REGION I. August 12, Re: Green Line Extension Project - Risk Assessment Review RepOli

Transcription

1 REGION I Volpe Cenler Connecticut, Maine, 55 Broadway Suile 904 Massachusetts, Cambridge, MA U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit New Hampshire, Administration Rhode Island, Vermont (fax) August 12, 2011 Mr. Richard A. Davey, General Manager Massachusetts Bay TranspOltation Authority 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA Re: Green Line Extension Project - Risk Assessment Review RepOli Dear Mr. Davey: Attached please find the Green Line Extension Project Risk Assessment RepOli. This report is the product ofthe risk assessment review and evaluation that was conducted by the PMOC, highlighted by the Risk Assessment Workshop that was held in Boston, Massachusetts in March Please note that this report is a snapshot in time. While some ofthe project status has changed since Miu'ch, the report at this stage is intended to additionally serve as a catalyst for development ofthe project sponsor's own risk management tools. In that regard,.the PMOC has provided feedback to FTA that the MBTAlHDRcGilbane team is pro-actively implementing risk management techniques as outlined in their Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP), and aggressively managing identified risks. The FTA and PMOC remain available to provide support or technical assistance ifrequired. We will continue to coordinate with Green Line staff to expedite the project advancement, including entry into PE. Sincerely,!iaN? 6c~ IleC() Mary Beth Mello Regional Administrator cc: (via ) M. Ainsley, MBTA wi enclosures K. Fichter, MassDOT wi enclosures E. Hunter, MBTA wlenclosures

2 DOC CTRL#: GLX.TO5. WO5.CLIN01A RISK ASSESSMENT Green Line Extension Project Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Boston, MA Submittal Date: August 1, 2011 Disclaimer: This Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) report and all supporting reports and back up materials contain the findings, conclusions, professional opinions and recommendations stemming from a risk-informed evaluation and assessment, prepared solely for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This report should not be relied upon by any party, except FTA or the Grantee (Project Sponsor), in accordance with the purposes of the evaluation and assessment as described below. For projects funded through FTA's Major Capital Investment (New Starts) program, FTA and its PMOCs use a risk-informed assessment process to review and validate a Grantee's scope, schedule, and cost, and to analyze the Grantee's project development and management. This process is iterative in nature. The results represent a "snapshot in time" for a particular project under the conditions known at that point. The evaluation or assessment and related results may subsequently change due to new information, changes in circumstances additional project development, specific measures a Grantee may take to mitigate risks, Grantee's selection of strategies for project execution, etc. PMOC Contract Number: DTFT60-09-D Task Order Number: 05 Project Number: DC Work Order Number: 05 OPs Referenced: #01 - Administrative Conditions and Requirements #25 - Recurring Oversight and Related Reports #40 - Risk and Contingency Review PMOC Firm: Kal Krishnan Consulting Services, Inc. (KKCS) 900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1230 Los Angeles, CA PMOC Lead: Ron Anderson Length of Time Firm Assigned to Project: 19 Months Length of Time Person Assigned to Project: 19 Months

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kal Krishnan Consulting Services, Inc. is the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA s) Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) for the Green Line Extension Project (GLX) that will extend existing light rail service from Lechmere Station to Somerville and Medford in Massachusetts. The project is currently in the Advanced Conceptual Engineering Phase and the project co-sponsor (MassDOT) has requested FTA permission to enter Preliminary Engineering (PE). As a part of FTA's consideration of the project for advancement into PE, KKCS was tasked to perform a Risk Assessment. The purpose of the Risk Assessment is to analyze uncertainties and risks; provide a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the cost and schedule status; consider risk mitigation options; and provide recommendations regarding adjustments to scope, cost, schedule, contract packaging, project delivery and other project elements to respond to identified risk. This report is the deliverable associated with this task, and includes descriptions of the analytical methods used and the risk mitigation framework. The risk assessment embraces the approach outlined in FTA's Operating Procedure No. 40 (OP #40). For schedule, a Backward Pass contingency analysis was performed to assess the adequacy of contingency; and risk modeling was performed to result in a range of possible schedule outcomes. For cost, Forward Pass and Backward Pass contingency analyses were performed to assess the adequacy of contingency. Due to the conceptual nature of the project planning at pre-pe and in concurrence with FTA, the cost beta modeling and resulting range of possible cost outcomes was not done for this analysis. Summary PMOC Findings: The schedule risk modeling points to a revenue service date that could slip from October 2015 to the range of March 2017 to December The cost contingency review indicates contingency is within acceptable FTA guidelines to address the schedule extension and remaining project risk. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Green Line Extension Project is an initiative to expand transit services in order to improve mobility and regional access for residents in some of the region s most densely populated municipalities of Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford, Massachusetts. The purpose of the Green Line Extension Project is to improve corridor mobility, boost transit ridership, improve air quality, ensure equitable distribution of transit services, and support opportunities for smart growth initiatives and sustainable development in the areas of Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford. The project would extend Green Line service for 4.3 miles beyond a relocated Lechmere Station to College Avenue in Medford and to Union Square in Somerville using a two-branch operation. The two branches consist of a 3.4-mile main branch to Medford (the "Medford Branch") within the existing MBTA Lowell Line commuter rail right-of-way with five stations including the terminus at College Avenue in Medford; and a 0.9-mile branch to Union Square in Somerville (the "Union Square Branch") within the existing MBTA Fitchburg commuter rail right-of-way with a single station at Union Square. The project includes both aerial and at-grade elements. The project includes acquisition of and construction of a support facility for storage and servicing of the fleet and existing north side Green Line operations. Page i

