Recommended Preferred Route Option Report

Bolivia Hill Upgrade – Assessment of Route Options

Bolivia Hill Upgrade - Assessment of

Route Options

APPENDIX K
COST ESTIMATION REPORT

August 2013 Cardno

 Estimate Report

PROJECT: BOLIVIA HILL UPGRADE

ROAD No: New England Highway PROJECT No.: 13075

LOCATION: Bolivia PROJECT MANAGER: John Rayment

REGION/ OFFICE: New England ESTIMATE STATUS: Strategic

ESTIMATE OF COST: P90 - $55,775,490 Excl GST

P50 - $41,332,900 Excl GST DATE: June 2013

Estimator

M.Raven North – Tarkan Yildirim

Estimate of Cost

Project Cost: P90 - $ 55,775,490 excl GST - 55% Contingency

Project Cost: P50 - $ 41,332,900 excl GST - 15% Contingency

Date of the Estimate

June 2013 – 20% Strategic Estimate

Location

Estimate Report Page 1 of 6

 Background

The New England Highway (HW9) is a major link from the Hunter Region to the New England area and
beyond.

Bolivia Hill is a steep winding section of the New England Highway between Glen Innes and Tenterfield
within the local government area of Tenterfield. The existing highway corridor is narrow with a rock face to
the east and a steep drop to the west.

The Australian Government has committed $6 million for planning of safety works at Bolivia Hill and a future
Tenterfield heavy vehicle bypass as part of the Nation Building Program. The Bolivia Hill upgrade project
includes development of route options and identification of a preferred route.

Scope

Option 7b is considered an upgrade to the existing highway, utilising as much of the existing pavement as
possible. This option was developed as a “do minimum” road safety option and provides a minimalist
treatment of straightening out the substandard bends in the steepest part of the highway.
The option has a cross section consisting of one 3.5 metre wide northbound lane and one 3.5 metre wide
southbound lane with 2.0 metre wide shoulders on either side. A shoulder width of 2.0 metres is considered
the minimum acceptable width to allow a maintenance truck to safely park beside the traffic lanes.
The key features of this option are:
 Option 7b is 1635 metres long and starts approximately 475 metres further north and finishes
approximately 240 metres further south than Option 7
 As with Option 7, this option was developed to demonstrate a minimalist treatment of straightening out
the bends in the steepest part of the highway. It has non-conforming grades up to 8.1 per cent in order
to shorten the length and starts approximately 900 metres north of the other options
 The length and height of the retaining walls are reduced by narrowing the shoulders to 2.0 metres. The
rock face next to the shoulder in the southbound lane is softened by casting a single sided Type F
concrete barrier against the rock face
 The first 210 metres consist of a simple widening of the existing carriageway to the west in fill to provide
the required shoulder widths. The rock face next to the southbound shoulder is softened by casting a
single sided Type F concrete barrier against the rock face
 The next 265 metres will require a retaining wall of up to 3 metres high to keep the fill out of the creek
line
 As the alignment diverges from the existing carriageway over the next 75 metres, the road will be
widened by a cantilevered concrete structure on concrete piles
 The cantilevered concrete structure leads into a major bridge up to 360 metres long which is required to
keep the road out of the creek line
 At the southern abutment of the bridge, a 60 metre long cantilevered concrete structure on concrete
piles is again used to ease the alignment back towards the existing carriageway. The rock face next to
the southbound shoulder is softened by casting a single sided Type F concrete barrier against the rock
face
 The next 110 metres widen out the existing carriageway, requiring a retaining wall of up to 2 metres
high on the western side. The rock face next to the southbound shoulder is softened by casting a single
sided Type F concrete barrier against the rock face
 The next substandard bend is straightened out by gently moving off the existing alignment to the west
and then re-joining the existing carriageway 145 metres further along

Estimate Report Page 2 of 6

  The alignment to straighten out the bend requires the next 150m to move to the east of the existing
carriageway by cutting into the rock face. At this location, the angled rock face beside the road is
flattening out, requiring only minor cut. The rock face next to the southbound shoulder is softened by
casting a single sided Type F concrete barrier against the rock face
 Fill then tapers back 255 metres to the existing highway

Drawings –

Title Drawing No./ Revision

Assessment of Route Options N/A
Preferred Option Plan 89913018 – ID - 001
Preferred Option Cross Sections Sheet 1 89913018 – ID - 002
Preferred Option Cross Sections Sheet 2 89913018 – ID - 003
Preferred Option Cross Sections Sheet 3 89913018 – ID - 004
Preferred Option Longitudinal Section 89913018 – ID - 005

Utilities
There are no public utilities affected by the preferred option.

Geotechnical

No Geotechnical Report was available for the estimate.

Foundation treatments based upon an allowance. Further design development of the foundations will occur
once the geotechnical investigations have been completed.

Environmental

Allowance for silt fencing to full length and site monitoring.

Allowance for hay bales, pit traps and truck cleaning facilities.
Allowance for sedimentation basins.

Earthworks

Widening of the existing road corridor will require sections of cut and fill earthworks. The preferred option will
require the importation of fill as the amount of cut has been minimised due to the possibility of very hard
rock.

It is expected that a large proportion of excavated material could be used as rockfill. Crushing and screening
of excavated materials will be required to produce suitable rockfill.

Rockfill batters may be preferred to reduce the footprint of the proposed embankments.

Structures

The preferred option requires a 360 metre long bridge. Sections of cantilevered roadway supported on
concrete piles are proposed at either end of the bridge to eliminate the need for high and expensive retaining
walls. The alignment should suit standard bridge design and construction methods, however, excavation for
piers and piles may be extremely difficult if very high strength rock is encountered.

The proposed alignment limits the height of retaining walls to 3.0 metres and allows the walls to be
constructed from the existing highway rather than having to access the wall foundations from below the
highway.

Estimate Report Page 3 of 6

 Pavements

Flexible Pavement: 150mm SMZ + 300mm DGB20

Asphalt Pavement 50 AC 20
50 AC 20 Mill & Resheet

Drainage

Allowance for drainage along the full length including kerbs, pits, pipes and headwalls.

Quantities

Provided by Cardno.

Property

15 hectares of tree covered areas is required.

Risks

1. No detailed geotechnical report.

2. Very steep terrain.
3. Foundation treatments.
4. Traffic Management and staging of works.
5. Scope of landscaping works unknown. Estimate includes 1.5% of construction costs.
6. Rock fall hazard area.
7. Endangered Ecological communities and the presence of threatened species.
8. Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Constructability

As the preferred option consists predominantly of widening the existing highway, constructability becomes a
major factor to be considered in the next stages of design and during construction. Construction will require
the closure of one lane of the highway throughout the construction period, with traffic controlled by traffic
signals. Some construction activities will require the temporary closure of the highway for periods up to 20
minutes.

