STUDI

KASUS
PROJECT RISK ANALYSIS

ELEVATED TOLL ROAD – PETTARANI PROJECT

 JALAN TOL LAYANG PETTARANI

•  Jalan Tol Pe:arani Seksi 3 berupa struktur layang dengan

bentang 4.3 K meter dari total 10,35 K meter. Jenis strukur Box
Girder Elevated. Pelaksanaan pekerjaan konstruksi jalan tol ini
Maret 2018 – Maret 2020. Total Biaya Investasi Sebesar IDR
2.243.473 Juta (Dokumen Amdal, 2017).
 LATIHAN
•  Para Peserta dibagi dalam 7 group. Masing-masing group membuat Risk Registered
(risiko teregistrasi) dari proyek jalan tol Pe:arani. SeZap group diminta melaksanakan
(group works):
– idenZfikasi risiko
– perhitungan risiko
–  evaluasi risiko
–  penanganan risiko
–  langkah reviu risiko

Environmental Risks
Environmental analysis incomplete
Availability of project data and
mapping at the beginning of the
environmental study is insufficient
New information after Environmental
Document is completed may require
re-evaluation or a new document
(i.e. utility relocation beyond
document coverage)
New alternatives required to avoid,
mitigate or minimize impact
Acquisition, creation or restoration of Stakeholders request late
on or off-site mitigation
Environmental clearance for staging New stakeholders emerge and
or borrow sites required
Historic site, endangered species,
riparian areas, wetlands and/or
public park present
Design changes require additional
Environmental analysis
Unforeseen formal NEPA/404
consultation is required
CONTOH LIFE CYCLE OF PROJECT RISKS
External Risks Design Risks Engineering Services Risks Right of Way Risks Construction Risks Project Management Risks Organizational Risks
Foundations utilizing Cast-In-Drilled-Hole
or Cast-In-Steel-Shell pile 30” in diameter
or greater may require tunneling and Utility relocation requires more Inaccurate contract time Project purpose and need is not
Landowners unwilling to sell Design incomplete Inexperienced staff assigned
mining provisions within the contract time than planned estimates well-defined
documents and early notification of Cal-
OSHA
Bridges constructed at grade and then
excavated underneath may require
Local communities pose Unexpected geotechnical or Permit work window time is Project scope definition is Losing critical staff at crucial
tunneling and mining provisions within the Unforeseen railroad involvement
objections groundwater issues insufficient incomplete point of the project
contract documents and early notification
of Cal-OSHA
Hazardous materials in existing structure
Inaccurate assumptions on or Resolving objections to Right of Project scope, schedule, objectives,
Unreasonably high expectations Change requests due to differing
technical issues in planning surrounding soil; lead paint, contaminated Way appraisal takes more time cost, and deliverables are not clearly Insufficient time to plan
from stakeholders site conditions
stage soil, asbestos pipe, asbestos bearings and and/or money defined or understood
shims
Piles driven into fish habitat may require Temporary excavation and
Political factors or support for Right of Way datasheet Unanticipated project manager
Surveys incomplete special noise attenuation to protect marine shoring system design is not No control over staff priorities
project changes incomplete or underestimated workload
species adequate
Special railroad requirements are
Need for “Permits to Enter” not
Changes to materials/ necessary including an extensive Falsework design is not Internal “red tape” causes delay
considered in project schedule Consultant or contractor delays
changes geotechnical/foundation geotechnical report for temporary shoring adequate getting approvals, decisions
development
system adjacent to tracks
Bridge site data incomplete to Access to adjacent properties is necessary Condemnation process takes Functional units not available,
Unidentified utilities Estimating and/or scheduling errors
request changes DES to resolve constructability requirements longer than anticipated overloaded
Existing structures planned for modification Acquisition of parcels controlled Lack of understanding of
Hazardous waste site analysis Buried man-made objects/ Unplanned work that must be
Threat of lawsuits not evaluated for seismic retrofit, scour by a State or Federal Agency complex internal funding
incomplete unidentified hazardous waste accommodated
potential and structural capacity may take longer than anticipated procedures
Foundation and geotechnical tasks
Increase in material cost due to Unforeseen design exceptions Discovery of hazardous waste in Dewatering is required due to Priorities change on existing
(foundation drilling and material testing) not Lack of coordination/communication
market forces required the right of way phase change in water table program
identified and included in project workplan
Bridge is a habitat to bats or other species
Consultant design not up to Seasonal requirements during Temporary construction Underestimated support resources Inconsistent cost, time, scope
Water quality regulations change requiring mitigation or seasonal
Department standards utility relocation easements expire or overly optimistic delivery schedule and quality objectives
construction
Environmental Risks
Unforeseen formal Section 7
consultation is required
Unexpected Section 106 issues
expected
Environmental Risks
