appendix f cost engineering

Microsoft Word - HQ-APPENDIX-F_Cost Engineering_POST-HQ.docxUSACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-2
Table of Contents 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
3 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4
5.1 CWWBS 01 Lands and Damages ................................................................................................. 5
5.2 CWWBS 02 Relocations ............................................................................................................... 5
5.3 CWWBS 09 Channels ................................................................................................................... 5
5.4 CWWBS 11 Levees and Floodwalls ............................................................................................. 5
5.5 CWWBS 13 Pumping Plant .......................................................................................................... 5
5.6 CWWBS 14 Recreation Facilities ................................................................................................. 5
5.7 CWWBS 15 Floodway Control Diversion Structure .................................................................... 6
5.8 CWWBS 30 Pre-Construction, Engineering and Design ............................................................. 6
5.9 CWWBS 31 Construction Management ...................................................................................... 6
6 Cost Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6
6.1 Price Level .................................................................................................................................... 6
6.2 Unit Prices ..................................................................................................................................... 6
6.3 Quantity Takeoffs ......................................................................................................................... 6
6.4 Labor Rates ................................................................................................................................... 7
6.5 Fuel Rates ...................................................................................................................................... 7
7.3 Dewatering and Temporary By-Passes ......................................................................................... 8
7.4 Preparatory Work .......................................................................................................................... 9
7.5 Project Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 9
9 Total Project Cost Summary ............................................................................................................... 10
10 Average Annual Costs .................................................................................................................... 10
11 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 10
Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Draft Feasibility Report With Integrated Environmental Assessment; Bottineau, McHenry, Renville Ward County, North Dakota
USACE | Appendix F – Cost Engineering F-3
12 References ....................................................................................................................................... 11
13 Attachments .................................................................................................................................... 11
2 Introduction This appendix presents a summary of the detailed cost estimate prepared for the Recommended Plan of the Souris River Basin Feasibility Risk Management Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment (Feasibility Report). This estimate was developed based on review of the non-federal local sponsor alternatives as identified in the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project (MREFPP). The project consists of constructing a series of new levees, floodwalls, and other flood risk reduction features through Minot, North Dakota (Reference 1), the Corps, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project Ward County, North Dakota, November 2016 (Reference 2), Task Order 3 Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Alternatives Assessment (Work in Kind) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) (Reference 3), Houston Engineering Inc., Barr Engineering Co., and Ackerman-Estvold Engineering, Souris River Feasibility Study – Design Documentation Report – Prepared for Souris River Joint Board and USACE St. Paul District, April 2018 (Reference 4), and regional unit prices from the recently awarded MREFPP construction contracts for adjacent reaches. This estimate is at feasibility level of design detail, and all costs are based on quantities developed from the feasibility report and design layout as reviewed.
This estimate includes; lands and damages; planning, engineering and design (PED); construction; construction management (CM); and operation and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement (OMRR&R) costs. The estimate was developed after review of available work in kind (Reference 2) project plans, reports, recent regional construction bid abstracts, and discussion with team members.
Guidance for the preparation of the estimate and attachments was obtained from Engineer Regulations (ER)-1110-2-1150, Engineering and Design for Civil Work Projects; ER 1110-2-1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering; Engineer Technical Letters (ETL) 1110-2-573, Construction Cost Estimating Guide for Civil Works; Engineering and Construction Bulletin (ECB) 2007-17, Application of Cost Risk Analysis Methods to Develop Contingencies for Civil Work Total Project Costs; EM 1110-2-1304, Civil Works Construction Cost Index System, and ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook - Appendix E.
3 Background A complete description of future without project and alternative comparisons can be found in the feasibility report. This cost appendix presents only the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP), which was optimized in the second phase of the study, and is the final level of performance as defined in the feasibility report as the National Economic Development plan and the Recommended Plan. All future reference to the TSP within this appendix will be as recommended plan.
4 Recommended Plan The recommended plan includes the construction of the Maple Diversion high flow by-pass channel with a North Levee, the West Tieback Levee, and the 10 foot wide multi-use recreation trail along the North Levee connecting to the existing regional trail system. A full description of recommended plan features can be found in the feasibility report.
5 Assumptions and Constraints The assumption for this project is that all work will be done within the existing right of way and no other Real Estate will be required for the recommended plan. It is assumed that all borrow material needed to
complete the levee features is available within a 12 mile round trip of any place on the levees. It is also assumed that the disposal of all materials removed will be disposed of at the local landfill also within a 12 mile round trip from any place within in the diversion channel. USACE Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure
This section provides elements of the Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure (CWWBS). The federal share of the project cost is limited to 65 percent of the flood risk management (FRM) features and 50 percent of the recreation features.
5.1 CWWBS 01 Lands and Damages The lands and damages account includes the costs for the remaining administrative costs and the borrow material necessary for construction of the levees at the construction risk contingency of 25 percent. These costs were confirmed and provided by the St Paul District Real Estate Division. The land required for the Project has been acquired and was paid for under separate programming funds.
5.2 CWWBS 02 Relocations The relocations account includes the costs for both permanent and temporary relocations of infrastructure modifications and municipal utilities such as: pavement, curb and gutter, water, sanitary, storm, electrical, natural gas, and fiber optic. Relocations also include 2nd Avenue SW and 6th Street NW road realignments, Canadian Pacific (CP) Railroad track and bridge realignment, restorations, associated demolition to existing features, and hauling and disposal of materials not to remain within the project.
5.3 CWWBS 09 Channels The channels account includes the costs for the permanent high flow by-pass channel construction, dewatering and control of water during construction, existing channel rehabilitation, upstream inlet weir, downstream channel outlet protection, rock and vegetation stabilization, and hauling and disposal of waste materials.
5.4 CWWBS 11 Levees and Floodwalls The levees and floodwalls account includes the costs for the permanent construction of the earthen Maple Diversion North and West Tieback levees, inspection and seepage trenches, concrete floodwalls, and levee closure structures at the shared trail, roadways, and CP railroad crossings.
5.5 CWWBS 13 Pumping Plant The pumping plant account includes the costs for modifying and realigning the stormwater forcemain from the existing 6TH Street Pump Station to accommodate the dewatering of the Maple Diversion Channel as needed.
5.6 CWWBS 14 Recreation Facilities The recreation facilities account includes the costs for construction of a shared use trail connecting the existing regional trail system along the Maple Diversion North Levee, and the additional levee material needed to maintain the Maple Diversion North Levee geometry where the shared use trail transitions away from the levee but is not necessary for the FRM project.
5.7 CWWBS 15 Floodway Control Diversion Structure The floodway control diversion structure account includes the costs for both permanent and temporary construction of two gated Souris River control structures within the existing river alignment, dewatering and control of water during construction, rock and vegetation stabilization, and hauling and disposal of waste materials.
5.8 CWWBS 30 Pre-Construction, Engineering and Design The pre-construction engineering and design (PED) account includes costs for project management, project planning, preliminary design, final design; geotechnical and hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste (HTRW) investigations; preparation of plans and specification, engineering during construction, contract advertisement, opening of bids and contract award. Based on discussions between the project manager and cost engineer, the cost for this account was assumed to be 16 percent of the construction costs. This is assumed to be reasonable as the design is a relatively a straightforward description of work to include, relocations, channel, earthen levees, and closure structures, and is essentially the same design for multiple structures and features
5.9 CWWBS 31 Construction Management The construction management (CM) account includes costs for contract supervision, construction administration, technical management activities, and district office supervision and administration costs. Based on discussions between the project manager and cost engineer, the cost for this account was assumed to be 7 percent of the construction costs. This is assumed to be reasonable as the design is a relatively a straightforward description of work to include, relocations, channel, earthen levees, and closure structures, and is essentially the same design for multiple structures and features.
6 Cost Methodology
6.1 Price Level The Feasibility Report cost estimate is based on October 2018, fiscal year (FY) 2019 prices, unless noted otherwise. This level 3 estimate was prepared using version 4.3 of the MII Cost Estimating Program, see Attachment 1. Project costs were developed using MII English Cost Book 2015 revision A, and the MII 2014 EP Region 4 Equipment Manual. Estimated costs are considered fair and reasonable for a prudent and capable contractor and include overhead, profit, and bond. Based on the location of the project in Minot, North Dakota, it is assumed that no per diem will be required to be included in the estimate.