4 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Schedule: The schedule provides for a revenue service date (RSD) of October 1, 2015 and a project completion date of March The RSD was developed with sensitivity to a statutedriven completion date that had originally been set for December 31, 2014 by the State of Massachusetts and is unachievable. The PMOC performed a schedule review and concluded the project completion date is not reliable primarily because this constrained milestone resulted in optimistic activity durations and excessive parallelism in the schedule. Since that time, the schedule has continued to be delayed, particularly related to commencement of the preliminary engineering effort. The results of the risk modeling point towards a Revenue Service Date that could be in the range of March 2017 to December 2017, but the completion date can only be determined by MBTA through development of a ground-up and detailed schedule that is based on realistic durations, work sequencing and work calendars. Should GLX be approved for entry into PE, the schedule needs to be re-tooled in order to remain viable as a reasonable basis for further advancement of the project. The results of the schedule contingency review indicate the schedule contingency is not within FTA guidelines, nor is it adequate for managing the project schedule risks. The grantee's current schedule contains no contingency and these provisions would need to be incorporated into the next schedule iteration. Cost: The cost contingency as reflected in the grantee s base year cost estimate is % and compares to the FTA guideline of 30.0% for entry into PE. The scrubbed estimate that was used as a basis for the risk modeling identified additional embedded contingency, equating to a total contingency of %. Based on the PMOC's Forward Pass contingency assessment, the identified contingency is acceptable for this stage. The Backward Pass contingency assessment also points to adequate contingency based on the identified risks. However, the PMOC recommends that 5% to 7% contingency be held for the Revenue Service Phase because of higher than typical risk at this stage, including demolition work that will occur after track cutover and the start of revenue service. It is important to note that the cost estimate is based on an RSD of October 1, 2015 which the risk assessment process has shown to be unachievable. If the schedule is extended to December 2017, the impact from escalation based on an assumed inflation of 3.5% per year could produce a project estimate in the range from $0.96 billion to $1.01 billion. The PMOC recommends the estimate be recalculated based on a more realistic schedule to understand the impact to the project cost and the viability of remaining contingency to address identified risks; the overall cost may increase depending on MBTA s ability to mitigate other identified risks during PE. Technical Capacity & Capability: MBTA is a mature agency with experience implementing large capital projects, although with less experience in managing design/build delivery at the magnitude and complexity of GLX. With the help of the HDR-Gilbane CM/PM/PE consultant, MBTA has the technical capacity and capability to manage the Preliminary Engineering Phase. Page ii

5 TOP RISKS AND MITIGATIONS Schedule. The current schedule assumes an October 2015 Revenue Service Date based on a state mandated completion date that had previously been set at December The completion date is a constrained milestone that will result in increased escalation, professional services, and overhead costs if not achieved. The grantee's mitigation strategy will likely be to accept this risk and re-baseline the schedule. If the revised schedule is still aggressive, it will likely increase the design/build bid cost to a level greater than typical. Financial Plan. The grantee s ability to advance the project through the New Starts rating process in a timely fashion may further impact schedule requirements. Concerns relate to timely submittal of the Financial Plan and other requirements necessary to avoid further delay to the start of PE. Corridor Width. Sections of the rail corridor are too narrow to accommodate duct bank installation alongside the track. There is a risk that additional real estate takes and expensive retaining wall construction may be required. The grantee's risk mitigation strategy is to evaluate innovative design solutions such as stringing utilities along OCS poles and/or installing ductbanks on retaining wall structures. Utilities. The magnitude of the utility relocation effort is not known at this stage in the design development. There is increased risk because early indications are that the effort will be much greater than assumed in the conceptual drawings. The grantee's risk mitigation strategy is to conduct additional field surveys as well as a detailed utility research program to determine types, locations, sizes and elevations of existing utilities. The grantee is also identifying cost "opportunities" where utility work may be avoided. Corridor Density. The construction will take place within a densely populated urban corridor, with commercial and residential structures nearby. There is a risk that residents and businesses will complain about noise, vibration, fugitive dust, or other issues once construction begins. The grantee's risk mitigation strategy is continued implementation of pro-active community interface. Escalation. It will be difficult to forecast escalation during the period of time that the GLX Project will be constructed. The overall design/construction program will likely take the project beyond standard practice for forecasting inflation. Current favorable conditions almost certainly will not prevail over the entire course of the project. At best, commodity pricing, bid pricing and resource availability will be mercurial and difficult to predict. Traction Power Substations. The current design assumes that three (3) traction power substations will be adequate. There is a risk that a fourth traction power substation (TPSS) will be required. The grantee's risk mitigation strategy is to expedite completion of a Power Study to confirm the number of TPSSs based on the alignment length and track grade. Page iii

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF PROJECT BASELINE STATUS CONTRACT PACKAGE REVIEW RISK IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGIES - COST SCC RISK ASSESSMENT COST CONTINGENCY REVIEW METHODOLOGIES - SCHEDULE SCHEDULE RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION APPENDIX A - LIST OF ACRONYMS... A-2 APPENDIX B PMOC TEAM... A-4 APPENDIX C RISK ASSESSMENT EVALUATION TEAM... A-5 ATTACHMENT A COST AND SCHEDULE RISK REGISTERS ATTACHMENT B RISK ASSESSMENT ACTION ITEMS MATRIX ATTACHMENT C GLX ALIGNMENT PICTURES Page iv

7 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Green Line Extension Project (GLX) will provide light rail service from the relocated Lechmere Station using a two-branch operation. The 3.4-mile main branch will extend service to Medford with five stations at Brickbottom, Gilman Square, Lowell Street, Ball Square, and the terminus at College Avenue. The 0.9-mile second branch will extend service to Union Square in Somerville and include a single station at Union Square. The Lowell Line commuter rail right-of-way (ROW) will be utilized for the Medford Branch. The Fitchburg Line commuter rail ROW will be utilized for the Union Square Branch. The existing Lechmere Station, the terminus of the existing alignment, will be relocated. Figure 1- Green Line Extension Project Alignment Map Page 1

8 The purpose of the project is to improve corridor mobility, boost transit ridership, improve regional air quality, ensure a more equitable distribution of transit service, and support opportunities for smart growth initiatives and sustainable development. The alignment is highly complex with multiple interfaces with existing operating railroads that include the Lowell Line, Fitchburg mainline track, and freight lines such as Pan Am; and is being built within a dense urban corridor. 1.1 Project Status The project is in the Advanced Conceptual Engineering Phase, and project management responsibility has transitioned from MassDOT to MBTA in advance of preliminary engineering, final design, construction and start-up. The project is ultimately intended for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) by the project sponsor. This Risk Assessment Report is one of the steps necessary for the FTA s consideration whether to approve the project for entry into preliminary engineering. 1.2 Ridership The new extension with six (6) stations is expected to generate approximately 52,000 boardings and alightings by the year 2030, with approximately 90% of these trips to take place in the opening year of Overall, the existing Green Line ridership would increase by approximately 30,700 boardings and the entire MBTA system would increase by 7,900 new daily linked transit trips as a result of the extension of the Green Line service. The project would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) by 25,018 per day (projected to the year 2030). 1.3 Guideway Components Noteworthy work elements include relocation of existing commuter/freight track; construction of approximately 4.3 miles of new light rail track and systems; relocation of the existing Lechmere Station; construction of six new stations; construction of a new multi-span viaduct; reconstruction of eleven (11) bridges; construction of two (2) new bridge structures; construction of a maintenance facility; implementation of new power, signals, and communications equipment; and procurement of vehicles. A summary table with the guideway components is included in Section 2.0, Baseline Summaries, Scope Review SUMMARY OF PROJECT BASELINE STATUS Prior to commencement of the risk assessment process, the PMOC completed a series of reviews of the project baseline information to assess consistency, completeness, an appropriate level of development for the current stage, reasonableness, and mechanical correctness. This section provides a summary of the project status based on these reviews and the associated PMOC reports under the various FTA Oversight Procedures Page 2

