc ou nt er o bs tr uc tio ns , c ou ld h av e di ffi cu lty o bt ai ni ng d es ig n ca pa ci ty fo r va rio us r ea so ns . L +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +V L to D -B C on st ru ct io n C N 6 M in or Se v er e w ea th er e v en t s ig ni fic an tly a ffe ct s co ns tr uc tio n Th is r ef er s to s pe ci fic , i nd iv id ua l e ve nt s, s uc h as e ar th qu ak e or flo od , d ur in g co ns tr uc tio n. C ou ld r es ul t in e ith er d el ay o r si gn ifi ca nt da m ag e. V er y lo w li ke lih oo d of s ig ni fic an t im pa ct in t hi s ge og ra ph ic lo ca tio n. C N 7 Co ld er - th an -u su al w in te r U su al ly , c on st ru ct io n w or k ca n pr oc ee d ye ar -r ou nd in s om e m an ne r (t he b as e sc he du le a cc ou nt s fo r th is ). H ow ev er , a n ex tr em e w in te r co ul d re su lt in p er ha ps a 1 -m on th d el ay . L N o di re ct c os t (s ch ed ul e- re la te d on ly ) +V L to D -B C on st ru ct io n +V L to D -B C on st ru ct io n C N 8 M in or Si gn ifi ca nt a cc id en t d ur in g co ns tru ct io n Lo w li ke lih oo d. If o ne o cc ur s, t im e im pa ct is li ke ly t o be m in im al a nd co st im pa ct s co ul d be c ov er ed b y D -B in su ra nc e.

289 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) C N 9 Li m it ed c o n st ru ct io n s ta g in g a re a in v ic in it y o f in te rc h an g e Ei th er Q D O T or t he c on tr ac to r w ill li ke ly h av e to fi nd a s ui ta bl e st ag in g ar ea , b ut it m ig ht n ot b e cl os e to t he in te rc ha ng e, w hi ch co ul d in cr ea se c on tr ac to r co st s. M +V L to D -B C on st ru ct io n 0 0 C N 10 M in or Fi sh w in d o w i n W an d er in g C re ek C ur re nt ly , n o lis te d sp ec ie s ar e be lie ve d to in ha bi t W an de rin g C re ek ne ar U S- 55 5. H en ce , i n- w at er w or k w in do w s ar e as su m ed t o no t ap pl y. E ve n if a w in do w d id a pp ly , h ow ev er , t he c on tr ac to r sh ou ld b e ab le t o ea si ly s ta ge c ul ve rt w or k to a cc om m od at e a w in do w . C N 11 M in or N o n co m p li an ce w it h p er m it s d u ri n g c o n st ru ct io n Lo w li ke lih oo d of a ny s ig ni fic an t no nc om pl ia nc e. E ve n if it do es o cc ur , lo w li ke lih oo d of s ig ni fic an t co st im pa ct ( co nt ra ct or ) or s ch ed ul e im pa ct ( Q D O T’ s sc he du le , b ut c on tr ac to r fin an ci al ly r es po ns ib le ). C N 12 Ex te n d ed o ve rh ea d s as a f u n ct io n o f p ro je ct d el ay s Pr ec on st ru ct io n (Q D O T st af f) : $ 10 0, 00 0/ m on th o f d el ay C on st ru ct io n: • Q D O T st af f: $1 00 ,0 00 /m on th o f d el ay • C on tr ac to r: F or c om pe ns ab le d el ay s, $ 25 0, 00 0/ m on th o f d el ay (m od el ed a s $1 25 ,0 00 /m on th o f t ot al d el ay , a ss um in g 50 % o f de la ys a re c om pe ns ab le ) N ot t re at ed as a s ep ar at e, ex pl ic it ris k (r es ul ts fr om ot he r ris ks ) TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

290 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .5 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER F OR M EA N -V AL UE O R M EA N -R AT IN G AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y IF C on d u ct in g O n ly a Q u al it at iv e R is k A ss es sm en t (E n te r E it h er M ea n R at in g s p er S ca le o r M ea n V al u es ) P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m ill io n p er so n -h ou rs lo st ) M in o r an d U n id en ti fi ed R is k s an d O p p o rt u n it ie s A gg re ga te e ffe ct o f i te m s la be le d M in or , a bo ve . M aj or m ea ns t he ite m s qu an tifi ed a bo ve ( i.e ., al l i te m s ot he r th an t ho se la be le d M in or ab ov e) A gg re ga te m in or r is ks H +L +L +L A gg re ga te m in or o pp or tu ni tie s H −L −L −L U ni de nt ifi ed r is ks H +L +L +L U ni de nt ifi ed o pp or tu ni tie s H −L −L −L

291 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 4. UNMITIGATED MEAN-VALUE PROJECT PERFORMANCE The various base and unmitigated risk factors (as described in Attachments 2 and 3) were used to calculate (using the Microsoft Excel workbook template) approximate mean unmitigated project performance (by activity and collectively), including cost (unescalated and escalated), schedule (milestone dates), disruption, and longevity (postconstruction cost, schedule, and disruption), as well as combined performance (see Table E.6). The mean severity of each risk was also determined (using the Micro- soft Excel workbook template) in terms of its approximate contribution to the mean combined performance, and the risks were then sorted by their mean severity (see Table E.7 and Figure E.3). As previously noted, performance through construction only is the focus.

292 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS N ot e: F ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ), t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly . T ab le E .6 . A pp ro xi m at e M ea n U nm iti ga te d B as e + R is k Pr oj ec t P er fo rm an ce N ot e: F ro m ra pi d re ne w al ri sk m an ag em en t p la nn in g te m pl at e (h ttp :// w w w .tr b. or g/ m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ), th ro ug h co ns tru ct io n on ly . TA B LE E .6 . A P P R O X IM A TE M E A N U N M IT IG A TE D B A S E + R IS K P R O JE C T P E R F O R M A N C E

293 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .7 . UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RA N KI N G T ab le E .7 . U nm iti ga te d R is k R an ki ng N ot e: F ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ), fo r ris ks a nd p er fo rm an ce t hr ou gh co ns tr uc tio n on ly .

294 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS So ur ce :     Fr om  t he  r ap id  r en ew al  r is k   m an ag em en t   pl an ni ng  t em pl at e   (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ).   Fi gu re E .3 . U nm iti ga te d ris k ra nk in g fo r r is ks a nd p er fo rm an ce th ro ug h co ns tr uc tio n on ly .    F ig u re E .3 . U nm iti ga te d ris k ra nk in g fo r ris ks a nd p er fo rm an ce t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly . So ur ce : Fr om t he r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ).

295 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 5. RISK REDUCTION PLAN The plan for proactively reducing individual risks (as identified, described, assessed, evaluated, and finally ranked in Attachments 3 and 4) for the project was developed as follows: • Identified possible risk reduction actions for the highest-ranking risks (see Table E.8). • Assessed the cost-effectiveness factors for each action (see Table E.8). • Determined (using the Microsoft Excel workbook template) the cost-effectiveness of each action (see Table E.9). • Selected a cost-effective set of actions (see Table E.9), and planned them (see Table E.10). • Determined (using the Microsoft Excel workbook template) the mitigated risk register (mean value or mean ratings) for that set of actions (see Table E.11). As previously noted, performance (and thus risks) through construction only is the focus.

296 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t C P1 U nc er ta in ty in co ns tr uc tio n co st in fla tio n ra te Th is is a t ru e un ce rt ai nt y an d gi ve n th e la rg e- sc al e fa ct or s co nt ro lli ng it, t he p ro je ct t ea m is u na bl e to m iti ga te t hi s fa ct or . SC 6 Pr ov id e ne w lig ht in g th ro ug ho ut pr oj ec t 1. M od ify t he p ro je ct ’s d es ig n to a vo id r el oc at in g ex is tin g lig ht in g ou ts id e th e in te rc ha ng e. H ow ev er , t hi s cr ea te s ne w ris ks [ e. g. , e xt ra d es ig n tim e; ad di tio na l r ig ht -o f- w ay ( RO W ) re qu ire m en ts ; m ai nt ai ni ng o ld lig ht in g] . T hi s is n ot s ee n as a vi ab le a ct io n at t hi s po in t. 2. A cc ep t th at n ew li gh tin g m ig ht be r eq ui re d, a nd o pt im iz e lig ht in g de si gn t o m in im iz e co st im pa ct if it d oe s oc cu r. H ow ev er , th e sa vi ng s lik el y w ou ld n ot b e si gn ifi ca nt . 3. N eg ot ia te a c os t- sh ar in g ag re em en t w ith t he c ity fo r th e ne w c on tin uo us li gh tin g, s in ce Q D O T’ s st an da rd s do n ot r ea lly re qu ire it . T hi s ac tio n w ill n ot re du ce t he li ke lih oo d of t he r is k, bu t co ul d re du ce t he c os t to Q D O T. M in or (c an w or k w ith in ex is tin g sc he du le ) Re du ce by 5 0% (e .g ., fr om M to L ) (c on tin ue d) N ot e: R is k re du ct io n ac tio ns a re fo r ris ks a nd p er fo rm an ce th ro ug h co ns tr uc tio n on ly . R is ks a re r an ke d in te rm s of th ei r m ea n- va lu e se ve rit y, a nd o nl y ris ks w ith a m ea n se ve rit y ra tin g of L ow o r hi gh er a re s ho w n. a S ee r is k re gi st er fo r de sc rip tio n. b P ro ac tiv e ac tio ns : m iti ga te , a vo id , a llo ca te . c P er ce nt ag e re du ct io n in r is k fa ct or s re la tiv e to p re m iti ga tio n fa ct or s in r is k re gi st er .

297 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t RU 8 Q D O T he lp s ci ty p ay fo r w at er a nd se w er -li ne re lo ca tio n Th is “ ris k” is r ea lly a p ro je ct o r po lic y de ci si on t o be m ad e by Q D O T. In t ha t lig ht , t hi s is r ea lly a w ay t o ac ce le ra te p ro je ct d el iv er y (i. e. , t he a ct io n is a r ap id r en ew al m et ho d be lo ng in g to t he “ ad di tio na l in ve st m en t” s tr at eg y; s ee G ui de , A pp en di x A ). Q D O T sh ou ld b e ab le t o so m ew ha t re du ce R is k PD 11 if it h el ps t he c ity pa y fo r th e re lo ca tio n. H en ce , t he im pa ct s to R is ks R U 8 an d PD 11 a re re la te d: 1. Th e “c os t” o f t hi s ris k m an ag em en t ac tio n sh ow s up u nd er R is k RU 8 in t er m s of a n in cr ea se d pr ob ab ili ty o f oc cu rr en ce ( i.e ., an in cr ea se d pr ob ab ili ty o f h el pi ng t he c ity ). 2. Th e “b en efi t” o f t hi s ac tio n sh ow s up u nd er R is k PD 11 as r ed uc ed p ro ba bi lit y of oc cu rr en ce ( i.e ., a re du ce d pr ob ab ili ty t ha t th e ci ty w ill de ny u se o f i ts s ys te m ). Th e im pa ct s to b ot h RU 8 an d PD 11 w ill h av e to b e co ns id er ed t og et he r to d et er m in e if th is d ec is io n or ac tio n is c os t- ef fe ct iv e. In cr ea se b y 70 % (e .g ., fr om H to V H ) TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

298 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t RU 3 U nw ill in g se lle rs Q D O T’ s pr in ci pa l r is k fr om u nw ill in g se lle rs is in cr ea se d RO W a cq ui si tio n co st . H en ce , Q D O T co ul d ta ke t he fo llo w in g ac tio ns t o re du ce t hi s ris k (s ee G ui de , T ab le B .1 1) : 1. Re vi ew t he d es ig n to s ee if it ca n be “ tw ea ke d” t o av oi d an y of t he se p ro pe rt ie s. T hi s ha s al re ad y be en d on e on ce , an d th e pr oj ec t te am d oe s no t be lie ve t he re is m uc h ro om fo r im pr ov em en t un de r th e cu rr en t de si gn c on ce pt . 2. M ak e re as on ab le , e ar ly o ffe rs : C on du ct t ho ro ug h re se ar ch o n th e va lu es o f t he se p ro pe rt ie s an d pr es en t re as on ab le o ffe rs to t he p ro pe rt y ow ne rs . D o th is ea rly t o pr ov id e m or e tim e to re ac h ne go tia te d se tt le m en ts (a nd t he re fo re a vo id c ou rt pr oc ee di ng s) . T hi s ac tio n w ou ld lik el y re du ce t he p ro ba bi lit y of c os t in cr ea se , b ut n ot t he m ag ni tu de o f a c os t in cr ea se if it oc cu rs . 0. 05 t o RO W Re du ce b y 50 % (e .g ., fr om H to M ) RU 1 U nc er ta in ty in RO W in fla tio n ra te Th is is a t ru e un ce rt ai nt y an d, g iv en th e la rg e- sc al e fa ct or s co nt ro lli ng it, t he p ro je ct t ea m is u na bl e to m iti ga te t hi s fa ct or . - - - - - - -

299 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t RU 2 A cc el er at in g pa ce o f de ve lo pm en t in in te rc ha ng e ar ea 1. A cc el er at e pr oj ec t de ve lo pm en t ac tiv iti es , s pe ci fic al ly : 2. Pr oj ec t de si gn e ffo rt ( se e G ui de , T ab le B .4 ) to p re em pt de ve lo pe rs ’ p er m it ap pl ic at io ns an d ap pr ov al s by t he c ity ; a nd 3. Pr ep ar at io n of R O W a pp ra is al s an d of fe rs ( se e G ui de , T ab le B. 11 ) in o rd er t o m ak e of fe rs t o de ve lo pe rs b ef or e th ey b eg in th ei r pl an ne d de ve lo pm en ts . 4. Th is c ou ld b e di ffi cu lt gi ve n th e al re ad y- sh or t tim e fr am e fo r th is pr oj ec t. 5. C oo rd in at e m or e cl os el y w ith th e ci ty in a n at te m pt t o ha ve th e ci ty a vo id is su in g an y ne w de ve lo pm en t pe rm its in R O W re qu ire d by t he p ro je ct . T hi s w ill n ot a ffe ct p er m its t ha t ha ve al re ad y be en is su ed . T hi s ac tio n w ou ld m os t lik el y re du ce t he lik el ih oo d of t hi s ris k oc cu rr in g, bu t w ou ld n ot r ed uc e th e co st s if th is r is k oc cu rs . Re du ce b y 50 % (e .g ., fr om M t o L) TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

300 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t C N 2 A dd iti on al m ai nt en an ce o f tr af fic ( M O T) re qu ire d To r ed uc e th e ris k of a n in ef fe ct iv e M O T pr og ra m o r re qu iri ng si gn ifi ca nt ly m or e M O T, Q D O T co ul d ta ke t he fo llo w in g ac tio ns , w hi ch a re n ot p ar t of t he c ur re nt pl an ( G ui de , T ab le B .1 0) : 1. Re du ce t ra ffi c de m an d du rin g cl os ur es ( i.e ., lo ok fo r vi ab le de to ur s or p ro vi de a lte rn at iv e m od es o f t ra ns po rt ), w hi le st ill m ee tin g Q D O T’ s go al o f m ai nt ai ni ng t he e qu iv al en t of tw o la ne s of t ra ffi c al on g U S- 55 5 an d SH -1 11 . Q D O T w ou ld ha ve t o w or k w ith t he d es ig n– bu ild ( D -B ) co nt ra ct or o n th is is su e, p er ha ps s ta rt in g w ith t he re qu es t fo r pr op os al ( RF P) . 2. Se ek e ar ly c on tr ac to r in vo lv em en t, a nd /o r ho ld M O T pl an b ra in st or m in g or co nc ep t re vi ew s w ith in du st ry re pr es en ta tiv es . 3. Q D O T co ul d co nd uc t m or e tr af fic m od el in g un de r va rio us po ss ib le c on st ru ct io n sc en ar io s to b et te r un de rs ta nd t he po te nt ia l p ro bl em s, a nd t he n tr an sl at e th es e fin di ng s in to re qu ire m en ts in t he R FP . 4. Re qu ire t he D -B c on tr ac to r to de ve lo p a co nt in ge nc y M O T pl an a s pa rt o f t he p ro po sa l. 0. 05 t o Fi na l D es ig n Re du ce b y 50 % (e .g ., fr om H to M ) Re du ce b y 67 % TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

