John Day, Nav Lock Monolith Repair

90% P&S
Option 1: with Anchor Shaft
 Crystal Ball Report
Simulation started on 11/3/03 at 12:35:13
Simulation stopped on 11/3/03 at 12:35:60

Sensitiv ity Chart

Target Forecast: E36

Plans and Specs resulting Claims 31.9%

?Anchor Shafts (Construct and abandon) 27.6%

Overall Job (Bidding Climate) 9.5%

Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevation 9.2%

Drill Flow Breccia Consolidation Grout H 9.1%

Weather and other jobsite conditions 7.0%

Braced Excavation (incl. Contractor des i 1.4%

Modify Existing Tainter Valve #3Remove/r 1.0%

Mobilization and Demobilization 0.9%

Install Tainter Valve Shaft #3 Pre-Cast 0.8%

Concrete Demolition TV #3 Shaft (Incl. S 0.6%

Grout Monoliths 6, 8, and 27 Lock Chambe 0.4%

Load Cells and Strain Gages (incl. Wire 0.1%

Drain Line Installation (incl. Drilling 0.1%

Repair Monolith 6 Concrete Spall Area (I 0.1%

TV Weld Repair [3/8 fill] 0.1%

Repair Concrete and Cracks in elevation 0.0%

Epoxy Grout TV Shaft #3, Monoliths 8 and 0.0%

Temp Demob & Remob 0.0%

TV Weld Repair [9/16 cjp] 0.0%

Standby for Temp Demob 0.0%

Concrete Demolition Monolith 8 and Monol 0.0%

Tainter Valve Wrapper 0.0%

Flow Breccia Consolidation Grouting and 0.0%

Install Monolith 6/8 and Monolith 8/10 J 0.0%

Replace Monolith 6 uplift Pressure Instr 0.0%

Plug Rock Drain Pipe and French Drain 0.0%

Pave Embankment Dam Access Road (incl. S 0.0%

Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevation 0.0%

Services of Skilled Craftsmn 0.0%

Repair Monolith 27 Bulkhead Slot Concret 0.0%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Measured by Contribution to Variance
Forecast: E36

Summary:
Display Range is from 6,736,607 to 9,401,632
Entire Range is from 6,251,220 to 9,933,632
After 20,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 3,637

Statistics:
Trials
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
Coeff. of Variability
Range Minimum
Range Maximum
Range Width
Mean Std. Error

Forecast: E36

20,000 Trials Frequency Chart 126 Outliers

.021 417

.016 312.7

.010 208.5

.005 104.2

.000 0

6,736,607 7,402,863 8,069,119 8,735,376 9,401,632

 Forecast: E36

20,000 Trials Frequency Chart 126 Outliers

.021 417

.016 312.7

.010 208.5

.005 104.2

.000 0

6,736,607 7,402,863 8,069,119 8,735,376 9,401,632

Forecast: E36 (cont'd)

Contingency Analysis
$ 7,032,396
Confidence
Level Value Contingency
0% 6,251,220
5% 7,231,566 3%
10% 7,402,887 5%
15% 7,527,590 7%
20% 7,630,292 9%
25% 7,716,363 10%
30% 7,798,895 11%
35% 7,869,458 12%
40% 7,939,069 13%
45% 8,005,411 14%
50% 8,074,771 15%
55% 8,140,537 16%
60% 8,207,003 17%
65% 8,276,751 18%
70% 8,350,223 19%
75% 8,432,349 20%
80% 8,519,636 21%
85% 8,619,660 23%
90% 8,744,227 24%
95% 8,931,577 27%
100% 9,933,632 41%

Confidence Level: 80% would mean, For a project cost of $8,519,636 using
21% contingency would have a 80% confidence level that project cost would
not exceed this amount.
 L ik e lih o o d o f O c c u rr e n c e Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - PDT Risk Register
Project Scope
Risk Level
This project consists of constructing a debris boom upstream of the dam spillway and installing a temporary coffer dam around the
Very
construction area to dewater the bridge and spillway notch construction zones for the fish passage. A prefabricated concrete bridge is planned
Low Moderate High High High to extend across the notch in the spillway; and, will include a stop log water control structure and improved roadway access to the lock and
Likely
dam storage yard. The fish passage ramp and riffle structure is constructed of rock materials and will also incorporate hydraulic dredging
Likely Low Moderate High High High operations to use dredge spoil to fill voids in the large rock materials of the fishway.

This is a 100% Federal project and no lands and damage costs are included. No relocation costs were expected for this project.
Unlikely Low Low Moderate Moderate High
Cost Impacts
Very
Unlikely
Low Low Low Low High For the Sample Project, any cost impact of $500K or higher should be considered at least "Significant."
Anything over $250 K should be considered at least "Marginal."
Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis
Schedule Impacts
Impact or Consequence of Occurrence For the Sample Project, any schedule impact of 3 months or greater should be considered at least "Significant."
Anything over 1 month should be considered at least "Marginal."

Project Cost Project Schedule

Rough Order Rough Order Variance Correlation Affected Project

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

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 performance of
Schedule developed with the assumption that sufficient the planning and engineering, as far as schedule is
funding would be received on a timely basis. Thus far, this concerned. PDT feels that the overall project schedule is a Captured by
PPM-1 Project Schedule in Question has not occurred. bit optimistic. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Schedule Very Likely Significant High 6.0 Months Uniform PPM-9 Project Manager Project Schedule

Emergency response and other Corps-wide priorities have

occurred that take away ability to predict and manage in- Presents a challenge in meeting schedules and producing Captured by
PPM-2 No Control over Staff Priorities house staff and workload. design products. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Schedule Very Likely Significant High 3.2 Months Uniform Resource Providers Project Schedule

Project competing with other Other priorities threaten the funding and timely receipt of Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact Captured by
PPM-3 projects for funding funding to complete the milestones for this project. on costs. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Schedule Very Likely Significant High 7.2 Months Uniform Project Manager Project Schedule

Functional and Technical Staff There is an increased workload that is outpacing the Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact Captured by Captured by Risk
PPM-4 overloaded current staff level's ability to keep pace. on costs. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Schedule Very Likely Significant High PPM-2 N/A Resource Providers Project Schedule

Product Development by Several The regional PDT includes members from other U5
Sources/Communication Districts, as well as external agencies at the Federal and The coordination of staff and communication presents
PPM-5 Challenges State level. challenges that could impact the cost and schedule. Likely Marginal Moderate $1.1 M Unlikely Significant Moderate 1.8 Months Triangular Project Manager Project Cost & Schedule

PDT has already experienced loss of staff, and due to

workload and competing priorities, this is likely to occur in Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact Captured by
PPM-6 Losing Staff at Critical Milestones the future. on costs. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Schedule Very Likely Significant High 2.4 Months Uniform Resource Providers Project Schedule

Confusing and contradictory advice regarding continuously This issue presents a project management challenge in the
changing program and project requirements (i.e. Model ability to plan, schedule, and produce, design and develop
Timely Response to Critical Certification, Science Panel, Risk Assessment, ITR/ATR, documents due in some instances to indecision or lack of
PPM-7 Decision EPR). action at higher levels. Likely Significant High $2 M Likely Significant High 4.8 Months Uniform EST-1 District Management Project Cost & Schedule

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

internal and stakeholder reviews of this project before it Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact Captured by Captured by Risk
PPM-8 Internal Red Tape Causes Delays reaches HQ. on costs. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Schedule Likely Significant High PPM-2 N/A District Management Project Schedule

PDT has already been under pressure to accelerate.