9 (OPs), including Technical Capacity and Capability Review (OP #21), Transit Ridership Review (OP #32a), Scope Review (OP #32c), Cost Review (OP #33), and Schedule Review (OP#34). A Project Delivery Review Report under OP #32d was also prepared, and is discussed in Section 3.0, Contract Package Review. 2.1 Technical Capacity & Capability Review (OP #21) MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority), MassDOT (Massachusetts Department of Transportation), and each have significant roles to play in the management of the GLX project; and there is the possibility of a role for MassDOT Department of Highways related to the bridge reconstruction. Multiagency involvement requires additional interface and coordination, and points to the importance of maintaining adequate technical capacity and capability throughout the project life cycle. PMOC Summary Findings: The grantee possesses adequate technical capacity and capability to manage the Preliminary Engineering Phase. MBTA is in the process of developing enhanced programmatic project control procedures for application on GLX. MBTA is a mature agency with experience implementing large capital projects, although with less experience in managing design/build delivery at the magnitude and complexity of GLX. With the help of consultants, MBTA has the technical capacity and capability to manage the Preliminary Engineering Phase. MBTA is working to continually enhance technical capacity and capability as the project advances, including the sophistication of project management processes that are currently in place. A key component of the technical capacity and capability is inclusion of the PM/CM/PE consultant in the overall GLX management structure and approach. This consultant was hired in a staff augmentation capacity to complete the preliminary engineering requirements; guide the development of the main design/build contract; address constructibility perspectives during design; and then provide oversight after the design/build contract is issued. The PMOC's assessment of the technical capacity and capability is focused primarily on development of the Project Management Plan (PMP) and sub-plans, and TCC interviews conducted with GLX project staff. As of May 30, 2011, Operations and Maintenance Plan (OMP), Rail Vehicle Management Plan (RFMP), and the Bus Fleet Management Plan (BFMP) are acceptable for the current stage. The Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), and Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP) are pending revision, re-issue, and review by the PMOC; and the revised PMP is currently being evaluated by the PMOC. During February 2011, the PMOC conducted Technical Capacity & Capability (TCC) interviews with twenty-two (22) GLX staff members and with specific regard to the preliminary engineering effort. Overall, the interviews demonstrated adequate capability to manage the preliminary engineering effort, with MBTA staff augmentation from the PM/CM/PE contractor. From a project risk perspective, the PMOC notes the following TCC observations: Page 3

10 1) GLX Project Manager. The GLX Project Manager is qualified and possesses the proper background and education to manage the project, but is assigned only part time to the GLX project. In the PMOC's opinion, the size and complexity of the project warrants full time and dedicated project management attention. 2) 2.2 The GLX force account work will overlap with other MBTA maintenance and capital project requirements utilizing similar crews and equipment. MBCR has developed a resource loaded schedule but it does not include all projects, including GLX, or the routine maintenance and flagging resources. Even so, the schedule points to overall force account resource requirements that may be difficult to meet in terms of skilled worker availability. While this is a construction phase resource issue, it needs to be addressed during preliminary engineering in order to (1) validate the baseline schedule and project completion date; and (2) assess the need for alternative contracting options, if any, such as through the main design/build or another separate contract. This scenario is under MBTA review and a determination as to viability has not been made. 3) Project Controls. MBTA project control staff is well qualified, but limited in numbers. Essentially, there is a single Project Control Manager at the corporate level, who receives technical, administrative and management support from the Director of Construction, who is also knowledgeable in project control methods and systems. MBTA management and project control staff have articulated, including as a part of the Technical Capacity & Capability staff interviews, an enhanced and greatly improved project control approach that is intended for implementation on the GLX project. One additional project controller was hired in early June 2011 at the programmatic level. Currently, the dedicated project control support for GLX is limited to only one project-level consultant. Transit Capacity Review (OP #32a) The PMOC evaluated the ability of the light rail services, facilities and planned fleet to accommodate the passenger demand that is forecast for the system in the planning horizon year of The operation of two and three-car trains on five to six-minute headways is planned to accommodate the expected passenger loads on the GLX portion of the Green Line. Summary PMOC Findings: The project will provide adequate capacity to accommodate the projected ridership. The operating plan provides sufficient capacity to accommodate GLX passenger loads and the track configuration and signal system will accommodate the planned service Page 4

11 headways. Station platform designs are sufficient in terms of waiting and circulation space. The anticipated vehicle fleet, including the new cars that are planned to be acquired as part of the GLX project, will be adequate to provide the planned service on all four (4) of the Green Line branches. Due to the incomplete definition of traction power, signaling and train control systems (normal for the conceptual design stage) the capacities of these elements of the project were not assessed in detail by the PMOC. Although the maintenance facility design was too conceptual to facilitate meaningful review, the programmed capacity of the maintenance facility is sufficient to accommodate the additional vehicles required to deliver the planned service. From a project risk perspective, the PMOC notes a capacity risk in the event MBTA may not have sufficient storage capacity when the new vehicles are received, which will be before completion of the new maintenance facility. MBTA has indicated that a number of existing vehicles can be released from fleet operation for major overhaul concurrent with receipt of the new vehicles, freeing up sufficient storage capacity. Other relevant PMOC observations from a design and/or requirements risk perspective are: 2.3 1) During PE station design process will need to address the quality of pedestrian flow in the areas leading to the stairs, elevators and escalators to assure that adequate clear walkway is provided to accommodate the combined flows of boarding and alighting passengers. 2) At the current level of design completion, it is not possible to verify that the stations meet requirements for emergency egress. During PE the station design process will need to address the requirements for emergency egress under NFP 130 and other codes as appropriate. 3) At the current level of design completion, it is not possible to verify that the track system, signals and other aspects of the existing Green Line between Government Center and Lechmere can accommodate the extension of the D Branch, which will result in a 50% increase in train movements between Government Center and North Station and a 100% increase in train movements between North Station and Lechmere. During PE, simulations will need to be conducted to confirm that the existing Green Line facilities can accommodate the planned increase in service beyond Government Center. 4) At the current level of design completion, it is not possible to verify that the traction power system, including substations and feeders, is adequate for the proposed operations. A Power Study is currently underway by the Grantee. Scope Review (OP #32c) The project scope includes the relocation of existing commuter rail/freight lines; construction of approximately 4.3 miles of new light rail track and systems; relocation of the Lechmere Station; construction of six (6) new stations; a new multi-span viaduct and reconstruction of thirteen (13) bridge structures; a maintenance facility; power, signals and communications. Page 5