6.2 Unit Prices Unit prices were developed for the cost estimate by averaging multiple 2017 bid tabulations for similar projects in Minot. Unit costs were referenced in the 2012 MREFP Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) (Reference 1), 2017 MREFP Phase 1 Bid Tabulation (Reference 5) and 2017 MREFP Phase 2 and 3 Bid Tabulation (Reference 6). Costs are included for the hauling of spoil materials from the excavation site for disposal at Minot Landfill. Preliminary impervious borrow source locations and sizes are assumed to be within 3 to 5 miles of the site.
6.3 Quantity Takeoffs Approximate dimensions, areas and volumes were determined using hand computations, digital drawings, scaling, and comparison to similar order-of-magnitude installations. These dimensions were used to generate quantity tabulations in spreadsheet and hand computation formats. Most major dimensions are
the result of preliminary engineering analysis. Minor approximations were necessary to account for less costly items. In most cases, major dimensions used to calculate quantities account for dimensional variations associated with differing flow scenarios at each hydraulic structure location and preliminary structural analysis. Unit prices were based on contractor conversations, internal estimates, similar diversion works projects, material quotes from suppliers, recent bid prices, published construction cost index resources and the 2008 English Cost book for MII cost estimating software. Several projects were referenced to formulate this estimate including the Grand Forks Red River Floodway Project, Breckenridge Flood Reduction Project, Sheyenne River Diversion, Rose Coulee Pump Station, Roseau Flood Damage Reduction Project, Winnipeg Red River Floodway, East Grand Forks Heartsville and English Coulees, several COE Everglades restoration projects, and Fargo – Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project and others.
Throughout the feasibility study the non-federal local sponsor’s consultant team and the Corps have worked closely to track the concept development, including the implementation of all Corps regulated quality control milestones. The current quantities, see Attachment 3, were developed using the April 2018 work in kind project plans (Reference 2), and quantity quality assurance and quality certification (QA/QC) was documented in the Souris River Feasibility Study – Quality Control Documentation– Prepared for Souris River Joint Board and USACE St. Paul District, April 2018 was reviewed (Reference 7).
6.4 Labor Rates Labor rates for the most part reflect Davis Bacon rates for Ward County, North Dakota for heavy construction and are current as of April 2018. For labor categories that were not included or were not current in the Davis Bacon wage rate publication, the current North Dakota Department of Labor wage rates for heavy construction in region 4 were used.
6.5 Fuel Rates Fuel Rates were updated using April 2018 price levels published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration for the Midwest Region. Off road diesel fuel was priced by subtracting estimated state and federal tax from retail diesel prices.
6.6 Mark-Ups
6.6.1 Overtime Overtime was based on a 6-day, 8-hour work week with a multiplier of 1.5 for Monday through Saturday and 2.0 for Sunday.
6.6.2 Contractor Mark-ups Contractor mark-ups were based on mark-ups used on District projects of similar scope. Mobilization and Demobilization are assumed to be 6 percent of the construction costs. Job Office Overhead (JOOH) includes itemized equipment and personnel needed to accomplish JOOH tasks, and was developed based on 10 percent of the running cost. These are listed under Field Office and Supervision Prime contractor folder in the MII estimate. Home Office Overhead (HOOH) includes shop drawing preparation, as well as general and administration costs, and was developed based on 10 percent of the running cost. Profit was developed based on 8 percent of the running costs and Bond was developed based on 1 percent of the
direct costs.
7 Construction Methodology
7.1 Staging Area and Site Access General access to the project for delivery of equipment, materials, and personnel, will be on public primary and secondary roads. The roads along the Souris River in the project area are gravel, asphalt, and concrete surfaced and will require vehicle tracking control, maintenance, and restoration. Detours and road closures will be necessary to construct the project. Traffic control signs, roadway and rail flaggers will be needed to caution the public during construction activities. Temporary access roads will be constructed to allow materials to be brought to the individual work sites. These access roads will be built by first stripping the topsoil to create the driving surface. Roadway aggregate will then be placed as required to form a stable roadbed. Frost penetration in the ground during winter construction season may eliminate the need for aggregate in some areas.
A primary staging and storage area will be cleared to provide a location for office trailers, and parking for workers. The size required for storing materials and construction equipment when not being used depends on the number of excavators, backhoes, compactors and dozers needed for production. Smaller staging areas will be located adjacent to the each work site to allow equipment and material storage.
7.2 Material Sources and Disposal Sites Material sources to be used will be based on the lowest price for materials of acceptable quality. Local commercial riprap, bedding, and aggregate sources are assumed to be within 25 miles of the project, based on discussions with local suppliers. Cleared trees and brush will be taken from the site. Material removed from the work for disposal is assumed to be permanently disposed of in the Minot landfill approximately 3.1 miles from the center of the project.
7.3 Soil Factor Development Shrinkage at the disposal site is not factored into the cost estimate due to materials being spread at the local landfill. Excavation for utility removals and relocations are considered in-place cubic yards, with no shrink or swell soil factors applied, it is assumed these excavation volumes are conservative and capture the variance of the soils and debris materials.
Levee embankment material is assumed to swell approximately 25 percent (soil factor 1.25) from the source banked cubic yard (BCY) and shrink 10 percent (soil factor 1.10) with compaction. To account for this shrinkage and swelling in the cost estimate a soil factor of 1.38 loose cubic yard (LCY) to 1.00 compacted cubic yard (CCY) is used. This soil factor is based on past experience with drying and compacting of embankments materials that are likely to be encountered on this project. Additional soil boring and soil analysis data can reduce uncertainty with earthwork assumptions. Dimensions shown on Drawings and quantities are preliminary, pending more detailed design efforts
7.4 Dewatering and Temporary By-Passes Sheetpile and earthen cofferdams, and localized pumping are anticipated to be necessary to construct the diversion channel, floodwall features, temporary river by-passes, and river closure structures features of the project.
7.5 Preparatory Work Trees and shrubs that have been planted or have grown adjacent to the river will need to be removed. Access ramps will be constructed from the road to the riverbank to allow equipment to reach the streambank. Turbidity curtains will be placed in the river in a herringbone pattern near the downstream work limits to contain sediments.
7.6 Project Schedule The project schedule implementation assumes authorization in a future Water Resources Reform and Development Act. After project authorization, the project would be eligible for construction funding. The anticipated design and construction schedule, see Attachment 4, is based on receiving funding for development of plans and specifications in FY 2019 and funds for construction by FY 2021. It is assumed that the planning, engineering, and design (PED) phase will begin in first quarter of FY 2019, be at midpoint of PED by the first quarter of FY 2020, and completed during the first quarter of FY 2021, with contract award by the third quarter of FY 2021. The total estimated period for construction is assumed to be two and a half years, beginning in the third quarter of FY 2021, be at midpoint of construction during the third quarter of FY 2022, and completed by the end of the fourth quarter of FY 2023. Holidays, weather delays, wildlife restriction, and slippage are not considered in the schedule directly but are assessed in the cost and schedule risk analysis (CSRA). Typical construction restrictions include high water, freezing temperatures, fish spawning, waterfowl migration, and eagle nesting.
Although the attached construction sequence and schedule is considered to be reasonable based on the amount of time required for construction of each feature and the logical progression of work to optimize efficiency and construction site conditions, it is ultimately up to the Contractor to determine progression of work. The schedule presented in Attachment 4 shows task durations in calendar days and not the assumed 6 day work week. Acquisition Plan
The project as a whole is assumed to be too large for an 8A small business owner to handle successfully, however if funding for the project is parsed the work could be spread to multiple 8A contractors to complete.
8 Cost Schedule and Risk Analysis The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), District, presents this CSRA report regarding the risk findings and recommended contingencies for the Feasibility Report. In compliance with (ER) 1110-2- 1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering, dated September 15, 2008, a Monte-Carlo based risk analysis was conducted by the Project Development Team (PDT) on remaining costs. The purpose of this risk analysis study is to present the cost and schedule risks considered, those determined and respective project contingencies at a recommended 80 percent confidence level of successful execution to project completion. Based on the results of the analysis, the Cost Engineering Mandatory Center of Expertise for Civil Works (MCX located in Walla Walla District) recommends a contingency of approximately 25 percent the base project cost at an 80 percent confidence level of successful execution. For full CSRA report discussion see Attachment 5. Contingencies used are intended to identify an estimated construction cost amount that is not likely to be exceeded, given the current project scope. The contingency selected for this project is not a means of adding costs to the project for possible schedule slippage or future cost growth, or to cover items that are not specifically being considered in the current scope. Contingencies were chosen to account for uncertainties in quantities, uncertainties in unit pricing, and pure unknowns. Contingencies were not included in quantity computations.