Pressure to deliver project on an However, there has been insufficient funding to produce Has a significant impact on schedule, and marginal impact
PPM-9 accelerated schedule design level products. on costs. Very Likely Marginal Moderate $1.6 M Likely Significant High 1.8 Months Uniform PPM-1 District Management Project Cost & Schedule

CONTRACT ACQUISITION

The PDT feels that the structural portion will likely go out as
Contract Acquisition Strategy Not full and open RFP, whereas the rock portion could to go to If an 8(a) or small business was selected for the rock Contract Cost & Project
CA-1 Determined an 8(a) or small business. portion of the work, it could significantly impact costs. Likely Significant High $2.7 M Likely Marginal Moderate 3.8 Months Triangular TASB/Contracting Schedule

TECHNICAL

This is the first time that a hydraulic dredge has been used If the technique does not perform as planned, there will be
to place material to fill voids in the rock ramp to prevent some rework or modification necessary to complete the
T-1 Uncertainty with Filling of Voids seepage though the bottom of the fishway. work. Unlikely Significant Moderate $40 K Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied Uniform Geotech Lead Contract Cost

There is some uncertainty with the optimal riffle design

within the fishway (straight or "U" shaped). There is a
consideration for this within the adaptive management The uncertainty regarding this design could cause
T-2 Uncertainty with Riffle Design component of the project. fluctuations either positive or negative. Likely Negligible Low Not Studied Likely Marginal Moderate 1.8 Months Uniform Technical Lead Project Schedule

Rock fill quantities were calculated based upon pre-flood

Confidence in the Estimated bathymetric surveys. The project area may have scoured This could affect the quantity of rock required for fill material
T-3 Quantity of Rock Required or filled during the flood. and lead to a change in the construction cost. Likely Significant High $2.3 M Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied Triangular Geotech Lead Contract Cost

There is a potential that there will be other contracts Project currently assumes access to small lay-down/staging
Conflicts with potential hydro-plant occurring simultaneously (hydro-plant and/or lock area footprint. Simultaneous contracts could impact Captured by Risk Captured by Risk
T-4 and lock expansion project. expansion) that could affect the coordination and access. availability and congestion. Likely Marginal Moderate PR-5 Likely Marginal Moderate PR-5 N/A Project Manager Project Cost & Schedule

ENVIRONMENTAL/
REGULATORY
Plan is currently to construct from a barge. If DMMP
required, then there could be some cultural clearance
L&D facility listed on historical sites listing. Dredge material issues. There are potential adverse effects to the L&D
EN-1 Historical/Cultural Site placement issue also could be involved as a contingency. facility. Very Unlikely Negligible Low Not Studied Very Unlikely Critical Low Not Studied N/A Environmental Lead Project Cost & Schedule

There is a current understanding with State Authorities.

However, if they became more restrictive or changed their
Floodplain work requires permitting from the States of minds, it could present challenges in the permit application
EN-2 Status of Permits Illinois and Missouri. process. Unlikely Significant Moderate $66 K Unlikely Critical Moderate 1.8 Months Uniform Environmental Lead Project Cost & Schedule

State of Illinois is slow in issuing water quality permits.

401 water quality certification will be required on this Could significantly delay the process of obtaining the
project. State provides criteria that must be met (both permit. Can still begin construction while the permit is
EN-3 Water Quality Permit States of Illinois & Missouri). pending. Very Likely Negligible Low Not Studied Very Likely Marginal Moderate 3.2 Months Uniform Environmental Lead Project Schedule

There are currently no contemplated impacts to this project.

Potential Endangered Species There is a possibility that some mitigation for mussels may However, relocation of mussels would be necessary if
EN-4 Issue be necessary on this project. endangered species are discovered. Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied N/A Environmental Lead Project Cost & Schedule

There are no contemplated complications due to HTRW Does Not Occur

issues under the existing footprint. However, if the footprint PDT feels that if remediation is required, it would cost a at 80% Technical/Environmental
EN-5 HTRW Issues changed, there could be some remediation required. minimum of $1 M. Unlikely Significant Moderate Confidence Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied Yes-No Leads Project Cost & Schedule
 The fishway design is based upon the best available
This type of fishway has never been constructed in the information in the scientific literature, pre-construction
Upper Mississippi River and there is a potential that it won't monitoring studies, and the advice of experts from around
EN-6 Fishway not effective work. the country. Unlikely Significant Moderate $949 K Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied Uniform Environmental Lead Contract Cost
 CONSTRUCTION

Challenges include keeping navigation open during

construction and minimizing impacts to the facility and the
Much of the project is contemplated to be performed from river during construction. Nature of work includes barges,
In-water Work/Cofferdam barges. Project also requires construction of a cofferdam derricks, cranes, etc. that will cause congestion and Cost Contract Cost & Project
C-1 Construction and significant handling of rock. coordination issues. Unlikely Significant Moderate $922 K Unlikely Significant Moderate 1.8 Months Triangular Engineering/Construction Schedule

There is inherent risk of getting a contractor that is not as Cost Contract Cost & Project
C-2 Inefficient Contractor efficient as planned in the baseline estimate. Could affect cost and schedule. Unlikely Significant Moderate $1.4 M Unlikely Significant Moderate 2.5 Months Triangular Engineering/Construction Schedule

The plan currently assumes multiple contracts for this There is the possibility for conflicts between the contractors Contract Cost & Project
C-3 Conflicts with Other Contracts acquisition. on this program, as well as other non-related projects. Unlikely Significant Moderate $519 K Unlikely Significant Moderate 1.8 Months Triangular PR-5 Construction Schedule

All materials and access is contemplated to be via river or Site access issues are currently captured in the baseline Cost Contract Cost & Project
C-4 Site access/restrictions on the Illinois side. There is limited access to the site. estimate. Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied N/A Engineering/Construction Schedule

Marine based and bridge labor force would likely come from May increase costs due to housing and subsistence for the
C-5 Labor Forces from Outside Area outside the local area. labor force. Likely Significant High $1.2 M Likely Negligible Low Not Studied Triangular Cost Engineering Contract Cost

There is concern regarding delivery of rock, bridge Captured by Cost

C-6 Material availability and delivery components, etc. Could affect costs. Likely Marginal Moderate $704 K Likely Significant High Risk Study Triangular Cost Engineering Contract Cost

The project site has not been surveyed since the last flood There is the possibility for differing conditions due to the
C-7 Differing Site Conditions event. effects of the last flood event. Likely Marginal Moderate $1.3 M Likely Negligible Low Not Studied Uniform Construction Contract Cost

PDT is not confident in the current contract phasing as This could have significant impact on the overall project Captured by
C-8 Contract Sequencing currently scheduled and contemplated. schedule. Likely Marginal Moderate Schedule Likely Significant High 2.7 Months Triangular Contracting Project Schedule