Environmental analysis incomplete
Availability of project data and
mapping at the beginning of the
environmental study is insufficient
New information after Environmental
Document is completed may require
re-evaluation or a new document
(i.e. utility relocation beyond
document coverage)
New alternatives required to avoid,
mitigate or minimize impact
Acquisition, creation or restoration of Stakeholders request late
on or off-site mitigation
Environmental clearance for staging New stakeholders emerge and
or borrow sites required
Historic site, endangered species,
riparian areas, wetlands and/or
public park present
Design changes require additional
Environmental analysis
Unforeseen formal NEPA/404
consultation is required
External Risks Design Risks
New permits or additional
Unresolved constructability items Condition of the bridge deck unknown
information required
Reviewing agency requires
Complex hydraulic features
longer than expected review time
External Risks Design Risks
Landowners unwilling to sell Design incomplete
Local communities pose Unexpected geotechnical or
objections groundwater issues
Inaccurate assumptions on
Unreasonably high expectations
technical issues in planning
from stakeholders
stage
Political factors or support for
Surveys incomplete
project changes
Changes to materials/
changes geotechnical/foundation
Bridge site data incomplete to
request changes DES
Hazardous waste site analysis
Threat of lawsuits
incomplete
Increase in material cost due to Unforeseen design exceptions
market forces required
Consultant design not up to
Water quality regulations change
Department standards
Engineering Services Risks Right of Way Risks Construction Risks Project Management Risks Organizational Risks
Overlapping of one or more
Utility company workload, Electrical power lines not seen
Scope creep project limits, scope of work or
financial condition or timeline and in conflict with construction
schedule
For projects involving bridge removal, Expired temporary construction Street or ramp closures not Unresolved project conflicts not
Funding changes for fiscal year
bridge carries traffic during staging easements coordinated with local community escalated in a timely manner
Engineering Services Risks Right of Way Risks Construction Risks Project Management Risks Organizational Risks
Foundations utilizing Cast-In-Drilled-Hole
or Cast-In-Steel-Shell pile 30” in diameter
or greater may require tunneling and Utility relocation requires more Inaccurate contract time Project purpose and need is not
Inexperienced staff assigned
mining provisions within the contract time than planned estimates well-defined
documents and early notification of Cal-
OSHA
Bridges constructed at grade and then
excavated underneath may require
Permit work window time is Project scope definition is Losing critical staff at crucial
tunneling and mining provisions within the Unforeseen railroad involvement
insufficient incomplete point of the project
contract documents and early notification
of Cal-OSHA
Hazardous materials in existing structure
or Resolving objections to Right of Project scope, schedule, objectives,
Change requests due to differing
surrounding soil; lead paint, contaminated Way appraisal takes more time cost, and deliverables are not clearly Insufficient time to plan
site conditions
soil, asbestos pipe, asbestos bearings and and/or money defined or understood
shims
Piles driven into fish habitat may require Temporary excavation and
Right of Way datasheet Unanticipated project manager
special noise attenuation to protect marine shoring system design is not No control over staff priorities
incomplete or underestimated workload
species adequate
Special railroad requirements are
Need for “Permits to Enter” not
necessary including an extensive Falsework design is not Internal “red tape” causes delay
considered in project schedule Consultant or contractor delays
geotechnical report for temporary shoring adequate getting approvals, decisions
development
system adjacent to tracks
Access to adjacent properties is necessary Condemnation process takes Functional units not available,
Unidentified utilities Estimating and/or scheduling errors
to resolve constructability requirements longer than anticipated overloaded
Existing structures planned for modification Acquisition of parcels controlled Lack of understanding of
Buried man-made objects/ Unplanned work that must be
not evaluated for seismic retrofit, scour by a State or Federal Agency complex internal funding
unidentified hazardous waste accommodated
potential and structural capacity may take longer than anticipated procedures
Foundation and geotechnical tasks
Discovery of hazardous waste in Dewatering is required due to Priorities change on existing
(foundation drilling and material testing) not Lack of coordination/communication
the right of way phase change in water table program
identified and included in project workplan
Bridge is a habitat to bats or other species
Seasonal requirements during Temporary construction Underestimated support resources Inconsistent cost, time, scope
requiring mitigation or seasonal
utility relocation easements expire or overly optimistic delivery schedule and quality objectives
construction
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - PDT Risk Register