9 Total Project Cost Summary A total project cost summary (TPCS) was developed for the estimated construction costs, see Attachment 6. The TPCS was developed using the current Cost DX Excel spreadsheet which incorporates the cost for all feature accounts developed in the recommended plan estimate at the FY 2019 price level, and escalated to the midpoint of design (1st quarter FY 2020) and midpoint of construction (3rd quarter FY 2022).
The non-Federal cost share includes feasibility costs, lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations (LERRDs) and related administrative costs. The current estimate assumes fee title acquisition of the project footprint. Fee title is appropriate where features are constructed (e.g., a site not already within State or county right-of-way). Maximum use of easements will improve project acceptability to local interests (the non-federal local sponsor, city, county, and landowners) because it will reduce costs, retain the tax base, and mitigate major impacts on individuals.
10 Average Annual Costs Average annual costs for Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management can be found in the Economic Appendix E.
11 Operation and Maintenance Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R) costs were developed to cover periodic monitoring, inspections, repairs, rehabilitation, and future replacement of all project features. The estimate includes costs for routine Levee Inspections to be conducted annually for the first five years, then periodically every other year until year 11, and every five years from year 15. Routine annual maintenance of the levees and diversion channel would include mowing of grass and vegetation and spraying herbicide on the riprap to prevent growth of woody materials and brush. A five year cycle is assumed for repairs to the riprap, bedding, impervious fill, topsoil, turf, and closure structures. Maintenance of concrete structures is assumed to be on a longer interval at ten years and would include repair to concrete as well as painting the railings, and major repair/rehabilitation/replacement at year 50. For a summary of OMRR&R costs see Attachment 7.
12 References [1] Barr Engineering Co. (Barr), Ackerman-Estvold Engineering (AE), Moore Engineering and CPS, Ltd, Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan – Preliminary Engineering Report, 2012.
[2] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project Ward County, North Dakota, November 2016.
[3] Task Order 3 Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Alternatives Assessment (Work in Kind) Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC)
[4] Houston Engineering Inc. (HEI), Barr Engineering Co. (Barr), and Ackerman-Estvold Engineering (AE), Souris River Feasibility Study – Design Documentation Report – Prepared for Souris River Joint Board and USACE St. Paul District, April 2018
[5] Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project (MREFP) PHASE MI-1, 4th Avenue NE Bid Tabulation, November 2017.
[6] Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Project (MREFP) PHASE MI-2 AND MI-3 Bid Tabulation, November 2017.
[7] Houston Engineering Inc. (HEI), Barr Engineering Co. (Barr), and Ackerman-Estvold Engineering (AE), Souris River Feasibility Study – Quality Control Documentation– Prepared for Souris River Joint Board and USACE St. Paul District, April 2018
13 Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 MII SUMMARY REPORT ATTACHMENT 2 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN ATTACHMENT 3 QUANTITIES ATTACHMENT 4 PROJECT SCHEDULE ATTACHMENT 5 COST AND SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS REPORT (CSRA) ATTACHMENT 6 TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY (TPCS) ATTACHMENT 7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REHABILITATION,
AND REPLACEMENT (OMRR&R)
ATTACHMENT 1 – MII SUMMARY REPORT
Estimated by MATT METZGER (BARR) AND SUSAN TAYLOR
Designed by BARR/HOUSTON/ACKERMAN-ESETVOLD, AND USACE PDT
Prepared by SUSAN TAYLOR Preparation Date 5/1/2018 Effective Date of Pricing 10/1/2018 Estimated Construction Time 1,095 Days This report is not copyrighted, but the information contained herein is For Official Use Only. Labor ID: EQ ID: EP14R04 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 4.0
Print Date Thu 8 November 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 15:27:04 Eff. Date 10/1/2018 Project : POST HQ REVIEW - SOURIS RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY POST_HQ_REVIEW Title Page
Purpose of Report: The purpose of the feasibility study is to determine measures that can reduce the flood risk in the study area and determine measures that can improve the aquatic ecosystem along the Souris River. The study will also seek to identify actions that others may implement as part of an overall
watershed plan but not limited to the actions of reducing flood risk or improving the aquatic ecosystem. The report will examine the costs and benefits of flood risk management and ecosystem restoration alternatives and make a recommendation regarding federal participation in the alternative plans.
Project Location: The Souris River has its headwaters in Saskatchewan, Canada, and flows southeasterly into North Dakota near Sherwood, ND, continuing
southeast through the cities of Burlington, Minot, Sawyer, and Velva, then turns back north and reenters Canada in Manitoba near Westhope, ND.
The Souris River has a total length of over 700 miles and a drainage area of approximately 23,600 square miles. About 300 miles of the river and about 9,000
square miles of the drainage area are in the United States’ portion of the basin. This study covers primarily the United States’ portion of the watershed area of the Souris River located in north central North Dakota, downstream of the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station near Sherwood, ND where the Souris River
enters the United States. The Des Lacs River, a major tributary that enters the Souris River upstream of Minot, ND, is included in this study. The study area includes three national wildlife refuges (NWRs) managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): the Upper Souris NWR upstream from Minot, the J.
Clark Salyer NWR downstream of Towner, ND, and the Des Lacs NWR on the Des Lacs River.
Future Without Project Condition The future without project condition (FWOP) described in this feasibility report includes features of the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan (MREFPP,
Mouse River Plan) that do not currently exist but are assumed to be implemented in the future. The proposed features would alter the existing federal flood risk management project in the Souris River Basin within North Dakota.
The FWOP includes several existing federal projects from Burlington to Minot that already reduce flood risk up to approximately 5,000 cfs. Non-federal funding is
available to construct portions of the proposed MREFPP along the left bank of the Souris River in Minot. These features would reduce the emergency actions needed during a flood event, but they would not create a complete line of protectionflood risk management system. The features of the MREFPP that are
included in the FWOP condition are located along the left bank of the Souris River through Minot from the U.S. Highway 83 bypass on the upstream end to 13th Street Northeast on the downstream end. There is a gap in the line of protectionflood risk management system from 16th Street Southwest Bridge to the North
Broadway Bridge, between Phases MI-3 and MI-1.