REAL ESTATE

Project plan currently has a fence and signage to mitigate

public loitering and interference. There is little concern of
public safety issue during construction so long as the
Local fishermen and others use the area for recreation. contractor manages and secures the project area. There is
Could present challenges with safety and managing the risk that the project site will become a lingering attractive
RE-1 Vagrancy and Loitering Issues public during throughout the project life. nuisance. Likely Negligible Low Not Studied Likely Negligible Low Not Studied N/A Real Estate Project Cost & Schedule

COST ESTIMATING/
ENGINEERING

The PDT feels confident in the baseline estimate

preparation. However, the various review requirements
Unknowns with Reviews and and scrutiny has an affect on the overall confidence in the Has had an impact on the overall cost and schedule Captured by Risk
EST-1 Iterative Process constant revisions to the baseline estimate and schedule. development. Very Likely Marginal Moderate PPM-7 Very Likely Marginal Moderate 3.2 Months Uniform PPM-7 Project Manager Project Schedule

PDT is concerned regarding the schedule, and therefore

the validity of the baseline estimate. The effects on project
schedule are being captured by Risk Item No. PPM-1.
Estimate and Schedule Reflecting The uncertainty with the schedule has a significant impact Therefore, the schedule risk level was rated low in this risk
EST-2 "Most Likely" Occurrence on the development of the estimate. item. Likely Significant High $961 K Likely Negligible Low Not Studied Triangular Cost Engineering Contract Cost

Programmatic Risks (External Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled exclusively outside the PDT's sphere of influence.)

There is a risk of flooding during construction. Contractor

This area is prone to regular flooding. There is a risk of a will have to prepare for 10-year flood event. This could
major flood in this area during the project timeframe. This cause dewatering delays and minor rework. However, a
could affect the rock placement, as well as capturing significant flood event (greater than 10-year), it could
PR-1 Flooding quantities adequately before construction. impact the project costs and schedule. Likely Significant High $3.7 M Likely Significant High 3.2 Months Uniform Project Cost & Schedule

There are currently several competing projects that may There are other contemplated major projects happening
Market Conditions (saturated draw contractors away from this project and onto others, potentially simultaneously. This could significantly affect
PR-2 construction market) limiting the field of prospective bidders. costs. Unlikely Significant Moderate $947 K Unlikely Marginal Low Not Studied Triangular Cost Engineering Contract Cost

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

Adequacy of project funding timely basis or in the expected increments. Receiving less Captured by
PR-3 (incremental) increment or delayed increment is a concern. Could significantly impact cost and schedule. Very Likely Significant High Schedule Very Likely Significant High 3.3 Months Triangular Project Manager Project Schedule

There is a concern that the rise in costs could price the If this concern became reality, the project would not occur. Occurrence Occurrence
Political Factors Change at project out of the ecosystem restoration business line's This item likely will not be studied in the analysis, as if it would prevent would prevent
PR-4 Federal, State, or Local Level ability to execute. occurs, the project will not occur. Likely Significant High the project Likely Significant High the project N/A Project Manager Project Cost & Schedule

Hydropower development is being considered in the Fewer fish will use the fishway for migration if they can't Occurrence Occurrence
spillway which may change the flow patterns that attract find the entrance. Entrainment mortality from hydropower would prevent would prevent
PR-5 Hydropower fish to the fishway entrance. generation would negatively affect fish populations. Likely Significant High the project Likely Significant High the project N/A C-3 Project Manager Project Cost & Schedule

Stakeholders could choose to strip the adaptive If this concern became reality, the project would not occur. Occurrence Occurrence
Stakeholders choose cost or time management component, or change certain features such This item likely will not be studied in the analysis, as if it would prevent would prevent
PR-6 over quality that project assumptions are no longer valid. occurs, the project will not occur. Likely Significant High the project Likely Significant High the project N/A Project Manager Project Cost & Schedule
*Likelihood, Impact, and Risk Level to be verified through market research and analysis (conducted by cost engineer).
1. Risk/Opportunity identified with reference to the Risk Identification Checklist and through deliberation and study of the PDT.
2. Discussions and Concerns elaborates on Risk/Opportunity Events and includes any assumptions or findings (should contain information pertinent to eventual study and analysis of event's impact to project).
3. Likelihood is a measure of the probability of the event occurring -- Very Unlikely, Unlikely, Moderately Likely, Likely, Very Likely. The likelihood of the event will be the same for both Cost and Schedule, regardless of impact.
4. Impact is a measure of the event's effect on project objectives with relation to scope, cost, and/or schedule -- Negligible, Marginal, Significant, Critical, or Crisis. Impacts on Project Cost may vary in severity from impacts on Project Schedule.
5. Risk Level is the resultant of Likelihood and Impact Low, Moderate, or High. Refer to the matrix located at top of page.
6. Variance Distribution refers to the behavior of the individual risk item with respect to its potential effects on Project Cost and Schedule. For example, an item with clearly defined parameters and a solid most likely scenario would probably follow a triangular or normal distribution. A risk item for which the PDT has little data or probability
of modeling with respect to effects on cost or schedule (i.e. "anyone's guess") would probably follow a uniform or discrete uniform distribution.
7. The responsibility or POC is the entity responsible as the Subject Matter Expert (SME) for action, monitoring, or information on the PDT for the identified risk or opportunity.
8. Correlation recognizes those risk events that may be related to one another. Care should be given to ensure the risks are handled correctly without a "double counting."
9. Affected Project Component identifies the specific item of the project to which the risk directly or strongly correlates.
10. Project Implications identifies whether or not the risk item affects project cost, project schedule, or both. The PDT is responsible for conducting studies for both Project Cost and for Project Schedule.
11. Results of the risk identification process are studied and further developed by the Cost Engineer, then analyzed through the Monte Carlo Analysis Method for Cost (Contingency) and Schedule (Escalation) Growth.
Project Scope
Contingency on Base Estimate 80% Confidence Project Cost
Baseline Estimate Cost (Most Likely) -> $40,014,944
This project consists of constructing a debris boom upstream of the dam
Baseline Estimate Cost Contingency Amount -> $13,741,700
spillway and installing a temporary coffer dam around the construction area
to dewater the bridge and spillway notch construction zones for the fish Baseline Estimate Construction Cost (80% Confidence) -> $53,756,644
passage. A prefabricated concrete bridge is planned to extend across the
notch in the spillway; and, will include a stop log water control structure and Contingency on Schedule 80% Confidence Project Schedule
improved roadway access to the lock and dam storage yard. The fish Project Schedule Duration (Most Likely) -> 46.0 Months
passage ramp and riffle structure is constructed of rock materials and will Schedule Contingency Duration -> 29.3 Months
also incorporate hydraulic dredging operations to use dredge spoil to fill
Project Schedule Duration (80% Confidence) -> 75.3 Months
voids in the large rock materials of the fishway.
Project Schedule Contingency Amount (80% Confidence) -> $2,111,954
This is a 100% Federal project and no lands and damage costs are included.
No relocation costs were expected for this project. Project Contingency 80% Confidence Project Cost
Project Contingency Amount (80% Confidence) -> $15,853,654
Project Contingency Percentage (80% Confidence) -> 40%