12 The scope review was done to determine whether or not the GLX scope was developed to a level commensurate with the Conceptual Engineering Phase, and sufficient as a basis to conduct the Risk Assessment Workshop and further advancement into PE. A Scope Table that summarizes the major project scope elements is shown below. Table 1 Scope SCOPE FEATURES ELEMENT Guideway Light Rail Extension Two-branch system (Lowell Branch & Union Square Branch) Combined at-grade & aerial elements Shared corridor with Commuter Rail & freight Track 4.3 Miles of New LRT Track 0.3 miles of elevated LRT track 4.0 miles of at-grade LRT track New Stations Relocated Stations Brickbottom Station Gilman Square Station Lowell Street Station Ball Square Station College Avenue Station Union Square Station Demolish and Reconstruct Lechmere Station (6) new stations No parking lots Single aerial station (relocated from at-grade) (2) 117-stall parking lots at Lechmere Station Aerial Structures Viaduct to include Aerial Station (1) multi-span viaduct to be partially demolished & reconstructed along new alignment Viaduct ties-in to existing LRT near Lechmere Station Bridge Structures Union Square Outbound Over MBCR Yard Union Square Inbound Over Fitchburg Line New Hampshire Mainline Over Fitchburg Line Fitchburg Line Over Medford Street New Hampshire Mainline Over Washington Street Walnut Street Over New Hampshire Mainline Medford Street Over New Hampshire Mainline School Street Over New Hampshire Mainline Lowell Street Over New Hampshire Mainline Cedar Street Over New Hampshire Mainline Broadway Over New Hampshire Mainline New Hampshire Mainline Over Harvard Street College Avenue Over New Hampshire Mainline (11) existing bridges to be reconstructed (2) new bridges to be constructed Includes (7) roadway bridges Includes (6) rail bridges Retaining Walls 225,340 SF Reinforced cast-in-place Adjacent to bridge structures Chain link fencing on top Roadway & Signals Systems Support Facilities Vehicles Modifications to roadway & signals Overhead Catenary (OCS) Traction Power Substation (TPSS) Public Address (P/A) Operations & Control Center (OCC) Upgrades Security Control & Data Acquisition (SCADA) Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) Maintenance Facility & Yard Type 9 Low Floor Vehicles (6) intersections New at-grade crossings Compatible with existing systems (3) TPSS 80 Vehicle capacity Outside storage tracks New maintenance bays Inter-operable with existing Type 7 & Type 8 vehicles Page 6

13 The scope review was focused on the adequacy of scope definition for the approximate 10% level of design completion; consistency of the project documentation, including with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); identification of design issues and/or gaps in the scope development; and identification of risk areas. Summary PMOC Findings: The project scope is sufficiently developed for the completion of the Conceptual Engineering Phase and as a basis to enter the Preliminary Engineering Phase, should the project be approved for advancement. The 10% design was completed by MassDOT's design consultant, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) in October Advancement into PE was delayed pending resolution of local design issues. During that period, conceptual engineering continued to be refined. Scope definition on the 10% design package, dated May 24, 2010, is developed to a level typical for this stage, with the exception of track removal and the new Yard and Maintenance Facility. Since then, these elements have been further developed as a part of the Advanced Conceptual Engineering. At this stage in the engineering development, design uncertainty is typical and expected. From a risk management perspective, the following list identifies noteworthy areas of design uncertainty identified by the PMOC as a part of the Scope Review assessment: 1) Seismic. The new alignment begins as an aerial structure and is planned for attachment to an existing aerial structure. In the PMOC s opinion, this may trigger a required upgrade to the existing structure since it is older and may have been designed to a prior seismic lateral loading code. An engineering solution may be to separate the two structures with a seismic isolation mechanism. The same design issue may exist further along the alignment, where two tracks will be added to existing bridges (the Harvard Street Bridge for example) using the existing abutment as lateral support. 2) Real Estate. The PMOC ROW specialist traveled the alignment and has submitted her observations in regard to the Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP). Comments at the de-brief meeting after the tour were centered on the number of properties to be purchased, with a concern that the number of takes identified so far may increase as the design continues to evolve. 3) Traction Power Sub-Stations. The adequacy of the number of TPSSs needs to be further assessed and/or clarified as the design develops. (The grantee has since initiated a Power Study to validate the planned number of TPSSs.) 4) Accessibility. Level boarding and accessibility requirements need to be defined for FTA concurrence early in the project development. (The grantee has since obtained concurrence from the FTA Office of Civil Rights regarding the design approach to level boarding.) 5) Emergency Access/Egress. Verify through the State Safety Oversight (SSO) and/or local fire/life safety authorities that the plan for emergency access/passenger egress is adequate based on the current wayside assumptions. Page 7

14 2.4 Cost Review (OP #33) The project cost estimate is $953.7 million (Year of Expenditure - YOE) and $844.5 million (Base Year BY). The PMOC reviewed the estimate for reliability with specific regard to the soundness of the estimating methodology and approach; mechanical correctness; reasonableness of the cost; consistency with stated scope; evidence of gaps or inconsistencies; and cost uncertainty and risk. PMOC Summary Findings: The estimate was not reliable because (1) the schedule completion date was subject to change and this would impact the escalation, overhead, and professional services costs; and (2) several cost items within the estimate appeared either too low or too high compared to historical data and needed to be verified. (Subsequent workshop meetings were conducted with the grantee to reconcile the PMOC s comments prior to the risk assessment workshop.) In the PMOC s professional opinion, MassDOT s design consultant employed sound estimating processes to develop the Conceptual Cost Estimate. Standard industry guidelines for the unit rates were utilized; quantities were developed where possible at the approximate 10% design completion stage; and historical and industry standards were utilized where drawing development did not allow for quantity take-offs. The estimate was determined to be mechanically correct, with several minor and easily corrected exceptions primarily related to SCC coding, treatment of force account work in the estimate, and coding the detail information in a way that facilitates verification of summary roll-ups to SCC. Over the course of the review, the PMOC provided forty-six (46) comments and observations that were discussed at the subsequent Cost Workshop Meeting and reconciled prior to initiation of the risk assessment process. The primary recommendations were: Confirm the professional services, escalation, and finance cost assumptions against the most current updated schedule. Review and check for accuracy cost detail information associated with several SCC sub-categories including concrete for the bridge abutments, retaining walls, structural steel, substations and other elements identified in the detail of this report. Further develop the track relocation and installation, maintenance facility, and yard drawings closer to the 10% design completion level. Clarify where force account labor costs reside in the estimate. Provide a cost breakdown for the Lechmere Station relocation. Review financial plan/fund source tables contained in the estimate for consistency and provide evidence of local funding commitments to support the exclusion of Finance Costs from the estimate. From a project risk perspective, the noteworthy cost estimate observations are: Page 8