Description of the Tentatively Selected Plan - Maple Diversion with a North Levee - West Tieback Levee - Recreation trail along the North Levee
Print Date Thu 8 November 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Time 15:27:04 Eff. Date 10/1/2018 Project : POST HQ REVIEW - SOURIS RIVER BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY POST_HQ_REVIEW POST_HQ_REVIEW Page 1
Description Quantity UOM ProjectCost
Labor ID: EQ ID: EP14R04 Currency in US dollars TRACES MII Version 4.0
POST_HQ_REVIEW 69,885,551.05 FRM RECOMMENDED_PLAN 1.00 JOB 69,885,551.05 LANDS AND DAMAGES 1.00 JOB 417,600.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 1.00 EA 61,200.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 1.00 EA 356,400.00 FRM CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL 1.00 EA 56,478,008.99 RELOCATIONS and REMOVALS 1.00 JOB 17,572,935.61 REMOVALS 1.00 EA 797,133.26 Remove curb and gutter 13,500.00 LF 57,484.86 Remove pavement 32,500.00 EA 231,712.09 Remove Storm Pipe (All Types, All Sizes) 3,882.00 LF 143,609.52 Remove Manhole (Storm, All sizes) 20.00 EA 19,973.53 Remove Catch Basin (All Sizes) 12.00 EA 5,396.00 Remove Pipe (Sanitary, All Sizes) 3,897.00 LF 99,165.97 Remove Manhole (Sanitary, All Sizes) 20.00 EA 20,627.48 Remove Pipe (Water, All Sizes) 9,468.00 LF 206,415.77 Remove and Salvage Gate Valve (All Sizes) 17.00 EA 5,426.86 Remove and Salvage Fire Hydrant 12.00 EA 7,321.18 MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 1.00 EA 3,142,416.39 WATER SUPPLY 1.00 EA 1,894,579.28 SANITARY SEWER 1.00 EA 492,432.21 STORM SEWER 1.00 EA 505,404.89 ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 1.00 EA 100,000.00 NATURAL GAS SUPPLY 1.00 EA 100,000.00 FIBER OPTIC SUPPLY 1.00 EA 50,000.00 2nd Avenue SW Realignment & 6th Street NW Realignment 1.00 EA 895,007.85 Geotextile Fabric (Type R1) 19,408.00 SY 35,493.45 Subgrade Preparation 19,408.00 SY 23,970.59 Aggregate Base Course (CL 5) 10,108.00 TON 172,204.99 Hot Bituminous Pavement Superpave FAA 43 4,226.00 TON 237,127.92 PG 58-28 Asphalt Cement 254.00 TON 118,907.77 Concrete Curb and Gutter (Type 1) 7,510.00 LF 153,251.31 4" Concrete Sidewalk 1,667.00 SY 91,565.67 Detectable Warning Panel 90.00 SF 4,050.00 4" Pavement Marking 950.00 LF 1,044.55 6" Pavement Marking 400.00 LF 711.25 24" Pavement Marking 150.00 LF 3,132.69 4" Edge Underdrain 7,510.00 EA 53,547.66 RR BRIDGE - CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY - RECONSTRUCTION 1.00 EA 5,467,029.14 Bridge Removal 13,600.00 SF 340,000.00 Bridge - Reconstruction 13,600.00 SF 4,080,000.00 Track Removal 1,800.00 FT 40,389.59 Track Realignment w/ Rails, Ties, Ballast 2,300.00 FT 529,000.00 Rail Crossover 2.00 EA 250,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing - Light 1.20 EA 4,241.59 Dewatering and Control of Water 1.00 JOB 50,000.00 Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 900.00 CY 8,981.54 Remove Gravel Surface 500.00 CY 3,823.08 Topsoil - Install from Stockpile 900.00 CY 9,473.87
Site Restoration 1.20 ACR 5,131.10 Granular Filter Aggregate 278.00 CY 22,537.29 Riprap 1,112.00 EA 123,451.09 6th Street NW Box Culvert Crossing w/ Floodwall 1.00 EA 7,271,348.96 Reinforced Concrete (Cast-in-place Box Culvert) 1,815.00 CY 2,248,037.71 Reinforced Structural Concrete - Wall 3,670.00 CY 4,404,000.00 Sheet Pile (PZC 13) 2,925.00 SF 117,510.20 Granular Filter Aggregate 1,327.00 CY 107,579.08 Riprap 3,551.00 CY 394,221.98
DIVERSION CHANNEL 1.00 JOB 12,690,970.56 Maple Diversion - Inlet Weir 1.00 EA 2,003,520.91 Sheet Pile (PZC 13) 6,450.00 SF 259,125.06 Granular Filter Aggregate 4,655.00 CY 377,378.01 Riprap 11,638.00 CY 1,292,017.84 Dewatering and Control of Water 1.00 JOB 50,000.00 (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System 1.00 JOB 25,000.00 Maple Diversion Channel 1.00 EA 9,325,106.09 Dewatering and Control of Water 1.00 JOB 200,000.00 Clearing and Grubbing - Light 10.30 EA 36,406.97 Clearing and Grubbing - Dense 13.40 EA 165,009.59 Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 19,142.00 CY 157,851.61 Overbank and Channel Excavation & Haul 598,000.00 BCY 7,899,071.11 Lighting 1.00 JOB 100,000.00 Topsoil - Install from Stockpile 19,142.00 CY 148,200.99 Import Topsoil 8,583.00 CY 193,832.32 Site Restoration 35.00 ACR 424,733.49 Maple Diversion - Outlet To Souris River 1.00 EA 1,362,343.55 Granular Filter Aggregate 3,222.00 CY 261,205.57 Riprap 7,517.00 CY 834,516.08 Dewatering and Control of Water 1.00 JOB 69,760.40 Steel Sheet Pile Coffering (purchased PZ27 sheets, w/ wales & struts) 4,000.00 SF 196,861.50
LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS 1.00 EA 8,840,936.51 LEVEES 1.00 JOB 4,005,831.19 Levee Along North Edge of Maple Diversion 1.00 BCY 3,175,491.54 West Tie-Back Levee 1.00 BCY 830,339.65 FLOODWALLS AND CLOSURES 1.00 EA 4,835,105.32 Closure and Floodwall: CP Rail at Diversion; 15' T-WALL 1.00 LS 1,496,895.82 Closure and Floodwall: 6th ST NW Road; 23' T-WALL 1.00 LS 1,721,927.34 Closure and Floodwall: CP Rail at West Tieback; 14' T-wall 1.00 LS 580,245.09 Closure and Floodwall: Shared Use Path at West Tieback; 17' T-wall 1.00 LS 590,170.79 Removable Floodwall Storage Building 1,350.00 SF 445,866.28
PUMP STATION MODIFICATION 1.00 JOB 117,982.99 18" Forcemain 1,000.00 LF 117,982.99 RECREATION FACILITIES 1.00 EA 753,011.76 Recreation Trail 6,294.00 SY 661,487.94 Impervious Levee Embankment 6,557.00 ECY 91,523.83 FLOODWAY CONTROL STRUCTURES 1.00 JOB 16,502,171.55 Maple Diversion - Upstream River Closure Structure 1.00 EA 8,106,384.81 Dewatering 1.00 JOB 200,000.00
Temporary Steel Sheet Pile Coffering (for construction phasing, coffering) 20,000.00 SF 816,996.79 Fence Chain Link 500.00 LF 18,024.97 Granular Filter Aggregate 1,249.00 CY 101,255.67 Riprap 3,388.00 CY 376,126.18 Signage 1.00 EA 10,000.00 Unreinforced Mud Mat 47.00 CY 16,065.82 Concrete - Footing 800.00 CY 385,212.63 Concrete - Piers 1,189.00 EA 1,858,376.10 Concrete - Walls, Sheet Pile Facing 431.00 CY 411,168.51 Concrete - Elevated Deck 251.00 CY 312,695.45 Concrete - Slab on Grade 94.00 CY 51,932.89 Concrete Waste (Material Only) 138.00 CY 23,466.69 Wall Rustication (Architectural) 10,000.00 SF 80,000.00 Steel Reinforcement 414,750.00 LB 638,566.09 Misc. Steel 28,400.00 LB 56,800.00 Steel Bridge Hand Railing 900.00 LF 103,081.82 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 18,000.00 SF 963,512.72 Structural Aggregate 3,000.00 CY 110,803.75 Hydraulic Gates - Steel (6 gates @ 10'x16' each) 960.00 SF 600,000.00 Hydraulic Gate Hoist (Actuator) 6.00 EA 150,000.00 Hydraulic Gate - Heating System - Wall and Sill 6.00 EA 240,000.00 Removable Bulkhead Floodwall System 1,000.00 SF 427,298.70 Mechanical - Miscellaneous 1.00 EA 50,000.00 Electrical - Miscellaneous 1.00 EA 30,000.00 Site Lighting 1.00 JOB 50,000.00 (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System 1.00 JOB 25,000.00 Maple Diversion - Downstream River Closure Structure 1.00 EA 8,395,786.74 Dewatering 1.00 JOB 200,000.00 Temporary Steel Sheet Pile Coffering (for construction phasing, coffering) 20,000.00 SF 816,996.79 Granular Filter Aggregate 917.00 CY 74,340.63 Riprap 2,594.00 CY 287,978.54 Fence Chain Link 500.00 LF 18,024.97 Signage 1.00 EA 10,000.00 Unreinforced Mud Mat 47.00 CY 16,065.82 Concrete - Footing 800.00 CY 385,212.63 Concrete - Piers 1,274.00 EA 1,858,376.10 Concrete - Walls, Sheet Pile Facing 550.00 CY 516,547.96 Concrete - Elevated Deck 251.00 CY 312,695.45 Concrete - Slab on Grade 111.00 CY 57,933.65 Concrete Waste (Material Only) 149.00 CY 25,337.22 Wall Rustication (Architectural) 10,000.00 SF 80,000.00 Steel Reinforcement 447,900.00 LB 689,605.19 Misc. Steel 33,800.00 LB 67,600.00 Steel Bridge Hand Railing 1,000.00 LF 114,535.36 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 22,100.00 SF 1,182,979.51 Structural Aggregate 3,000.00 CY 109,258.21 Hydraulic Gates - Steel (6 gates @ 10'x16' each) 960.00 SF 600,000.00 Hydraulic Gate Hoist (Actuator) 6.00 EA 150,000.00 Hydraulic Gate - Heating System - Wall and Sill 6.00 EA 240,000.00
Removable Bulkhead Floodwall System 1,000.00 SF 427,298.70 Mechanical - Miscellaneous 1.00 EA 50,000.00 Electrical - Miscellaneous 1.00 EA 30,000.00 Site Lighting 1.00 JOB 50,000.00 (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System 1.00 JOB 25,000.00
PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN 1.00 JOB 9,036,481.44 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1.00 JOB 3,953,460.63

ATTACHMENT 2 – RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
USACE | RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 1
Table of Contents 1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 3
2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 3
3.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) ............................................................................ 4
3.4 Risk Communication .................................................................................................................... 4
3.6 Risk Monitoring and Control ........................................................................................................ 4
3.7 Risk Register ................................................................................................................................. 5
3.8 Risk Trigger .................................................................................................................................. 5
3.9 Risk Trigger .................................................................................................................................. 6
3.10 Watch List ..................................................................................................................................... 6
6 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES ................................................................. 7
6.1 Risk Management Planning .......................................................................................................... 8
6.2 Risk Identification ......................................................................................................................... 8
6.2.2 PDT Coordination ................................................................................................................. 8
6.2.4 Risk Level ............................................................................................................................. 8
6.3 Risk Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 9
6.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) .......................................................................... 10
6.3.4 Risk Prioritization ............................................................................................................... 10
6.4 Risk Response Planning and Mitigation ..................................................................................... 10
6.5 Risk Monitoring and Control ...................................................................................................... 11
6.5.1 Monitor Risk Status ............................................................................................................ 11
6.5.2 Maintenance of Project Risk Register ................................................................................. 12
6.5.3 Maintenance of Project Watch List ..................................................................................... 12
6.6 Risk Communication .................................................................................................................. 12
1 Purpose This Risk Management Plan (RMP) presents the process for implementing the comprehensive and proactive management of risk as part of the overall management of the Souris River Basin Flood Risk Management Project. Risk management is a project management tool to handle events that might adversely impact the program, thereby increasing the probability/likelihood of success. This RMP describes a management tool that will:
• Serve as a basis for identifying alternatives to achieve cost, schedule, and performance goals, • Assist in making decisions on budget and funding priorities, • Provide risk information for Milestone decisions, and • Allow monitoring the health of the program as it proceeds.