Project Cost (80% Confidence) -> $55,868,598

- PROJECT CONTINGENCY DEVELOPMENT -

Contingency Analysis BASELINE COST WITH CONTINGENCY DEVELOPMENT

Most Likely
$40,014,944
Cost Estimate

Confidence Level Value Contingency

0% $35,833,239 -10.45% ###
5% $44,839,308 12.06% ###
10% $46,442,558 16.06% ###80,000,000
15% $47,497,895 18.70% ###
20% $48,400,180 20.96% ###70,000,000 Baseline Cost at 80%
Cost

25% $49,132,023 22.78% ### Confidence Level

Corresponding Contingency
30% $49,744,595 24.32% ###60,000,000 Amount

35% $50,360,782 25.85% ###

50,000,000
40% $50,988,057 27.42% ###
45% $51,575,622 28.89% ###40,000,000
50% $52,151,692 30.33% ###
55% $52,737,247 31.79% ###30,000,000
60% $53,286,037 33.17% ###
65% $53,856,537 34.59% ###
20,000,000
70% $54,462,516 36.11% ### "Most Likely"
75% $55,094,405 37.68% ### Baseline Cost
80% $55,868,598 39.62% ###10,000,000
85% $56,665,502 41.61% ###
90% $57,672,460 44.13% ### 0
15%

65%

80%
0%

5%

10%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

70%

75%

85%

90%

95%

100%
95% $59,268,192 48.12% ###
100% $67,240,463 68.04% ###
Confidence Levels

- BASELINE ESTIMATE CONTINGENCY DEVELOPMENT -

Contingency Analysis BASELINE ESTIMATE CONTINGENCY DEVELOPMENT (Does not Include Escalation)
Most Likely
$40,014,944
Cost Estimate

Confidence Level Value Contingency

0% $36,408,945 -9.01% ###
5% $44,302,729 10.72% ###
10% $45,692,598 14.19% ###
15% $46,603,024 16.46% ###80,000,000
20% $47,383,181 18.41% ###
Baseline Estimate Cost
25% $48,001,018 19.96% ###
Cost

at 80% Confidence
30% $48,517,176 21.25% ### Corresponding Contingency Level
60,000,000 Amount
35% $49,044,633 22.57% ###
40% $49,586,489 23.92% ###
45% $50,090,006 25.18% ###
50% $50,584,341 26.41% ###40,000,000
55% $51,083,142 27.66% ###
60% $51,542,773 28.81% ###
65% $52,025,214 30.01% ###
70% $52,543,790 31.31% ###20,000,000 "Most Likely"
Baseline Cost
75% $53,088,118 32.67% ###
80% $53,756,644 34.34% ###
85% $54,430,091 36.02% ###
90% $55,298,936 38.20% ### 0
50%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

95% $56,667,978 41.62% ###

100% $63,563,297 58.85% ###
Confidence Levels
 - SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY (DURATION) DEVELOPMENT -

Contingency Analysis
Most Likely
46.0 Months
Cost Estimate Schedule Contingency (Duration) Analysis

Confidence Level Value Contingency

0% 35.7 Months -22.36% 64
5% 52.1 Months 13.25% 64
10% 55.3 Months 20.08% 64
15% 57.4 Months 24.72% 64
120
20% 59.2 Months 28.62% 64

Duration
25% 60.9 Months 32.27% 64 Project Duration at
100 80% Confidence
30% 62.3 Months 35.36% 64 Level
Corresponding Variance
35% 63.6 Months 38.20% 64 Duration
80
40% 64.9 Months 40.94% 64
45% 66.1 Months 43.63% 64
50% 67.3 Months 46.24% 64 60
55% 68.6 Months 49.02% 64
60% 69.9 Months 51.87% 64 40
65% 71.2 Months 54.69% 64
70% 72.5 Months 57.49% 64 Current Project
75% 73.8 Months 60.29% 64 20 Duration

80% 75.3 Months 63.68% 64

85% 77.1 Months 67.63% 64 0
90% 79.2 Months 72.05% 64

65%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%
95% 82.5 Months 79.31% 64
100% 98.4 Months 113.78% 64 Confidence Levels

- SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY (AMOUNT) DEVELOPMENT -

Contingency Analysis
Most Likely
$40,014,944 Schedule Contingency (Amount) Analysis
Cost Estimate

Confidence Level Value Contingency

0% $(575,707) -1.44% ###
5% $536,579 1.34% ###
10% $749,960 1.87% ###
15% $894,871 2.24% ###
$50,000,000
20% $1,016,999 2.54% ###
25% $1,131,005 2.83% ###$48,000,000 Baseline Cost Plus Schedule
Contingency at 80% Confidence
30% $1,227,419 3.07% ###$46,000,000
Cost

Level
Corresponding Schedule
35% $1,316,148 3.29% ### Contingency
###$44,000,000
Amount
40% $1,401,568 3.50%
45% $1,485,617 3.71% ###$42,000,000
50% $1,567,351 3.92% ###
55% $1,654,105 4.13% ###$40,000,000
60% $1,743,263 4.36% ###$38,000,000
65% $1,831,324 4.58% ###
70% $1,918,726 4.80% ###$36,000,000
75% $2,006,287 5.01% ###$34,000,000
80% $2,111,954 5.28% ### "Most Likely"
$32,000,000 Baseline Cost
85% $2,235,411 5.59% ###
90% $2,373,524 5.93% ###$30,000,000
10%

45%

80%
0%

5%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

85%

90%

95%

100%

95% $2,600,213 6.50% ###

100% $3,677,165 9.19% ###
Confidence Levels
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis Model
Crystal Ball Simulation Crystal Ball Simulation
Project Cost Expected Values ($$$) Expected Values (%s)

Variance Correlation
Risk No. Risk/Opportunity Event Discussion and Concerns Likelihood* Impact* Risk Level* Distribution to Other(s) Low Most Likely High Low Most Likely High Percentages are calculated as the
variance from the assumption value to
facilitate iteration of the model should
Internal Risks (Internal Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled within the PDT's sphere of influence.) the cost values change throughout the
project phases. Uniform distribution
percentages reflect variation from the
PROJECT & PROGRAM MGMT total project cost.