301 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t C N 4 U na bl e to co ns tr uc t in te rc ha ng e em ba nk m en ts as r ap id ly a s as su m ed To r ed uc e th e ris k of p oo re r- th an - an tic ip at ed p er fo rm an ce , Q D O T co ul d ta ke t he fo llo w in g ac tio ns (G ui de , T ab le B .6 ): 1. Q D O T co nd uc ts a dd iti on al in ve st ig at io n an d an al ys is (b ey on d w ha t i s al re ad y pl an ne d) of th e em ba nk m en t f ou nd at io n m at er ia l t o be tt er a sc er ta in w hi ch ra pi d co ns tr uc tio n te ch ni qu es a re lik el y to s uc ce ed . P ro vi de th es e fin di ng s to th e D -B c on tr ac to r i n an tic ip at io n th at th e co nt ra ct or w ill u se th e in fo rm at io n to s el ec t a m or e re lia bl e co ns tr uc tio n m et ho d. 2. Re qu ire t ha t th e D -B co nt ra ct or d ev el op a n al te rn at iv e em ba nk m en t co ns tr uc tio n te ch ni qu e (e .g ., gr ou nd im pr ov em en t) t o be im pl em en te d w ith ou t de la y in t he e ve nt t ha t th e pl an ne d te ch ni qu e do es n ot w or k. T hi s ac tio n co ul d m iti ga te d el ay if th e ris k oc cu rs , b ut c ou ld r es ul t in a dd iti on al c os t. Th e co m bi ne d im pa ct o f t he se t w o ac tio ns is s ho w n to t he r ig ht . T he se ac tio ns c ou ld r es ul t in a r ed uc ed pr ob ab ili ty o f o cc ur re nc e or a re du ce d du ra tio n of im pa ct fr om oc cu rr en ce , b ut p ro ba bl y no t bo th . Th e gr ou p ch os e to c ha ra ct er iz e th e be ne fit s fr om t he se a ct io ns in t er m s of t he r ed uc ed li ke lih oo d of t he r is k oc cu rr in g. 0. 1 to Fi na l D es ig n (c an b e do ne w ith in ex is tin g sc he du le ) Re du ce b y 50 % (e .g ., fr om M t o L) TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

302 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t C P2 U nc er ta in D -B co nt ra ct in g m ar ke t co nd iti on s at tim e of b id To r ed uc e th e ris k of e xp er ie nc in g im pa ct s fr om p ot en tia lly p oo r m ar ke t co nd iti on s, Q D O T co ul d ta ke t he fo llo w in g ac tio ns ( G ui de , T ab le B .1 4) : 1. U se a n al te rn at iv e pr oc ur em en t m et ho d. A n um be r of lo ca l co nt ra ct or s w ho d o no t tr ad iti on al ly b id o n D -B co nt ra ct s m ig ht b id o n th is co nt ra ct if it w er e pr oc ur ed v ia ot he r, m or e tr ad iti on al m et ho ds . H ow ev er , t hi s w ou ld b e co nt ra ry to Q D O T’ s ra pi d re ne w al st ra te gy fo r th is p ro je ct . H en ce , th is a ct io n is u nl ik el y. 2. U se a lte rn at iv e co nt ra ct pa ck ag in g. T he s in gl e co nt ra ct is al re ad y re la tiv el y sm al l, so th e gr ou p be lie ve s th at c re at in g tw o or m or e sm al le r p ac ka ge s w ill n ot ha ve a ny im pa ct o n bi d pr ic es . 3. Sh ift t he p ro je ct t im e lin e to av oi d an y ot he r m aj or p ro je ct s in t he a re a th at m ig ht c on su m e re so ur ce s ne ed ed fo r th is pr oj ec t. T hi s is n ot fe as ib le , gi ve n Q D O T’ s ra pi d re ne w al st ra te gy fo r th is p ro je ct . 4. Q D O T co ul d m or e pr oa ct iv el y pr om ot e aw ar en es s of t he pr oj ec t in t he c on tr ac tin g co m m un ity ( e. g. , t hr ou gh a n ou tr ea ch p ro gr am t o sm al le r co nt ra ct or s) , i n ho pe s of ge ne ra tin g m or e in te re st . O ve ra ll, g iv en h ow s m al l ( re la tiv el y) th is p ro je ct is , t he g ro up d oe s no t be lie ve t ha t it is fe as ib le t o si gn ifi ca nt ly r ed uc e th is r is k or un ce rt ai nt y.

303 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t PD 11 C an no t us e ci ty se w er s ys te m fo r pr oj ec t ru no ff (o r ci ty ch ar ge s fo r us e) Ti ed t o th e ac tio n de sc rib ed u nd er RU 8 (t he b en efi ts o f t ha t ac tio n ar e re al iz ed u nd er t hi s ris k) . Re du ce b y 50 % (e .g ., fr om M t o L) PD 13 C ha ng e in en vi ro nm en ta l do cu m en ta tio n Q D O T is in cl ud in g w ha t it be lie ve s to b e co ns er va tiv e im pa ct s in it s en vi ro nm en ta l a ss es sm en t. Q D O T is a ls o de si gn in g in a n at te m pt to r ed uc e pr oj ec t im pa ct s an d is co m m un ic at in g w ith t he p ub lic ab ou t th e pr oj ec t. B ey on d th es e cu rr en t ac tio ns , n ei th er t he p ro je ct te am n or t he r is k as se ss m en t su bj ec t- m at te r ex pe rt s co ul d id en tif y an y fe as ib le w ay t o m iti ga te t hi s ris k. TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

304 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t C N 3 Pr ob le m s w ith p la nn ed ac ce le ra te d br id ge co ns tr uc tio n (A BC ) te ch ni qu e To r ed uc e th e ris k of p oo re r- th an - an tic ip at ed p er fo rm an ce , Q D O T co ul d ta ke t he fo llo w in g ac tio ns (G ui de , T ab le B .5 ): D ur in g de si gn a nd /o r pr oc ur em en t: 1. Q D O T co ul d re qu ire t he D -B c on tr ac to r to d ev el op a pa ra lle l, al te rn at iv e ra pi d br id ge r ep la ce m en t te ch ni qu e as a m iti ga tio n m ea su re , t o be de pl oy ed if s ig ni fic an t pr ob le m s ar is e w ith t he p rim ar y ap pr oa ch . 2. Q D O T an d/ or t he c on tr ac to r co ul d ga th er p er fo rm an ce in fo rm at io n fo r th e pr op os ed A BC t ec hn iq ue t o in cr ea se co nfi de nc e th at t he t ec hn iq ue w ill p er fo rm w el l f or t hi s ap pl ic at io n. 3. Pr eq ua lif y an d/ or s el ec t co nt ra ct or s w ith a h is to ry o f su cc es sf ul A BC u nd er s im ila r pr oj ec t ci rc um st an ce s. D ur in g co ns tr uc tio n, m ak e su re co nt ra ct or h as t he a lte rn at iv e te ch ni qu e re ad y to im pl em en t. To ge th er , t he g ro up b el ie ve s th at t he se a ct io ns ( w hi ch a re n ot cu rr en tly p la nn ed ) sh ou ld r ed uc e th e pr ob ab ili ty o f t he a ss es se d im pa ct s oc cu rr in g, o r re du ce t he m ag ni tu de of t he im pa ct s, b ut p ro ba bl y no t bo th . 0. 05 t o Fi na l D es ig n Re du ce b y 50 % (e .g ., fr om H to M )

305 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t PD 12 St ru ct ur es im pa ct ed b y M ai n St re et re al ig nm en t ar e el ig ib le fo r N at io na l Re gi st er o f H is to ric P la ce s Th es e st ru ct ur es e ith er w ill b e el ig ib le fo r lis tin g or t he y w ill n ot . Th e on ly w ay fo r Q D O T to m iti ga te th is r is k is t o av oi d th e st ru ct ur es al to ge th er , w hi ch w ou ld r eq ui re sh ift in g th e al ig nm en t. A lth ou gh th is is a p os si bi lit y, s uc h a ch an ge w ou ld in tr od uc e ad di tio na l p ro bl em s th at m os t lik el y w ou ld o ut w ei gh t he be ne fit s. H en ce , t he g ro up b el ie ve s th at Q D O T ca nn ot r ea so na bl y re du ce t hi s ris k. C N 1 D -B co ns tr uc tio n ph as in g si gn ifi ca nt ly di ffe re nt t ha n as su m ed (o pp or tu ni ty ) Th is “ op po rt un ity ” is r ea lly m or e of a n un ce rt ai nt y re la te d to h ow th e de si gn –b ui ld er w ill p ha se a nd co ns tr uc t th e pr oj ec t. In t he or y, Q D O T co ul d at te m pt to in flu en ce t he D -B c on st ru ct io n sc he du le b y us in g in ce nt iv es fo r th e co nt ra ct or t o ac ce le ra te c on st ru ct io n (s ee G ui de , T ab le s B. 2 an d B. 4) . H ow ev er , t he re is s ig ni fic an t re si st an ce w ith in Q D O T to u se o f co nt ra ct or in ce nt iv es . H en ce , t he gr ou p w as n ot a bl e to id en tif y an y si gn ifi ca nt a ct io n (b ey on d Q D O T’ s cu rr en t st ra te gy ) to a m pl ify t hi s op po rt un ity . TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

306 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .8 . DE TA IL ED ID EN TI FI CA TI ON O F RI SK R ED UC TI ON A CT IO N S AN D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T (c on tin ue d) R is k R is k or O p p or tu n it y A d d re ss ed a P ot en ti al R is k M an ag em en t A ct io n sb C os t to I m p le m en t A ct io n s (i m p ac ts t o af fe ct ed a ct iv it y) E ff ec ti ve n es s of A ct io n sc C os t C h an g e (c u rr en t $ M ) S ch ed u le C h an g e (m on th s) D is ru p ti on C h an g e (m ill io n p er so n - h ou rs l os t) P ro b ab ili ty C os t Im p ac t D u ra ti on Im p ac t D is ru p ti on Im p ac t PD 8 C ha ng e in pa ve m en t se ct io n an d/ or ty pe Th is c os t “o pp or tu ni ty ” w ou ld re al ly r efl ec t a ch an ge in Q D O T’ s ob je ct iv es fo r th is p ro je ct , a nd is n ot so m et hi ng t he p ro je ct t ea m w an ts t o pu rs ue ( i.e ., a ch an ge in p av em en t ty pe fr om c on cr et e to a sp ha lt w ou ld m ea n a ch an ge in t he p ro je ct ob je ct iv e of m ax im iz in g lo ng ev ity o f th e ne w fa ci lit y) . H en ce , n o ac tio n is pl an ne d to in cr ea se t hi s op po rt un ity .

307 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .9 . SU M M AR Y OF R IS K RE DU CT IO N ID EN TI FI CA TI ON A N D CO ST -E FF EC TI VE N ES S AS SE SS M EN T AN D EV AL UA TI ON N ot e: R is k re du ct io n id en tifi ca tio n is fo r ris ks a nd p er fo rm an ce t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly . F ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ). [C om p: If v er y ea sy , p le as e re m ov e th e 8 bl ac k do ts p re ce di ng ta bl e. ] T ab le E .9 . S um m ar y of R is k R ed uc tio n Id en tif ic at io n an d C os t-E ffe ct iv en es s A ss es sm en t a nd E va lu at io n N ot e: R is k re du ct io n id en tif ic at io n is fo r r is ks a nd p er fo rm an ce th ro ug h co ns tru ct io n on ly . F ro m ra pi d re ne w al ri sk m an ag em en t p la nn in g te m pl at e (h ttp :// w w w .tr b. or g/ m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ).

308 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 0 . RI SK R ED UC TI ON P LA N N ot e: F or r is ks t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly ; f ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ). T ab le E .1 0. R is k R ed uc tio n Pl an N ot e: F or ri sk s t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly ; f ro m ra pi d re ne w al ri sk m an ag em en t p la nn in g te m pl at e (h ttp :// w w w .tr b. or g/ m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ).

309 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 1 . M IT IG AT ED R IS K FA CT OR S Ta bl e E. 11 . M iti ga te d R is k Fa ct or s (c on tin ue d)

310 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 1 . M IT IG AT ED R IS K FA CT OR S (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

311 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS N ot e: Fo r ris ks an d pe rf or m an ce th ro ug h co ns tru ct io n on ly ; fr om ra pi d re ne w al ris k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng te m pl at e (h ttp :// w w w .tr b. or g/ m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ). N ot e: F or r is ks a nd p er fo rm an ce t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly ; f ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ). TA B LE E .1 1 . M IT IG AT ED R IS K FA CT OR S (c on tin ue d)

312 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 6. MITIGATED MEAN-VALUE PROJECT PERFORMANCE The various revised base and mitigated risk inputs were used to calculate (using the Microsoft Excel workbook template) approximate mean mitigated project perfor- mance (by activity and collectively), including cost (unescalated and escalated), sched- ule (milestone dates), disruption, and longevity (postconstruction cost, schedule, and disruption), as well as combined performance (see Table E.12). The mean severity of each remaining risk was also determined using the Microsoft Excel workbook tem- plate in terms of its approximate contribution to the mean combined performance (see Table E.11), and the risks were then sorted by their mean severity (see Table E.13 and Figure E.4). As previously noted, performance (and thus risks) through construction only is the focus.

313 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS   Fi g u re E .4 . M iti ga te d ris k ra nk in g fo r ris ks a nd p er fo rm an ce t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly . So ur ce : F ro m t he r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ).

314 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS T ab le E .1 2. A pp ro xi m at e M ea n M iti ga te d B as e + R is k Pr oj ec t P er fo rm an ce TA B LE E .1 2 . AP PR OX IM AT E M EA N M IT IG AT ED B AS E + R IS K PR OJ EC T PE RF OR M AN CE N ot e: T hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly ; f ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ).

315 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS T ab le E .1 3. M iti ga te d R is k R an ki ng TA B LE E .1 3 . M IT IG AT ED R IS K RA N KI N G N ot e: F or r is ks a nd p er fo rm an ce t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n on ly ; f ro m r ap id r en ew al r is k m an ag em en t pl an ni ng t em pl at e (h tt p: // w w w .t rb .o rg /m ai n/ bl ur bs /1 68 36 9. as px ).

316 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 7. CONTINGENCY For this project, the contingency requirements (both cost and schedule) are summa- rized in Table E.14 by project phase and cumulatively at the start (and end) of each project phase. As discussed in Chapter 7, in the absence of quantitative risk analysis (which was outside the scope of this risk management plan), to objectively establish contingencies, the contingencies were established by judgment, considering the project risks. Note that if the total escalated cost was approximately normally (Gaussian) dis- tributed (which would be reasonable based on the central limit theorem), then (a) the contingency target (80th) percentile of total escalated cost would be equal to the mean total escalated cost plus 0.84 times the standard deviation of total escalated cost, and (b) the contingency requirements would be the difference between the contingency tar- get (80th) percentile and the base escalated cost. For example, if the standard deviation of total escalated cost was about 15% of the mean total escalated cost and the mean total escalated cost was 20% higher than the base escalated cost, then the contingency requirements would be about 13% of the mean total escalated cost and about 35% of the base escalated cost. The protocol for using or releasing contingency follows. TABLE E.14. CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENT BY PROJECT PHASE Project Phase Total Remaining at Start of Phase Available During Phase Total Remaining at End of Phase Cost (% of total, YOE $M) Schedule (% of total, months) Cost (% of total, YOE $M) Schedule (% of total, months) Cost (% of total, YOE $M) Schedule (% of total, months) Preliminary design 30%, $5.1 30%, 10.5 10%, $1.7 10%, 3.5 20%, $3.4 20%, 7.0 Procurement 20%, $3.4 20%, 7 10%, $1.7 10%, 3.5 10%, $1.7 10%, 3.5 Construction 10%, $1.7 10%, 3.5 8%, $1.4 10%, 3.5 2%, $0.3 0%, 0 Postconstruction 2%, $0.3 0%, 0 2%, $0.3 0%, 0 0%, $0 0%, 0 Note: Base escalated cost through construction is $17.3 million, and base schedule is 35 months to completion. YOE $M = year-of-expenditure in millions of dollars.