Project Scope
This project consists of constructing a debris boom upstream of the dam spillway and
Risk Level installing a temporary coffer dam around the construction area to dewater the bridge and
spillway notch construction zones for the fish passage. A prefabricated concrete bridge is
Likelihood of Occurrence

planned to extend across the notch in the spillway; and, will include a stop log water
Very control structure and improved roadway access to the lock and dam storage yard. The
Low Moderate High High High
Likely fish passage ramp and riffle structure is constructed of rock materials and will also
incorporate hydraulic dredging operations to use dredge spoil to fill voids in the large rock
materials of the fishway.
Likely Low Moderate High High High
This is a 100% Federal project and no lands and damage costs are included. No relocation
costs were expected for this project.
Unlikely Low Low Moderate Moderate High Cost
Impacts
For the Sample Project, any cost impact of $500K or higher should be
Very
Low Low Low Low High considered at least "Significant."
Unlikely Anything over $250 K should be considered
at least "Marginal."

Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis Schedule

Impacts
For the Sample Project, any schedule impact of 3 months or greater should
Impact or Consequence of Occurrence be considered at least "Significant."
Anything over 1 month should be
considered at least "Marginal."

Project Cost Project Schedule

Risk/ Rough
Rough Order
Opportunity Order Impact Variance Correlation Responsibility/ Affected Project
Risk No. Event Concerns PDT Discussions Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Impact ($) Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* (mo) Distribution to Other(s) POC Component
Contract Risks (Internal Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled within the PDT's sphere of influence.)
REAL ESTATE
 Project Cost Project Schedule

Risk/Opportunity Variance Affected Project

Risk No. Concerns Rough Order Rough Order Distribution Correlation to Responsibility/POC
Component
Event PDT Discussions Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
Impact ($)
Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level*
Impact (mo) Other(s)

Contract Risks (Internal Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled within the PDT's sphere of influence.)

PROJECT & PROGRAM

MGMT
This issue has had an effect on the overall
Schedule developed with the assumption that performance of the planning and
Project Schedule in Captured by
PPM-1 sufficient funding would be received on a engineering, as far as schedule is concerned. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Very Likely Significant High 6.0 Months Uniform PPM-9 Project Manager Project Schedule
Question Schedule
timely basis. Thus far, this has not occurred. PDT feels that the overall project schedule is
a bit optimistic.
Emergency response and other Corps-wide
No Control over Staff priorities have occurred that take away ability Presents a challenge in meeting schedules Captured by
PPM-2 Very Likely Marginal Moderate Very Likely Significant High 3.2 Months Uniform Resource Providers Project Schedule
Priorities to predict and manage in-house staff and and producing design products. Schedule
workload.
Other priorities threaten the funding and
Project competing with Has a significant impact on schedule, and Captured by
PPM-3 timely receipt of funding to complete the Very Likely Marginal Moderate Very Likely Significant High 7.2 Months Uniform Project Manager Project Schedule
other projects for funding marginal impact on costs. Schedule
milestones for this project.

There is an increased workload that is

Functional and Technical Has a significant impact on schedule, and Captured by Captured by
PPM-4 outpacing the current staff level's ability to Very Likely Marginal Moderate Very Likely Significant High N/A Resource Providers Project Schedule
Staff overloaded marginal impact on costs. Schedule Risk PPM-2
keep pace.
Product Development by
The regional PDT includes members from The coordination of staff and communication
Several Sources/
PPM-5 other U5 Districts, as well as external presents challenges that could impact the Likely Marginal Moderate $1.1 M Unlikely Significant Moderate 1.8 Months Triangular Project Manager Project Cost & Schedule
Communication
agencies at the Federal and State level. cost and schedule.
Challenges
PDT has already experienced loss of staff,
Losing Staff at Critical Has a significant impact on schedule, and Captured by
PPM-6 and due to workload and competing Very Likely Marginal Moderate Very Likely Significant High 2.4 Months Uniform Resource Providers Project Schedule
Milestones marginal impact on costs. Schedule
priorities, this is likely to occur in the future.
Confusing and contradictory advice regarding This issue presents a project management
continuously changing program and project challenge in the ability to plan, schedule, and
Timely Response to
PPM-7 requirements (i.e. Model Certification, produce, design and develop documents due Likely Significant High $2 M Likely Significant High 4.8 Months Uniform EST-1 District Management Project Cost & Schedule
Critical Decision
Science Panel, Risk Assessment, ITR/ATR, in some instances to indecision or lack of
EPR). action at higher levels.
Due to the level of scrutiny of this project,
Internal Red Tape Causes Has a significant impact on schedule, and Captured by Captured by
PPM-8 there are many internal and stakeholder Very Likely Marginal Moderate Likely Significant High N/A District Management Project Schedule
Delays marginal impact on costs. Schedule Risk PPM-2
reviews of this project before it reaches HQ.
PDT has already been under pressure to
Pressure to deliver project
accelerate. However, there has been Has a significant impact on schedule, and
PPM-9 on an accelerated Very Likely Marginal Moderate $1.6 M Likely Significant High 1.8 Months Uniform PPM-1 District Management Project Cost & Schedule
insufficient funding to produce design level marginal impact on costs.
schedule
products.
CONTOH