This issue has had an effect on the

Schedule developed with the overall performance of the planning
assumption that sufficient and engineering, as far as schedule
funding would be received on a is concerned. PDT feels that the
timely basis. Thus far, this has overall project schedule is a bit
PPM-1 Project Schedule in Question not occurred. optimistic. Very Likely Significant High Uniform PPM-9 -6.0 Months 0.0 Months 9.0 Months -13.0% 0.0% 19.6%

Emergency response and other

Corps-wide priorities have
occurred that take away ability Presents a challenge in meeting
to predict and manage in- schedules and producing design
PPM-2 No Control over Staff Priorities house staff and workload. products. Very Likely Significant High Uniform 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months 0.0% 0.0% 8.7%

Other priorities threaten the

funding and timely receipt of
Project competing with other funding to complete the Has a significant impact on schedule,
PPM-3 projects for funding milestones for this project. and marginal impact on costs. Very Likely Significant High Uniform 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 9.0 Months 0.0% 0.0% 19.6%

There is an increased workload

Functional and Technical Staff that is outpacing the current Has a significant impact on schedule, Removed from Risk Study - This
PPM-4 overloaded staff level's ability to keep pace. and marginal impact on costs. Very Likely Significant High item is captured by PPM-2

The regional PDT includes

members from other U5 The coordination of staff and
Product Development by Several Districts, as well as external communication presents challenges
Sources/Communication agencies at the Federal and that could impact the cost and
PPM-5 Challenges State level. schedule. Unlikely Significant Moderate Triangular -2.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months -4.3% 0.0% 8.7%

PDT has already experienced

loss of staff, and due to
workload and competing
priorities, this is likely to occur Has a significant impact on schedule,
PPM-6 Losing Staff at Critical Milestones in the future. and marginal impact on costs. Very Likely Significant High Uniform 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 3.0 Months 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%

Confusing and contradictory

advice regarding continuously This issue presents a project
changing program and project management challenge in the ability
requirements (i.e. Model to plan, schedule, and produce,
Certification, Science Panel, design and develop documents due
Timely Response to Critical Risk Assessment, ITR/ATR, in some instances to indecision or
PPM-7 Decision EPR). lack of action at higher levels . Likely Significant High Uniform EST-1 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 6.0 Months 0.0% 0.0% 13.0%

Due to the level of scrutiny of

this project, there are many
internal and stakeholder
reviews of this project before it Has a significant impact on schedule, Removed from Risk Study - This
PPM-8 Internal Red Tape Causes Delays reaches HQ. and marginal impact on costs. Likely Significant High item is captured by PPM-7

PDT has already been under

pressure to accelerate.
However, there has been
Pressure to deliver project on an insufficient funding to produce Has a significant impact on schedule,
PPM-9 accelerated schedule design level products. and marginal impact on costs. Likely Significant High Uniform PPM-1 -9.0 Months 0.0 Months 0.0 Months -19.6% 0.0% 0.0%

CONTRACT ACQUISITION

The PDT feels that the

structural portion will likely go
out as full and open RFP, If an 8(a) or small business was
whereas the rock portion could selected for the rock portion of the
Contract Acquisition Strategy Not to go to an 8(a) or small work, it could significantly impact
CA-1 Determined business. costs. Likely Marginal Moderate Triangular -6.0 Months 0.0 Months 9.0 Months -13.0% 0.0% 19.6%

TECHNICAL

There is some uncertainty with

the optimal riffle design within
the fishway (straight or "U"
shaped). There is a
consideration for this within the The uncertainty regarding this design
adaptive management could cause fluctuations either
T-2 Uncertainty with Riffle Design component of the project. positive or negative. Likely Marginal Moderate Uniform -3.0 Months 0.0 Months 3.0 Months -6.5% 0.0% 6.5%

There is a potential that there

Conflicts with potential hydro-plant
T-4 and lock expansion project.
will be other contracts
occurring simultaneously
(hydro-plant and/or lock
expansion) that could affect the
coordination and access.
Project currently assumes access to
small lay-down/staging area
footprint. Simultaneous contracts
could impact availability and Removed from Risk Study - This
congestion. Likely Marginal Moderate item is captured by PR-5

ENVIRONMENTAL/REGULATORY

There is a current understanding with

State Authorities. However, if they
became more restrictive or changed
Floodplain work requires their minds, it could present
permitting from the States of challenges in the permit application
EN-2 Status of Permits Illinois and Missouri. process. Unlikely Critical Moderate Triangular -2.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months -4.3% 0.0% 8.7%

State of Illinois is slow in issuing

401 water quality certification water quality permits. Could
will be required on this project. significantly delay the process of
State provides criteria that obtaining the permit. Can still begin
must be met (both States of construction while the permit is
EN-3 Water Quality Permit Illinois & Missouri). pending. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Uniform 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months 0.0% 0.0% 8.7%

CONSTRUCTION

Challenges include keeping

Much of the project is navigation open during construction
contemplated to be performed and minimizing impacts to the facility
from barges. Project also and the river during construction.
requires construction of a Nature of work includes barges,
In-water Work/Cofferdam cofferdam and significant derricks, cranes, etc. that will cause
C-1 Construction handling of rock. congestion and coordination issues. Unlikely Significant Moderate Triangular -2.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months -4.3% 0.0% 8.7%

There is inherent risk of getting

a contractor that is not as
efficient as planned in the
C-2 Inefficient Contractor baseline estimate. Could affect cost and schedule. Unlikely Significant Moderate Triangular -4.0 Months 0.0 Months 6.0 Months -8.7% 0.0% 13.0%

There is the possibility for conflicts

The plan currently assumes between the contractors on this
multiple contracts for this program, as well as other non-
C-3 Conflicts with Other Contracts acquisition. related projects. Unlikely Significant Moderate Triangular PR-5 -2.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months -4.3% 0.0% 8.7%

There is concern regarding Removed from Risk Study - This

delivery of rock, bridge item is captured by the Cost Risk
C-6 Material availability and delivery components, etc. Could affect costs. Likely Significant High Study 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PDT is not confident in the

current contract phasing as
currently scheduled and This could have significant impact on
C-8 Contract Sequencing contemplated. the overall project schedule. Likely Significant High Triangular -3.0 Months 0.0 Months 6.0 Months -6.5% 0.0% 13.0%

COST ESTIMATING/ENGINEERING

The PDT feels confident in the

baseline estimate preparation.
However, the various review
requirements and scrutiny has
an affect on the overall
confidence in the constant
Unknowns with Reviews and revisions to the baseline Has had an impact on the overall
EST-1 Iterative Process estimate and schedule. cost and schedule development. Very Likely Marginal Moderate Uniform PPM-7 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months 0.0% 0.0% 8.7%
 Programmatic Risks (External Risk Items are those that are generated, caused, or controlled exclusively outside the PDT's sphere of influence.)

This area is prone to regular

flooding. There is a risk of a There is a risk of flooding during
major flood in this area during construction. Contractor will have to
the project timeframe. This prepare for 10-year flood event. This
could affect the rock could cause dewatering delays and
placement, as well as capturing minor rework. However, a significant
quantities adequately before flood event (greater than 10-year), it
PR-1 Flooding construction. could impact the project costs Likely Significant High Uniform 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months 0.0% 0.0% 8.7%

In the past, this has been a

concern in obtaining funds on a
timely basis or in the expected
increments. Receiving less
Adequacy of project funding increment or delayed increment Could significantly impact cost and
PR-3 (incremental) is a concern. schedule. Very Likely Significant High Triangular 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 6.0 Months 0.0% 0.0% 13.0%

There is a concern that the rise
in costs could price the project
out of the ecosystem
Political Factors Change at restoration business line's
PR-4 Federal, State, or Local Level ability to execute.
If this concern became reality, the
project would not occur. This item This Risk Item is not being
likely will not be studied in the quantitatively studied.
analysis, as if it occurs, the project Occurrence would prevent the
will not occur. Likely Significant High project.

Hydropower development is Fewer fish will use the fishway for

being considered in the migration if they can't find the This Risk Item is not being
spillway which may change the entrance. Entrainment mortality from quantitatively studied.
flow patterns that attract fish to hydropower generation would Occurrence would prevent the
PR-5 Hydropower the fishway entrance. negatively affect fish populations. Likely Significant High C-3 project.