The RMP describes methods for assessing (identifying and analyzing), prioritizing, and monitoring risk drivers; developing risk-handling approaches, and applying adequate resources to handle risk. It assigns specific responsibilities for these functions, and prescribes the documenting, monitoring, and reporting processes to be followed.
The four main building blocks of the risk management process are identification, assessment, response, and documentation. The CSRA process addresses the “identification” and “assessment” portions of the risk management process. The activities of “response” and “documentation” are PM and PDT management efforts to mitigate, monitor, and manage the risks throughout the life cycle of the project.
If necessary, this RMP will be updated at the following milestones: (1) following approval of the FCSA; (2) Congressional authorization for construction; (3) receipt of
Construction General funding; or (4) concurrent with the review and update of other program plans.
2 Objectives The objectives of the risk management plan are:
To focus attention on minimizing threats to achievement of the project objectives. To provide an approach for:
• Identifying and assessing risks. • Determining cost-effective risk reduction actions. • Monitoring and reporting progress in reducing risk.
The overall goal of this process is to progressively reduce the project’s exposure to events that threaten the accomplishment of its objectives by:
• Incorporating approaches into the project plans that minimize or avoid identified risks, • Developing proactive, contingent risk response actions, and • Rapidly implementing risk responses based on timely identification of risk occurrence.
3 RISK-RELATED DEFINITIONS The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cost Engineering Mandatory Center of Expertise for Civil Works (Cost MCX) recommends the following definitions for risk, as contained in current project and risk management guidance and literature, as noted.
3.1 Risk An uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a project’s objectives (source: PMBoK® Guide, p. 373). 3.1.1 Technical Risk: Risks having to do with product, process, or “technique” issues involved with designing and producing the deliverable (source: Project Risk Management, p. 78). 3.2 Risk Management Project Risk Management includes the processes concerned with conducting risk management planning, identification, analysis, responses, and monitoring and control on a project; most of these processes are updated throughout the project (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.3 Risk Analysis Qualitative or quantitative evaluations of the potential impact and probability of project risk events (source: Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p. 373).
3.3.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis Prioritizing risks for subsequent further analysis or action by assessing and combining their probability of occurrence and impact (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.3.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis Numerically analyzing the effect on overall project objectives of identified risks (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3edition, p. 237).
3.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) Technique used to improve the development of contingencies by studying the variance of project cost caused by the effects of cost and schedule risk events. This process relies on qualitative and quantitative (e.g. Monte Carlo simulation) risk analysis techniques. CSRA is required on projects costs anticipated to be $40 Million or higher.
3.4 Risk Communication Exchange or sharing of information about risk between the decision-maker, often the project manager, and other stakeholders (source: Project Risk Management Guidelines, p. 372).
3.5 Risk Response Planning/Mitigation Developing options and actions to enhance opportunities, and to reduce threats to project objectives (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.6 Risk Monitoring and Control Tracking identified risks, monitoring residual risks, identifying new risks, executing risk response plans, and evaluating their effectiveness throughout the project life cycle (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.7 Risk Register The document containing the results of the qualitative risk analysis, quantitative risk analysis and risk response planning. The risk register details all identified risks, including description, category, cause, probability of occurring, impact(s) on objectives, proposed responses, owners, and current status (source: PMBoK® Guide, 4th edition, p. 439). 3.8 Risk Trigger An indicator of the imminent occurrence of a given risk event that serves as an immediate precursor to the occurrence of the risk. Often used to initiate specific actions, behaviors, or responses (source: Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p. 376). 3.1.1 Technical Risk Risks having to do with product, process, or “technique” issues Involved with designing and producing the deliverable (source: Project Risk Management, p. 78).
3.1.3 Schedule Risk Events or conditions that may have a negative influence on the project’s timing (source: Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p. 376).
3.1.4 Life-Safety Risk Risk relating to the safety and/or security of human interests.
3.1.5 Reliability Risk Risk relating to the performance and/or reliability of the system, product, or project feature being acquired.
3.1.6 Non-Technical Risk Any risk that is not technical in nature and does not directly influence cost growth. Such risks would include organizational risks, political exposure, public relations issues, or potential loss of “goodwill” (public trust).
3.1.7 Internal Risk An item or activity upon which the PDT has control or influence.
3.1.8 External Risk An item or activity upon which the PDT has no control or influence.
3.2 Risk Management Project Risk Management includes the processes concerned with conducting risk management planning, identification, analysis, responses, and monitoring and control on a project; most of these processes are updated throughout the project (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.3 Risk Analysis Qualitative or quantitative evaluations of the potential impact and probability of project risk events (source: Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p. 373).
3.3.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis Prioritizing risks for subsequent further analysis or action by assessing and combining their probability of occurrence and impact (source:PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237). 3.3.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis Numerically analyzing the effect on overall project objectives of identified risks (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) Technique used to improve the development of contingencies by studying the variance of project cost caused by the effects of cost and schedule risk events. This process relies on qualitative and quantitative (e.g. Monte Carlo simulation) risk analysis techniques. CSRA is required on projects costs anticipated to be $40 Million or higher.edition, p. 237).
3.4 Risk Communication Exchange or sharing of information about risk between the decision-maker, often the project manager, and other stakeholders (source: Project Risk Management Guidelines, p. 372). 3.5 Risk Response Planning/Mitigation Developing options and actions to enhance opportunities, and to reduce threats to project objectives (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.6 Risk Monitoring and Control Tracking identified risks, monitoring residual risks, identifying new risks, executing risk response plans, and evaluating their effectiveness throughout the project life cycle (source: PMBoK® Guide, 3rd edition, p. 237).
3.7 Risk Register The document containing the results of the qualitative risk analysis, quantitative risk analysis and risk response planning. The risk register details all identified risks, including description, category, cause, probability of occurring, impact(s) on objectives, proposed responses, owners, and current status (source: PMBoK® Guide, 4th edition, p. 439).
3.9 Risk Trigger An indicator of the imminent occurrence of a given risk event that serves as an immediate precursor to the occurrence of the risk. Often used to initiate specific actions, behaviors, or responses (source: Risk Management Concepts and Guidance, p. 376).