15 2.5 1) Escalation depicted at 3.5% is reasonable, but as the schedule continues to slip it is not certain if current favorable marketplace conditions in terms of competition and commodity pricing will continue. Assumed inflation factors may need to increase as warranted by these conditions; and escalation, professional services, and overhead costs would at least increase commensurate with any slip in the overall schedule completion date. 2) At the conceptual stage the design is not developed to a point where detailed quantity take-offs can be performed and precise estimates developed. Schedule Review (OP #34) The current schedule provides for a Revenue Service Date (RSD) of October 1, 2015 and a project completion date of March 6, The latter date provides time to demolish the existing Lechmere Station and viaduct after the cut-over to the new alignment has been completed and the extension is operational. The PMOC reviewed the schedule for reasonableness of the durations and sequencing, mechanical correctness, proper use of logic ties, and contingency. Summary PMOC Findings: The current project schedule providing for an October 1, 2015 Revenue Service Date is not achievable. This opinion is based on (1) optimistic schedule durations; (2) over-use of parallelism; (3) prevalent use of finish-to-finish logic ties; (4) unclear activity delineations between resources and the main contract; (5) and inadequate contingency levels. (Since the PMOC s assessment, the grantee has acknowledged the likelihood of an extension to the project completion date and a revised schedule is under development.) The primary issue with the schedule is that the state-mandated RSD (originally identified as December 31, 2014 but now forecast by the grantee to be October 1, 2015) is a constrained milestone, resulting in a compression and/or overlap of all activities beginning with commencement of preliminary engineering. In any case, the schedule in most cases has defined and sequenced the activities through the Preliminary Engineering Phase and into the main phase of the project, necessary to adequately manage the PE effort. However, the activities and logic relationships for the early Phase 1 bridge reconstruction and retaining wall work and work require more detail; and the guideway and trackwork installation, systems work, and system start-up can also be further developed at this stage. Ultimately, the completion date will need to be extended to allow for these and other activities to be depicted reasonably. Over the course of the review the PMOC provided twenty-two (22) recommendations. The PMOC specifically noted the absence of activities associated with utility relocation and pre-revenue operations after systems testing; and optimistic durations and illogical relationships for the rail bridge reconstruction, MBCR force account work, and the systems installation and testing. These can be major causes of delay in projects of this scope and magnitude and need to be reviewed for adequacy in the schedule. Other observations were: Review the station construction sequencing for reasonableness; the schedule currently assumes that all of the stations will be constructed concurrently. Page 9

16 Review and further develop the relationship ties between land acquisition, utility relocation, and design and construction activities. Closer relationship ties will result in the identification of additional critical path activities. Identify the interface points/requirements between utility relocation; the Advanced Phase 1 Bridge Reconstruction design/build contract; ; and the main contract. A PMOC Workshop Meeting was held to discuss and reconcile the PMOC's findings. Subsequently, much of the schedule information was revised, but the state-mandated October 1, 2015 Revenue Service Date remained constrained. Due to the fact that MassDOT had little or no flexibility to revise the end date, the PMOC utilized the Risk Assessment Workshop venue as a forum to identify a more realistic revenue service date. From a project risk perspective, the baseline schedule as currently depicted is simply unachievable. A realistic schedule will need to be developed and implemented as a part of the preliminary engineering effort in order for the project to remain viable for further advancement. 3.0 CONTRACT PACKAGE REVIEW The Project Delivery Alternatives Report that was prepared by the grantee documents the project delivery approach, and concludes for GLX the method is advantageous over with regard to project duration, cost control, claims and change orders. However, a detailed and thorough analysis was not provided in the report to support these conclusions, as this analysis is intended for further developed during PE. PMOC Summary Findings: The level of project delivery analysis contained in the Project Delivery Report (PDR) is sufficient for entry into the Preliminary Engineering Phase. Further development of the PDR will be required during PE to include a description and evaluation of the contract packaging approach; bid sequencing procurement schedule; market analysis; and risk. Page 10

17 The report contains recommendations for further development of the project delivery planning as a part of the preliminary engineering process. Primary among these are: Conduct a Project Delivery Risk Workshop to further develop a contract packaging plan, procurement strategy and bid sequence that take into consideration bonding capacity, types of construction and market conditions, and appropriately assign project risk. Develop a Contract Implementation Plan (CIP) based on the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). Allow for Industry Review of the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) and contract documents by the short-listed firms from the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. Assure the Risk Matrix communicates how project risks will be allocated based on the delivery strategy; and provide for an equitable risk share with the contractor. 4.0 RISK IDENTIFICATION The PMOC identified risks as a part of the scope, cost, schedule, and technical capacity and capability reviews, and as summarized in the preceding section. These risks were documented in the associated OP #21, OP #33, OP #34, and the OP #32 series of reports, communicated to the Grantee, and included as the initial items on the Risk Register in preparation for the Risk Workshop. Risks identified on a separate spreadsheet by the grantee were combined onto the PMOC's Risk Register to provide a consolidated list of PMOC-generated and grantee-generated risks. These and other project risks that were identified through the risk workshop are further discussed in the appropriate sections of this report. There are five (5) primary far reaching variables, identified below, with the potential to significantly affect the project: 1) Schedule. The current schedule assumes an October 2015 Revenue Service Date based on a state mandated completion date that had previously been set at December The completion date is a constrained milestone that will result in increased escalation, professional services, and overhead costs if not achieved. The grantee's mitigation strategy will likely be to accept this risk and re-baseline the schedule. If the revised schedule is still aggressive, it will likely increase the bid cost to a level greater than typical. 2) Financial Plan. The grantee s ability to advance the project through the New Starts rating process in a timely fashion may further impact schedule requirements. Page 11