317 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 8. RECOVERY PLANS For this project, the cost and schedule recovery requirements for each phase are pre- sented in Table E.15, both by project phase and cumulatively at the start of each proj- ect phase. As discussed in Chapter 8, in the absence of quantitative risk analysis (which was outside the scope of this risk management plan) to objectively establish recovery requirements, the recovery requirements were established by judgment, considering the project risks. Note that if the total escalated cost was approximately normally (Gaussian) dis- tributed (which would be reasonable based on the central limit theorem), then (a) the recovery target (95th) percentile of total escalated cost would be equal to the mean total escalated cost plus 1.64 times the standard deviation of total escalated cost, and (b) the recovery requirements would be the difference between the recovery target (95th) percentile and the contingency target (80th) percentile, that is, 0.80 times the standard deviation of total escalated cost. For example, if the standard deviation of total escalated cost was about 15% of the mean total escalated cost and the mean total escalated cost was 20% higher than the base escalated cost, then the recovery require- ments would be about 12% of the mean total escalated cost and about 15% of the base escalated cost. The recovery actions (and their approximate net recovery value) that are available through each project phase are summarized in Table E.16. As shown, the available recovery savings is greater than the recovery required for each phase. The protocol for implementing recovery plans follows. TABLE E.15. RECOVERY REQUIREMENT BY PROJECT PHASE Project Phase Total Remaining at Start of Phase Available During Phase Total Remaining at End of Phase Cost (% of total, YOE $M) Schedule (% of total, months) Cost (% of total, YOE $M) Schedule (% of total, months) Cost (% of total, YOE $M) Schedule (% of total, months) Preliminary design 15%, $2.6 15%, 5.3 5%, $0.9 5%, 1.8 10%, $1.7 10%, 3.5 Procurement 10%, $1.7 10%, 3.5 5%, $0.9 5%, 1.8 5%, $0.8 5%, 1.7 Construction 5%, $0.8 5%, 1.7 5%, $0.8 5%, 1.7 0%, $0 0%, 0 Note: Base escalated cost through construction is $17.3 million and base schedule is 35 months to completion. YOE $M = year-of-expenditure in millions of dollars.

318 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TABLE E.16. RECOVERY PLAN BY PROJECT PHASE Project Phase Recovery Action Net Savings Cost (YOE $M) Schedule (months) Preliminary Design <aaa> <$> <T> <bbb> <$> <T> <ccc> <$> <T> subtotal <$> <T> Procurement <ddd> <$> <T> <eee> <$> <T> <fff> <$> <T> subtotal <$> <T> Construction <ggg> <$> <T> <hhh> <$> <T> <iii> <$> <T> subtotal <$> <T> Note: YOE $M = year-of-expenditure in millions of dollars.

319 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS ADDENDUM X TO QDOT US-555/SH-111 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN Quantitative Risk Analysis (Cost and Schedule Through Construction) A quantitative risk analysis was subsequently conducted on QDOT’s US-555/SH-111 project, focusing on cost and schedule through construction. This involved expanding on the previous risk management process in the following areas: • Flowchart. A more detailed flowchart was developed (see Figure E.5). • Base Schedule. The base schedule did not change but was developed for the more detailed flowchart (see Figure E.5 and Table E.17). • Base Cost. The cost estimate changed slightly (a concrete retaining wall, which cost $191,000 before markups, was previously missed and thus added), and un- certainties in (and correlations among) the base cost factors were assessed and the costs were reallocated to the QRA flowchart (see Table E.18). • Unmitigated Risk Register (i.e., before risk management). The unmitigated risk register did not change, but the factors were reassessed quantitatively and in more detail (see Table E.19). • Risk Model. A risk-based probabilistic (Monte Carlo simulation) integrated proj- ect cost and schedule model was developed (using a previously developed Mi- crosoft Excel template), per the QRA flowchart, QRA base schedule, QRA base costs (including uncertainties and allocation to flowchart activities), and QRA risk register. • Unmitigated Risk Results. The following unmitigated results were generated: — Approximate mean values of unmitigated base + risk schedule and cost by flow- chart activity (see Table E.20); — Plot of “raw” unmitigated cost and schedule simulation results (see Figure E.6); and — Probability distributions for unmitigated cost (unescalated and escalated) and schedule (notice to proceed and completion date), presented two ways: 1. Tabular summary (see Table E.21); and 2. Graphically (see Figure E.7). — Unmitigated cost risk rankings (in terms of the contribution of each to the 80th percentile of escalated project cost), presented two ways: 1. Tabular summary (see Table E.22); and 2. Graphically (“tornado diagrams”) (see Figure E.8). — Schedule risk rankings and cash flow are not shown. • Risk Reduction Actions. The risk reduction plan and the cost-effectiveness factor assessments did not change. However, the revised base cost and schedule, and re- sidual risk factors, associated with that plan were determined and used in the same risk model as for the unmitigated case.

320 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS • Mitigated Risk Results. The following mitigated results were generated: — Approximate mean values of mitigated base + risk schedule and cost by flow- chart activity (see Table E.23); — Plot of “raw” mitigated cost and schedule simulation results (see Figure E.9); and — Probability distributions for mitigated cost and schedule, presented two ways: 1. Tabular summary (see Table E.24); and 2. Graphically (see Figure E.10). — Mitigated cost and schedule risk rankings and cash flow are not shown. The assessments described above were conducted in a facilitated training work- shop attended by the project team and independent subject-matter experts in 2010. Based on the above mitigated results (assuming the risk reduction plan is adopted and conducted): • The range (10th to 90th percentiles) in total escalated cost is $18.0 million to $25.3 million and in completion date is March 2013 to August 2013. • Based on QDOT’s established policy of — Budgeting at the 80th percentile, the budget should be $23.8 million YOE and the completion date milestone should be August 2013, which translate to a cost contingency of $6.6 million YOE (relative to an escalated base cost of $17.2 million) and a schedule contingency (critical path float) of 9 months (relative to a base completion date of November 2012). — Requiring recovery plans to cover beyond contingency up to the 95th percen- tile, recovery requirements are $2.7 million YOE (from budget of $23.8 million to 95th percentile of $26.5 million YOE) and 1 month (from milestone of Au- gust 2013 to 95th percentile of September 2013). The contingency and recovery for each phase could be determined in a similar way from more detailed mitigated results (i.e., by phase), or simply but more approxi- mately by prorating the total amounts by the differences for each phase between the mean mitigated values (Table E.23) and the mean base values (Tables E.17 and E.18, Part C). • There might be more potential cost and schedule savings associated with risk re- duction planning, by focusing on the significant residual risks. Recovery plans (in case the cost and/or schedule contingencies turn out to be insuf- ficient), to cover the revised recovery requirements, did not change.

321 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 54 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx Figure E.5. QRA project flowchart through construction. [COMP and ART: Move Table E.24 to follow Table E.23. Do not insert here.] Preliminary Design (to 30%) 1 Draf t Environmental Assessment (EA) 2 Prepare / Issue RFP 4 Remaining as of 12/1/2009 Finalize EA / Approval 3 DB Response / Review / Selection / Negotiate 8 Complete 136 months 6 months 6 months 2 months 6 months Notes: 1. Single Design/Build contract. 2. Advance Right-of-Way (ROW) Acquisition includes appraisals, offers, acquisition, relocation, and demolition for parcels that QDOT anticipates will be critical to early construction by the Design/Builder. 3. Advance Utility Relocations includes coordination, approvals, and relocations of utilities that QDOT anticipates will be crit ical to early construction by the Design/Builder. Additional relocations that might be required will be the responsibility of the Design/Builder during construction. Assumes minimal new ROW required for utility relocations. 4. QDOT will complete the Environmental Assessment (EA) and obtain all environmental permits before Notice to Proceed (NTP). 5. Construction duration includes typical winter shut-down period from November 15th through March 15th. 6. Construction includes construction permits, remaining utility relocations, and all construction -related effort. Remaining ROW acquisition by QDOT also occurs during this timeframe. QDOT’s US 555 / SH 111 Expansion Project Simplified Risk Assessment Flow Chart December 1, 2009 Rapid Renewal Delivery / Schedule Base Schedule (excluding risk): • Pre-Construction (up to NTP): 18 months • Construction (af ter NTP): 17 months • Total duration: 35 months Environmental Permitting 7 6 months Notice to Proceed 10 Funding 9 12 months Advance ROW Acquisition 6 9 months Advance Utility Relocations 5 Design/Builder Design 11 Design/Builder Construction 12 16 months 6 months S + 1 month 6 months remain 14 months remain Base date: 6/1/2011 Base date: 11/1/2012 VERSION 2: CONSERVATIVE PRE-CONSTRUCTION Figure E.5. QRA project flowchart through construction.

322 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 7 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED B AS E SC HE DU LE # A ct iv it y B as e D u ra ti on (m on th s) B as e E ar ly S ta rt D at e B as e E ar ly E n d D at e B as e F lo at ( m on th s) O n C ri ti ca l P at h f or B as e S ch ed u le ? (1 = Y es ; 0 = N o) 0 Pr ev io us C os ts 1. 0 1- D ec -0 9 31 -D ec -0 9 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 1- D ec -0 9 1- D ec -0 9 0. 0 0 1 Pr el im in ar y D es ig n (t o 30 % ) 6. 0 1- D ec -0 9 2- Ju n- 10 0. 0 1 2 D ra ft E nv iro nm en ta l A ss es sm en t (E A ) 6. 0 1- D ec -0 9 2- Ju n- 10 0. 0 1 3 Fi na liz e EA /A pp ro va l 6. 0 2- Ju n- 10 2- D ec -1 0 0. 0 1 4 Pr ep ar e/ Is su e RF P 2. 0 2- Ju n- 10 2- D ec -1 0 4. 0 0 5 A dv an ce U til ity R el oc at io ns 9. 0 2- Ju n- 10 3- M ar -1 1 5. 5 0 6 A dv an ce R O W A cq ui si tio n 12 .0 2- Ju n- 10 3- Ju n- 11 2. 5 0 7 En vi ro nm en ta l P er m itt in g 5. 0 2- D ec -1 0 3- M ay -1 1 1. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 1- D ec -0 9 1- D ec -0 9 0. 0 0 8 D es ig n– Bu ild er ( D -B ) Re sp on se /R ev ie w /S el ec tio n/ N eg ot ia te 6. 0 2- D ec -1 0 3- Ju n- 11 0. 0 1 9 Fu nd in g 0. 0 1- Ju n- 11 1- Ju n- 11 0. 1 0 10 N ot ic e to p ro ce ed 0. 0 3- Ju n- 11 3- Ju n- 11 0. 0 1 0 0 0. 0 1- D ec -0 9 1- D ec -0 9 0. 0 0 11 a D es ig n– Bu ild er D es ig n a 1. 0 3- Ju n- 11 3- Ju l-1 1 0. 0 1 11 b D es ig n– Bu ild er D es ig n b 5. 0 3- Ju l-1 1 3- D ec -1 1 6. 5 0 12 a D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n a 1. 5 3- Ju l-1 1 18 -A ug -1 1 0. 0 1 12 b D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n B 6. 0 18 -A ug -1 1 18 -Ju n- 12 0. 0 1 12 c D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n c 4. 5 18 -Ju n- 12 2- N ov -1 2 0. 0 1 13 C om pl et e 0. 0 2- N ov -1 2 2- N ov -1 2 0. 0 1 To ta l 3- Ju n- 11 2- N ov -1 2 su bs ta nt ia l c om pl et io n N ot e: T hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n.

323 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 8 . Q R A U N M IT IG A TE D B A S E C O S T (A ) C O S T E S TI M A TE a Q D O T P ro je ct E st im at e Q u an ti ty U n it o f M ea su re U n it C os t D es cr ip ti on o f W or k It em Lo w ( 1 0 th P er ce n ti le ) C os t (2 0 0 9 $ ) H ig h ( 9 0 th P er ce n ti le ) B as e C os t U n ce rt ai n ty (c om b in ed u n it p ri ce an d q u an ti ty ) Lo w ( 1 0 th p er ce n ti le ) H ig h ( 9 0 th p er ce n ti le ) C O N ST R U C TI O N Pr ep ar at io n 21 ac re $4 ,8 00 .0 0 C le ar in g an d G ru bb in g $9 9, 36 0 –1 0% 10 % 26 ,3 97 S. Y. $8 .4 0 Re m ov in g ce m en t co nc re te p av em en t $2 21 ,7 35 –1 0% 10 % 26 ,3 97 S. Y. $4 .8 0 Re m ov in g as ph al t co nc re te p av em en t $1 26 ,7 06 –1 0% 10 % G ra d in g 33 ,3 93 C .Y . $9 .6 0 Ro ad w ay e xc av at io n in cl . h au lin g $3 20 ,5 73 –2 0% 20 % 27 ,9 60 C .Y . $4 .2 0 C om m on B or ro w in cl . h au lin g $1 17 ,4 32 –2 0% 20 % 3, 10 7 C .Y . $1 4. 40 G ra ve l b or ro w in cl . h au lin g $4 4, 74 1 –2 0% 20 % 31 ,0 67 C .Y . $1 .2 0 Em ba nk m en t co m pa ct io n $3 7, 28 0 –2 0% 20 % D ra in ag e 42 ea ch $2 ,1 60 .0 0 G ra te in le t Ty pe 1 o r 2 $9 0, 72 0 –5 % 5% 6 ea ch $3 ,6 00 .0 0 D ro p in le t Ty pe 1 $2 1, 60 0 –5 % 5% 21 ,1 20 L. F. $7 8. 00 Pl ai n st . c ul v. p ip e 0. 10 9 in . t hi ck , 3 6 in . d ia m . $1 ,6 47 ,3 60 –5 % 5% 50 L. F. $1 ,8 00 .0 0 St . s tr u. p ip e ar ch 8 g au ge 2 0 ft . 0 in . s pa n $8 9, 10 0 –5 % 5% St ru ct ur e 3, 97 2 S. F. $1 45 .0 0 Br id ge n o. ( ea sy b rid ge ) $5 75 ,9 40 –2 0% 20 % 8, 67 3 S. F. $2 2. 00 C on cr et e re ta in in g w al l $1 90 ,8 06 –1 0% 10 % Su rf ac in g 27 ,0 47 to n $1 2. 00 C ru sh ed s ur fa ci ng b as e co ur se $3 24 ,5 64 –1 0% 10 % C em en t C on cr et e Pa ve m en t 16 ,6 96 C .Y . $1 10 .0 0 C em en t co nc re te p av em en t $1 ,8 36 ,5 60 –1 0% 10 % 88 2 S. Y. $1 46 .0 0 B rid ge a pp ro ac h sl ab $1 28 ,7 72 –1 0% 10 % A sp h al t C on cr et e Pa ve m en t 1, 10 0 to n $3 6. 00 M is ce lla ne ou s as ph al t co nc re te p av em en t $3 9, 60 0 –1 0% 10 % (c on tin ue d)