ANALISIS RISIKO KECELAKAAN PADA PROYEK KONSTRUKSI

 CONSTRUCTION FORENSICS: c t s g r o u
construction technology services
p

MITIGATION/
CASE FAILURE RISK CAUSE AVOIDANCE LIABILITY

Building Piles & Mat Foundation Design & Proper Eng & Engineer
Foundation,NJ failure installation QA Contractor
 CONSTRUCTION FORENSICS: c t s g r o u
construction technology services
p

MITIGATION/
CASE FAILURE RISK CAUSE AVOIDANCE LIABILITY

2ND Ave, NYC Tilt Collapse Adjacent Reinforce Pre-Existing

Demolition Building
 CONSTRUCTION FORENSICS: c t s g r
construction technology
o u
services
p

MITIGATION/
CASE FAILURE RISK CAUSE AVOIDANCE LIABILITY

East River Block fall Injury Improper Rewire block Crane Op.
Barge, NY rewiring set on barge Owner
 CONSTRUCTION FORENSICS: c t s g r o u
construction technology services
p

MITIGATION/
CASE FAILURE RISK CAUSE AVOIDANCE LIABILITY

Throgs Neck Platform Fall, Injury, Improper insp Replace Eng./Cont./

Bridge, NY Shield Death procedure shield Owner
 failure occurrence may not be experienced,

Table 6. Safety in Design Typical Initial Risk Rating Table

RISK MATRIX CONSEQUENCE
LIKELIHOOD Minor Major Severe Critical Catastrophic
A B C D E
Very Unlikely 1 Low Low Medium Medium Medium
Unlikely 2 Low Low Medium Medium High
Possible 3 Low Medium High High High
Likely 4 Medium Medium High High Extreme
Almost Certain 5 Medium High High Extreme Extreme

Table 7. Safety in Design Typical Initial Risk Rating Table

Design Hazards Design Life Risk Existing Control Initial Risk Rating
Reference Cycle Stage Description Measures
Table 4. Consequence Rating Table
Risk Consequence Design Consequence Descriptors
E - Catastrophic Could result in fatality or irreversible severe environmental damage required to
be notified under jurisdiction requirements.
D - Critical Could result in permanent total disability or reversible environmental damage
required to be notified under jurisdiction requirements.
C - Severe Could result in permanent partial disability, injuries or illness that may result in
hospitalisation of persons or environmental damage can be mitigated and is
required to be notified under jurisdiction requirements.
B - Major Could result in injury or illness resulting in one or more lost work day(s) or
environmental damage can be mitigated and is not required to be notified under
jurisdiction requirements where restoration activities can be accomplished.
A - Minor Could result in injury or illness not resulting in a lost work day or minimal
environmental damage not required to be notified under jurisdiction
requirements.
Table 5. Likelihood Rating Table
Likelihood Design Likelihood Descriptors
Descriptor
5 - Almost Certain Industry experience suggests design failure is almost certain to occur during the
life of the product.
4 - Likely Industry experience suggests design failure is likely to occur during the life of
the product.
3 - Possible Industry experience suggests design failure is possible some time during the life
of the design.
2 - Unlikely Industry experience suggests design failure is unlikely to occur in the life of
design.
1 - Very Unlikely Industry experience suggests design failure is very unlikely. It can be assumed
failure occurrence may not be experienced,