Exclusions

GST, Escalation, Carbon Tax

No allowance for Utilities, Cableways, Motorway Equipment, Contaminated Materials, Noise Attenuation

Objectives

Objectives for this project have been determined as follows:

 Improve road safety
 Improve road transport productivity, efficiency and reliability of travel
 Minimise the impact on the natural, cultural and built environment
 Provide value for money.

Estimate Report Page 4 of 6

 Construction

At this stage, it is expected the project will be delivered by construct only contract.
It is expected a Tier 1 contractor will be required due to the size of the bridge.

Dates

Concept Design and REF August to December 2013

Detailed Design March to December 2014
Construction Commencement (expected) 2016

Studies and Reports

A region of approximately 4.5 square kilometres between the top of Bolivia Hill in the south and Pyes Creek
bridge in the north formed the immediate study area for investigations of road upgrade options. This region
covers a length of approximately 3 kilometres of the existing highway and extends around 750 m either side of
the highway.
There are significant constraints in the study area for road upgrade options including:

 Very steep terrain

 The Main Northern Railway (disused)
 Agricultural industry
 Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal cultural heritage at various locations across the study area
 Areas identified as Endangered Ecological Communities and the presence of threatened species.
None of these constraints lead to any potential route being discarded in its own right. However, it is
combinations of desirable and non-desirable attributes of routes that lead to their recommendation or discard
as a feasible route.

Conditions

N/A

Variance

N/A

Comments

N/A

Estimate Report Page 5 of 6

 Project Summary - P50

PROJECT SUMMARY Prepared by: Tarkan Yildirim

Bolivia Hill Upgrade

Project No: 13/75 Date: June 2013 Estimate Stage: Strategic

Item Estimate Contingency Estimate % of Total Comments/Assumptions

(excluding % Amount (including Estimate
contingency) contingency)
1. Project Development

1 (a) Route/Concept/EIS or REF $468,088 10% $46,809 $514,897 1.5% of Infrastructure Costs
1 (b) Project Management Services $21,064 10% $2,106 $23,170 4.5% of Route/Comcept/EIS or REF
1 (c) Client Representation $2,106 10% $211 $2,317 10% of Project Management Cost
1 (d) Community Liason $200,000 10% $20,000 $220,000

Sub total $691,259 10% $69,126 $760,384 1.8%

2. Investigation and Design

2 (a) Investigation and Design $1,872,353 15% $280,853 $2,153,205 6% of Infrastructure Costs
2 (b) Project Management Services $84,256 15% $12,638 $96,894 4.5% of Investigation and Design
2 (c) Client Representation $8,426 15% $1,264 $9,689 10% of Project Management Cost

Sub total $1,965,034 15% $294,755 $2,259,789 5.5%

3. Property Acquisitions

3 (a) Acquire Property $45,000 50% $22,500 $67,500

3 (b) Professional Services for Property $3,150 50% $1,575 $4,725 7% of Property Acquistion Costs
3 (c) Project Management Services $2,025 50% $1,013 $3,038 4.5% of Property Acquistion Costs
3 (d) Client Representation $203 50% $101 $304 10% of Project Management Cost
3 (e) Compensatory Habitat $0 60% $0 $0 Assume not Required

Sub total $50,378 50% $25,189 $75,566 0.2%

4. Public Utility Adjustments

4 (a) Adjust Utilities $0 15% $0 $0

4 (b) Project Management Services $0 15% $0 $0 4.5% of Utilities cost
4 (c) Client Representation $0 15% $0 $0 10% of Project Management Cost

Sub total $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 0.0%

5. Construction

5 (a)(i) Infrastructure $31,205,876 15% $4,680,881 $35,886,757

5 (b) PAI Insurance $171,632 15% $25,745 $197,377 0.55% of infrastructure costs
5 ( c) Primary Testing Incl in Infrastructure 15%
5 (d) Project Management Services $1,404,264 15% $210,640 $1,614,904 4.5% of Infrastructure cost
5 (e) Client Representation $140,426 15% $21,064 $161,490 10% of Project Management Cost

Sub total $32,922,199 15% $4,938,330 $37,860,529 91.6%

6. Handover

6 (a) Refurbish old route $ % $ $ Excluded

6 (b) Project data and performance $312,059 15% $46,809 $358,868 1% of infrastructure costs
6 (c) Project Management Services $14,043 15% $2,106 $16,149 4.5% of Project data & Performance Review
6 (d) Client Representation $1,404 15% $211 $1,615 10% of Project Management Cost

Sub total $327,506 15% $49,126 $376,632 0.9%

TOTAL $35,956,375 15% $5,376,525 $41,332,900 100%
Total Amount P50 % of Total Estimate
Project Management $1,525,652 $228,503 $1,751,118 4.2%

Client Representation $152,565 $22,850 $175,112 0.42%

Reality checks:

1. Project Cost (Incl Contingency)/ km 1.60 $25,833,063

2. Project Cost Including Side Roads
(Incl Contingency)/ km 1.60 $25,833,063
3. Project Cost / lane-km 3.2 $12,916,531
Earthworks Cut/Fill 20,295 m2 $47.42 /m3 Excl Contingency
Bridges 5,004 m2 $3,812 /m2 Excl Contingency
Pavements 14,409 m2 $34 /m2 Excl Contingency
Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-95-A1 Issue 1.1 Page 1of 1
No allowance for GST,Escalation,Carbon Tax

M Raven North 1 27/06/2013

 Project Summary - P90

PROJECT SUMMARY Prepared by: Tarkan Yildirim

Bolivia Hill Upgrade

Project No: 13/75 Date: June 2013 Estimate Stage: Strategic

Item Estimate Contingency Estimate % of Total Comments/Assumptions

(excluding % Amount (including Estimate
contingency) contingency)
1. Project Development

1 (a) Route/Concept/EIS or REF $468,088 55% $258,043 $726,131 1.5% of Infrastructure Costs
1 (b) Project Management Services $21,064 55% $11,612 $32,676 4.5% of Route/Comcept/EIS or REF
1 (c) Client Representation $2,106 55% $1,161 $3,268 10% of Project Management Cost
1 (d) Community Liason $200,000 55% $110,254 $310,254

Sub total $691,259 55% $381,071 $1,072,329 1.9%

2. Investigation and Design

2 (a) Investigation and Design $1,872,353 55% $1,032,173 $2,904,526 6% of Infrastructure Costs
2 (b) Project Management Services $84,256 55% $46,448 $130,704 4.5% of Investigation and Design
2 (c) Client Representation $8,426 55% $4,645 $13,070 10% of Project Management Cost