18 3) Concerns relate to timely submittal of the Financial Plan and other requirements necessary to avoid further delay to the start of PE. 4) Corridor Width. Sections of the rail corridor are too narrow to accommodate duct bank installation alongside the track. There is a risk that additional real estate takes and expensive retaining wall construction may be required. The grantee's risk mitigation strategy is to evaluate innovative design solutions such as stringing utilities along OCS poles and/or installing ductbanks on retaining wall structures. 5) Utilities. The magnitude of the utility relocation effort is not known at this stage in the design development. There is increased risk because early indications are that the effort will be much greater than assumed in the conceptual drawings. The grantee's risk mitigation strategy is to conduct additional field surveys as well as a detailed utility research program to determine types, locations, sizes and elevations of existing utilities. The grantee is also identifying cost "opportunities" where utility work may be avoided. 5.0 METHODOLOGIES - COST 5.1 Risk Assessment Methodology The PMOC prepared a Risk Assessment Action Item Matrix to manage the steps leading to the completion of the Risk Assessment Workshop. This Action Item Matrix is included as Attachment B in this report, and identifies the three (3) Risk Assessment Workshop meetings that were conducted in August 2010, February 2011, and March The first two meetings were focused on orientation, identification and consolidation of the risks onto a single risk register, and populating spreadsheets. After the risk workshop meetings were conducted, a subsequent de-brief meeting was held by the PMOC in April 2011 to provide FTA and the grantee with initial results. The third workshop meeting was utilized as the forum to further develop the risk register items and assess risks for likelihood of occurrence and severity. This meeting was attended by all members of the grantee project team and by representatives of the FTA. The meeting was divided into three parts: Part 1 Over two days, the grantee participants assessed project risks, both identified in the preceding PMOC baseline review documents and raised during the workshop, and graded their likelihood of occurrence and severity of impact on the project. The risk type was identified, outcome, probability (high, medium, or low), cost magnitude (high, medium, or low), and schedule magnitude (high, medium, or low). Although not a priority as a part of risk identification and ranking process during the two day meeting, where mitigation measures were identified and/or discussed, these mitigations were Page 12

19 captured for further development as a part of the Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP) process. The assessment was organized by SCC category. Part 2 The PMOC met independently for half a day and adjusted beta factors for application to individual SCCs where the risk discussion pointed to either higher or lower risk than typical. Essentially the Beta Factor (BF) is applied to the scrubbed or P10 value for each SCC to reflect standard uncertainty or risk based on the current stage of project development. These standard betas were adjusted by the PMOC, as appropriate, to reflect information resulting from the Risk Assessment Workshop meetings. The beta modeling, intended to determine the probabilistic cost ranges for the project from optimistic to pessimistic, was not performed due to the conceptual nature of the project. Part 3 The PMOC and grantee participants then met for half a day to review the findings. Based on feedback from the grantee, the PMOC made some adjustments to the beta factors. Prior to initiation of the workshop meetings, the PMOC evaluated the GLX cost estimate for reasonableness, as documented in the Cost Review Report prepared under OP #33 and explained earlier in this report. The first step in the process to complete the detail analysis was identifying the type of estimate developed by GLX for each SCC, classifying the estimated costs as derived through unit pricing, CER, and/or lump sum allowances. In order to develop a basis for the contingency assessment, the contingency was removed from the estimate. This includes the patent contingency (explicitly identified and allocated in the estimate) and latent contingency (embedded within the estimate line item amounts). The grantee s SCC Workbook provided adequate depictions of patent contingency for purposes of identifying and logging these estimate elements. Identification of latent contingency was more difficult, in that it required the PMOC to assess individual unit rates and quantities for an estimate that had been developed approximately two years prior, sometimes without benefit of interface with the estimator who developed the information. These scrubbed contingencies were included on a revised SCC Workbook summary sheet. Although there were some limitations on the PMOC's ability to "strip" depicted costs of latent contingency, removal of all contingencies was integral in order to facilitate the statistical risk assessment process. Removal of these contingencies then provided the basis to assess each SCC for the type of risk associated with each element. These risks were further categorized as (1) Requirements Risk, (2) Design Risk, (3) Market Risk, and (4) Construction Risk, providing the basis necessary to evaluate project risks and assign corresponding risk Beta factors. The Risk Workshop identified and graded the project risks. The parameter metrics guidelines used to assess and grade the risks at the Workshop are shown in Table 2. Table 2 - Risk Assessment Metrics Assessment Metrics Low (1) Medium (2) High (3) Probability < 10% < > 10% - 50% > 50% Cost ($) < $0.5 million < > $0.5 - $5.0 million > $5.0 million Time (Months) < 2 months < > 2-12 months > 12 months Page 13

20 5.2 Cost Mitigation Methodology The objective of the risk mitigation framework is for the grantee to establish a planned approach to manage the mitigation of risks. The framework centers around four types of mitigations: (1) Avoidance, (2) Transfer, (3) Reduction/Mitigation, and (4) Acceptance: Avoidance where the identified risk is eliminated over time and will not occur. Transfer where the consequences of the event, usually in terms of cost, are transferred from the grantee to another party. Reduction/Mitigation where management actions lessen the severity of the risk or the impact is eliminated through another off-setting action. Acceptance where the grantee accepts the outcome of the risk, with a corresponding change to the scope, cost, and/or schedule baselines. These above risk mitigations can be addressed as either Primary or Secondary. Primary mitigation actions are planned to occur throughout the project phases; and Secondary mitigation actions are potential scope or process changes that are pre-planned and may be triggered by significant risk events. The status of the grantee s risk mitigation framework is at a preliminary level. During the Risk Assessment Workshop, initial risk mitigation actions were formulated. Mitigation strategies will be detailed in the GLX Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP), currently under development. The core of the plan is the Risk Register which depicts management responsibility, risk mitigation approaches, and timetables. GLX project staff has been pro-active in risk management and reduction. The grantee s actions in this regard have included conducting an internal risk workshop meeting in May 2011 and implementation of risk management strategies. The SCC risk discussion (Section 6.0, SCC Risk Assessment) provides risk mitigation updates that have occurred since the risk assessment workshop was conducted. 5.3 Contingency Recommendations Methodology The PMOC selected an appropriate amount of relevant documentation, determined its validity, and incorporated that data into the review process. As required by Operating Procedure No. 33 (OP #33), Section 6.5.4, Project Cost Contingency review, the PMOC identified, described, and analyzed the adequacy of the grantee s cost contingencies. This analysis was completed utilizing three (3) three models: (1) the Beta Range Factor model (simplified version using only the cost risk weighting scores for the conceptual stage); (2) a forward pass establishment of contingent targets, using historically-developed parameters that are further discussed later in this report; and (3) a backward pass establishment of contingencies using project-specific information. The relevant documentation that was utilized by the PMOC to obtain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and meaningful project data and information to effectively achieve the objectives of the cost contingency analysis was the grantee s scrubbed cost and schedule baseline, and the cost and schedule risk registers developed during the Risk Workshop conducted on March 8 through March 10, Page 14