Stakeholders could choose to

strip the adaptive management
component, or change certain
features such that project
Stakeholders choose cost or time assumptions are no longer
PR-6 over quality valid.
If this concern became reality, the
project would not occur. This item This Risk Item is not being
likely will not be studied in the quantitatively studied.
analysis, as if it occurs, the project Occurrence would prevent the
will not occur. Likely Significant High project.

Not Part of Study -

Placeholder for Project
Placeholder for summation of risks being studied. N/A N/A N/A 46.0 Months Summation Purposes Only
46.0 Months

Contingency Contingency
Percentile Forecast values
TOTAL PROJECT Amount %
SCHEDULE 0% 35.7 Months -10.3 Months -22.36%
(BASELINE) 5% 52.1 Months 6.1 Months 13.25%
10% 55.3 Months 9.2 Months 20.08%
15% 57.4 Months 11.4 Months 24.72%
20% 59.2 Months 13.2 Months 28.62%
25% 60.9 Months 14.9 Months 32.27%
30% 62.3 Months 16.3 Months 35.36%
35% 63.6 Months 17.6 Months 38.20%
40% 64.9 Months 18.8 Months 40.94%
45% 66.1 Months 20.1 Months 43.63%
50% 67.3 Months 21.3 Months 46.24%
55% 68.6 Months 22.6 Months 49.02%
60% 69.9 Months 23.9 Months 51.87%
65% 71.2 Months 25.2 Months 54.69%
70% 72.5 Months 26.5 Months 57.49%
75% 73.8 Months 27.7 Months 60.29%
80% 75.3 Months 29.3 Months 63.68%
85% 77.1 Months 31.1 Months 67.63%
90% 79.2 Months 33.2 Months 72.05%
95% 82.5 Months 36.5 Months 79.31%
100% 98.4 Months 52.4 Months 113.78%

39920822.796
47879342.361
49755944.601
51175947.967
52391087.8
53436537.928
54404040.843
55369007.171
56296401.168
57191455.73
58057715.8
58993474.558
59931683.628
60897196.228
61940032.855
62894655.254
63994740.82
65225732.27
66720886.435
68882273.726
77260091.279
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis
Estimated Total Project Cost (Price Level) $40,014,944
Max. Anticipated Annual Amount $10,439,613
Enter Current OMB Escalation Rate 2.06%
Enter Current Project Location Escalation Rate 2.14%
Enter Assumed Hotel Rate 7.50%

Date Escalation Delta Amount Hotel Amount Total Schedule Contingency

Enter Current Project Start 1-Oct-09
Enter Baseline Project Completion 1-Aug-13 $122,785.58 $122,785.58
Project Completion at 0% Confidence 21-Sep-12 $95,331.24 ($671,037.94) ($575,706.70)
Project Completion at 5% Confidence 2-Feb-14 $139,049.78 $397,528.95 $536,578.73
Project Completion at 10% Confidence 9-May-14 $147,436.77 $602,523.41 $749,960.18
Project Completion at 15% Confidence 13-Jul-14 $153,132.50 $741,738.36 $894,870.87
Project Completion at 20% Confidence 5-Sep-14 $157,932.76 $859,066.06 $1,016,998.81
Project Completion at 25% Confidence 26-Oct-14 $162,413.79 $968,591.28 $1,131,005.07
Project Completion at 30% Confidence 9-Dec-14 $166,203.37 $1,061,215.96 $1,227,419.33
Project Completion at 35% Confidence 17-Jan-15 $169,690.88 $1,146,457.58 $1,316,148.46
Project Completion at 40% Confidence 25-Feb-15 $173,048.29 $1,228,519.39 $1,401,567.68
Project Completion at 45% Confidence 3-Apr-15 $176,351.85 $1,309,264.90 $1,485,616.75
Project Completion at 50% Confidence 10-May-15 $179,564.43 $1,387,786.64 $1,567,351.08
Project Completion at 55% Confidence 18-Jun-15 $182,974.30 $1,471,130.60 $1,654,104.90
Project Completion at 60% Confidence 28-Jul-15 $186,478.69 $1,556,784.63 $1,743,263.32
Project Completion at 65% Confidence 5-Sep-15 $189,939.91 $1,641,383.70 $1,831,323.61
Project Completion at 70% Confidence 14-Oct-15 $193,375.28 $1,725,350.84 $1,918,726.12
Project Completion at 75% Confidence 23-Nov-15 $196,816.88 $1,809,470.31 $2,006,287.19
Project Completion at 80% Confidence 9-Jan-16 $200,970.11 $1,910,983.58 $2,111,953.70
Project Completion at 85% Confidence 4-Mar-16 $205,822.62 $2,029,588.29 $2,235,410.90
Project Completion at 90% Confidence 5-May-16 $211,251.17 $2,162,272.68 $2,373,523.84
Project Completion at 95% Confidence 15-Aug-16 $220,161.23 $2,380,052.18 $2,600,213.41
Project Completion at 100% Confidence 10-Dec-17 $262,490.98 $3,414,674.32 $3,677,165.29
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PPM-1 Project Schedule in Question -6.0 Months 0.0 Months 9.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that the schedule will significantly vary due to its preliminary
nature.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 6 months.
High High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 9 months
(approximately 20%).

Assumption: Project Schedule in Question

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-6.0 Months
10% '-4.6 Months
20% '-3.0 Months
30% '-1.4 Months
40% 0.0 Months
50% 1.5 Months
60% 3.0 Months
70% 4.4 Months
80% 6.0 Months
90% 7.4 Months
100% 9.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PPM-2 No Control over Staff Priorities 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that the limited control over assigned staff resources could
cause delays to the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is no variance from baseline schedule.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 4 months.

Assumption: No Control over Staff Priorities

Percentile Assumption values
0% 0.0 Months
10% 0.4 Months
20% 0.8 Months
30% 1.2 Months
40% 1.6 Months
50% 2.0 Months
60% 2.4 Months
70% 2.8 Months
80% 3.2 Months
90% 3.6 Months
100% 4.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PPM-3 Project competing with other projects for funding 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 9.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that competition for funding with other priorities and projects
could cause delays to the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is no variance from baseline schedule.
High High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 9 months
(approximately 20%).

Assumption: Project competing with other projects for funding

Percentile Assumption values
0% 0.0 Months
10% 0.9 Months
20% 1.8 Months
30% 2.7 Months
40% 3.6 Months
50% 4.5 Months
60% 5.4 Months
70% 6.3 Months
80% 7.2 Months
90% 8.1 Months
100% 9.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PPM-4 Functional and Technical Staff overloaded Removed from Risk Study - This item is captured by PPM-2
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

Product Development by Several
PPM-5 Sources/Communication Challenges
-2.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that product coordination and communication challenges could
impact the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 2 months.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 4 months.

Assumption: Product Development by Several Sources/Communication Challenges

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-2.0 Months
10% '-0.9 Months
20% '-0.4 Months
30% '-0.1 Months
40% 0.2 Months
50% 0.5 Months
60% 0.9 Months
70% 1.3 Months
80% 1.8 Months
90% 2.4 Months
100% 4.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PPM-6 Losing Staff at Critical Milestones 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 3.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that losing staff at critical project milestones could cause
delays to the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is no variance from baseline schedule.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 3 months.