Sub total $1,965,034 55% $1,083,266 $3,048,300 5.5%

3. Property Acquisitions

3 (a) Acquire Property $45,000 50% $22,500 $67,500

3 (b) Professional Services for Property $3,150 50% $1,575 $4,725 7% of Property Acquistion Costs
3 (c) Project Management Services $2,025 50% $1,013 $3,038 4.5% of Property Acquistion Costs
3 (d) Client Representation $203 50% $101 $304 10% of Project Management Cost
3 (e) Compensatory Habitat $0 60% $0 $0 Assume not Required

Sub total $50,378 50% $25,189 $75,566 0.1%

4. Public Utility Adjustments

4 (a) Adjust Utilities $0 0% $0 $0

4 (b) Project Management Services $0 0% $0 $0 4.5% of Utilities cost
4 (c) Client Representation $0 0% $0 $0 10% of Project Management Cost

Sub total $0 #DIV/0! $0 $0 0.0%

5. Construction

5 (a)(i) Infrastructure $31,205,876 55% $17,202,887 $48,408,763

5 (b) PAI Insurance $171,632 55% $94,616 $266,248 0.55% of infrastructure costs
5 ( c) Primary Testing Incl in Infrastructure 55%
5 (d) Project Management Services $1,404,264 55% $774,130 $2,178,394 4.5% of Infrastructure cost
5 (e) Client Representation $140,426 55% $77,413 $217,839 10% of Project Management Cost

Sub total $32,922,199 55% $18,149,046 $51,071,245 91.6%

6. Handover

6 (a) Refurbish old route $ % $ $ Excluded

6 (b) Project data and performance $312,059 55% $172,029 $484,088 1% of infrastructure costs
6 (c) Project Management Services $14,043 55% $7,741 $21,784 4.5% of Project data & Performance Review
6 (d) Client Representation $1,404 55% $774 $2,178 10% of Project Management Cost

Sub total $327,506 55% $180,544 $508,050 0.9%

TOTAL $35,956,375 55% $19,819,115 $55,775,490 100%
Total Amount P90 % of Total Estimate
Project Management $1,525,652 $840,943 $2,363,558 4.2%

Client Representation $152,565 $84,094 $236,356 0.42%

Reality checks:

1. Project Cost (Incl Contingency)/ km 1.60 $34,859,681

2. Project Cost Including Side Roads
(Incl Contingency)/ km 1.60 $34,859,681
3. Project Cost / lane-km 3.2 $17,429,841 rate high due to structures
Earthworks Cut/Fill 20,295 m2 $47.42 /m3 Excl Contingency
Bridges and structures 5,004 m2 $3,812 /m2 Excl Contingency
Pavements 11,465 m2 $72 /m2 Excl Contingency
Document No: RTA-CSD-PMS-PR-P-95-A1 Issue 1.1 Page 1of 1
No allowance for GST,Escalation,Carbon Tax

M Raven North 2 27/06/2013

 FOR CONTINUATION REFER BELOW
5
3
ID-003
ID-002
1 2
ID-002 ID-002

APPROX 450m OF NARROW SB CARRIAGEWAY SHOULDER

FOR CONTINUATION REFER ABOVE

FOR LONGITUDINAL SECTION

REFER ID-005

APPROX 50m OF NARROW SB

CARRIAGEWAY SHOULDER

APPROX 150m OF NARROW NOTE:

SB CARRIAGEWAY SHOULDER ALL SHOULDER WIDTHS ARE TO BE
CONFIRMED WITH ADDITIONAL
DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS

0 25 50 75 100 125m
BOLIVIA HILL UPGRADE INFORMATION DOCUMENT
25 15 5
SCALE 1:2500 ASSESSMENT OF ROUTE OPTIONS 89913018-ID-001
AT A3 SIZE DRAWING PREFERRED OPTION PLAN
DRAWING FILE LOCATION / NAME

N:\Projects\899\0000\NA89913018 BOLIVIA HILL\02 - Design\023 - Drafting\Sketches\89913018-ID-001.dwg

 CONTROL LINE

CONTROL LINE
M710

M710
N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE

EXISTING 0.5m SHOULDER

SHOULDER 2.0m WIDTH TO BE MAINTAINED SHOULDER 2.0m

VERGE 2.0m

SO GUTTER
* WRSB/G4 BARRIER ONLY
REQUIRED WHERE SLOPE
*
INTEGRAL TYPE 'F' BARRIER
& RETAINING WALL
GREATER THAN 4:1

X) MILL & RE-SHEET MILL & RE-SHEET

MA FULL DEPTH
(2:1 PAVEMENT EXISTING PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH EXISTING PAVEMENT
4:1 PAVEMENT
WHERE REQUIRED WHERE REQUIRED

SECTION 1 SECTION 2
SCALE 1:200 ID-001 SCALE 1:200 ID-001

CONTROL LINE

CONTROL LINE
M710

M710
N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE

SHOULDER 2.0m 0.5m SHOULDER SHOULDER 2.0m 2.0m SHOULDER

TYPE 'F'
SO GUTTER

INTEGRAL TYPE 'F' BARRIER BARRIER

SO GUTTER
& RETAINING WALL CANTILEVER
10:1 CAST SINGLE SIDED TYPE 'F' STRUCTURE
BARRIER BEHIND EXISTING SO
GUTTER. CONCRETE INFILL OR
SUITABLE MATERIAL BEHIND
FULL DEPTH MILL & RE-SHEET
FULL DEPTH
PAVEMENT EXISTING PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
WHERE REQUIRED
SHOULDER WIDTH INCREASED
ON APPROACH & DEPARTURE
OF BRIDGE STRUCTURE, TO
MATCH WIDTH OF BRIDGE.
TAPER @ 1:20
SECTION 3 SECTION 4
SCALE 1:200 ID-001 SCALE 1:200 ID-001

0 2 4 6 8 10m
BOLIVIA HILL UPGRADE INFORMATION DOCUMENT
2 1.5 1 0.5
SCALE 1:200 ASSESSMENT OF ROUTE OPTIONS 89913018-ID-002
AT A3 SIZE DRAWING PREFERRED OPTION CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 1
DRAWING FILE LOCATION / NAME

N:\Projects\899\0000\NA89913018 BOLIVIA HILL\02 - Design\023 - Drafting\Sketches\89913018-ID-002.dwg

 CONTROL LINE
M710
EXISTING
CARRIAGEWAY
N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE

SHOULDER 2.0m 2.0m SHOULDER

APPROX 60m

MAX HEIGHT APPROX 45.0m

SECTION 5
SCALE 1:200 ID-001

CONTROL LINE

CONTROL LINE
M710

M710
N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE

SHOULDER 2.0m 2.0m SHOULDER SHOULDER 2.0m

1.5m VERGE

SO GUTTER
CANTILEVER INTEGRAL TYPE 'F' BARRIER
SO GUTTER

STRUCTURE & RETAINING WALL 10:1 CAST SINGLE SIDED TYPE 'F'
10:1 CAST SINGLE SIDED TYPE 'F' BARRIER BEHIND EXISTING SO
BARRIER BEHIND EXISTING SO GUTTER. CONCRETE INFILL OR
GUTTER. CONCRETE INFILL OR SUITABLE MATERIAL BEHIND
SUITABLE MATERIAL BEHIND
FULL DEPTH MILL & RE-SHEET
FULL DEPTH
PAVEMENT EXISTING PAVEMENT
PAVEMENT
WHERE REQUIRED

SECTION 6 SECTION 7
SCALE 1:200 ID-001 SCALE 1:200 ID-001

0 2 4 6 8 10m
BOLIVIA HILL UPGRADE INFORMATION DOCUMENT
2 1.5 1 0.5
SCALE 1:200 ASSESSMENT OF ROUTE OPTIONS 89913018-ID-003
AT A3 SIZE DRAWING PREFERRED OPTION CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 2
DRAWING FILE LOCATION / NAME

N:\Projects\899\0000\NA89913018 BOLIVIA HILL\02 - Design\023 - Drafting\Sketches\89913018-ID-003.dwg

 CONTROL LINE
M710
N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE
SHOULDER 2.0m 2.0m SHOULDER
VERGE 2.0m
* WRSB/G4 BARRIER ONLY
REQUIRED WHERE SLOPE
GREATER THAN 4:1
*
FULL DEPTH
X) POSSIBLE LOCATION FOR
MA PAVEMENT
( 2:1 EMERGENCY STOPPING AREA
4:1
SECTION 8
SCALE 1:200 ID-001
CONTROL LINE

CONTROL LINE
M710

M710
N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE N/B TRAVEL LANE 3.50m 3.50m S/B TRAVEL LANE
SHOULDER 2.0m 0.5m SHOULDER SHOULDER 2.0m 2.0m SHOULDER
VERGE 2.0m VERGE 1.0m 1.0m VERGE

5:1
SO GUTTER

0 .7
* WRSB/G4 BARRIER ONLY
REQUIRED WHERE SLOPE
*
10:1 CAST SINGLE SIDED TYPE 'F'
BARRIER BEHIND EXISTING SO
GREATER THAN 4:1 10:1 4:1
GUTTER. CONCRETE INFILL OR
4:1
SUITABLE MATERIAL BEHIND
X)
:1 MA
4:1 (2 3.0m
FULL DEPTH FULL DEPTH
VERGE
PAVEMENT PAVEMENT
SECTION 9 SECTION 10
SCALE 1:200 ID-001 SCALE 1:200 ID-001
0 2 4 6 8 10m
BOLIVIA HILL UPGRADE INFORMATION DOCUMENT
2 1.5 1 0.5
SCALE 1:200 ASSESSMENT OF ROUTE OPTIONS 89913018-ID-004
AT A3 SIZE DRAWING PREFERRED OPTION CROSS SECTIONS - SHEET 3
DRAWING FILE LOCATION / NAME
N:\Projects\899\0000\NA89913018 BOLIVIA HILL\02 - Design\023 - Drafting\Sketches\89913018-ID-004.dwg
 PREFERRED OPTION
EXISTING GRADIENT
LIM
IT O
F ST
EEP
G RAD
E (8
.1%
)

BOLIVIA HILL UPGRADE INFORMATION DOCUMENT

0 50 100 150 200 250m 0 10 20 30 40 50m

50 10 5
ASSESSMENT OF ROUTE OPTIONS 89913018-ID-005
SCALE 1:5000 SCALE 1:1000
AT A3 SIZE DRAWING PREFERRED OPTION LONGITUDINAL SECTION
DRAWING FILE LOCATION / NAME

N:\Projects\899\0000\NA89913018 BOLIVIA HILL\02 - Design\023 - Drafting\Sketches\89913018-ID-005.dwg

[V2.1] Risk management register - Strategic
Created by: Cardno
Project name: Bolivia Hill Upgrade. Assessment of Route Options. Date created: Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Project number: 12.2547.1392 Revised by: Cardno
Region: Northern Date revised: Monday 3 June 2013

Responsible parties Timetable Residual rating

Project manager

Consequence

Consequence
Residual risk
Likelihood

Likelihood
Reference

Priority
Specialist or other Risk - @ Risk
Cause, trigger or issue Risk, hazard or opportunity Potential consequences Proposed risk treatment Date or timing @ Risk total
resource Simple Quant

1.1 Approvals
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.2 Project objectives
1.2.1 Concept does not fulfil the preliminary Community consultation / client Project unviable, cost of reworking • Review the concept with the client. - Project Manager Route optimisation N E M 95% 5% $20,000 $19,000 1 $20,000
objectives review / project team meetings reveal scheme in part or fully. • Review the concept with the wider project - Community consultation
shortcomings team. leader
• Review the concept with external
stakeholders.

1.2.2 Project objectives are poorly defined Project objectives are not met Delay to or cancellation of project • Review objectives at an early stage. - Project Manager As early as possible L H L 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
• Ensure the scope of works clearly defines - Community consultation
the project objectives. leader
• Review and confirm concept design is in line
with the project objectives.
• Ensure thorough consultation with
community and stakeholders to canvas their
issues, as these may influence the project
objectives.

1.3 Project scope

1.3.1 Work inaccurately scoped Scope Creep Project may not meet client's • Obtain clear objectives from the client at an Project Manager As early as possible H H L 70% 30% $750,000 $525,000 1 $750,000
requirements early stage.
• Identify any early expenditure opportunities

1.3.2
1.4 Project budget
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.5 Cost estimates
1.5.1 Estimate verification process Project estimate is inaccurate Insufficient funds to fulfil project • Advise the client at an early stage if the - Cost estimator After the preparation of P90 estimate M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
requirements may no longer make it estimate seems too low. - Project manager
viable, upgrade partially or fully • P90 Estimates used
shelved. • Recommended level of contingency applied

1.5.2 Estimate verification process Impact on local and existing All costs not considered • Identify the issues and reach an agreement - Cost estimator After the preparation of P90 estimate M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
infrastructure not assessed with the relevant bodies. - Project manager
• P90 Estimates used - Constructability expert
• Recommended level of contingency applied.