324 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Q D O T P ro je ct E st im at e Q u an ti ty U n it o f M ea su re U n it C os t D es cr ip ti on o f W or k It em Lo w ( 1 0 th P er ce n ti le ) C os t (2 0 0 9 $ ) H ig h ( 9 0 th P er ce n ti le ) B as e C os t U n ce rt ai n ty (c om b in ed u n it p ri ce an d q u an ti ty ) Lo w ( 1 0 th p er ce n ti le ) H ig h ( 9 0 th p er ce n ti le ) Er os io n C on tr ol A n d P la n ti n g 2 ac re $2 ,4 00 .0 0 Se ed in g, fe rt ili zi ng , a nd m ul ch in g $4 ,8 00 –1 0% 10 % 1 es t. $8 5, 00 0. 00 Te m po ra ry w at er p ol lu tio n/ er os io n co nt ro l $8 5, 00 0 –1 0% 10 % 1, 56 4 C .Y . $1 3. 20 To ps oi l T yp e B $2 0, 64 5 –1 0% 10 % 1 es t. $1 50 ,0 00 .0 0 M is ce lla ne ou s la nd sc ap in g Tr af fi c 15 ,8 40 L. F. $1 20 .0 0 Sp ec ia l c on cr et e ba rr ie r Ty pe 5 $1 ,9 00 ,8 00 –1 0% 10 % 8 ea ch $1 4, 40 0. 00 Pe rm an en t im pa ct a tt en ua to r $1 15 ,2 00 –1 0% 10 % 21 4, 00 0 L. F. $0 .1 2 Pa in t lin e $2 5, 68 0 –1 0% 10 % 1 L. S. $2 4, 00 0. 00 Pe rm an en t si gn in g $2 4, 00 0 –1 0% 10 % O th er It em s 4, 00 0 L. F. $1 8. 00 Te m po ra ry b ar rie r gl ar e sc re en $7 2, 00 0 –1 0% 10 % 1 es t. $1 2, 00 0. 00 Ro ad si de c le an up $1 2, 00 0 –1 0% 10 % 1 es t. $6 ,0 00 .0 0 Tr im m in g an d C le an up $6 ,0 00 –1 0% 10 % C O N ST RU C TI O N S U BT O TA L “A ” (b ef or e M ob ), T ra ffi c C on tr ol a nd O th er M is ce lla ne ou s It em s) $8 ,1 78 ,9 73 A % 5. 0% M ob ili za tio n $4 08 ,9 49 –1 0% 20 % A + M ob % 7. 0% Tr af fic C on tr ol ( at 7 % o f s ub to ta l A + M ob ) $6 01 ,1 55 0% 50 % A + M ob % 12 .0 % O th er M is ce lla ne ou s It em s (1 2% o f s ub to ta l A + M ob ) $1 ,0 30 ,5 51 –1 0% 20 % C O N ST RU C TI O N S U BT O TA L “ B” ( in cl ud in g M ob , T ra ffi c C on tr ol a nd O th er M is ce lla ne ou s It em s) $1 0, 21 9, 62 7 B % 10 .0 % D ES IG N -B U IL D ER D ES IG N F EE S (1 0% o f “ B” ) $1 ,0 21 ,9 63 –1 0% 10 % D ES IG N -B U IL D C O N ST RU C TI O N T O TA L “C ” $1 1, 24 1, 59 0 C % 8. 0% C O N ST RU C TI O N A D M IN ST RA TI O N ( 8% o f “ C ”) $8 99 ,3 27 –1 0% 20 % TA B LE E .1 8 . Q R A U N M IT IG A TE D B A S E C O S T (A ) C O S T E S TI M A TE a (c on ti n u ed ) (c on tin ue d)

325 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Q D O T P ro je ct E st im at e Q u an ti ty U n it o f M ea su re U n it C os t D es cr ip ti on o f W or k It em Lo w ( 1 0 th P er ce n ti le ) C os t (2 0 0 9 $ ) H ig h ( 9 0 th P er ce n ti le ) B as e C os t U n ce rt ai n ty (c om b in ed u n it p ri ce an d q u an ti ty ) Lo w ( 1 0 th p er ce n ti le ) H ig h ( 9 0 th p er ce n ti le ) C + A dm in % 10 .0 % A G EN C Y D ES IG N , E N V, P ER M IT TI N G , A N D PR O C U RE M EN T (1 0% o f “ C ” + C . A dm in ) $1 ,2 14 ,0 92 –1 0% 10 % (in cl ud es p re vi ou s co st s of $ 20 0, 00 0) RI G H T- O F- W AY $2 ,0 00 ,0 00 –2 0% 20 % U TI LI TY R EL O C AT IO N S $1 ,0 00 ,0 00 –2 0% 20 % PR O JE C T SU BT O TA L “D ” (B ef or e C on tin ge nc y) $1 6, 35 5, 00 9 C O N TI N G EN C Y (3 0% o f P ro je ct S ub to ta l “ D ”) $- TO TA L $1 6, 35 5, 00 9 TA B LE E .1 8 . Q R A U N M IT IG A TE D B A S E C O S T (c on ti n u ed ) (A ) C O S T E S TI M A TE a (c on tin ue d)

326 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TABLE E.18. QRA UNMITIGATED BASE COST (continued) (B) OTHER BASE COST FACTORSb Factor Low (10th Percentile) High (90th Percentile) Correlation ROW escalation rate (%/yr) −2.0 8.0 Correlated 0.5 year-to-year Construction escalation rate (%/yr) −1.0 7.0 Independent year-to-year and of ROW escalation rate All construction cost items (see Part A) Correlated 0.75 (C) ALLOCATION OF COSTS TO FLOWCHART ACTIVITIESc # Activity Base Cost (current $M) Base Cost (YOE $M) 0 Previous Costs 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.0 0.0 1 Preliminary Design (to 30%) 0.3 0.3 2 Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) 0.2 0.2 3 Finalize EA/Approval 0.2 0.2 4 Prepare/Issue RFP 0.3 0.3 5 Advance Utility Relocations 0.8 0.8 6 Advance ROW Acquisition 2.0 2.1 7 Environmental Permitting 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 8 Design–Builder Response/Review/Selection/Negotiate 0.0 0.0 9 Funding 0.0 0.0 10 Notice to Proceed 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 11a Design–Builder Design a 0.2 0.2 11b Design–Builder Design b 0.9 0.9 12a Design–Builder Construction a 2.4 2.5 12b Design–Builder Construction b 5.1 5.5 12c Design–Builder Construction c 3.8 4.2 13 Complete 0.0 0.0 Total 16.4 17.3 Note: Each base cost item was allocated (by percentage) to the various schedule activities via a matrix (not shown). Costs include uncertainties and correlations, as well as allocations to flowchart; through construction. a Includes uncertainties; correlations are presented in Part B. b Includes escalation rate uncertainties and all correlations. c Mean values are shown.

327 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) P la n n in g PL 1 Ex cl ud ed P ro je ct f u n d in g d el ay ed o r re d u ce d Th e pr oj ec t is c ur re nt ly fu nd ed fo r an a m ou nt t ha t Q D O T fe el s is a de qu at e. . H ow ev er , if ad di tio na l f un di ng is r eq ui re d (i. e. , i f c os ts in cr ea se fo r va rio us r ea so ns ), t he re m ig ht be a d el ay in o bt ai ni ng t he a dd iti on al fu nd in g. H ow ev er , Q D O T’ s ob je ct iv e is t o ev al ua te t he p ro je ct ’s r is k as su m in g fu nd in g is av ai la bl e w ith ou t de la y. H en ce , Q D O T w an ts t o ex cl ud e un ce rt ai nt y in fu nd in g at t hi s tim e (b ut m ig ht la te r tr ea t th at u nc er ta in ty b y de fin in g se pa ra te “ m od el s ce na rio s” t o ev al ua te t he im pa ct o f v ar io us p ot en tia l f un di ng d el ay s) . O th er w is e, e xc lu de t he r is k th at fu nd in g is c an ce le d or s ub st an tia lly r ed uc ed ( so t ha t sc op e re du ct io n is r eq ui re d, w hi ch w ou ld le ad t o a “d iff er en t” p ro je ct ). PL 2 O p p o si ti o n t o r em o vi n g a cc es s to U S- 5 5 5 f ro m 1 2 th S tr ee t Se ve ra l b us in es se s re ly o n th is a cc es s an d m ig ht p ro te st o r ch al le ng e th e re m ov al o f th e ac ce ss . H ow ev er , r em ov al o f t ha t ac ce ss is n ec es sa ry fo r th e pr oj ec t. H en ce , t hi s de si gn d ec is io n is u nl ik el y to b e re ve rs ed . H ow ev er , s om e m iti ga tio n m ig ht b e re qu ire d as c om pe ns at io n. 10 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .1 0 (c on tin ue d) N ot e: T ab le in cl ud es c os t an d sc he du le t hr ou gh c on st ru ct io n. W he n si gn ifi ca nt d ep en de nc ie s am on g ris k or o pp or tu ni ty e ve nt s w er e id en tifi ed d ur in g th e w or ks ho p, t he y w er e ge ne ra lly a ss es se d us in g an e ve nt t re e an d co m bi ne d in to a s in gl e ev en t in t hi s re gi st er . T hi s ap pr oa ch e ns ur es t ha t th e im po rt an t de pe nd en ci es a nd r el at ed c on di tio na l p ro ba bi lit ie s ar e as se ss ed e xp lic itl y. O th er w is e, t he u nc er ta in tie s, r is ks , a nd o pp or tu ni tie s in t hi s re gi st er h av e be en de fin ed t o be ( i.e ., ar e as se ss ed t o be ) in de pe nd en t of o ne a no th er . S om e ev en ts in t hi s re gi st er a re a fu nc tio n of b as e co st s or d ur at io ns . W he n th os e ba se co st s or d ur at io ns a re a ss es se d to b e un ce rt ai n, t he c or re sp on di ng e ve nt s ho ul d co ns id er ( in cl ud e) c ha ng es t o th e ba se r es ul tin g fr om t he s im ul at ed b as e un ce rt ai nt y. A ll co st im pa ct s ar e as se ss ed in c ur re nt t er m s. C os t es ca la tio n is h an dl ed a ut om at ic al ly t hr ou gh t he s im ul at io n m od el , a pp ro pr ia te ly c on si de rin g un ce rt ai nt y in in fla tio n ra te s an d th e af fe ct ed p ro je ct a ct iv iti es . E xc ep t fo r so ft c os t un ce rt ai nt ie s th at a re a dd re ss ed s ep ar at el y, a nd u nl es s no te d ot he rw is e, a ll co st im pa ct s in t hi s ta bl e ar e fu lly lo ad ed w ith a pp ro pr ia te m ar ku ps . P ot en tia l m ar ku ps in cl ud e ite m s th at m ay b e tr ea te d as a p er ce nt ag e of t he c on st ru ct io n su bt ot al in t he c os t es tim at e, s uc h as s al es t ax , m ob ili za tio n, c on st ru ct io n en gi ne er in g, d es ig n, a nd a llo w an ce s fo r m is ce lla ne ou s ite m s.

328 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) PL 3 El se w he re O p p o si ti o n t o “ sp li tt in g ” al ig n m en t o f SH -1 1 1 i n t h e in te rc h an g e ar ea Th e ci ty d oe s no t lik e th is a lte rn at iv e. Th is is su e is c ap tu re d as a fa ct or in flu en ci ng t he p ro ba bi lit y th at t hi s sp lit w ill o cc ur ; s ee Ri sk P D 2. PL 4 M in or O th er s ta ke ho ld er is su es n ot c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly Sc o p in g SC 1 M in or C h an g e in e as t- w es t p ro je ct l im it s Pr oj ec t m ig ht b e re qu ire d (f or e ith er p ol iti ca l o r op er at io na l r ea so ns ) to im pr ov e a lo ng er o r sh or te r st re tc h of U S- 55 5 th an a ss um ed in t he b as e es tim at e. Th e pr oj ec t te am a nd Q D O T be lie ve t hi s is u nl ik el y be ca us e fu nd in g is n ot a va ila bl e fo r su ch a s ig ni fic an t ch an ge , a nd t he n ee d is n ot c le ar ( fo r th e pr oj ec t to p er fo rm a s de si re d) . SC 2 M in or C h an g e in n o rt h -s o u th p ro je ct l im it s Pr oj ec t m ig ht b e re qu ire d (f or e ith er p ol iti ca l o r op er at io na l r ea so ns ) to im pr ov e a lo ng er o r sh or te r st re tc h of S H -1 11 t ha n as su m ed in t he b as e es tim at e. Si m ila r to d is cu ss io n fo r SC 1. SC 3 A d d it io n al l o ca l im p ro ve m en ts r eq u ir ed Fo r ex am pl e: • M or e im pr ov em en ts o n M ai n St re et a w ay fr om U S- 55 5 • M or e im pr ov em en ts o n N or th A ve nu e an d/ or S ou th A ve nu e aw ay fr om S H -1 11 • M or e im pr ov em en ts o n W es t St re et a nd /o r Ea st S tr ee t aw ay fr om U S- 55 5 Sc he du le im pa ct s ar e de si gn r el at ed . 20 +0 .2 5 to A ct iv ity 12 +1 t o A ct iv ity 1 TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

329 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) SC 4 M in or In cr ea se d a es th et ic s fo r U S- 5 5 5 /S H -1 1 1 i n te rc h an g e Fo r ex am pl e, “ ga te w ay ” ap pe ar an ce , d ec or at iv e lig ht in g. T he p ro je ct a lre ad y in cl ud es re as on ab le a es th et ic s, a nd a s ig ni fic an t ga te w ay t he m e is w el l o ut si de t he p ro je ct ’s bu dg et . T he c ity w ou ld t he re fo re h av e to p ay fo r su ch im pr ov em en ts , w hi ch it is un lik el y to b e ab le t o af fo rd . SC 5 R ep la ce c u lv er t o ve r W an d er in g C re ek Ba se a ss um es t ha t th e st at e fis he rie s ag en cy w ill a llo w w id en in g th is c ul ve rt , e sp ec ia lly si nc e no li st ed fi sh s pe ci es a re b el ie ve d to li ve t hi s fa r up W an de rin g C re ek . H ow ev er , th e fis he rie s ag en cy h as r eq ui re d re pl ac em en t of s im ila r cu lv er ts o n ne ar by p ro je ct s. 25 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .3 0 SC 6 P ro vi d e n ew l ig h ti n g t h ro u g h o u t p ro je ct Ba se a ss um es n ew li gh tin g on ly in t he in te rc ha ng e ar ea . T he t ea m in cr ea si ng ly b el ie ve s th at n ew li gh tin g w ill b e re qu ire d th ro ug ho ut ( m ai nl y be ca us e th ey w ill h av e to re lo ca te e xi st in g lig ht in g to w id en t he r oa dw ay a ny w ay ). 50 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .5 0 SC 7 M in or In te lli ge nt t ra ns po rt at io n sy st em ( IT S) a dd ed t o th is p ro je ct U nl ik el y— no t fu nd ed a nd t he s ys te m w id e IT S de ve lo pm en t is la gg in g th is p ro je ct . P re lim in ar y D es ig n /E n vi ro n m en ta l P ro ce ss F or a ll re le va nt r is ks in th is c at eg or y, th e fo llo w in g co nd iti on s ap pl y: E ac h ris k in cl ud es al l r el at ed /c or re la te d de si gn , e nv iro nm en ta l, rig ht -o f- w ay ( RO W ), a nd c on st ru ct io n im pa ct s. Im pa ct s sh ow n ar e in a dd iti on t o an y as se ss ed b as e un ce rt ai nt ie s. (c on tin ue d) TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d)