Table 6. Safety in Design Typical Initial Risk Rating Table

RISK MATRIX CONSEQUENCE
LIKELIHOOD Minor Major Severe Critical Catastrophic
 HIRADC No. Form
Edisi / Revisi
: K3L – 01B
Tgl. Terbit

(Hazard Identification, Risk Assesment and Determining Control) 4 / 0 14/10/2010

Nama Proyek : THE HERMITAGE Nama Kegiatan : Pemasangan Lift

Hazard Effect X Frequency = Risk Action to be taken to reduce Risk
Task of Work / Action by Evaluation *)
R/N ( HE X F = R ) ( Tindakan untuk mengurangi resiko )
Location of Work
TR/A Hazard Analisys Action to be taken
No Hazard effect Legal requirement Residual Risk (Evaluasi
(Pekerjaan / Lokasi / Produk E (Analisa Bahaya / Aspek) Risk Category (tindakan yang dilakukan) (Tanggung
/ Jasa.) setelah pek'
( Efek Bahaya / Dampak) (Peraturan / Perundangan) ● Hirarki : Eliminasi (i) s/d APD (v) atau Resiko Menjadi Jawab oleh)
selesai)
HE F R ● Referensi : prosedur/standar/program/dll HE F R
1 Pemindahan matrial R/N - Tangan terjepit - Luka robek, memar, tulang - UU No1 th 70 : Keselamatan T R M5 - Safety induction R R R1 SO
menggunakan TC patah kerja - APD (Helm, sepatu, sarung tangan) SO/SM/QSPV
- Precast jatuh - Luka robek, memar, patah - Pemenaker no 5/Men/1985 T R M5 - Safety induction R R R1 SO
tulang, fatal Tentang Pesawat angkat & - APD (Helm, sepatu, sarung tangan) SO/SM/QSPV
angkut - Penunjukan rigger berpengalaman SM/QSPV
- Pengecekan hook rantai TC terpasang SO/QSPV
dengan benar
- Memastikan keseimbangan material QSPV
baru diangkat
- Sling angkut putus - Luka robek, memar, patah T R M5 - Perawatan sling R R R1 Mekanik
tulang, fatal - Pengecekan sling Mekanik
- Beban yang diangkat tidak boleh SQSPV
melebihi kapasitas sling
2 Pemasangan rel pertama R/N - Mata kelilipan debu beton - Iritasi mata - UU No1 th 70 : Keselamatan T R M5 - Pemberian safety induction R R R1 SO
kerja - Skill pekerja SM/QSPV
- APD (Helm, sepatu, kaca mata, masker) SO/SM/QSPV
- Terpapar debu - Infeksi saliran pernafasan T R M5 - Pemberian safety induction R R R1 SO
- Skill pekerja SM/QSPV
- APD (Helm, sepatu, kaca mata, masker) SO/SM/QSPV
- Rel jatuh - luka memar T R M5 - Pemberian safety induction R R R1 SO
- Skill pekerja SM/QSPV
- APD (Helm, sepatu) SO/SM/QSPV
3 Pemasangan keranjang R/N - Kejatuhan matrial - Luka memar - UU No1 th 70 : Keselamatan T R M5 - Pemberian safety induction R R R1 SO
lift sementara kerja - Skill pekerja SM/QSPV
- APD (Helm, sepatu) SO/SM/QSPV
- Tangan terjepit - Luka robek, memar, tulang - UU No1 th 70 : Keselamatan T R M5 - Safety induction R R R1 SO
patah kerja - APD (Helm, sepatu, sarung tangan) SO/SM/QSPV
R/N = Rutin / Normal Terkait Legal Req. Tgl 05 April 2013 hal :
TR/A = Tidak Rutin / Abnormal maka HE otomatis T
E = Emergency FREQUENCY dibuat oleh : Disetujui Oleh
HE = HAZARD

Tingkat Resiko & Frekwensi. T M R SHE Manager / Officer Site Manager Project Manager
EFFECT

T = TINGGI T T9 T8 M5
M = MEDIUM M T7 M6 M3
R = RENDAH R M4 M2 R1 Fedry, SKM Ir. Nurbadri Rakhmat Ir. Julius, MT
No revisi :
Ket. *) Pada kolom Evaluasi diberikan catatan: a). " OK " - jika berhasil sesuai rencana dan sesuai hukum/peraturan ; b) . REV - jika harus direvisi, karena ada kecelakaan /tdk sesuai rencana