1.6 Legislative changes

1.6.1
1.6.2
1.6.3
1.7 Policy changes
1.7.1 Preferred alignment uses part of the Government wishes to reopen the rail Redesign if in the near future. Approach the appropriate personnel in the Project team As early as possible
rail corridor. line. Potential high cost to realign the rail planning department to gather information on
line in the future. the future plan for the rail line.
1.7.2
1.8 Community
1.8.1 Identification of stakeholders Stakeholders who are not located in These stakeholders will not be To target road users and stakeholders who - Community consultation As early as possible M H M 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
the vicinity of the study area may be engaged in the consultation process are based outside of the study area vicinity: personnel
difficult to communicate with (e.g. and their opinions, concerns and - Place public displays in locations they are - RMS Project Manager
Road users who travel from further ideas will not be considered as part of likely to stop at eg petrol stations, shopping - RMS Community Manager
south or north). the project development. areas.
- Potentially use digital information boards
along the New England Highway to alert
drivers to the project and direct them to the
RMS website for more information.

Copy of Bolivia Hill Upgrade - 20% Strategic Estimate Risk Model Rev A1Excel.xlsx Risk Register Page 1 of 7
 Responsible parties Timetable Residual rating

Project manager

Consequence

Consequence
Residual risk
Likelihood

Likelihood
Reference

Priority
Specialist or other Risk - @ Risk
Cause, trigger or issue Risk, hazard or opportunity Potential consequences Proposed risk treatment Date or timing @ Risk total
resource Simple Quant

1.8.2 Attitude towards project. If it is assumed that there will be If controversial issues are not Actively encourage the engagement of - Community consultation Ongoing M H M 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
limited objection to the study, a identified early there could be delay to stakeholders to gather their inputs. personnel
controversial issue might be missed the project. - RMS Project Manager
early on. - RMS Community Manager

1.8.3 Depth of consultation If it is assumed that there will be Complaints about the consultation Identify stakeholders Community Consultation - Identify as many as possible L M L 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
limited objection to the study, process - Look at who is in the vicinity (geographic) Manager to speak to the upfront (Integral stakeholders)
stakeholder engagement might be not - Government departments community as well as other - There will be many others who will
be prioritised. - Identify commercial companies (Freight) disciplines to get more pop up during the course of the
- Provide survey online information. project.
- Provide survey and community update to all
councils in the New England area

1.8.4 Meeting and public display locations As several townships and villages are Not enough of the local community is Prepare a suite of processes to gain the Community Consultation Initial project start L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
located along the New England reached by the meetings and displays attention of the stakeholders identified: Manager to speak to the
Highway both north and south of the and therefore they are not able to • Website community as well as other
study area, some localities may miss contribute to the stakeholder • 1800 phone number disciplines to get more
out on public displays and public engagement. • Email information.
meetings that are not convenient to • Displays
attend. • Mailouts
• Media advertising
• Personal contact
• Community Workshop

1.8.5 Tenterfield Bypass Consultation fatigue as the Tenterfield
community will be undergoing an
extensive consultation period for the
Tenterfield Bypass concurrent with
the Bolivia Hill upgrade.
Reduced attendance at public
meetings and confusion between the
two projects' timings and objectives,
particularly if consultation periods
overlap
- Sound strategy as per 1.8.3 and 1.8.4 - Community consultation Process should start as soon as L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
proposed risk treatment. personnel possible. Ongoing throughout
- Display awareness to the planning of - RMS Project Manager project.
Tenterfield community consultation. - RMS Community Manager
Communicate with GHD for timing of events.
- Hold discussion in monthly meeting so it is
always in the forefront.

1.8.6 Public meeting content Although the content of the first public
meeting is stated as 'announcement
of project and introduction of project
team' it is likely that attendees will
want to raise a number of issues,
concerns and ideas at this early
stage.
The project team will still be in the Capture all comments and concerns and - Community consultation Second public display + Workshop
'discovery' phase and may be unable demonstrate in the next consultation period manager
to answer questions on the issues at how initial comments were considered in the
this stage but should instead view this project development.
as an opportunity to gather
information about the study area's
issues early on.

1.9 Council (NOT USED as Council is

considered as a stakeholder and
will form part of 1.8)
1.9.1 Impact on local and existing Opportunity - Liaison with Tenterfield Delay to project. • Identify the issues and reach an agreement - Community consultation As early as possible L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
infrastructure not assessed council with the relevant bodies. personnel
- RMS Project Manager
- RMS Community Manager

1.9.2
1.10 Other stakeholders
1.10.1 Failure to initiate early consultation Emergency services may not be able Work may affect emergency service • Conduct early consultation with emergency - Community consultation From project start. L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
with emergency services so that their to reach callout in estimated time. routes/access to properties. services. manager
requirements can be accommodated May result in longer response time for • Consult with the community. - Support from project team
in the design emergency services.

1.10.2 Statutory authorities Reporting and assessment Miss a reporting requirement, delay to Identify the authorities early in the project as - Community consultation From project start. L M L 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
requirements. milestones to rectify. per 1.8.3 and understand their requirements. manager
- Support from project team

1.11 Private developments

1.11.1 Unknown development Impact on project. - New options to be developed which - Keep regular contact with council - Cardno PM From project start and ongoing L H M 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
do not impact the development. - Be aware of mine tenements (Natural
- Delay to project Resources)

1.11.2
1.12 Geotech

Copy of Bolivia Hill Upgrade - 20% Strategic Estimate Risk Model Rev A1Excel.xlsx Risk Register Page 2 of 7
 Responsible parties Timetable Residual rating

Project manager

Consequence

Consequence
Residual risk
Likelihood

Likelihood
Reference

Priority
Specialist or other Risk - @ Risk
Cause, trigger or issue Risk, hazard or opportunity Potential consequences Proposed risk treatment Date or timing @ Risk total
resource Simple Quant