330 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) PD 1 Sh if t al ig n m en t o f U S- 5 5 5 a t ea st e n d o f p ro je ct Th is w ou ld r ed uc e w et la nd im pa ct s by s hi ft in g al ig nm en t to t he s ou th . H ow ev er , t he re is s om e re si st an ce ( ci ty ) to s hi ft in g th e al ig nm en t th is w ay b ec au se o f t he n um be r of bu si ne ss d is pl ac em en ts it w ou ld c au se . I t co ul d al so c au se a p ro bl em w ith g eo m et ry a t th e in te rs ec tio n of E as t St re et . Th e gr ou p th er ef or e th in ks t ha t th is is u nl ik el y to o cc ur . I f i t di d, h ow ev er , t he im pa ct s w ou ld in cl ud e re du ce d w et la nd im pa ct s, in cr ea se d RO W c os ts ( m os tly d ue to a dd iti on al d em ol iti on a nd b us in es s re lo ca tio ns ), a nd a dd iti on al d es ig n tim e. T he ch an ge in c on st ru ct io n co st w ou ld b e m in im al . 5% + 1. 0 to A ct iv ity 6 (R O W ) an d −0 .2 5 to A ct iv ity 12 ( re du ce d w et la nd m iti ga tio n) +1 t o A ct iv ity 1 an d +3 t o A ct iv ity 6 PD 2 M in or Sp li t al ig n m en t o f SH -1 1 1 a t U S- 5 5 5 i n te rc h an g e In st ea d of w id en in g on e xi st in g al ig nm en t; t hi s w ou ld a llo w fo r m or e ra pi d co ns tr uc tio n bu t re qu ire s ad di tio na l R O W . Be ne fit s (r ed uc ed c on st ru ct io n du ra tio n) p ro ba bl y do es n ot o ut w ei gh t he d et rim en ts (a dd iti on al R O W , l es s ef fic ie nt t ra ffi c flo w , r ed es ig n) . T he c ity a nd a t le as t tw o pu bl ic gr ou ps d o no t lik e th is a lte rn at iv e. T he re fo re , i t is u nl ik el y to o cc ur . PD 3 C h an g e in c o n fi g u ra ti o n o f SH -1 1 1 /U S- 5 5 5 i n te rc h an g e Q D O T’ s pr el im in ar y de si gn ( SP U I) is o ne o f s ev er al v ia bl e al te rn at iv es , a nd it is ex pe ct ed t ha t th e co nt ra ct or c ou ld p ro po se a s ui ta bl e al te rn at iv e. It is u nc er ta in h ow m uc h su ch a c ha ng e m ig ht c os t re la tiv e to t he c ur re nt ly a ss um ed a lte rn at iv e (c ou ld be m or e, c ou ld b e le ss ), b ut Q D O T w ill n ot a cc ep t a de si gn t ha t is s ig ni fic an tly m or e ex pe ns iv e. In cl ud es p ot en tia l c ha ng e in s tr uc tu re a nd fo un da tio n ty pe /s iz e, b ut a ss um es t ha t an ap pr op ria te a cc el er at ed b rid ge c on st ru ct io n (A BC ) te ch ni qu e w ill b e us ed . D is cr et e di st rib ut io n: A . 25 B. 5 0 C . 25 To A ct iv ity 1 2: A s a pe rc en ta ge of b as e in te rc ha ng e co ns tr uc tio n co st : A . −1 0 B. 0 ( ba se ) C . +1 0 M in or TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

331 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) PD 4 G ro u n d i m p ro ve m en t re q u ir ed i n i n te rc h an g e ar ea Q D O T H Q d es ig n is a ls o co nc er ne d th at a r ec en t ch an ge t o th e se is m ic d es ig n cr ite ria (w hi ch is s til l b ei ng e va lu at ed ) m ig ht r eq ui re lo ca liz ed g ro un d im pr ov em en t to m iti ga te fo r liq ue fa ct io n po te nt ia l. Th e pr oj ec t te am t hi nk s th is is u nl ik el y, b ut c ou ld ha ve s ig ni fic an t im pa ct s if it oc cu rs . 10 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .5 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .5 PD 5 Sh ou ld er s re qu ire d on U S- 55 5 Fo r ex am pl e, if F H W A o r Q D O T H Q D es ig n bo th d o no t ap pr ov e th e no -s ho ul de r ex ce pt io n/ de vi at io n. Th e pr oj ec t te am is r ea so na bl y co nfi de nt t ha t th is d es ig n ex ce pt io n w ill b e ap pr ov ed ba se d on r ec en t, s im ila r ap pr ov al s fo r ot he r ne ar by p ro je ct s. H ow ev er , i f s ho ul de rs a re r eq ui re d, t he im pa ct s ar e si gn ifi ca nt : a dd iti on al R O W w ou ld be r eq ui re d, c on st ru ct io n co st s w ou ld in cr ea se , t he d ra ft e nv iro nm en ta l a ss es sm en t (E A ) m ig ht h av e to b e m od ifi ed ( w et la nd im pa ct s w ou ld in cr ea se ), a nd d es ig n tim e (p rio r to r eq ue st fo r pr op os al ) w ou ld in cr ea se . 5 +1 t o A ct iv ity 6 (R O W ) an d +1 t o A ct iv ity 1 2 +3 t o A ct iv ity 6 an d +1 t o A ct iv ity 2 (E A ) PD 6 Sh o u ld er s re q u ir ed o n S H -1 1 1 Fo r ex am pl e, if Q D O T H Q D es ig n do es n ot a pp ro ve t he n o- sh ou ld er e xc ep tio n/ de vi at io n. Si m ila r to t he d is cu ss io n an d as se ss m en ts fo r Ri sk P D 5. Fo r th e qu an tit at iv e ris k an al ys is : R is k PD 6 is c or re la te d to R is k PD 5. If R is k PD 5 do es no t oc cu r (s ho ul de rs a re n ot r eq ui re d on U S- 55 5) , t he n it is li ke ly t ha t sh ou ld er s w ill no t be r eq ui re d on t hi s fa ci lit y ei th er . I f R is k PD 5 do es o cc ur , t he n sh ou ld er s w ill li ke ly be r eq ui re d fo r SH -1 11 a s w el l. D ep en de nt o n ou tc om e of r is k PD 5: If ris k PD 5 oc cu rs , 7 5; If ris k PD 5 do es no t oc cu r, 0. +1 t o A ct iv ity 6 (R O W ) an d +1 t o A ct iv ity 1 2 +3 t o A ct iv ity 6 an d +1 t o A ct iv ity 2 (E A ) (c on tin ue d)

332 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) PD 7 M in or A d d it io n al c o st f o r si g n al iz ed i n te rs ec ti o n s Ex cl ud es a ny c ha ng e in t he n um be r of in te rs ec tio ns t ha t is c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly in r is ks re la te d to p ro je ct li m its ( i.e ., Ri sk s SC 1 an d SC 2) . PD 8 C h an g e in p av em en t se ct io n a n d /o r ty p e Th e ba se a ss um es c on cr et e pa ve m en t to p ro vi de lo ng ev ity ( on e of t he p ro je ct ’s g oa ls ). Q D O T is t he re fo re m os t lik el y to s pe ci fy a c on cr et e pa ve m en t. A sp ha lt pa ve m en t m ig ht b e se le ct ed t o pr ov id e co m pa tib ili ty w ith e xi st in g pa ve m en t (b ey on d th e pr oj ec t lim its ) an d to s av e in iti al c os t. H ow ev er , Q D O T co ns id er s m ax im iz in g lo ng ev ity ( in cl ud in g lif e- cy cl e co st s) a h ig he r pr io rit y th an s av in g in iti al ca pi ta l c os t. 25 −1 t o A ct iv ity 1 2 0 PD 9 M in or R eh ab il it at e in st ea d o f re co n st ru ct e xi st in g r o ad w ay ( e. g ., o ve rl ay i n st ea d ) Se e A pp en di ce s A a nd B , o r Ta bl e B. 9 of t he g ui de . Ex is tin g ro ad w ay is 2 0 ye ar s ol d; it m ig ht n ot b e co st -e ffe ct iv e to r eh ab ili ta te if n ew la ne s w ill h av e to b e bu ilt a ny w ay . I n ad di tio n, r eh ab is n ot a s lik el y to m ee t th e pr oj ec t ob je ct iv e of m ax im iz in g lo ng ev ity o f t he fa ci lit y. N ot e th at fo r th e qu an tit at iv e ris k an al ys is , t hi s ris k is c or re la te d w ith R is k PD 8 (im pa ct s ar e a fu nc tio n of t he o ut co m e of t ha t ris k) . PD 10 M in or C h an g e in s to rm w at er d es ig n s ta n d ar d s Th e de si gn in co rp or at es t he la te st s ta nd ar ds , w hi ch a re o nl y 2 ye ar s ol d. H en ce , i t is un lik el y th at n ew s ta nd ar ds w ill e m er ge in t hi s pr oj ec t’s t im e fr am e. TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

333 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) PD 11 C an n o t u se c it y se w er s ys te m f o r p ro je ct r u n o ff ( o r ci ty c h ar g es f o r u se ) Th e ci ty m ig ht d en y us e or c ha rg e Q D O T fo r va rio us u pg ra de s to t he s ys te m t o ac co m m od at e st or m w at er r un of f f ro m t hi s pr oj ec t. T he p ro je ct t ea m a nd Q D O T m an ag em en t ar e “a lm os t ce rt ai n” t ha t th e ci ty w ill u lti m at el y al lo w u se o f t he c ity ’s sy st em ( th e ci ty n ee ds t hi s pr oj ec t, a nd t he a dd iti on al lo ad o n th e se w er s ys te m is n ot su bs ta nt ia l), b ut w ill m os t lik el y as k fo r m on ey t o he lp u pg ra de it s sy st em . Q D O T w ill pr ob ab ly c ap itu la te b ec au se t hi s is t he b es t op tio n fr om a c os t- an d- tim e pe rs pe ct iv e. Th is c os t w ou ld o cc ur d ur in g th e pr oj ec t’s “ ut ili ty r el oc at io ns ” ph as e. Th is is su e is c or re la te d w ith t he li ke ly r eq ue st b y th e ci ty t o he lp p ay fo r a w at er - an d se w er -li ne r el oc at io n (s ee R is k RU 2 un de r ut ili tie s ris ks ). F or t he q ua nt ita tiv e ris k an al ys is , t he g ro up a ss es se s th at if R is k RU 2 oc cu rs ( i.e ., Q D O T de ci de s to h el p pa y fo r re lo ca tio n) , t he n th is r is k is m uc h le ss li ke ly t o oc cu r. If Ri sk R U 2 do es no t oc cu r, 50 % ; If Ri sk R U 2 do es oc cu r, 10 % To A ct iv ity 5 : +1 To A ct iv ity 5 : +1 PD 12 St ru ct ur es a ffe ct ed b y M ai n St re et r ea lig nm en t ar e el ig ib le fo r N at io na l R eg is te r of H is to ric P la ce s C an r ea so na bl y ca pt ur e th e ra ng e of c re di bl e po ss ib ili tie s w ith t he fo llo w in g se t of po te nt ia l ( m ut ua lly e xc lu si ve ) sc en ar io s/ ou tc om es : A . N ot h is to ric s tr uc tu re s (b as e as su m pt io n) B. H is to ric s tr uc tu re s, b ut n o si gn ifi ca nt im pa ct t o pr oj ec t co st o r sc he du le ( e. g. , do cu m en t, t he n ac qu ire ) C . H is to ric s tr uc tu re s, c re at in g si gn ifi ca nt im pa ct t o pr oj ec t co st o r sc he du le ( e. g. , ha ve t o re lo ca te s tr uc tu re s; s tr uc tu re s ar e co nt am in at ed ; o r ha ve t o sh ift p ro je ct al ig nm en t to a vo id ) A . 50 B. 40 C . 10 A . 0 (b as e) B. 0 C . +1 t o A ct iv ity 6 an d +0 .1 t o A ct iv ity 2 A . 0 B. 0 C . +2 t o A ct iv ity 6 an d +2 t o A ct iv ity 2

334 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) PD 13 C h an g e in e n vi ro n m en ta l d o cu m en ta ti o n O nl y tr ea t th is is su e he re if n ot c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly b y sp ec ifi c tr ig ge rs /i ss ue s el se w he re (e .g ., de si gn c ha ng es ). Ba se a ss um es a n EA , b ut a n en vi ro nm en ta l i m pa ct s ta te m en t (E IS ) m ig ht b e re qu ire d if im pa ct s ar e gr ea te r th an a ss um ed . C an r ea so na bl y ca pt ur e th e ra ng e of c re di bl e po ss ib ili tie s w ith t he fo llo w in g se t of po te nt ia l ( m ut ua lly e xc lu si ve ) sc en ar io s/ ou tc om es : A . C om pl et e EA a s pl an ne d (b as e as su m pt io n) B. C om pl et e EA w ith a dd iti on al e ffo rt , b ut w ith n o si gn ifi ca nt c ha ng es t o th e pr oj ec t C . EI S re qu ire d, b ut w ith n o si gn ifi ca nt c ha ng es t o th e pr oj ec t D . EI S re qu ire d, r es ul tin g in s ig ni fic an t ch an ge t o th e pr oj ec t de si gn , R O W , a nd /o r co ns tr uc tio n A . 50 B. 40 C . 8 D . 2 (1 -in -5 0 ch an ce ) A . 0 (b as e) B. 0. 1 to A ct iv ity 2 C . 0. 5 to A ct iv ity 2 D . 0. 5 to A ct iv ity 2 an d +1 t o A ct iv ity 1 2 A . 0 (b as e) B. +1 t o A ct iv ity 2 C . +6 t o A ct iv ity 2 D . +6 t o A ct iv ity 2 PD 14 D el ay s co m p le ti n g e n vi ro n m en ta l d o cu m en ta ti o n Fr om v ar io us c au se s if no t al re ad y ca pt ur ed s ep ar at el y (i. e. , s ig ni fic an t de si gn c ha ng es ; ch an ge in t yp e of e nv iro nm en ta l d oc um en ta tio n, R is k EP 2) . Fo r ex am pl e: A dd iti on al im pa ct s id en tifi ed Pr oc es s de la ys ( in te rn al o r ex te rn al r ev ie w s, c om m en ts , a nd /o r ap pr ov al s) 25 Si m ul at ed ad di tio na l ov er he ad s To A ct iv ity 3 : +3 PD 15 En co u n te r u n an ti ci p at ed c o n ta m in at io n i n i n te rc h an g e ar ea If en co un te re d, li ke ly t o be h yd ro ca rb on -b as ed s oi l a nd /o r gr ou nd w at er co nt am in at io n. 25 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .1 0 TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

335 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) PD 16 A d d it io n al w et la n d m it ig at io n r eq u ir ed f o r p la n n ed a li g n m en t A dd iti on al m iti ga tio n co ul d be r eq ui re d fo r va rio us r ea so ns . F or e xa m pl e: • C ha ng e in m iti ga tio n re qu ire m en ts ( ra tio s, b uf fe rs ) • C ha ng e in w et la nd c la ss ifi ca tio n • Im pa ct s di ffe re nt t ha n as su m ed ( i.e ., un de re st im at ed o rig in al ly ) (t hi s co ul d ha pp en fo r th e cu rr en t or s hi ft ed a lig nm en t) N ot e th at fo r th e qu an tit at iv e ris k an al ys is , t hi s ris k is p ar tia lly a fu nc tio n of a ny po te nt ia l s hi ft in a lig nm en t at t he e as t en d of t he p ro je ct ( Ri sk P D 1) . I f R is k PD 1 oc cu rs an d th e ba se w et la nd im pa ct s ar e re du ce d, t he p ro ba bi lit y of t hi s ris k is r ed uc ed . If Ri sk P D 1 do es n ot oc cu r: 3 3 If ris k PD 1 do es o cc ur : 1 0 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .2 5 0 (c an be d on e “o ffl in e” ) En vi ro n m en ta l P er m it ti n g EP 1 M in or C h al le n g e to e n vi ro n m en ta l d et er m in at io n o r p er m it s Fo r an y re as on n ot c ap tu re d el se w he re . C ou ld c om e fr om o rg an iz ed p ub lic g ro up s fo r va rio us r ea so ns . H ow ev er , v er y un lik el y fo r th e ba se p ro je ct ( ch an ce s co ul d in cr ea se fo r so m e al te rn at iv es s uc h as s hi ft in g th e al ig nm en t at t he e as t en d of t he p ro je ct , b ut th es e im pa ct s ar e ca pt ur ed in t ho se r is ks ). EP 2 D el ay o b ta in in g t h e 4 0 4 p er m it Fr om e ith er in te rn al o r U .S . A rm y C or ps o f E ng in ee rs p ro ce ss d el ay s (r ev ie w , a pp ro va l) or d efi ci en ci es in Q D O T’ s ap pl ic at io n. N ot e th at t hi s ris k is a ss um ed t o be a pp ro xi m at el y in de pe nd en t of R is ks P D 1 an d EP 6 (d el ay is su es c ou ld o cc ur r eg ar dl es s of t he o ut co m es fr om t ho se r is ks ). 10 Si m ul at ed ad di tio na l ov er he ad s To A ct iv ity 7 : +3