Assumption: Losing Staff at Critical Milestones

Percentile Assumption values
0% 0.0 Months
10% 0.3 Months
20% 0.6 Months
30% 0.9 Months
40% 1.2 Months
50% 1.5 Months
60% 1.8 Months
70% 2.1 Months
80% 2.4 Months
90% 2.7 Months
100% 3.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PPM-7 Timely Response to Critical Decision 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 6.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that the inability to obtain timely decisions could cause delays
to the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is no variance from baseline schedule.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 6 months.

Assumption: Timely Response to Critical Decision

Percentile Assumption values
0% 0.0 Months
10% 0.6 Months
20% 1.2 Months
30% 1.8 Months
40% 2.4 Months
50% 3.0 Months
60% 3.6 Months
70% 4.2 Months
80% 4.8 Months
90% 5.4 Months
100% 6.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PPM-8 Internal Red Tape Causes Delays Removed from Risk Study - This item is captured by PPM-2
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PPM-9 Pressure to deliver project on an accelerated schedule

-9.0 Months 0.0 Months 0.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that losing staff at critical project milestones could cause
delays to the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could decrease by up to 9 months
(approximately 20%).
High High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule would not vary from the baseline
schedule.

Assumption: Pressure to deliver project on an accelerated schedule

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-9.0 Months
10% '-8.1 Months
20% '-7.2 Months
30% '-6.3 Months
40% '-5.4 Months
50% '-4.5 Months
60% '-3.6 Months
70% '-2.7 Months
80% '-1.8 Months
90% '-0.9 Months
100% 0.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

CA-1 Contract Acquisition Strategy Not Determined -6.0 Months 0.0 Months 9.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that the lack of contract acquisition planning could cause
significant variance in the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 6 months.
High High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 9 months
(approximately 20%).

Assumption: Contract Acquisition Strategy Not Determined

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-6.0 Months
10% '-3.0 Months
20% '-1.8 Months
30% '-0.8 Months
40% 0.0 Months
50% 0.7 Months
60% 1.6 Months
70% 2.6 Months
80% 3.8 Months
90% 5.4 Months
100% 8.9 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

T-2 Uncertainty with Riffle Design -3.0 Months 0.0 Months 3.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that the uncertainty with the current riffle design could cause
significant variance in the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 3 months.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 3 months.

Assumption: Uncertainty with Riffle Design

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-3.0 Months
10% '-2.4 Months
20% '-1.8 Months
30% '-1.2 Months
40% '-0.6 Months
50% 0.0 Months
60% 0.6 Months
70% 1.2 Months
80% 1.8 Months
90% 2.4 Months
100% 3.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

Conflicts with potential hydro-plant and lock expansion
T-4 project Removed from Risk Study - This item is captured by PR-5
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

EN-2 Status of Permits -2.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that delays in obtaining necessary permits could cause
significant variance in the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 2 months.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 4 months.

Assumption: Status of Permits

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-2.0 Months
10% '-0.9 Months
20% '-0.5 Months
30% '-0.1 Months
40% 0.2 Months
50% 0.5 Months
60% 0.9 Months
70% 1.3 Months
80% 1.8 Months
90% 2.5 Months
100% 3.9 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

EN-3 Water Quality Permit 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that challenges in obtaining the water quality permit could
cause delays to the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is no variance from baseline schedule.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 4 months.

Assumption: Water Quality Permit

Percentile Assumption values
0% 0.0 Months
10% 0.4 Months
20% 0.8 Months
30% 1.2 Months
40% 1.6 Months
50% 2.0 Months
60% 2.4 Months
70% 2.8 Months
80% 3.2 Months
90% 3.6 Months
100% 4.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

C-1 In-water Work/Cofferdam Construction -2.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that the nature of performing in-water work, specifically with the
cofferdam, could cause significant variance in the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 2 months.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 4 months.

Assumption: In-water Work/Cofferdam Construction

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-1.9 Months
10% '-0.9 Months
20% '-0.5 Months
30% '-0.1 Months
40% 0.2 Months
50% 0.6 Months
60% 0.9 Months
70% 1.3 Months
80% 1.8 Months
90% 2.5 Months
100% 3.9 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

C-2 Inefficient Contractor -4.0 Months 0.0 Months 6.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that the eventual contractor could be more or less efficient than
contemplated, causing significant variance in the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 4 months.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 6 months.

Assumption: Inefficient Contractor

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-3.9 Months
10% '-2.0 Months
20% '-1.2 Months
30% '-0.5 Months
40% 0.0 Months
50% 0.5 Months
60% 1.1 Months
70% 1.7 Months
80% 2.5 Months
90% 3.5 Months
100% 5.9 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

C-3 Conflicts with Other Contracts -2.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that conflicts with other contractors performing non-related
projects (notably hydropower) could cause significant variance in the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 2 months.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 4 months.

Assumption: Conflicts with Other Contracts

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-2.0 Months
10% '-0.9 Months
20% '-0.5 Months
30% '-0.1 Months
40% 0.2 Months
50% 0.5 Months
60% 0.9 Months
70% 1.3 Months
80% 1.8 Months
90% 2.5 Months
100% 4.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High Removed from Risk Study - This item is captured by the
C-6 Material availability and delivery Cost Risk Study
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

C-8 Contract Sequencing -3.0 Months 0.0 Months 6.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that contract sequencing challenges could cause significant
variance in the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is that the schedule could improve by up to 3 months.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 6 months.

Assumption: Contract Sequencing

Percentile Assumption values
0% '-3.0 Months
10% '-1.4 Months
20% '-0.7 Months
30% '-0.1 Months
40% 0.3 Months
50% 0.8 Months
60% 1.4 Months
70% 2.0 Months
80% 2.7 Months
90% 3.7 Months
100% 5.9 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

EST-1 Unknowns with Reviews and Iterative Process 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that uncertainty regarding timing and results of multiple review
processes could result in delays to the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is no variance from baseline schedule.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 4 months.

Assumption: Unknowns with Reviews and Iterative Process

Percentile Assumption values
0% 0.0 Months
10% 0.4 Months
20% 0.8 Months
30% 1.2 Months
40% 1.6 Months
50% 2.0 Months
60% 2.4 Months
70% 2.8 Months
80% 3.2 Months
90% 3.6 Months
100% 4.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PR-1 Flooding 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 4.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that a 10-year flood event could result in delays to the
schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is no variance from baseline schedule.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 4 months.

Assumption: Flooding
Percentile Assumption values
0% 0.0 Months
10% 0.4 Months
20% 0.8 Months
30% 1.2 Months
40% 1.6 Months
50% 2.0 Months
60% 2.4 Months
70% 2.8 Months
80% 3.2 Months
90% 3.6 Months
100% 4.0 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

PR-3 Adequacy of project funding (incremental) 0.0 Months 0.0 Months 6.0 Months

Notes: This item captures the risk that challenges in receiving adequate incremental funding
outlays in a timely manner could result in delays to the schedule.
Likely Likely assumes no variance from baseline schedule.
Low Low assumes that the best case is no variance from baseline schedule.
High
High assumes that the worst case is that the schedule could increase by up to 6 months.