1.12.1 Very high strength rock (unexpected) excavatability - Construction time overruns due to - Geological mapping to identify rock - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as H H M 70% 30% $750,000 $525,000 1 $750,000
slow rate of excavation classification - Road design lead per program
- Overall project cost (unviable if cost - Field studies - Constructability expert - During option assessment or
is too high) - Take results into account in design and constructability review as per
constructability assessment program.
- Allow suitable excavation equipment,
blasting etc
1.12.2 Too much very high strength rock, Insufficient general fill material from Need to import general fill or blend design rockfill embankments or allow for - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as H H L 70% 30% $750,000 $525,000 1 $750,000
therefore excavation is minimised excavation imported fill with excavated material imported material per program
- During option assessment or
constructability review as per
program.
1.12.3 Very high strength rock in proposed Slope instability redesign slopes during construction - appropriate Geotechnical data available to - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as M M L 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
cuttings design slopes accordingly per program
- investigation - During option assessment or
constructability review as per
program.
1.12.4 Excavation into natural hillside Slope instability excavation induces instability uphill - appropriate Geotechnical data available to - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as H H M 70% 30% $750,000 $525,000 1 $750,000
design slopes accordingly per program
- investigation - During option assessment or
constructability review as per
program.
1.12.5 Railway embankment uphill of road / Slope instability excavation induces instability uphill - appropriate Geotechnical data available to - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as H H M 70% 30% $750,000 $525,000 1 $750,000
Loose rock from cutting design slopes accordingly per program
- investigation - During option assessment or
- removal of loose rock constructability review as per
program.
1.12.6 Constructing embankments on steep embankment instability during /after Remedial works during/after design appropriate key in detail and consider - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
terrain construction construction overall slope stability in design per program
- During option assessment or
constructability review as per
program.
1.12.7 Excavation in hard rock Exposing acid rock during acid drainage from cuttings into - include acid neutralising rock in drains - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
construction natural water courses - investigation per program
- During option assessment or
constructability review as per
program.
1.12.8 Excavation in hard rock wet cut floors road pavement issues design drainage blankets - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as M M L 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
per program
- During option assessment or
constructability review as per
program.
1.12.9 Cut/fill transitions differential settlement cracking of road pavement - design appropriate key in detail - Geotech lead - Geotechnical desktop studies as M M M 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
- adequate investigation per program
- During option assessment or
constructability review as per
program.
1.12.10
1.13 Property
1.13.1 Scope and assess impact on property Would the proposal result in the Delays in acquisition process when • Determine the adjoining land uses and - RMS Project Manager As early as possible L H L 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
values. increase/reduction of property values? property owners don't agree with existing property values and compare - RMS Property Services
assessed value. • Consult RMS Property Services for advice.

1.13.2 Failure to maintain good relationships Owners may not consent to property Negotiations break down, significant • Initiate early consultation with owners to - Community Consultation As early as possible L H L 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
with property owners adjustment design delays to commencing construction. establish a relationship and to understand Personnel
their specific needs. - RMS Community Manager
• Keep current with any ownership changes...
• Where possible maintain property access in
the design and construction staging.
• Attempt to make access equal or better
where possible.
• Initiate compulsory acquisition if negotiations
break down.

Copy of Bolivia Hill Upgrade - 20% Strategic Estimate Risk Model Rev A1Excel.xlsx Risk Register Page 3 of 7
 Responsible parties Timetable Residual rating

Project manager

Consequence

Consequence
Residual risk
Likelihood

Likelihood
Reference

Priority
Specialist or other Risk - @ Risk
Cause, trigger or issue Risk, hazard or opportunity Potential consequences Proposed risk treatment Date or timing @ Risk total
resource Simple Quant

Property owners may be unwilling to
negotiate
compulsory acquisition is required
• Establish a relationship and maintain - Community Consultation As early as possible M M M 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
communication with the owner. Personnel
• Establish early access leases where - RMS Community Manager
appropriate.
• Consider redesign at the location.
• Commence property acquisition as early as
possible and trigger compulsory acquisition
process as soon as it becomes obvious that
this is the best option

Owners may demand unreasonably Poor community relations • Communicate and negotiate with the owner. - Community Consultation As early as possible L M L 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
high lease costs • Look at alternate locations. Personnel
- RMS Community Manager

1.13.3
1.14 Traffic
1.14.1 Corridor Growth Underestimate/Overestimate forecast Design of new Highway may not be Review relevant corridor strategy document, Cardno Traffic and Planning Before commencement of traffic L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
flows on New England Highway. suitable for the volumes that it carries. review future land use changes, consult with Teams, RMS/Council modelling
Design of Highway does not meet the RMS
target Level of Service.

1.14.2 Access to up to date background data Improvement option would not take Design of new Highway may not Set out exact requirements for data and make RMS, external survey Before commencement of traffic
(e.g. traffic accident data, traffic flows) into account key issues address current issues request for data companies modelling

1.14.3 Road Safety Did not take into account appropriate Does not meet the requirement of Undertake detailed crash analysis and Stage Cardno Traffic in relation Strategic Concept Design L M L 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
safety measures projective objective which is to reduce 1 Road Safety Audit accident analysis, Cardno
crash rate and injuries. Road Safety Audit Team
1.14.4 Modelling software Using incorrect indicators in Design of new Highway may not Fully understand objectives and relevant Cardno Traffic Before commencement of traffic L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
assessing route options address current issues software outputs modelling
1.14.5 No significant benefit in terms of Low accident rates and low traffic Low Benefit Cost Ratio. Improve benefits (eg. Journey time, Cardno Traffic Strategic Concept Design H M L
traffic and transport. volume. headways, travel speed, safety etc)
1.15 Pedestrians and cyclists
1.15.1
1.15.2
1.16 Utilities
1.16.1 Determine extent of utility relocation Location of utilities Increase in cost, relocations not • Carry out a site survey. - Project Manager As early as possible
required accounted for. • Hold discussion with the utility providers. - Design Team Lead
1.16.2 Consultation with utility authorities Utilities Utility upgrades undertaken in • Confirm onsite utilities versus drawings from - Project Manager As early as possible
isolation from upgrade planning, and the relevant utility authority. - Design Team Lead
additional relocation is required. • Identify the location and extent of both
overhead and underground powerlines and
communications.
1.17 Environment
1.17.1 Standards Current Environmental Standards Delay, increase in cost, new rulings Maintain close consultation with - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible M M L 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
change may make scheme unviable. environmental agency. - Environmental Team
Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager

1.17.2 Flora and fauna Preliminary Environmental Elimination of options. Following survey and identification of no go - Environmental Team Lead Preliminary Environmental H M L 35% 65% $750,000 $262,500 0 $0
Investigation (PEI) identifies a areas - Environmental Team Investigation
threatened or endangered species. Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager

1.17.3 Soil contamination PEI identifies possible locations for Potential for delay to development • Confirm any pre-exiting conditions. - Environmental Team Lead Preliminary Environmental M M L 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
contaminated soils. and construction programmes to allow • Review the existing soil investigation (if any). - Environmental Team Investigation
for investigation & treatment options. • Consider a soil investigation if site conditions Member
warrant it. - RMS Environmental
• Identify any short-term corrective action and Manager
possible management strategies for
construction phase.