336 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) R ig h t- o f- W ay RU 1 U n ce rt ai n ty i n R O W i n fl at io n r at e Re gi on al ly ; b ef or e co ns id er in g th e lo ca liz ed e ffe ct s of a cc el er at in g de ve lo pm en t, w hi ch is c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly . D es pi te a s ag in t he e co no m y, p ro pe rt y pr ic es h av e he ld s te ad y, a nd a pp ea r to ev en b e in cr ea si ng s lig ht ly . H ow ev er , t hi s co ul d ch an ge ( e. g. , i f t hi s ar ea is la gg in g th e ec on om y) . O ve r th e sh or t te rm o f t hi s pr oj ec t, lo ca l i nd ic at or s an d th e RO W pr of es si on al s an tic ip at e an a ve ra ge in cr ea se o f a pp ro xi m at el y 3% /y ea r in t he a re a. Pr ob ab ili ty di st rib ut io n fo r ba se un ce rt ai nt y; ap pl ie s to al l y ea rs , m od er at el y co rr el at ed am on g ye ar s To A ct iv ity 6 : N or m al di st rib ut io n, w ith 1 0t h pe rc en til e = −2 % a nd 9 0t h pe rc en til e = +8 % 0 RU 2 A cc el er at in g p ac e o f d ev el o p m en t in i n te rc h an g e ar ea Be yo nd t he r eg io na l R O W in fla tio n ra te c ap tu re d in R U 1. Se ve ra l n ew d ev el op m en ts a re p la nn ed in t he a re a, a nd a t le as t on e co ul d be im pl em en te d be fo re t hi s pr oj ec t is le t. T he im pa ct t o th is p ro je ct w ou ld b e in cr ea se d ac qu is iti on a nd p er ha ps r el oc at io n co st s co m pa re d w ith w ha t is c ur re nt ly a ss um ed in th e es tim at e. 25 % To A ct iv ity 6 : +0 .5 To A ct iv ity 6 : +3 RU 3 U n w il li n g s el le rs N ot e th at b as e co st e xc lu de s co nd em na tio n co st s/ al lo w an ce . T hi s ris k is s ep ar at e fr om Ri sk R U 2. Pa rt ic ul ar ly in t he U S- 55 5/ SH -1 11 in te rc ha ng e ar ea , p ro pe rt y ow ne rs m ig ht n ot w an t to r el oc at e, le ad in g to in cr ea se d co st t o ac qu ire R O W ( e. g. , h av e to g o th ro ug h co nd em na tio n) . N ot e th at c on de m na tio n do es n ot n or m al ly e xt en d th e RO W a cq ui si tio n tim e fr am e, be ca us e Q D O T ca n us ua lly q ui ck ly g ai n po ss es si on -a nd -u se o f c on de m ne d pr op er tie s. 50 To A ct iv ity 6 : +0 .5 0 (Q D O T ca n ob ta in po ss es si on w ith ou t de la y)

337 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) RU 4 In R U 2 A d d it io n al r el o ca ti o n o r d em o li ti o n r eq u ir ed Ex cl ud es a dd iti on al r el oc at io n or d em ol iti on t ha t m ig ht b e re qu ire d to a cc om m od at e ch an ge s in d es ig n or s co pe , w hi ch a re c ap tu re d as p ar t of t ho se s ep ar at e ris ks . Ex cl ud es c on ta m in at io n, w hi ch is c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly . Fo r ex am pl e, r el oc at io n fr om m ul tit en an t pr op er tie s co ul d be c om pl ex . Th e gr ou p as se ss es t ha t th is p ot en tia l a dd iti on al c os t an d tim e w er e ca pt ur ed in R is k RU 2. RU 5 M in or A d d it io n al R O W r eq u ir ed f o r p la n n ed p ro je ct Ex cl ud es a dd iti on al R O W t ha t m ig ht b e re qu ire d fo r ch an ge s in d es ig n or s co pe , w hi ch ar e ca pt ur ed a s pa rt o f t ho se s ep ar at e ris ks . Fo r ex am pl e, in iti al e st im at es fo r re qu ire d RO W fo r th e as su m ed d es ig n w er e in co rr ec t or in co m pl et e. Th e gr ou p as se ss es t ha t th e po te nt ia l s ig ni fic an t ch an ge s w er e ca pt ur ed a s pa rt o f ot he r ris ks . RU 6 O th er d el ay s to R O W p la n n in g Fo r re as on s no t ca pt ur ed a s pa rt o f o th er s pe ci fic r is ks . F or e xa m pl e, la te c ha ng es in d es ig n re su lt in c ha ng es in R O W p la ns o r in te rn al Q D O T de la ys t o RO W p la n de ve lo pm en t. 25 Si m ul at ed ad di tio na l ov er he ad s To A ct iv ity 6 : +1 TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

338 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) U ti li ti es RU 7 Te le co m u til ity w an ts a c os t- sh ar in g ag re em en t Th e Te le co m ’s p re se nc e in t he p ro je ct R O W p re da te s Q D O T’ s, s o Q D O T ca nn ot fo rc e re lo ca tio n. T he T el ec om ju st r ec en tly r ep la ce d its fi be r- op tic b ac kb on e, s o it is n ot li ke ly to r ep la ce it w ith ou t so m e so rt o f c os t sh ar in g (o r at le as t re pl ac e it w ith in t he t im e fr am e ne ed ed b y th is p ro je ct ). 25 To A ct iv ity 5 : +0 .5 0 RU 8 Q D O T h el p s ci ty p ay f o r w at er - an d s ew er -l in e re lo ca ti o n Se e A pp en di x A o f t he g ui de . To h el p m ai nt ai n pr oj ec t sc he du le , Q D O T m ig ht h el p pa y fo r th e se w er -li ne r el oc at io n. Th is “ ris k” is t he re fo re r ea lly a p ro je ct o r po lic y de ci si on w ith in Q D O T’ s co nt ro l. Th is de ci si on c om es a t a m on et ar y co st b ut a vo id s sc he du le d el ay ( as r efl ec te d to t he r ig ht ). N ot e th at fo r th e qu an tit at iv e ris k an al ys is , t he o ut co m e of t hi s ris k af fe ct s th e lik el ih oo d of o cc ur re nc e fo r Ri sk P D 11 . 50 To A ct iv ity 5 : +0 .5 0 (m iti ga te s th e ris k of s ch ed ul e sl ip ) RU 9 M in or O th er u ti li ty r el o ca ti o n s n o t co m p le te d o n t im e Fo r is su es n ot c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly in o th er r is ks . Fo r va rio us r ea so ns , i nc lu di ng d el ay ed n eg ot ia tio ns , d es ig n, o r re lo ca tio n w or k its el f. RU 10 M in or D am ag e ex is ti n g u ti li ty o r en co u n te r u n an ti ci p at ed u ti li ty d u ri n g co n st ru ct io n Po ss ib le , b ut t he t im e im pa ct s ar e qu ic kl y m iti ga te d. T he c os t im pa ct w ou ld b e th e D -B co nt ra ct or ’s r es po ns ib ili ty .

339 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C o n tr ac ti n g a n d P ro cu re m en t C P1 U n ce rt ai n ty i n c o n st ru ct io n -c o st i n fl at io n r at e Ex cl ud es c on tr ac tin g m ar ke t co nd iti on s an d m at er ia l s up pl y is su es , w hi ch a re c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly in R is ks C P2 a nd C P3 . T hi s is su e in cl ud es u nc er ta in ty in t he g en er al r eg io na l an d na tio na l t re nd s in c on st ru ct io n in du st ry c os t ch an ge s ov er t im e (g en er al in fla tio n) , w ith r ea so na bl e ad ju st m en t fo r th is r eg io n. Pr ob ab ili ty di st rib ut io n fo r ba se un ce rt ai nt y; ap pl ie s to al l y ea rs , in de pe nd en tly am on g ye ar s (c on si st en t w ith FH W A h is to ric al an al ys is ) To A ct iv iti es 5 , 11 , a nd 1 2: N or m al di st rib ut io n w ith : 10 th p er ce nt ile = −1 % p er y ea r; 90 th p er ce nt ile = +7 % p er y ea r 0 TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

340 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C P2 U n ce rt ai n D -B c o n tr ac ti n g m ar k et c o n d it io n s at t im e o f b id Se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl e B. 14 . Se pa ra te fr om g en er al c on st ru ct io n in fla tio n an d m at er ia l s up pl y is su es , w hi ch a re ca pt ur ed in R is ks C P1 a nd C P3 , r es pe ct iv el y. T hi s is su e in cl ud es u nc er ta in ty in p ric in g st ra te gy a nd o th er c on tr ac to r co m pe tit io n fa ct or s. Q D O T ex pe ct s fo ur p ro po sa ls /b id s, w hi ch c ou ld im pr ov e co m pe tit io n. H ow ev er , r ec en t ex pe rie nc e fo r si m ila r pr oj ec ts is t ha t bi ds a re c om in g in a bo ve Q D O T’ s en gi ne er ’s es tim at es . C an r ea so na bl y ca pt ur e th e ra ng e of c re di bl e po ss ib ili tie s w ith t he fo llo w in g se t of po te nt ia l ( m ut ua lly e xc lu si ve ) sc en ar io s/ ou tc om es : A . M ar ke t co nd iti on s ar e fa vo ra bl e (c om pe tit iv e) , a nd b id s co m e in b el ow t he b as e es tim at e. B. M ar ke t co nd iti on s ar e si m ila r to t ho se a ss um ed in t he e st im at e (m in im al c ha ng e fr om b as e) . C . M ar ke t co nd iti on s ar e no t co m pe tit iv e, s o bi ds a re h ig he r th an t he b as e bu t st ill ac ce pt ab le ( be lo w t hr es ho ld fo r ca nc el in g th e pr oc ur em en t) . D . M ar ke t is n ot c om pe tit iv e, a nd n o ac ce pt ab le b id s ar e re ce iv ed , r eq ui rin g re bi dd in g an d pe rh ap s re pa ck ag in g to g et a cc ep ta bl e bi ds . Sc en ar io s as de fin ed t o le ft : A . 2 5 B. 4 0 C . 2 5 D . 1 0 To A ct iv ity 1 2: A s a pe rc en ta ge of b as e co ns tr uc tio n co st , ex pr es se d as 10 th a nd 9 0t h pe rc en til es fo r no rm al di st rib ut io ns A . − 15 % , − 5% (i. e. , n or m al di st rib ut io n w ith 1 0t h pe rc en til e = −1 5% a nd 90 th p er ce nt ile = −5 % o f b as e co ns tr uc tio n co st ) B. − 5% , + 5% C . + 5% , + 10 % (u ps et li m it) D . + 10 % , +2 5% To A ct iv ity 8 : A . 0 B. 0 ( ba se ) C . 0 D . + 3

341 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C P3 El se w he re M at er ia l su p p ly i ss u es Va rio us lo ca l f ac to rs c ou ld a ffe ct t he a va ila bi lit y of m at er ia ls fo r th is p ro je ct . F or ex am pl e: • C an no t lo ca te a n ap pr op ria te fi ll so ur ce . • Fi ll so ur ce is fa rt he r aw ay t ha n as su m ed . • A gg re ga te p ric es a re h ig he r th an a nt ic ip at ed . • St ee l p ric es a re h ig he r th an a nt ic ip at ed . • C em en t pr ic es a re h ig he r th an a nt ic ip at ed . Th e gr ou p be lie ve s th at a ll of t he se is su es a re c ap tu re d in e ith er R is k C P1 o r C P2 . C P4 M in or C ha ng e in p ro je ct d el iv er y m et ho d Se e G ui de A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s. C on tr ac t ot he r th an t hr ou gh t he a ss um ed s in gl e D -B c on tr ac t. O nl y tr ea t he re if n ot al re ad y ca pt ur ed u nd er t he m ar ke t co nd iti on s ris k (C P2 ). It is u nl ik el y th at Q D O T w ill c ha ng e to a t ra di tio na l d el iv er y m et ho d (e .g ., de si gn – bi d– bu ild ) gi ve n th e ra pi d re ne w al –t yp e ob je ct iv es fo r th is p ro je ct . O th er d el iv er y al te rn at iv es a re u nl ik el y, b ec au se e ith er e na bl in g le gi sl at io n do es n ot e xi st o r Q D O T do es n ot h av e ad eq ua te e xp er ie nc e w ith t ho se d el iv er y m et ho ds . TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

342 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C P5 M in or A cc el er at e p re co n st ru ct io n a ct iv it ie s to r ea ch n o ti ce t o p ro ce ed ( N T P ) so o n er Se e G ui de , A pp en di x A , a nd A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al Pr oj ec ts ; o r Ta bl e B. 3. If no t ca pt ur ed s ep ar at el y un de r D es ig n, E nv iro nm en ta l, an d/ or R O W r is k ca te go rie s. To r ea ch N TP m or e qu ic kl y, Q D O T co ul d ad op t a m or e ag gr es si ve p re co ns tr uc tio n st ra te gy . F or e xa m pl e: • M ov in g to N TP b ef or e pe rm itt in g is c om pl et e • C ou ld s ee k st re am lin ed e nv iro nm en ta l p ro ce ss o r de si gn -a pp ro va l p ro ce ss ( se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s or T ab le B .3 ). H ow ev er , i t m ig ht b e to o la te t o im pl em en t th es e fo r th is p ro je ct ( w ou ld h av e be en be tt er t o pl an fo r th is in a dv an ce o f s ta rt in g w or k on t he p ro je ct ). Th e gr ou p be lie ve s th at a m or e ag gr es si ve p er m itt in g ve rs us N TP s tr at eg y is p os si bl e, bu t in tr od uc es it s ow n ris ks ( i.e ., if N TP is is su ed b ef or e th e en vi ro nm en ta l p er m its ar e co m pl et e, t he n th e co nt ra ct or c ou ld h av e gr ou nd s fo r si gn ifi ca nt c la im s if pe rm it co nd iti on s ch an ge r el at iv e to t he R FP ). H en ce , i t is u nl ik el y fo r Q D O T to p ur su e th is st ra te gy . C P6 M in or U se i n ce n ti ve s to a cc el er at e D -B c o n st ru ct io n Se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl es B. 2 an d B. 14 . Th e te am b el ie ve s th at Q D O T is u nl ik el y to a pp ly a dd iti on al in ce nt iv es . U se o f D -B de liv er y m et ho d an d pe rf or m an ce -b as ed s pe cs s ho ul d pr ov id e ad eq ua te fl ex ib ili ty a nd in ce nt iv e fo r th e co nt ra ct or t o co m pl et e th e pr oj ec t w ith in Q D O T’ s de si re d tim e fr am e.