Assumption: Adequacy of project funding (incremental)

Percentile Assumption values
0% 0.0 Months
10% 0.3 Months
20% 0.6 Months
30% 1.0 Months
40% 1.4 Months
50% 1.8 Months
60% 2.2 Months
70% 2.7 Months
80% 3.3 Months
90% 4.0 Months
100% 5.9 Months
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High

Political Factors Change at Federal, State, or Local This Risk Item is not being quantitatively studied.
PR-4 Level Occurrence would prevent the project.
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High This Risk Item is not being quantitatively studied.
PR-5 Hydropower Occurrence would prevent the project.
 Sample (Feasibility Phase/Recommended Plan) - Schedule Risk Analysis

Risk Refer No. Risk Event Low Most Likely High This Risk Item is not being quantitatively studied.
PR-6 Stakeholders choose cost or time over quality Occurrence would prevent the project.
 Risk Analysis

John Day, LOCK MONOLITH REPAIRS

5,210,615 6,198,722 7,032,396 9,269,259 11,042,515
Model Project Description EX Low Low Estimate High EX High EX Low Low% High% EX High
1 Mobilization and Demobilization $ 163,215 $ 323,166 $ 326,430 $ 375,395 $ 424,359 -50% -1% 15% 30%
Modify Existing Tainter Valve #3Remove/replace bushing with greaseless bushing/reinstall
-50% -15% 5% 25%
2 Valve $ 136,195 $ 231,531 $ 272,389 $ 286,008 $ 340,486
3 Install Monolith 6/8 and Monolith 8/10 Joint Grout Plug (similar to water stops) $ 24,104 $ 25,443 $ 26,782 $ 30,799 $ 36,156 -10% -5% 15% 35%
4 ?Anchor Shafts (Construct and abandon) $ 1,057,633 $ 1,410,178 $ 1,762,722 $ 1,850,858 $ 2,027,130 -40% -20% 5% 15%

Concrete Demolition TV #3 Shaft (Incl. Setting bulkheads on either side of TV, dewater -15% -10% 15% 30%
5 shaft and culvert (Project pumps are inadequate, extra pumping capacity will be required)) $ 299,713 $ 317,344 $ 352,604 $ 405,495 $ 458,385
6 Concrete Demolition Monolith 8 and Monolith 27 $ 72,669 $ 76,706 $ 80,743 $ 92,854 $ 100,929 -10% -5% 15% 25%
7 Plug Rock Drain Pipe and French Drain $ 1,225 $ 1,293 $ 1,361 $ 1,701 $ 2,042 -10% -5% 25% 50%
8 Repair Concrete and Cracks in elevation 263 Gallery $ 29,379 $ 31,011 $ 32,643 $ 48,965 $ 65,286 -10% -5% 50% 100%
9 Replace Monolith 6 uplift Pressure Instruments $ 11,751 $ 12,404 $ 13,057 $ 19,586 $ 26,114 -10% -5% 50% 100%
10 Drill Flow Breccia Consolidation Grout Holes and Rock Drain Abandonment Holes $ 369,780 $ 462,225 $ 616,300 $ 770,375 $ 924,450 -40% -25% 25% 50%
11 Flow Breccia Consolidation Grouting and Rock Column Drain Grouting $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 -10% -5% 50% 100%
Epoxy Grout TV Shaft #3, Monoliths 8 and 27 Bulkhead Slots (incl. Epoxy surface patching,
-10% -5% 15% 35%
12 installing 6' grout tubes, and epoxy grouting) $ 59,493 $ 62,798 $ 66,103 $ 76,018 $ 89,239
13 Grout Monoliths 6, 8, and 27 Lock Chamber Cracks and Lift Lines $ 221,802 $ 234,125 $ 246,447 $ 283,414 $ 332,703 -10% -5% 15% 35%
14 Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevation 170' and below $ 1,642,562 $ 1,564,345 $ 1,564,345 $ 1,955,431 $ 2,190,083 -5% 0% 25% 40%
15 Install Post-tensioned Anchors elevation above 170' $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 -10% -5% 50% 100%
Install Tainter Valve Shaft #3 Pre-Cast Concrete Panels (incl. Panel fabrication, drilling and -15% -10% 20% 30%
16 grouting dowels, and grouting behind panels) $ 330,918 $ 350,384 $ 389,315 $ 467,178 $ 506,110
Repair Monolith 6 Concrete Spall Area (Incl. Demo, drilling and grouting dowels,
-15% -10% 20% 30%
17 reinforcement, new cnc.) $ 124,482 $ 131,804 $ 146,449 $ 175,739 $ 190,384
18 Repair Monolith 27 Bulkhead Slot Concrete Spalls $ 32,412 $ 32,412 $ 32,412 $ 48,618 $ 64,824 0% 0% 50% 100%
Braced Excavation (incl. Contractor design, excavation, dewatering, anchor block
-15% -5% 25% 40%
19 fabrication, backfill, piezometer cable rerouting) $ 316,563 $ 353,806 $ 372,427 $ 465,534 $ 521,398
Load Cells and Strain Gages (incl. Wire routing in to be constructed slots in lock face, and
-10% -5% 25% 40%
20 terminus) $ 110,343 $ 116,473 $ 122,603 $ 153,254 $ 171,644
Drain Line Installation (incl. Drilling from within brace excavation, open excavation behind
-15% -10% 30% 40%
21 most of lock, MH's and weirs, drilling at D/S to terminus) $ 120,329 $ 145,446 $ 161,607 $ 184,032 $ 198,188
Pave Embankment Dam Access Road (incl. Subgrade prep, line stripes, Guard Rail
-10% -5% 30% 50%
22 Replacement). $ 7,601 $ 8,024 $ 8,446 $ 10,980 $ 12,669
23 Services of Skilled Craftsmn $ 14,598 $ 15,409 $ 16,220 $ 17,842 $ 18,653 -10% -5% 10% 15%
24 Temp Demob & Remob $ 51,054 $ 54,057 $ 60,063 $ 72,076 $ 78,082 -15% -10% 20% 30%
25 Standby for Temp Demob $ 108,113 $ 114,120 $ 120,126 $ 138,145 $ 150,158 -10% -5% 15% 25%
26 Tainter Valve Wrapper $ 77,180 $ 81,720 $ 90,800 $ 108,960 $ 118,040 -15% -10% 20% 30%
27 TV Weld Repair [9/16 cjp] $ 85,000 $ 95,000 $ 100,000 $ 120,000 $ 130,000 -15% -5% 20% 30%
28 TV Weld Repair [3/8 fill] $ 42,500 $ 47,500 $ 50,000 $ 60,000 $ 65,000 -15% -5% 20% 30%
Weather and other jobsite conditions $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ 500,000 $ 200,000 $ 500,000

Overall Job (Bidding Climate) $ (300,000) $ (100,000) $ - $ 100,000 $ 300,000 $ (300,000) $ (100,000) $ 100,000 $ 300,000

Plans and Specs resulting Claims $ - $ 750,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 1,000,000

Construction Project Summary 7,032,396