1.17.4 Scope and assess RTA What are the relevant policies and Delay to program and increase in • Review Section 4.1 Strategic Stage, RTA - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible M M L 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
environmental policies and guidelines. guidelines for the proposal? cost. Environmental Impact Assessment - Environmental Team
Guidelines" Member
• Review RTA EMS “Operational Control - RMS Environmental
Document List” (attached). Manager

Copy of Bolivia Hill Upgrade - 20% Strategic Estimate Risk Model Rev A1Excel.xlsx Risk Register Page 4 of 7
 Responsible parties Timetable Residual rating

Project manager

Consequence

Consequence
Residual risk
Likelihood

Likelihood
Reference

Priority
Specialist or other Risk - @ Risk
Cause, trigger or issue Risk, hazard or opportunity Potential consequences Proposed risk treatment Date or timing @ Risk total
resource Simple Quant

1.17.5 Scope and assess statutory What environmental legislation Delay to program and increase in • Review RTA EMS Relevant Environmental - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible L H L 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
obligations. applies to the proposal? cost. Legislation List" (attached). - Environmental Team
• Obtain advice from the Environmental Member
Planning Adviser in the Environmental - RMS Environmental
Services Branch. Manager

1.17.6 Ecologically Sustainable
Development.
1.17.7 Would the proposal result in the loss
or isolation of remnant bushland,
disruption to natural waterways, loss
of fauna corridors, etc?
What is the relationship between the Delay to program and increase in • Obtain advice from the Environmental - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible L M L 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
proposed activity and ESD? cost. Planning Adviser in the Environmental - Environmental Team
Services Branch. Member
• Review the ESD Working Groups – Final - RMS Environmental
Report – Transport. Manager
• Review the National Strategy for Ecologically
Sustainable Development.
Scope and assess impact on natural Loss or isolation of remnant bushland, • Generate a list of natural resources in the - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
resources. disruption to natural waterways, loss proposal area and determine how various - Environmental Team
of fauna corridors, etc options impact on each resource. Member
• Review Section 2 Ecological Functions, - RMS Environmental
“RTA Roadside Environment Strategic Plan”. Manager

1.17.8 Noise and vibration Noise and vibration will be linked to Noise and vibration will affect the Liaise with design team and stakeholder - Environmental Team Lead Constructability review L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
construction methods. surrounding environment. engagement team to manage risks - Environmental Team
Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager

1.17.9 Uncertainty of preferred route Scope and determine the likely Potential for delay to development Regular dialogue between environmental, - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
environmental impacts of the Project and construction programmes to allow design and RMS and stakeholder teams - Environmental Team
for multiple scenarios for investigation & treatment options. • Review Section 4.1 Strategic Stage, RTA Member
Environmental Impact Assessment - RMS Environmental
Guidelines". Manager
• Obtain advice from the Environmental
Planning Adviser.
1.17.10 Are there issues that require specific Professional investigations into the Delay to program and increase in • Use RTA consultant register for qualified - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
investigation? For example: flora and environmental effects of all significant cost. environmental professionals. - Environmental Team
fauna, heritage, acid sulphate soils. aspects not being able to be • Obtain example briefs for investigations from Member
undertaken due to late notice. the Environmental Services Branch. - RMS Environmental
• Refer to RTA “Environmental Impact Manager
Assessment Guidelines Appendix A” for an
example brief for a professional services
contract – EIS preparation.
• Engage the Environmental Services Branch
to review specialist studies and comment /
advise.

1.17.11 Is an EIS or REF required? Scope and assess the level of Delay to program and increase in • Obtain advice from the Environmental - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible H H L 70% 30% $750,000 $525,000 1 $750,000
Environmental Impact Assessment cost. Planning Adviser, Environmental Services - Environmental Team
(EIA) that is appropriate. Branch. Member
• Refer to DUAP document “Is an EIS - RMS Environmental
required” Manager

1.17.12 Additional specialist studies for an EIS Scope and assess the parameters for Studies will have been completed for • Obtain advice from Environmental Planning - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible H M L 35% 65% $750,000 $262,500 0 $0
or REF would be required? an REF brief. the options selection Adviser, Environmental Services Branch. - Environmental Team
Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager

1.17.13 Flora and fauna crossings Possibility that flora and fauna Increase in cost Use our knowledge of flora and fauna present - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible H L L 15% 85% $750,000 $112,500 0 $0
crossings will be required. to predict the likely approval conditions, and - Environmental Team
incorporate these into the design Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager

1.17.14 Harmful flora and fauna Injury to project team members during Delay to program, increase in cost, SWMS prepared and followed with PPE - Environmental Team Lead Before field investigation L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
investigation. loss of life. - Environmental Team
Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager
- Project Manager

Copy of Bolivia Hill Upgrade - 20% Strategic Estimate Risk Model Rev A1Excel.xlsx Risk Register Page 5 of 7
 Responsible parties Timetable Residual rating

Project manager

Consequence

Consequence
Residual risk
Likelihood

Likelihood
Reference

Priority
Specialist or other Risk - @ Risk
Cause, trigger or issue Risk, hazard or opportunity Potential consequences Proposed risk treatment Date or timing @ Risk total
resource Simple Quant

1.17.15 Implementation timetable and Fieldwork for flora / fauna species
responsibilities. may be seasonal. Presents a risk of
not identifying all constraints early in
the process.
May cause delay or rework.
• Identify the habitat requirements for the - Environmental Team Lead As early as possible M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
species concerned, and use this to provide - Environmental Team
preliminary advice on whether the species Member
may be present, and assume that it is. - RMS Environmental
• Ensure that adequate time is allowed for Manager
environmental impact assessment, exhibition
(if required) and obtaining approvals.
• Ensure that adequate time is allowed for
obtaining EPA licensing, NPWS approvals,
archaeological consents and other approvals.

1.17.16 Delay to Flora and Fauna Flora and fauna field surveys not be If the surveys are delayed until QLD Ecology have confirmed surveys will - Environmental Team Lead December L H L 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
investigation done in spring/summer. autumn, vegetation would be dormant start in December 2012. - Environmental Team
and evidence of fauna species Member
presence and getting an accurate - RMS Environmental
understanding of their distribution Manager
patterns would be limited.
1.17.17 Unexpected discovery of fauna Risk that there are koalas and This may delay the project and trigger QLD Ecology have confirmed surveys will - Environmental Team Lead December L L L 15% 85% $250,000 $37,500 0 $0
species Spotted-tailed Quolls in the study the need for additional permits to start in December 2012. - Environmental Team
area. undertake any works. Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager

1.17.18 Unexpected discovery of flora species Risk that there are Bolivia Wattle This may delay the project and trigger QLD Ecology have confirmed surveys will - Environmental Team Lead December M M M 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
species (listed as Vulnerable under the need for additional permits to start in December 2012. - Environmental Team
the EPBC and TSC Acts) in the study undertake any works. Member
area (they have been recorded - RMS Environmental
generally along the eastern boundary Manager
of the current alignment).