343 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C P7 Is su es w it h D -B d es ig n o r su b m it ta ls Fo r ex am pl e: • In te rn al Q D O T or F H W A d el ay s re vi ew in g an d ap pr ov in g su bm is si on s • Er ro rs o r om is si on s in D -B s ub m is si on s 25 Si m ul at ed ad di tio na l ov er he ad s To A ct iv ity 1 1: + 2 C P8 O th er p ro b le m s w it h D -B c o n tr ac t p ro cu re m en t Se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl es B. 2 an d B. 14 . A si de fr om is su es c ap tu re d se pa ra te ly ( e. g. , a s pa rt o f m ar ke t co nd iti on s ris k) . N ot e th at p ro je ct -c an ce lin g is su es a re e xc lu de d; m os t of t he r em ai ni ng id en tifi ed is su es w er e as se ss ed t o be lo w li ke lih oo d an d re la tiv el y lo w im pa ct fo r th is p ro je ct . H en ce , t he gr ou p co m bi ne d th em in to o ne “ la rg er ” is su e an d as se ss ed t he ir co m bi ne d po te nt ia l im pa ct s. E ve n so , t he g ro up b el ie ve s th at a s ig ni fic an t pr ob le m is u nl ik el y (e sp ec ia lly gi ve n Q D O T’ s re as on ab le h is to ry fo r su ch p ro cu re m en ts ). If so m et hi ng d id o cc ur , t he m os t lik el y im pa ct t o sc he du le w ou ld b e du rin g D -B pr oc ur em en t. Fo r ex am pl e: • Bi d pr ot es t (p re aw ar d or p os ta w ar d) ; • U nc le ar c on tr ac t do cu m en ts ; • C on tr ac to r de fa ul t; • Bo nd in g or in su ra nc e is su es ; • Q D O T un fa m ili ar ity w ith D -B c on tr ac tin g; a nd • A pp ro ac h to s pe ci fic at io ns ( e. g. , p er fo rm an ce -b as ed s pe cs ). 10 Si m ul at ed ad di tio na l ov er he ad s To A ct iv ity 8 : +0 .5 TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

344 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C o n st ru ct io n C N 1 D -B c o n st ru ct io n p h as in g s ig n ifi ca n tl y d if fe re n t th an a ss u m ed Ex cl ud es s pe ci fic c ha ng es t o sc he du le a nd p ha si ng r el at ed t o ch an ge s in d es ig n, e tc . th at a re c ap tu re d un de r ot he r ris ks . Th e ba se s ch ed ul e is n ot b el ie ve d to b e ov er ly o pt im is tic o r ag gr es si ve . I t is im po ss ib le to k no w a t th is p oi nt h ow t he D -B w ill a ct ua lly c on st ru ct t he p ro je ct , s o th e ac tu al sc he du le a nd p ha si ng c ou ld b e si gn ifi ca nt ly d iff er en t th an c ur re nt ly a ss um ed . D is cr et e D is tr ib ut io n: A . 25 B. 50 C . 25 N o di re ct c os t; Si m ul at ed ex te nd ed ov er he ad s (c om pe ns ab le ) To A ct iv ity 1 2: A . −2 B. 0 (b as e) C . +1 C N 2 A d d it io n al m ai n te n an ce o f tr af fi c re q u ir ed Se e G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl e B. 10 . Be ca us e ei th er t he o rig in al p la n do es n ot w or k an d ne ed s to b e m od ifi ed o r th e pl an do es w or k bu t si m pl y ne ed s to b e au gm en te d. 50 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .2 5 0 C N 3 P ro b le m s w it h p la n n ed A B C t ec h n iq u e Q D O T as su m es t he c on tr ac to r w ill e m pl oy A BC ( re ga rd le ss o f t he s tr uc tu re t yp e se le ct ed fo r th e in te rc ha ng e; h en ce , t hi s is su e is a pp ro xi m at el y in de pe nd en t of R is k PD 3) . T he p er fo rm an ce o f t hi s pl an ne d ra pi d re ne w al m et ho d (a cc el er at ed b rid ge co ns tr uc tio n) is d iffi cu lt to p re di ct b ec au se t he m et ho d th e co nt ra ct or w ill u se is n ot kn ow n, a nd m an y A BC t ec hn iq ue s ar e st ill e vo lv in g. Po te nt ia l p ro bl em s in cl ud e (s ee G ui de , A pp en di x B, S um m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl e B. 5) : • Se le ct ed t ec hn ol og y do es n ot w or k as p la nn ed ( te ch ni ca l i ss ue ) • D el ay s pr oc ur in g te ch no lo gy N ot e th at t hi s ris k do es n ot a pp ly if t he S H -1 11 a lig nm en t is s pl it at t he in te rc ha ng e (c on st ru ct io n is o ut o f t ra ffi c; A BC is n ot e m pl oy ed ). 50 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .2 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .5

345 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C N 4 U n ab le t o c o n st ru ct i n te rc h an g e em b an k m en ts a s ra p id ly a s as su m ed Ba se a ss um es r ap id c on st ru ct io n te ch ni qu es fo r th e ap pr oa ch e m ba nk m en ts o f t he S H - 11 1 ov er cr os si ng a t th e in te rc ha ng e w ith U S- 55 5. Th e pe rf or m an ce o f t hi s pl an ne d ra pi d re ne w al m et ho d (r ap id e m ba nk m en t co ns tr uc tio n) is d iffi cu lt to p re di ct fo r th e fo llo w in g re as on s (s ee G ui de , A pp en di x B, Su m m ar y Ri sk C he ck lis t fo r Ra pi d Re ne w al P ro je ct s, o r Ta bl e B. 6) : • U nc er ta in ty in s ub su rf ac e co nd iti on s (s of t so ils a re s us pe ct ed ); • U nc er ta in ty in w ha t m et ho d th e co nt ra ct or w ill c ho os e; a nd • U nc er ta in ty in p er fo rm an ce o f t he s el ec te d m et ho d fo r ac tu al s ub su rf ac e co nd iti on s (e .g ., m et ho d do es n ot p er fo rm a s in te nd ed ). It is t he re fo re u nc le ar a t th is p oi nt h ow m uc h be ne fit w ill b e ac hi ev ed r el at iv e to tr ad iti on al e m ba nk m en t co ns tr uc tio n. If t he m et ho d do es n ot w or k, r em ed ia l m ea su re s w ill b e ne ed ed t o ac ce le ra te e m ba nk m en t co ns tr uc tio n, b ut w ith s om e lo ss o f t im e. 25 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .2 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +3 C N 5 D if fi cu lt f o u n d at io n i n st al la ti o n Se pa ra te fr om g ro un d im pr ov em en t is su es . In fo rm at io n is li m ite d in t he in te rc ha ng e ar ea ( ad di tio na l g eo te ch ni ca l i nv es tig at io n is s ch ed ul ed fo r la te r) . H ow ev er , a ne cd ot al in fo rm at io n in di ca te s th at n ea r- su rf ac e gr ou nd c on di tio ns a re p oo r en ou gh t o re qu ire d ee p fo un da tio ns ( as su m ed in t he ba se ). C ou ld e nc ou nt er o bs tr uc tio ns , c ou ld h av e di ffi cu lty o bt ai ni ng d es ig n ca pa ci ty fo r va rio us r ea so ns . 10 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .2 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .5 C N 6 M in or Se ve re w ea th er e ve n t si g n ifi ca n tl y af fe ct s co n st ru ct io n Th is r ef er s to s pe ci fic , i nd iv id ua l e ve nt s, s uc h as e ar th qu ak e or fl oo d, d ur in g co ns tr uc tio n. C ou ld r es ul t in e ith er d el ay o r si gn ifi ca nt d am ag e. V er y lo w li ke lih oo d of si gn ifi ca nt im pa ct in t hi s ge og ra ph ic lo ca tio n. TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d)

346 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C N 7 C o ld er -t h an -u su al w in te r U su al ly , c on st ru ct io n w or k ca n pr oc ee d ye ar -r ou nd in s om e m an ne r (t he b as e sc he du le ac co un ts fo r th is ). H ow ev er , a n ex tr em e w in te r co ul d re su lt in p er ha ps a 1 -m on th de la y. 10 Si m ul at ed ex te nd ed ov er he ad s (c om pe ns ab le ) To A ct iv ity 1 2: +1 C N 8 M in or Si g n ifi ca n t ac ci d en t d u ri n g c o n st ru ct io n Lo w li ke lih oo d. If it o cc ur s, t im e im pa ct is li ke ly t o be m in im al a nd c os t im pa ct s co ul d be c ov er ed b y D -B in su ra nc e. C N 9 Li m ite d co ns tr uc tio n st ag in g ar ea in v ic in ity o f i nt er ch an ge Ei th er Q D O T or t he c on tr ac to r w ill li ke ly h av e to fi nd a s ui ta bl e st ag in g ar ea , b ut it m ig ht n ot b e cl os e to t he in te rc ha ng e, w hi ch c ou ld in cr ea se c on tr ac to r co st s. 33 To A ct iv ity 1 2: +0 .1 0 C N 10 M in or Fi sh w in d o w i n W an d er in g C re ek C ur re nt ly , n o lis te d sp ec ie s ar e be lie ve d to in ha bi t W an de rin g C re ek n ea r U S- 55 5. H en ce , i n- w at er w or k w in do w s ar e as su m ed t o no t ap pl y. E ve n if a w in do w d id a pp ly , ho w ev er , t he c on tr ac to r sh ou ld e as ily b e ab le t o st ag e cu lv er t w or k to a cc om m od at e a w in do w . C N 11 M in or N o n co m p li an ce w it h p er m it s d u ri n g c o n st ru ct io n Lo w li ke lih oo d of a ny s ig ni fic an t no nc om pl ia nc e. E ve n if it do es o cc ur , l ow li ke lih oo d of s ig ni fic an t co st im pa ct ( co nt ra ct or ) or s ch ed ul e im pa ct ( Q D O T’ s sc he du le , b ut co nt ra ct or fi na nc ia lly r es po ns ib le ).

347 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .1 9 . QR A UN M IT IG AT ED R IS K RE GI ST ER (c on tin ue d) It em R is k or O p p or tu n it y P ro b ab ili ty of O cc u rr en ce (% ) C os t C h an g e to A ct iv it y (c u rr en t $ m ill io n ) D u ra ti on C h an g e to A ct iv it y (m on th s) C N 12 Ex te nd ed o ve rh ea ds a s a fu nc tio n of p ro je ct d el ay s Pr ec on st ru ct io n (Q D O T st af f) : $ 10 0, 00 0/ m on th o f d el ay C on st ru ct io n: • Q D O T st af f: $1 00 ,0 00 /m on th o f d el ay • C on tr ac to r: F or c om pe ns ab le d el ay s, $ 25 0, 00 0/ m on th o f d el ay ( m od el ed a s $1 25 ,0 00 /m on th o f t ot al d el ay , a ss um in g 50 % o f d el ay s ar e co m pe ns ab le ) Si m ul at ed a s a fu nc tio n of s im ul at ed pr oj ec t de la ys M in o r an d U n id en ti fi ed R is k s an d O p p o rt u n it ie s A gg re ga te e ffe ct o f i te m s la be le d M in or a bo ve . M aj or m ea ns t he it em s qu an tifi ed ab ov e (i. e. , a ll ite m s ot he r th an t ho se la be le d M in or a bo ve ) A gg re ga te m in or r is ks 50 10 % o f s um o f m aj or r is ks t o ac tiv ity 10 % o f ag gr eg at e m aj or r is ks t o ac tiv ity A gg re ga te m in or o pp or tu ni tie s 50 10 % o f s um of m aj or op po rt un iti es to a ct iv ity 10 % o f ag gr eg at e m aj or op po rt un iti es to a ct iv ity U ni de nt ifi ed r is ks 50 10 % o f s um o f m aj or r is ks t o ac tiv ity 10 % o f ag gr eg at e m aj or r is ks t o ac tiv ity U ni de nt ifi ed o pp or tu ni tie s 50 10 % o f s um of m aj or op po rt un iti es to a ct iv ity 10 % o f ag gr eg at e m aj or op po rt un iti es to a ct iv ity

348 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .2 0 . QR A AP PR OX IM AT E M EA N U N M IT IG AT ED B AS E + R IS K PR OJ EC T PE RF OR M AN CE (C OS T AN D SC HE DU LE T HR OU GH C ON ST RU CT IO N ) # A ct iv it y M ea n B as e + R is k U n m it ig at ed P ro je ct P er fo rm an ce D u ra ti on (m on th s) E ar ly S ta rt D at e E ar ly F in is h D at e F lo at (m on th s) C os t (c u rr en t $ M ) C os t (Y O E $ M ) 0 Pr ev io us C os ts 1. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 12 /3 1/ 20 09 0. 2 0. 2 0 0 0. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 12 /1 /2 00 9 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 1 Pr el im in ar y D es ig n (t o 30 % ) 7. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 6/ 2/ 20 10 1. 48 0. 3 0. 4 2 D ra ft E nv iro nm en ta l A ss es sm en t (E A ) 8. 6 12 /1 /2 00 9 7/ 20 /2 01 0 0. 00 0. 3 0. 3 3 Fi na liz e EA /A pp ro va l 6. 0 8/ 18 /2 01 0 1/ 21 /2 01 1 0. 00 0. 6 0. 5 4 Pr ep ar e/ Is su e RF P 2. 0 7/ 2/ 20 10 1/ 21 /2 01 1 8. 55 0. 3 0. 4 5 A dv an ce U til ity R el oc at io ns 9. 0 7/ 2/ 20 10 3/ 4/ 20 11 11 .9 3 1. 9 1. 8 6 A dv an ce R ig ht -o f- W ay ( RO W ) A cq ui si tio n 16 .6 7/ 2/ 20 10 9/ 12 /2 01 1 7. 31 2. 1 2. 7 7 En vi ro nm en ta l P er m itt in g 5. 0 2/ 20 /2 01 1 6/ 22 /2 01 1 0. 97 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 12 /1 /2 00 9 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 8 D es ig n– Bu ild er R es po ns e/ Re vi ew /S el ec tio n/ N eg ot ia te 6. 1 2/ 20 /2 01 1 9/ 23 /2 01 1 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 9 Fu nd in g 0. 0 6/ 1/ 20 11 6/ 1/ 20 11 5. 64 0. 0 0. 0 10 N ot ic e to P ro ce ed 0. 0 8/ 23 /2 01 1 9/ 23 /2 01 1 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 12 /1 /2 00 9 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 11 a D es ig n– Bu ild er D es ig n a 1. 0 8/ 23 /2 01 1 10 /2 3/ 20 11 0. 00 0. 2 0. 2 11 b D es ig n– Bu ild er D es ig n b 5. 0 9/ 23 /2 01 1 3/ 24 /2 01 2 5. 43 0. 9 0. 9 12 a D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n a 5. 9 9/ 23 /2 01 1 4/ 8/ 20 12 0. 00 2. 4 2. 6 12 b D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n b 6. 8 3/ 20 /2 01 2 10 /2 4/ 20 12 0. 00 6. 1 8. 8 12 c D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n c 8. 5 9/ 21 /2 01 2 7/ 11 /2 01 3 0. 00 4. 0 4. 3 13 C om pl et e 0. 0 7/ 12 /2 01 3 7/ 11 /2 01 3 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 To ta l 19 .2 23 .1 N ot e: T he se m ea n va lu es a re a pp ro xi m at e be ca us e of h ow t he in pu ts a re u se d in t he m od el t o qu ic kl y de te rm in e m ea n va lu es ( ne ith er v ia s im ul at io n no r as tr ue m ea n va lu es ). H ow ev er , c om pa rin g th is c os t- lo ad ed s ch ed ul e w ith t he m ea n ba se -o nl y re su lts ( Ta bl e E. 16 fo r sc he du le a nd T ab le E .1 7 [P ar t C ] fo r co st ) gi ve s in si gh t as t o w hi ch a ct iv iti es a re b ei ng a ffe ct ed b y ris ks .

349 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 57 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx Figure E.6. QRA “raw” unmitigated cost and schedule simulation results (through construction). Jul 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 May 2013 Aug 2013 Nov 2013 Mar 2014 Jun 2014 Sep 2014 0 10 20 30 40 Total Project Cost ( $M) Pr oj ec t C om pl et io n D at e YOE $M Current $M Figure E.6. QRA “raw” unmitigated cost and schedule simulation results (through construction). TABLE E.21. QRA UNMITIGATED COST AND SCHEDULE UNCERTAINTIES Statistic Total Project Cost (2009 $M) Total Project Cost (YOE $M) NTP Date Project Completion Date Base 16.4 17.3 Jun 2011 Nov 2012 80th percentile versus base 38.0% 40.2% 30.4% 28.2% Mean 20.6 22.0 Sep 2011 Jun 2013 SD 2.5 2.9 2.6 2.9 1% 15.0 15.8 Jun 2011 Sep 2012 5% 16.5 17.3 Jun 2011 Nov 2012 10% 17.4 18.4 Jun 2011 Mar 2013 20% 18.5 19.6 Jul 2011 Apr 2013 25% 18.9 20.0 Jul 2011 May 2013 30% 19.2 20.4 Jul 2011 May 2013 40% 19.9 21.2 Aug 2011 Jun 2013 50% 20.5 21.9 Sep 2011 Jun 2013 60% 21.1 22.6 Sep 2011 Jul 2013 70% 21.8 23.4 Oct 2011 Aug 2013 75% 22.2 23.8 Oct 2011 Aug 2013 80% 22.6 24.2 Nov 2011 Aug 2013 90% 23.9 25.7 Dec 2011 Sep 2013 95% 24.9 26.9 Feb 2012 Oct 2013 99% 27.0 29.3 May 2012 Nov 2013 Note: Through construction.