21 6.0 SCC RISK ASSESSMENT This section discusses the risks by Standard Cost Category (SCC) and risk attributes unique to the GLX Project. The PMOC reviewed the grantee's estimate detail supporting the summary information contained in the SCC Workbook to assess the reasonableness of the estimate, a first step in providing an adequate foundation for the Risk Assessment Workshop. The SCC Workbook reflecting the project estimate in Base Year (BY) and Year of Expenditure (YOE) dollars is shown on Figure 2 on the following page. The estimate equates to $844.5 million in BY dollars, including an allocated contingency of $ and unallocated contingency of $ but exclusive of finance charges. The contingency represents approximately % of the BY project cost. The total project cost estimate in YOE dollars, including contingency, is $953.7 million. Escalation from BY to YOE is calculated at 3.5% per annum. The PMOC reviewed each SCC to the extent possible at this early stage. Sub-categories were analyzed with a focus on items that represent a comparatively large percentage of the SCC and are representative of the estimating methodology and approach, thereby providing an indication of the quality and reliability of the overall estimate. The level of scope definition and design development was significant in the PMOC's evaluation because these factors affect the risk assessment for any given SCC. At this early stage in the design development, unit pricing extended against precise quantity measurements is not possible or expected. The estimate is therefore based on parametric assessments, lump sum allowances, and limited unit prices extended against quantities. 6.1 Risk Management Baseline The risk management baseline establishment begins through the PMOC's assessments of the scope, cost, and schedule; as well as the grantee's technical capacity and capability. The results of these assessments are detailed in Section 2.0, Summary of Project Baseline Status. Issues noted in those reviews are reflected in the risk assessment by means of adjustments to the FTA's standard risk Beta factors (BFs) that are applied to each SCC subcategory. Beta factors are further discussed later in this section. Based on the PMOC's estimate review observations and recommendations, several cost estimate workshop meetings were conducted to reconcile the review analysis and findings. The PMOC and the grantee agreed on the disposition of the items, with approximately one-third of the items being accepted for incorporation into the estimate with a corresponding off-set to the project contingency, approximately one-third withdrawn by the PMOC based on satisfactory explanations and/or justification by the grantee, and the remainder were categorized as areas of disagreement. Although relatively minor and with no impact to the overall estimate at its aggregate, the areas of disagreement were nonetheless considered when the PMOC later assessed each SCC for BF application. The PMOC also adjusted the vehicle pricing and professional services estimates prior to initiating the risk modeling. The reconciled and scrubbed project estimate that was utilized as a baseline for the risk assessment is shown by SCC in Figure 3 on page 17. The estimate equates to $803.6 million (BY), including all contingency; and (BY), excluding all latent contingency. Page 15

22 Figure 2 - SCC Workbook

23 Figure 3 SCC Workbook (scrubbed) Page 17

24 6.2 Beta Range Factors The standard Beta Range Factors (BRFs) for application to projects for Entry into Preliminary Engineering are shown by major SCC in Table 3 below. Table 3 - Standard BRF at Entry to Preliminary Engineering SCC R D M C P-C Total Beta SCC SCC SCC SCC SCC SCC SCC SCC SCC SCC SCC R = Requirements Risk D = Design Risk M = Market Risk C = Construction Risk Total Beta = 1 + (R + D + M + C) Subsequent to the Risk Workshop Meeting, these BRFs were applied to each SCC for the GLX Project. The factors were adjusted by the PMOC, as appropriate, based on assessments of where risks for the GLX Project may be less than typical or greater than typical. These risks are further discussed in the balance of this section. SCC 10 - Guideway and Track Elements This SCC totals approximately % of the total project cost at $ (BY). The major scope elements are excavation, embankment, drainage, utilities, and landscaping; the Lechmere viaduct; Red Bridge; Two Union Square Junction Viaducts; Rail bridges over Washington, Medford, and Harvard; and seven (7) roadway bridges over the rail corridor to be reconstructed; and new ballast, cleaning/re-grading of existing ballast, rail, ties, tie plates, anchors, spikes and related hardware for light rail and commuter rail track. Risks associated with SCC 10 are summarized below: Restricted Corridor Width. Some sections of the alignment are too narrow to accommodate traditional installation of traction power, signals and communication (linear) duct banks and pull box structures, normally installed in the track crosssection in conjunction with the catenary pole bases. Design innovation may be required, such as duct bank installations along retaining walls and/or communications lines installed on catenary poles. Seismic Isolation. The new viaduct (aerial structure) will tie into the existing. This represents a potential for seismic isolation requirements that are not addressed in the current designs. The existing viaduct may need to be retrofitted, and/or may need to be demolished in its entirety. Page 18

25 Storm Drain Locations. Relocating the commuter rail tracks in some areas along the track will impact existing sub drains. The location of sub drains and manhole structures to be relocated will be constrained in a track cross-section that is substantially occupied by other features. FRA Requirements. Track clearance relative to adjoining structures and distances between GLX and commuter rail need to be verified with the Federal Railway Administration (FRA). Also, the current design assumes that fence separation will be adequate between the commuter rail main line track and the light rail track. There is a risk that hard barrier separation will be required. Risk Mitigation Update: Since the risk assessment workshop was conducted, GLX eliminated this risk by conducting a meeting in May 2011 with the FRA to obtain concurrence on the design. FRA concurred that hard separation was not required, and this Requirements Risk has been avoided. FRA did note that, although an intrusion detection system is preferred on fencing between light rail and commuter rail, previous justification to omit such systems is considered acceptable provided that a minimum 15 track center distance is maintained and a direct communication link exists between the commuter rail dispatch and MBTA operations. Bridge Pier Foundations. Installation of bridge pier foundations that are very close to existing tracks may require temporary support, presenting a potential constructability issue. Working Near Active Rail Lines. Safety issues result from construction operations, equipment, and forces working in close proximity to active rail lines. Work Windows. Contractor access requirements are not known at this time. The availability of work windows based on temporary commuter rail track closures and/or slow orders may affect assumed production rates. Corridor Density. Acquiring suitable points of access along the new track and to the stations areas for construction may be difficult in this densely populated urban corridor. Many locations along the corridor are already constrained by surrounding private land and the adjacent commuter rail track corridor. Force Account Resources: with police hours,. Contaminated Soil. removal of soft clay. Availability of Flagmen, accurate estimates associated Unexpected soil treatment requirements, dewatering, and/or Busing. Busing of transit patrons during changeover from the old Lechmere Station to the new location does not appear to be assumed in the present scope planning, but may be required. If required, it is not clear how long busing may be needed, but could be in the range of six (6) months to accomplish tie-in, testing, and pre-revenue operations/testing/training. Page 19