3.10 Watch List A list of major risks examined at each project risk review meeting (source: Project Risk Management Guidelines, p. 372).
4 RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The Meander Reach 1 / Shorty’s Island Ecosystem Restoration Project risk management strategy is to handle program risks, both technical and non-technical, before they become problems, causing serious
cost, schedule, or performance impacts. This strategy is an integral part of project success, and will be executed primarily through the Government Project Delivery Team (PDT). The PDT will continuously and proactively assess critical areas to identify and analyze specific risks and will develop options to mitigate all risks designated as moderate and high.
The PDT will keep risk information current by maintaining the risk register described in paragraph 6.2.4. Risk status will be reported at all project milestone reviews.
5 RESPONSIBILITIES AND ASSIGNMENTS Over the course of the project, the Project manager may make specific assignments to individual members of the PDT, within their functional areas, to provide updates or input to the risk register. Table 1 below lists the general assignments and responsibilities: Table 1 Risk Management Responsibilities
Task Task Support
Risk Identification PM PDT
Risk Analysis and Quantification
Risk Communication PM PDT
Risk Documentation/Closeout PM PM
6 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES Led by the project manager, the PDT will conduct risk management activities to address those risks that are pertinent to the project. The project manager will employ the assistance of members of the PDT, project sponsors/customers and other subject matter experts as appropriate. Overview of Project Risk Management Activities • Risk Management Planning • Risk Identification
• Risk Analysis and Quantification • Risk Response Planning and Mitigation • Risk Monitoring and Control • Risk Communication • Risk Documentation/Closeout
6.1 Risk Management Planning Risk Management Planning will occur in conjunction with the development of the Project Management Plan (PMP) and will culminate with the approval of the Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP will present the strategy for procedures for identifying, analyzing, responding to, and monitoring risk throughout the project life cycle. The RMP will include treatment for both technical and non-technical risks, as well as risks that affect the project cost and schedule performance. Per ER 1110-2-1302 and ETL 1110-2-573, this project is anticipated to require and will undergo a formal Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA). 6.2 Risk Identification
6.2.1 Initial Risk Discussions Identification of risks will be accomplished through brainstorming sessions held with the PDT and project stakeholders. The PDT brainstorming session is the initial attempt to develop the risk register that serves as the basis for both the risk register development and the CSRA.
6.2.2 PDT Coordination The PM will coordinate an initial risk discussion meeting, also referred to as a PDT brainstorming session. This is the first meeting where the PDT attempts to collectively capture the project risks and place them into the risk register. The brainstorming session will include the major PDT members.
6.2.3 PDT Brainstorming Session The PDT brainstorming session is the opportunity to bring the PDT together to qualitatively define the risk concerns as well as potential opportunities. As the concerns are discussed, the facilitator or risk analyst begins developing the initial risk register, capturing the PDT’s concerns and discussions.
6.2.4 Risk Level Each identified risk will be assigned a risk rating based on the joint consideration of event probability/likelihood and consequence/impact (see the Probability vs. Impact Risk Matrix below in Figure 1). This rating is a reflection of the severity of the risk and provides a starting point for the development of options to handle the risk. Probabilities are described as, VERY UNLIKELY, UNLIKELY, LIKELY, or VERY LIKELY. Impacts are described as, NEGLIGIBLE, MARGINAL SIGNIFICANT, CRITICAL, or CRISIS. Risk levels are described as, LOW, MODERATE, or HIGH. It is important to consider both the probability/likelihood and consequences/impacts in establishing the rating, as there may be risk events that have a low probability/likelihood, but whose consequences/impacts are so severe that the occurrence of the event would be disastrous to the project.
6.2.5 Completing Initial Risk Register The risk register will serve as the basis for risk management, including the CSRA process. When referring to the risk register, the PDT should focus on the following: • Risk/Opportunity – Event. • PDT Event Concerns – Describe the risk event.
• PDT Discussions – List the implications or any relevant background for this risk. • Responsibility/POC – List who should have the action on the status of this risk. • Likelihood – Describe the likelihood of this risk occurring, using VERY UNLIKELY, UNLIKELY, LIKELY, or VERY LIKELY. • Impact – Describe the impact of this risk if it occurs, using NEGLIGIBLE, MARGINAL SIGNIFICANT, CRITICAL, or CRISIS. • Risk Level – Determine the risk level according to the matrix below, using LOW, MODERATE, or HIGH. Table 2 - Risk Management Matrix
Risk Level
Li ke
lih oo
d of
Likely Low Moderate High High High
Unlikely Low Low Moderate Moderate High
Very Unlikely
Low Low Low Low High
Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis
Impact or Consequence of Occurrence
The PDT should capture all concerns for all project features even if the risk level is considered low. The register serves as an archive of discussions and there is potential that low-level risks may become higher following market studies, more information being made available, or over time during the risk management and mitigation processes. Within the risk register, the PDT concerns and discussions must be adequately and clearly captured, because the logic presented in those discussions must support the “likelihood” and “impact” decisions reflected within the risk register. While this product is the initial risk register, it has already captured the PDT’s greatest concerns. The PDT can begin using this data to prepare for project risk management.
6.3 Risk Analysis Risk analysis includes both qualitative and quantitative techniques to determine the key drivers of risk. Qualitative risk analysis shall occur on all risks, both technical and nontechnical. The Project Risk “Watch List” will incorporate all risks identified as “Moderate” or “High” by qualitative analysis. All risks determined to have cost and/or schedule impacts and rated as “Moderate” or “High” will be quantitatively studied through the CSRA process. The PDT will enlist the support of the Cost Engineering Dx for completion of the CSRA process.
6.3.1 Qualitative Risk Analysis Qualitative risk analysis will be conducted on all project risks, utilizing the collective judgment of the PDT and project stakeholders. Qualitative analysis will occur simultaneously to the completion of the initial risk register. Additionally, the qualitative analysis will be updated as the risks change throughout the project life cycle. Changes to the status of risks shall be captured by the project risk register at each monthly risk review meeting.
6.3.2 Quantitative Risk Analysis Quantitative analysis will be conducted on all risks qualitatively rated as MODERATE or HIGH that affect cost and/or schedule performance. Quantitative analysis shall be conducted using the Monte Carlo technique with the support of the Cost Engineering Dx. Other risks may also be studied quantitatively, as directed. The results of the quantitative analysis will be presented in a final report and will include identification of the key drivers of risk for cost and schedule. The results of the quantitative analysis will include recommended levels for contingency and management reserve for completion of the project through implementation.
6.3.3 Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) The CSRA will be performed in accordance with ER 1110-2-1302, ETL 1110-2-573, and Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Guidance published by the Cost Engineering Dx. The project will utilize the Cost Engineering Dx for performance of the CSRA, using Crystal Ball software. At a minimum, the CSRA will include but not be limited to: • Review of planning, design and/or construction contract documents: - Deliverables and work processes - Milestones and schedule dates - Resource estimates/needs/sources - Performance requirements • Discussions and brainstorming activities with PDT members, appropriate stakeholders/sponsor representatives and other qualified/knowledgeable individuals to develop a comprehensive list of risks for this project, referred to as the Risk Register. • Investigation of the various sources and symptoms of risks to aid in subsequent determination of risk controllability and selection of appropriate risk response actions.
6.3.4 Risk Prioritization The PM and the PDT will prioritize the MODERATE and HIGH risks in their disciplines or functional areas. This prioritization will provide the basis for the development of risk handling plans and the allocation of risk management resources. Prioritization will be accomplished using expert opinion within the PDT, and will be based on the following criteria: • Risk Rating – MODERATE to HIGH • Consequence/Impact – Within each rating, the highest value of consequence/impact • Urgency – How much time is available before risk-handling actions must be initiated • Probability/Likelihood – Within each rating, the highest value The PDT will review the prioritized list of developed risks, and integrate them into a single list of prioritized project risks, using the same criteria.