350 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 59 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx (a) (b) 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Total Project Cost (2009 $M) Pr ob ab ili ty 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Total Project Cost (YOE $M) Pr ob ab ili ty 59 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx (a) (b) 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Total Project Cost (2009 $M) Pr ob ab ili ty 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Total Project Cost (YOE $M) Pr ob ab ili ty 60 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx (c) (d) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty (P er ce nt ile , C on fid en ce ) Total Project Cost (millions) 2009 $ Year-of-Expenditure $ 21.6 24.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 A u g 2 0 1 2 O ct 2 0 1 2 D e c 2 0 1 2 F e b 2 0 1 3 A p r 2 0 1 3 Ju n 2 0 1 3 A u g 2 0 1 3 O ct 2 0 1 3 D e c 2 0 1 3 F e b 2 0 1 4 A p r 2 0 1 4 Ju n 2 0 1 4 A u g 2 0 1 4 Overall Project Completion Date Pr ob ab ili ty Figure E.7. QRA unmitigated cost and schedule uncertainties (through construction). (a) Probability dis- tribution (probability mass function) for unescalated unmitigated project cost. (b) Probability distribution (probability mass function) for escalated unmitigated project cost. (c) Comparison of probability distributions (cumulative distribution function) for unescalated and escalated unmitigated project cost. (d) Probability distri- bution (probability mass function) for unmitigated project completion date. (e) Probability distribution (cumu- lative distribution function) for unmitigated project completion date. (Continued on next page)

351 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 60 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx (c) (d) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty (P er ce nt ile , C on fid en ce ) Total Project Cost (millions) 2009 $ Year-of-Expenditure $ 21.6 24.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 A u g 2 0 1 2 O ct 2 0 1 2 D e c 2 0 1 2 F e b 2 0 1 3 A p r 2 0 1 3 Ju n 2 0 1 3 A u g 2 0 1 3 O ct 2 0 1 3 D e c 2 0 1 3 F e b 2 0 1 4 A p r 2 0 1 4 Ju n 2 0 1 4 A u g 2 0 1 4 Overall Project Completion Date Pr ob ab ili ty 61 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx (e) Figure E.7. QRA unmitigated cost and schedule uncertainties (through construction). (a) Probability distribution (probability mass function) for unescalated unmitigated project cost. (b) Probability distribution (probability mass function) for escalated unmitigated project cost. (c) Comparison of probability distributions (cumulative distribution function) for unescalated and escalated unmitigated project cost. (d) Probability distribution (probability mass function) for unmitigated project completion date. (e) Probability distribution (cumulative distribution function) for unmitigated project completion date. Table E.21. QRA Unmitigated Cost Uncertainty Contributors Rank Contribution to 80th Percentile of Project Cost (YOE $M) Risk 1 1.39 CN12. Extended overheads as a function of project delays 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A u g 2 0 1 2 N o v 2 0 1 2 F e b 2 0 1 3 M ay 2 01 3 A u g 2 0 1 3 N o v 2 0 1 3 F e b 2 0 1 4 C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty Overall Project Completion Date 8/1311/12 Figure E.7. QRA unmitigated cost and schedule uncertainties (through construction). (continued).

352 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TABLE E.22. QRA UNMITIGATED COST UNCERTAINTY CONTRIBUTORS Rank Contribution to 80th Percentile of Project Cost (YOE $M) Risk 1 1.39 CN12. Extended overheads as a function of project delays 2 1.22 Compound construction inflation to midpoint of construction 3 0.39 CP2. Uncertain D-B contracting market conditions at time of bid 4 0.35 PD11. Cannot use city sewer system for project runoff (or city charges for use) 5 0.29 RU3. Unwilling sellers 6 0.28 SC6. Provide new lighting throughout project 7 0.27 Identified minor risks (aggregate) 8 0.26 Unidentified risks (aggregate) 9 0.26 RU8. QDOT helps city pay for water- and sewer-line relocation 10 0.20 RU2. Accelerating pace of development in interchange area 11 0.19 Traffic control (at 7% of subtotal A + Mobilization) 12 0.18 CN2. Additional maintenance of traffic required 13 0.16 PD13. Change in environmental documentation 14 0.15 R2. Accelerating pace of development in interchange area 15 0.14 PD12. Structures affected by Main Street realignment are eligible for National Register of Historic Places 16 0.14 CN3. Problems with planned accelerated bridge construction (ABC) technique 17 0.14 PD5. Shoulders required on US-555 18 0.11 PD16. Additional wetland mitigation required for planned alignment 19 0.11 PD3. Change configuration of SH-111/US-555 interchange 20 0.11 PD6. Shoulders required on SH-111 21 0.10 CONSTRUCTION ADMINSTRATION (8% of C) 22 0.10 SC5. Replace culvert over Wandering Creek Rank Contribution to 80th Percentile ($M YOE) Opportunity 1 -0.22 PD8. Change in pavement section and/or type Note: >$100,000 YOE; through construction.

353 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Figure E.8. QRA Unmitigated cost uncertainty key contributors (through construction).         Figure E.8. QRA Unmitigated cost uncertainty key contributors (through construction).

354 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS TA B LE E .2 3 . QR A AP PR OX IM AT E M EA N M IT IG AT ED B AS E + R IS K PR OJ EC T PE RF OR M AN CE (T HR OU GH C ON ST RU CT IO N ) N o. A ct iv it y M ea n B as e + R is k P os tm it ig at io n P ro je ct P er fo rm an ce D u ra ti on (m on th s) E ar ly S ta rt D at e E ar ly F in is h D at e F lo at (m on th s) C os t (c u rr en t $ M ) C os t (Y O E $ M ) 0 Pr ev io us C os ts 1. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 12 /3 1/ 20 09 0. 2 0. 2 0 0 0. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 12 /1 /2 00 9 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 1 Pr el im in ar y D es ig n (t o 30 % ) 6. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 6/ 2/ 20 10 1. 03 0. 4 0. 5 2 D ra ft E nv iro nm en ta l A ss es sm en t (E A ) 7. 1 12 /1 /2 00 9 7/ 5/ 20 10 0. 00 0. 3 0. 3 3 Fi na liz e EA /A pp ro va l 6. 0 7/ 2/ 20 10 1/ 7/ 20 11 0. 00 0. 6 0. 5 4 Pr ep ar e/ Is su e RF P 2. 0 7/ 2/ 20 10 1/ 7/ 20 11 8. 11 0. 3 0. 4 5 A dv an ce U til ity R el oc at io ns 9. 0 7/ 2/ 20 10 3/ 3/ 20 11 13 .6 9 0. 8 0. 8 6 A dv an ce R ig ht -o f- W ay ( RO W ) A cq ui si tio n 15 .0 7/ 2/ 20 10 6/ 3/ 20 11 10 .5 8 2. 1 2. 7 7 En vi ro nm en ta l P er m itt in g 5. 0 1/ 1/ 20 11 6/ 9/ 20 11 1. 08 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 12 /1 /2 00 9 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 8 D es ig n– Bu ild er R es po ns e/ Re vi ew /S el ec tio n/ N eg ot ia te 8. 0 1/ 1/ 20 11 9/ 9/ 20 11 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 9 Fu nd in g 0. 0 6/ 1/ 20 11 6/ 1/ 20 11 4. 28 0. 0 0. 0 10 N ot ic e to P ro ce ed 0. 0 7/ 5/ 20 11 9/ 9/ 20 11 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 12 /1 /2 00 9 12 /1 /2 00 9 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 11 a D es ig n– Bu ild er D es ig n a 1. 0 7/ 5/ 20 11 10 /1 0/ 20 11 0. 00 0. 3 0. 3 11 b D es ig n– Bu ild er D es ig n b 5. 0 8/ 4/ 20 11 3/ 10 /2 01 2 6. 54 0. 9 0. 9 12 a D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n a 5. 5 8/ 4/ 20 11 3/ 26 /2 01 2 0. 00 2. 4 2. 6 12 b D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n b 7. 8 9/ 19 /2 01 1 10 /1 0/ 20 12 0. 00 7. 9 8. 8 12 c D es ig n– Bu ild er C on st ru ct io n c 8. 5 7/ 21 /2 01 2 6/ 27 /2 01 3 0. 00 4. 0 4. 3 13 C om pl et e 0. 0 4/ 7/ 20 13 6/ 27 /2 01 3 0. 00 0. 0 0. 0 To ta l 20 .1 22 .2 N ot e: T he se m ea n va lu es a re a pp ro xi m at e be ca us e of h ow t he in pu ts a re u se d in t he m od el t o qu ic kl y de te rm in e m ea n va lu es ( ne ith er v ia s im ul at io n no r as tr ue m ea n va lu es ). H ow ev er , c om pa rin g th is c os t- lo ad ed s ch ed ul e w ith t he m ea n ba se -o nl y re su lts ( Ta bl e E. 16 fo r sc he du le a nd T ab le E .1 7 [P ar t C ] fo r co st ) gi ve s in si gh t as t o w hi ch a ct iv iti es a re b ei ng a ffe ct ed b y ris ks , a nd c om pa rin g th is c os t- lo ad ed s ch ed ul e w ith t he m iti ga te d re su lts ( Ta bl e E. 19 ) gi ve s in si gh t as to w hi ch a ct iv iti es a re b ei ng a ffe ct ed b y ris k re du ct io n pl an s.

355 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 64 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx Figure E.9. QRA “raw” mitigated cost and schedule simulation results (through construction). Table E.23. QRA Mitigated Cost and Schedule Uncertainties Statistic Total Project Cost (2009 $M) Total Project Cost (YOE $M) NTP Date Project Completion Date Base 16.3 17.2 Jun 2011 Nov 2012 80th percentile versus base 36.0% 38.1% 30.1% 26.5% Mean 20.1 21.5 Sep 2011 May 2013 SD 2.5 2.9 2.6 3.0 Minimum 11.2 12.0 Jun 2011 Aug 2012 Maximum 30.5 33.9 Aug 2012 May 2014 1% 15.0 15.8 Jun 2011 Sep 2012 5% 16.3 17.2 Jun 2011 Oct 2012 10% 17.1 18.0 Jun 2011 Mar 2013 20% 18.0 19.0 Jul 2011 Apr 2013 25% 18.3 19.5 Jul 2011 Apr 2013 30% 18.7 19.8 Jul 2011 May 2013 40% 19.4 20.6 Aug 2011 May 2013 Jul 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 May 2013 Aug 2013 Nov 2013 Mar 2014 Jun 2014 Sep 2014 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Total Project Cost ( $M) Pr oj ec t C om pl et io n D at e YOE $M Current $M Figure E.9. QRA “raw” mitigated cost and schedule simulation results (through construction). TABLE E.24. QRA MITIGATED COST AND SCHEDULE UNCERTAINTIES Statistic Total Project Cost (2009 $M) Total Project Cost (YOE $M) NTP Date Project Completion Date Base 16.3 17.2 Jun 2011 Nov 2012 80th percentile versus base 36.0% 38.1% 30.1% 26.5% Mean 20.1 21.5 Sep 2011 May 2013 SD 2.5 2.9 2.6 3.0 Minimum 11.2 12.0 Jun 2011 Aug 2012 Maximum 30.5 33.9 Aug 2012 May 2014 1% 15.0 15.8 Jun 2011 Sep 2012 5% 16.3 17.2 Jun 2011 Oct 2012 10% 17.1 18.0 Jun 2011 Mar 2013 20% 18.0 19.0 Jul 2011 Apr 2013 25% 18.3 19.5 Jul 2011 Apr 2013 30% 18.7 19.8 Jul 2011 May 2013 40% 19.4 20.6 Aug 2011 May 2013 50% 20.0 21.3 Sep 2011 Jun 2013 60% 20.6 22.0 Sep 2011 Jun 2013 70% 21.3 22.8 Oct 2011 Jul 2013 75% 21.7 23.3 Oct 2011 Jul 2013 80% 22.2 23.8 Nov 2011 Aug 2013 90% 23.4 25.3 Dec 2011 Aug 2013 95% 24.4 26.5 Feb 2012 Sep 2013 99% 26.6 29.0 May 2012 Oct 2013 Note: Through construction.

356 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS Figure E.10. QRA Mitigated cost and schedule uncertainties (through construction). (a) Comparison of probability distributions (cumulative distribution function) for unescalated and escalated mitigated project cost. (b) Comparison of probability distributions (cumula- tive distribution function) for escalated mitigated and escalated unmitigated project cost. (c) Probability distribution (cumulative distribution function) for mitigated project comple- tion date. (d) Comparison of probability distributions (cumulative distribution function) for mitigated and unmitigated project completion date. (Continued on next page) 65 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx 50% 20.0 21.3 Sep 2011 Jun 2013 60% 20.6 22.0 Sep 2011 Jun 2013 70% 21.3 22.8 Oct 2011 Jul 2013 75% 21.7 23.3 Oct 2011 Jul 2013 80% 22.2 23.8 Nov 2011 Aug 2013 90% 23.4 25.3 Dec 2011 Aug 2013 95% 24.4 26.5 Feb 2012 Sep 2013 99% 26.6 29.0 May 2012 Oct 2013 Note: Through construction. Table E.24 presents the QRA unmitigated base schedule. [Move new Table E.24 and insert following Table E.23.] [Insert Figure E.10 here] [Center (a), (b), (c), and (d) below each figure part] [Caption] … (a) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty (P er ce nt ile , C on fid en ce ) Total Project Cost (millions) 2009 $ Year-of-Expenditure $ 23.8 66 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx (b) (c) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 6 2 8 3 0 Total Project Cost (YOE $M) C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty ( P er ce nt ile , C on fid en ce ) Including Mitigation Before Mitigation 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A u g 2 0 1 2 N o v 2 0 1 2 F e b 2 0 1 3 M ay 2 01 3 A u g 2 0 1 3 N o v 2 0 1 3 F eb 2 01 4 C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty (P er ce nt ile , C on fid en ce ) Overall Project Completion Date 08/13

357 GUIDE FOR THE PROCESS OF MANAGING RISK ON RAPID RENEWAL PROJECTS 66 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx (b) (c) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 6 2 8 3 0 Total Project Cost (YOE $M) C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty ( P er ce nt ile , C on fid en ce ) Including Mitigation Before Mitigation 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A u g 2 0 1 2 N o v 2 0 1 2 F e b 2 0 1 3 M ay 2 01 3 A u g 2 0 1 3 N o v 2 0 1 3 F eb 2 01 4 C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty (P er ce nt ile , C on fid en ce ) Overall Project Completion Date 08/13 67 2014.01.14 R09 Guide Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx CBaum 2/24/14 10:49 AM Deleted: 2013.12.19 R09 Appendix E_Final For Composition.Docx (d) Figure E.10. QRA Mitigated cost and schedule uncertainties (through construction). (a) Comparison of probability distributions (cumulative distribution function) for unescalated and escalated mitigated project cost. (b) Comparison of probability distributions (cumulative distribution function) for escalated mitigated and escalated unmitigated project cost. (c) Probability distribution (cumulative distribution function) for mitigated project completion date. (d) Comparison of probability distributions (cumulative distribution function) for mitigated and unmitigated project completion date. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% S ep 2 01 2 O ct 2 01 2 N ov 2 01 2 D ec 2 01 2 Ja n 20 13 F eb 2 01 3 M ar 2 01 3 A pr 2 01 3 M ay 2 01 3 Ju n 20 13 Ju l 2 01 3 A ug 2 01 3 S ep 2 01 3 O ct 2 01 3 N ov 2 01 3 D ec 2 01 3 Overall Project Completion Date C um ul at iv e Pr ob ab ili ty ( P er ce nt ile , C on fid en ce ) Including Mitigation Before Mitigation Figure E.10. QRA mitigated cost and schedule uncertainties (through construction). (continued)