1.17.19 Unexpected discovery of flora and/or The field surveys will not capture all Time and cost to the project. The QLD Ecology team will prepare a site - Environmental Team Lead December M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
fauna species potential threatened flora and fauna survey plan for RMS to approve. - Environmental Team
species Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager

1.18 Heritage
1.18.1 Unexpected discovery of Aboriginal Potential for delay to development Allowance will need to be made for Niche have confirmed that surveys will start in - Niche January M M L 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
and/or non-Aboriginal heritage items and construction programmes. investigation & treatment options, and January. - Environmental Team
or places to obtain relevant approvals and Member
permits. Project scope may need to - RMS Environmental
be altered to minimise any impacts. Manager

Unexpected discovery of heritage The field surveys will not capture all Time and cost to the project. Niche have confirmed that surveys will start in - Niche January M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
items or places potential heritage items or places January. - Environmental Team
Member
- RMS Environmental
Manager
1.19 OHS
1.19.1 Danger to staff Opportunity - OH&S Plan Safe work practises • Document the OH&S assessment. - Project Manager Submission of OH&S Plan
• Develop an OH&S plan summarising the - Discipline Team Lead
issues, hazards and warnings identified.
• Distribute a controlled copy of the OH&S
plan to personnel.
1.19.2
1.20 Design of roadworks
1.20.1 Constructability The design is not constructible Expensive to construct, making the • Carry out a design review by an experienced - Project Manager Constructability Review M M M 35% 65% $500,000 $175,000 0 $0
scheme unviable. contractor. - Design Team Lead
• Review the concept design. - Constructability Manager
• Arrange a constructability review.
• Arrange a construction staging review.
• Arrange a traffic staging review, safety audit
and detailed design review.
• Ensure that the design quality system is
adhered to during the design process.

Copy of Bolivia Hill Upgrade - 20% Strategic Estimate Risk Model Rev A1Excel.xlsx Risk Register Page 6 of 7
 Responsible parties Timetable Residual rating

Project manager

Consequence

Consequence
Residual risk
Likelihood

Likelihood
Reference

Priority
Specialist or other Risk - @ Risk
Cause, trigger or issue Risk, hazard or opportunity Potential consequences Proposed risk treatment Date or timing @ Risk total
resource Simple Quant

1.20.2 Design input data is not sufficiently Project will be delayed until additional Significant delays. • Organise a handover meeting between - Project Manager Strategic Design L H L 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
complete for detailed design to be data is available and detailed design those involved in the strategic/concept phases - Design Team Lead
undertaken. eg geotechnical design, can be completed. with those doing the detailed design.
public utility, survey, traffic count data, • Identify areas for additional
etc information/investigation and commission
PSC’s where appropriate.
• To identify inadequacies early, organise a
review of concept reports and the concept
before detailed design begins.

1.20.3 Contractor construction methods Construction of high embankment / fill - Differential settlement stability, • Design separation layers - Project Manager Strategic Design
sinkholes • Alternate design option - Design Team Lead
- Costly - Constructability Manager
1.20.4 Constraints Not all constraints mapped or mapped - Options to be reassessed Constraints to be defined early - Environmental Team Lead Desktop study L H L 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
at later stage - Redesign - Design Team Lead
- Project Manager

1.20.5 Vertical grade Achieving 6% max Non-conforming design Early vertical profile to be developed - Project Manager Strategic Design
- Design Team Lead
1.20.6 Vertical grade Not achieving 6% max Additional cost associated with higher Early vertical profile to be developed - Project Manager Strategic Design
fills / deeper cuts. Increased footprint - Design Team Lead

1.20.7 Stakeholders reaction Not gaining acceptance from the New options will need to be Educating stakeholders regarding design - Project Manager Strategic Design L M M 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
stakeholders to any routes displayed. developed outcomes and benefits. - Design Team Lead
- Community Consultation
Team
1.20.8 Safety High embankments Errant vehicles Design appropriate safety barrier system Design Team Lead Strategic Design M H L 70% 30% $500,000 $350,000 1 $500,000
1.20.9 Loose rock at top of cuttings Falling rock during construction due to Strikes live traffic, construction Install rock fence during construction. - Project Manager Constructability Review H H M 70% 30% $750,000 $525,000 1 $750,000
vibration etc. workers etc. - Design Team Lead
- Constructability Manager
1.20.10 Vertical grade Achieving 8% max Non-conforming design Early vertical profile to be developed - Project Manager Strategic Design
- Design Team Lead
1.21 Design of structures
1.21.1 Structures doesn’t blend into Design does not fit with surrounding/ - Rework at detailed design - Design to be reviewed by RMS, local urban - RMS Urban Design Strategic Design L M L 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
environment existing aesthetic environment - Delay to project design specialist. Manager
- Consideration of other treatments or - Urban Design Manager
finishes.
1.21.2
1.22 Urban design
1.22.1
1.22.2
1.23 Project staffing
1.23.1 Project reources Lost of key personnel. Delay to project. Identify backups for key personnel in the - Project Manager Throughout the project L M L 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
project.
1.23.2
1.24 Natural disasters
1.24.1
1.24.2
1.25 Acts of war and civil unrest
1.25.1
1.25.2
1.26 Asset maintenance
1.26.1 Unsuitable pavement design selected. Design does not meet asset The pavement may require significant • Consult with RTA pavement section to tap - RMS Asset Manager Strategic Design L M M 35% 65% $250,000 $87,500 0 $0
management requirements. maintenance in the future. into knowledge of suitable pavements for the - Project Manager
location - Design Team Lead
1.26.2 Asset management are requirements Design does not meet asset Completed project may not satisfy • Involve the RMS asset manager during - RMS Asset Manager Strategic Design L H L 70% 30% $250,000 $175,000 1 $250,000
not sufficiently considered in the management requirements. RMS requirements for asset concept design. - Project Manager
detailed design for the project maintenance. - Design Team Lead

1.27 Miscellaneous
1.27.1
1.27.2
$13,020,000

Copy of Bolivia Hill Upgrade - 20% Strategic Estimate Risk Model Rev A1Excel.xlsx Risk Register Page 7 of 7