6.4 Risk Response Planning and Mitigation Following initial identification and analysis of risks, the PDT will develop an approach for risk handling for all key drivers of risk, including each MODERATE and HIGH risk. For all such risks, the various handling techniques should be evaluated in terms of feasibility, expected effectiveness, cost and schedule
implications, and the effect on the project’s performance. Risk responses will also include an accompanying “fallback” plan if the primary treatment strategy is not effective at mitigating the impact of risk. Reducing requirements as a risk avoidance technique will be used only as a last resort, and then only with the participation and approval of District and Division Management. In addition to developing approaches for handling each MODERATE and HIGH risk, the following will act as risk triggers requiring an immediate response and mitigation plan: • Cost growth greater than 1% of the estimated project cost • Schedule delays greater than 1 month • Potential for significant damage to private or public property • Potential for injury or loss of life • Potential to generate media coverage (either positive or negative) • Potential environmental degradation or release of deleterious substances • Potential to alter political or stakeholder support The results of the evaluation and selection will be included and documented. This documentation will include the following elements: • What must be done, • List of all assumptions, • Level of effort and resources required, • Resources needed that are outside the expertise of the PDT, • Estimated cost to implement the plan, • Proposed schedule showing the proposed start date, the time phasing of significant risk reduction activities, the completion date, and their relationship to significant project activities/milestones, • Recommended metrics for tracking risk-handling activity, • Considerations for secondary or residual risks implications, and • Person responsible for implementing and tracking the selected option.
6.5 Risk Monitoring and Control Risk monitoring is the systematic tracking and evaluation of the progress and effectiveness of risk- handling actions by the comparison of predicted results of planned actions with the results actually achieved to determine status and the need for any change in risk-handling actions. The Project Manager and the PDT will monitor all identified risks in their disciplines or areas, with particular attention to those risks rated as MODERATE OR HIGH.
6.5.1 Monitor Risk Status As work is performed on the project, the PDT will monitor and assess: • Progress in reducing risk, • Occurrence of risks that call for initiation of contingent risk responses, • Effectiveness of implemented risk reduction actions and any needs to modify these actions. Risk status will be updated immediately when risks change and upon the completion of a project milestone. The status of the risks and the effectiveness of the risk-handling actions will be agenda items for all design and program reviews, and will be reported to the PM on the following occasions: • Monthly, • When the PDT determines that the status of the risk area has changed significantly (as a minimum when the risk changes from high to moderate to low, or vice versa), • When requested by Management.
There are a number of techniques and tools available for monitoring the effectiveness of risk-handling actions. At a minimum, the PM and PDT will use the Risk Register and Watch List for day-to-day management and monitoring of risks. MODERATE or HIGH risks will be monitored by the PM until the risk is considered LOW and recommended for “Close Out.” Functional area leads will continue to monitor LOW risk events in their areas to ensure that appropriate risk-handling action can be initiated if there are indications that the rating may change.
6.5.2 Maintenance of Project Risk Register Throughout the life cycle of the project, the PDT will update the Risk Register to reflect the results of monitoring risk status. This list will also reflect the effect of any project replanning changes and/or change controls. Updates shall be made monthly to the risk register. Any changes to risk status upon event occurrence or completion of a project milestone will also be captured immediately on the risk register. The Risk Register will be discussed at project team meetings and specific risks of concern should be elevated to the Pre-PRB, PRB and/or project sponsors as appropriate.
6.5.3 Maintenance of Project Watch List Throughout the life cycle of the project, the PM and the PDT will maintain a project watch list to reflect the results of monitoring risk status. The watch list, at a minimum, will contain the: • Potential Risk Event, • Planned Risk Reduction Actions, • Point of Contact/Assignment, • Due Date, and • Status.
6.6 Risk Communication Risk communication is essential to actively managing risks throughout the project life cycle. Communication begins with the preparation of the Risk Management Plan and continues through project closeout. Subsequently, the preparation of the project risk register facilitates communication of risks at all levels. The Cost Engineering Dx will also prepare a report regarding the formal CSRA process to be incorporated within the Cost Appendix to the Engineering Appendix of the Feasibility Report. The PDT will review the risk register monthly to provide visibility of risks and progress in mitigating them. If necessary, risk occurrences will be elevated to the Pre-PRB, PRB and/or project sponsors for their attention (note “internal” vs. “external” risks). The following risk triggers, as contained in paragraph 6.4 above, shall prompt the immediate communication of risks to Management: • Cost growth greater than 1% of the estimated project cost • Schedule delays greater than 1 month • Potential for significant damage to private or public property • Potential for injury or loss of life • Potential to generate media coverage (either positive or negative) • Potential environmental degradation or release of deleterious substances
• Potential to alter political or stakeholder support
6.7 Risk Documentation and Closeout When the project reaches the closeout phase, the PM and the PDT will document the final results of the execution of the Risk Management Plan for inclusion in the final project records and the District and/or Enterprise Lessons Learned database. At a minimum, this information will include risk assessment documents (including the risk register), risk-handling plans (including the project watch list), contract deliverables, if appropriate, and any other risk-related reports.
ATTACHMENT 3 - QUANTITIES
Feasibility Quantities PROJECT: North Dakota State Water Commission Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection BY: MRM LOCATION: City Minot, North Dakota CHECKED BY: ATS PROJECT #: 34/511010 Task 13 APPROVED BY: MRM OPINION OF COST DETAILED TABULATION ISSUED: 4/6/2018
Plan Option Flow Rate = 27,400 cfs (Full Project Levee w/Freeboard, Overbuild) ISSUED:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost Maple Diversion to Upstream of Broadway Bridge (PER Reach 07)
WBS QUANTITY UNITS
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION
01 LANDS & EASEMENTS 01 Ecological Mitigation 1.00 AC 01 Property Acquisition (Moose Lodge) 0.93 AC 01 Property Acquisition (209 4th St NW) 0.01 AC 01 Property Acquisition Temporary Easement Moose Lodge 0.77 AC 01 Property Acquisition Temporary Easement 209 4th St NW 0.01 AC 01 BNSF Railroad Right of Way Encroachment 2.24 AC SUBTOTAL 01 LANDS & EASEMENTS
02 RELOCATIONS 02 Mobilization/Demobilization 02 Assume 6% of CWWBS feature construction cost 1 LS 02
02 Removals
02 Remove curb and gutter 13,500 LF 02 Remove pavement 32,500 SY 02
02 Remove Storm Pipe (All Types, All Sizes) 3,882 LF 02 Remove Manhole (Storm, All sizes) 20 EA 02 Remove Catch Basin (All Sizes) 12 EA 02 Remove Pipe (Sanitary, All Sizes) 3,897 LF 02 Remove Manhole (Sanitary, All Sizes) 20 EA 02 Remove Pipe (Water, All Sizes) 9,468 LF 02 Remove and Salvage Gate Valve (All Sizes) 17 EA 02 Remove and Salvage Fire Hydrant 12 EA 02
02 Municipal Utilities
02 Water Supply Utility
02 Connect to Existing Water (Service) 1 EA 02 Connect to Existing Water (Main) 14 EA 02 Water Service (1 1/2" Type "K") 50 EA 02 Curb Stop and Box (1 1/2") 1 EA 02 6" Watermain 208 LF 02 8" Watermain 498 LF 02 12" Watermain 777 LF 02 18" Watermain 2787 LF 02 6" Gate Valve 9 EA 02 8" Gate Valve 0 EA 02 12" Gate Valve 2 EA 02 18" Gate Valve 5 EA
02 West TieBack Levee Water Line Crossing (pipe w/ casing) 500 LF
02 West TieBack 8" Gate Valve 2 EA
02 West TieBack Levee NAWS Water Supply Crossing 48" Casing Pipe Cased in Place 200 LF
02 West TieBack Levee NAWS Water Supply Crossing 30" Gate Valve and Meter Pit 2 EA 02 Fire Hydrant 5 EA 02
02 Sanitary Sewer Utility
02 Connect to Existing Service (Moose Lodge) 1 EA 02 Connect to Existing MH 0 EA 02 SS MH 10 EA 02 Connect to Existing 8" 0 EA 02 Connect to Existing 10" 0 EA 02 8" Sewermain 61 LF 02 10" Sewermain 441 LF 02 4" Forcemain 710 LF 02 4" Gate Valve 2 LF
X:\PROJECTS\SA\SA_Souris_Minot_ND457847\02Feasibility(FEA)\Feasibility_Report_Documents\Feasibility_Report\Appendices\Appendix F_Cost_Engineering_(Susan)\03DQC_REVIEW_MATERIALS\SOURIS_MAPLEDIVWIK_MII_20180406.xlsx
02 Sanitary Sewer Force Main Gate Valve (4") 1 EA 02 4" Bend 0 EA 02 West TieBack Levee CP Dewatering Forcemain Temp. Pumped Bypass 1 LS 02 West TieBack Levee Sanitary Forcemain Modification 1 LS 02 Construct Maple Sanitary Sewer Lift Station 1 EA 02
02 Storm Sewer Utility
02 Storm Catch Basin 15 EA 02 Storm Catch Basin Manhole 7 EA 02 48" Manhole 8 EA 02 60" Manhole 2 EA 02 72" Manhole 1 EA 02 15" Storm Drain 761 LF 02 18" Storm Drain 416 LF 02 24" Storm Drain 2577 LF 02 48" Storm Drain 63 LF 02 84" Storm Drain 70 LF 02 84" Storm Drain (Steel Forcemain) 45 LF 02 48" Flared End Section 1 EA 02 84" Flared End Section 1 EA 02
02 Franchise Utilities
02 Natural Gas Utility
02 Utility Relocations at West Tieback 1 LS 02 Utility Relocations 1 LS 02
02 Fiber Optic Utility
02 2nd Avenue SW Realignment & 6th Street NW Realignment
02 Geotextile Fabric (Type R1) 19,408 SY 02 Subgrade Preparation 19,408 SY 02 Aggregate Base Course (CL 5) 10,108 TON 02 Hot Bituminous Pavement Superpave FAA 43 4,226 TON 02 PG 5828 Asphalt Cement 254 TON 02 8" Concrete Pavement (Recreation Trail) 5,214 SY 02 8" Concrete Pavement (Recreation Trail at Hydraulic Structures) 1,080 SY 02 Concrete Curb and Gutter (Type 1) 7,510 LF 02 4" Concrete Sidewalk 1,667 SY 02 Detectable Warning Panel 90 SF 02 4" Pavement Marking 950 LF 02 6" Pavement Marking 400 LF 02 24" Pavement Marking 150 LF 02 4" Edge Underdrain 7,510 LF 02 02 6th Street NW Box Culvert Crossing w/ Floodwall 02 Reinforced Concrete (Castinplace Box Culvert) 1815 CY 02 Reinforced Structural Concrete Wall 3670 CY 02 Sheet Pile (PZC 13) 2925 SF 02 Removable Floodwall System 2470 SF 02 Granular Filter Aggregate 1327 CY 02 Riprap 3551 CY 02 02 RR Bridge Canadian Pacific Railway Reconstruction 02 Bridge Removal 13,600 SF 02 Bridge Reconstruction 13,600 SF 02 Track Removal 1800 TF 02 Track Realignment w/ Rails, Ties, Ballast 2300 TF 02 Rail Crossover 2 EA 02 Clearing and Grubbing Light 1.2 AC 02 Dewatering and Control of Water 1 LS 02 Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 900 CY 02 Remove Gravel Surface 500 CY 02 Topsoil Install from Stockpile 900 CY 02 Site Restoration 1.2 AC 02 Granular Filter Aggregate 278 CY 02 Riprap 1,112 CY 02 02 Restore Local Roadways Due to Levee Borrow Hauling 02 Haul Road Restoration: Bituminous Roadway Restoration (Allowance) 1 LS 02
SUBTOTAL 02 INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS
09 01 CHANNELS 09 Mobilization/Demobilization 09 Assume 6% of CWWBS feature construction cost 1 LS 09 09 Maple Diversion Inlet Weir 09 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 6,450 SF 09 Granular Filter Aggregate 4,655 CY 09 Riprap 11,638 CY 09 Safety Features Miscellaneous (Allowance) 1 LS 09 Dewatering and Control of Water (Allowance) 1 LS 09 SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) System (Allowance) 1 LS 09
09 Maple Diversion Channel
09 Site Preparation, Traffic & Pedestrian Control Measures (Allowance) 1 LS 09 Temporary Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control (Allowance) 1 LS 09 Dewatering and Control of Water 1 LS 09 Clearing and Grubbing Light 10.3 AC 09 Clearing and Grubbing Dense 13.4 AC 09 Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 19,142 CY 09 Overbank and Channel Excavation & Haul 598,000 BCY 09 Lighting 1 LS 09 Topsoil Install from Stockpile 19,142 CY 09 Import Topsoil 8,583 CY 09 Seeding 35 AC 09 Hydromulching (Bonded Fiber Matrix BFM) 35 AC 09 Vegetation Establishment & Maintenance 35 AC 09 09 Maple Diversion Outlet To Souris River 09 Granular Filter Aggregate 3,222 CY 09 Riprap 7,517 CY 09 Steel Sheet Pile Coffering (purchased PZ27 sheets, w/ wales & struts) 4,000 SF 09 Dewatering and Control of Water (Allowance) 1 LS 09
SUBTOTAL 09 01 CHANNELS
11 LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS 11 Mobilization/Demobilization 11 Assume 6% of CWWBS feature construction cost 1 LS 11 11 Levee Along North Edge of Maple Diversion 11 Site Preparation, Traffic & Pedestrian Control Measures (Allowance) 1 LS 11 Temporary Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control (Allowance) 1 LS 11 Dewatering and Control of Water (Allowance) 1 LS 11 Clearing and Grubbing Light 8.30 AC 11 Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 6,700 CY 11 Inspection Trench 3,790 LF 11 Levee Underseepage Toe Drain w/ Perforated Pipe 2,760 LF 11 Impervious Levee Embankment 126,600 ECY 11 Impervious Levee Borrow: Purchase Material from Landowner 126,600 ECY 11 Topsoil Install from Stockpile 6,700 CY 11 Import Topsoil 0 CY 11 Seeding 8.30 AC 11 Hydromulching (Bonded Fiber Matrix BFM) 8.3 AC 11 Vegetation Establishment & Maintenance 8.30 AC 11 Monuments and Markers 20 EA 11 Fence Chain Link 3800 LF 11 Site Lighting 1 LS 11 Gate Vehicle 6 EA 11 11 West TieBack Levee 11 Site Preparation, Traffic & Pedestrian Control Measures (Allowance) 1 LS 11 Temporary Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control (Allowance) 1 LS 11 Dewatering and Control of Water (Allowance) 1 LS 11 Clearing and Grubbing Light 3.42 AC 11 Strip and Stockpile Topsoil 2760 CY 11 Inspection Trench 1638 LF 11 Impervious Levee Embankment 30,000 ECY 11 Impervious Levee Borrow: Purchase Material from Landowner 30,000 ECY 11 Topsoil Install from Stockpile 2760 CY 11 Import Topsoil 0 CY 11 Seeding 3.42 AC 11 Straw Mulching and Disk Anchoring 3.42 AC 11 Hydromulching (Bonded Fiber Matrix BFM) 3.42 AC 11 Vegetation Establishment & Maintenance 3.42 AC 11 Monuments and Markers 10 EA 11 Site Lighting 1 LS 11 Utility Modifications (Allowance) 1 LS 11 11 Closure and Floodwall: CP Rail at Diversion 11 Excavation 5000 CY 11 Dewatering 1 LS
11 Concrete Footing 700 CY 11 Concrete Walls 500 CY 11 Wall Rustication (Architectural) 3,940 SF 11 Steel Reinforcement 180000 LB 11 Structural Aggregate 1500 CY 11 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 900 SF 11 Removable Bulkhead Floodwall System 500 SF 11 Site Lighting 1 LS 11 Backfill/Compaction 5000 CY 11 11 Closure and Floodwall: 6th ST NW Road 11 Excavation 4000 CY 11 Dewatering 1 LS 11 Concrete Footing 1100 CY 11 Concrete Walls 300 CY 11 Wall Rustication (Architectural) 3,150 SF 11 Steel Reinforcement 210000 LB 11 Structural Aggregate 1300 CY 11 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 1250 SF 11 Removable Aluminum Bulkhead Floodwall System 1462 SF 11 Site Lighting 1 LS 11 Backfill/Compaction 4000 CY 11 11 Closure and Floodwall: CP Rail at West Tieback 11 Excavation 1500 CY 11 Dewatering 1 LS 11 Concrete Footing 250 CY 11 Concrete Walls 100 CY 11 Wall Rustication (Architectural) 954 SF 11 Steel Reinforcement 52500 LB 11 Structural Aggregate 500 CY 11 Steel Sheet Piling PZ 1400 SF 11 Removable Bulkhead Floodwall System 450 SF 11 Site Lighting 1 LS 11 Backfill/Compaction 1500 CY 11 11 Closure and Floodwall: Shared Use Path at West Tieback 11 Excavation 1500 CY 11 Dewatering 1 LS 11 Concrete Footing 250 CY 11 Concrete&n