26 SCC 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals This SCC totals approximately % of the total project cost at $ (BY). The major scope elements are construction of six (6) new stations at Brickbottom, Gilman Square, Lowell Street, Ball Square, College Avenue, and Union Square; and relocation of the existing Lechmere Station. Risks associated with SCC 20 are summarized below: ADA Requirements. Platform height above top of rail and offset distance from the track centerline may be an issue. These items need to be determined from the specifications of the light rail vehicle to be procured and the applicable ADA requirements. MBTA's older Type 7 light rail vehicles will be withdrawn from service, allowing for the platforms to be raised to 14 above top of rail. Bridge plates will be used to address the vertical and horizontal gaps. FTA Office of Civil Rights has concurred with the current design approach. Schedule Parallelism. The aggressive schedule provides for concurrent construction of all six stations which is not realistic or practical, and will likely result in reduced bid competition due to the resulting resource requirements and higher bids. SCC 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings This SCC totals approximately % of the total project cost at $ (BY). The major scope elements are site preparation, fill, foundation, building, and special equipment for the Maintenance Facility; and excavation, ballast, sub-ballast, rail, ties, tie plates, anchors, spikes, hardware, OCS, turnouts, switches, bumping posts, drainage, utilities, parking, and landscape for the Maintenance facility storage and yard track. The major risks associated with SCC 30 are: Train Movement. The current track layout requires reverse train movements into the maintenance facility location for trains being taken out of and placed into revenue service, especially for trains accessing tracks to the east of Lechmere Station in the area of Yard 8. There is a risk that MBTA operations may request design refinements that preclude reverse movements, and possibly at additional cost. Risk Mitigation Update: Since the risk assessment workshop was conducted, this risk has been mitigated. The grantee s risk mitigation approach was to conduct additional interface with MBTA Operations staff and re-design the conceptual drawings to avoid cumbersome reverse train movements. Maintenance Facility Location. Design risk exists to the extent that there is a possibility that the maintenance facility location will change. If one of the alternative locations is ultimately selected, additional excavation costs will occur because the location is against a hillside; and the increased elevation will result in steeper grades that would also have to be addressed. Risk Mitigation Update: Since the risk workshop meeting was conducted, this risk has been mitigated. The risk mitigation approach was to conduct a maintenance Page 20

27 facility study and additional community interface to confirm the location identified in the LPA will not change. MOW Equipment Storage. Maintenance of Way (MOW) equipment and materials storage will likely be required, including a building for storage of some special MOW rail equipment, plus a separate MOW train storage track. SCC 40 Sitework and Special Conditions This SCC totals approximately % of the total project cost at $ The major scope elements are clearing and grubbing; track removal; viaduct and building demolition; groundwater treatment; retaining walls and cast-in-place (CIP) concrete; and mobilization, flagging, and police detail. The major risk associated with SCC 40 are: Buried Utility Unknowns. The extent of the utility relocation effort cannot be verified until additional site investigations are completed, and the risk will remain until the start of actual construction and actual site conditions are known. Recent indications are that utility relocations may be more extensive than originally assumed by the conceptual designer. Risk Mitigation Update: Since the risk assessment workshop, the grantee has implemented its risk mitigation approach by conducting additional field surveys as well as a detailed utility research program to determine types, locations, sizes and elevations of existing utilities that follow and traverse the railroad corridor. Risk avoidance and/or reduction has occurred to date that includes (1) the potential relocation of the existing NStar substation and associated utility work has been eliminated; (2) installation of the AGT/Spectra 14 high pressure gas transmission line in a 20 sleeve under the railroad corridor southeast of the Medford Street Bridge has been eliminated, as the existing configuration is acceptable; and (3) the Walnut Street bridge work may be eliminated. Drainage Regulations. The design may be subject to new stringent storm water control system and drainage/water treatment regulations (phosphorous removal regulations) that were not considered in conceptual engineering. Utilities Along Washington Street Bridge. There are major utilities in the sidewalks of the Washington Street Bridge. If the design of the abutment changes, or if the abutments are relocated, there will be additional utility costs. Demolition. Demolition for GLX represents less than typical risk because there are minimal site impacts which are all on MBTA owned property; and because demolition work will be done after RSD, reducing the contractor interface in this regard. SCC 50 - Systems This SCC totals approximately % of the total project cost at $ (BY). The major scope elements are foundations, structures, signal heads, cabling, houses and associated signal equipment for GLX and commuter rail track; three GLX traction power substations located at Yard 8, Union Square, and Lowell Street; OCS, conduit, and wiring Page 21

28 system; and communication conduit and fiber optics for seven (7) stations and for the alignment between College Ave. and Union Square. The major risks associated with SCC 50 are: Traction Power Requirements. The current design assumes that three (3) traction power substations will be adequate. There is a risk that a fourth traction power substation (TPSS) will be required. Risk Mitigation Update: Since the risk assessment workshop was conducted, the grantee has implemented its risk mitigation approach by implementing a Power Study intended to confirm that three TPSSs will be sufficient based not only on the alignment length and grade but positioned in a manner that optimizes locations in the event that either branch is further extended. The results of this study will be available prior to commencement of PE and this Requirements Risk will be avoided, transferred to the design/build contractor, or incorporated into the design. Utility Coordination. MBTA staff noted that no meaningful discussions had been held with the power utility on supply of power along the right of way. Feed points and voltage requirements remain to be clarified (MBTA has a clear preference for redundant 13.8 kv supply.) Also, MBTA commented that they have not had good experience with package or skid mounted substations, and prefer site constructed substations, which are more costly that assumed in the estimate. Traction power studies have not been made for the GLX project, but are planned. Overhead Catenary System. No Overhead Catenary System (OCS) design work has been done at this time. The assumption is that standard GLX OCS will be used, but increasing the train length results in a greater uplift force on the OCS and possible issues. MBTA's Blue Line has had some issues with the increased uplift force and MBTA is looking into other OCS approaches to mitigate such concerns. It is unknown whether this will have any impact on the GLX OCS requirements. Positive Train Control. If the installation and testing of the commuter rail positive train control (PTC) overlaps the GLX construction, trackwork restrictions particularly at night may occur. Fitchburg Project Interfaces. The Fitchburg Commuter Rail Improvement Project, a Small Starts project also being undertaken by MBA, includes cable plowing work in advance of the GLX commuter rail track relocation. There is a risk that the Fitchburg systems designs will not be consistent with the GLX track relocation requirements, and this work will have to be redone as a part of the GLX track relocation effort. Risk Mitigation Update: Since the risk assessment workshop meeting this risk has been avoided. The grantee s risk mitigation approach was to interface with the Fitchburg project management staff and the Fitchburg designs were subsequently re-evaluated to assure consistency with the GLX project requirements and avoid the cost of re-work. It should be noted that modifications to the Operations Control Center (OCC) are expected to be readily accomplished. No physical expansion or modification of the OCC is Page 22

29 currently planned, with work primarily consisting of updating the database information for the GLX Project. SCC 60 - Right of Way, Land, Existing Improvements This SCC totals approximately % of the total project cost at $ (BY). The real estate costs are preliminary in nature and will be evaluated by a qualified real estate specialist, should the project advance into PE. The estimate at this point in the project development does not provide calculated amounts for acquisitions associated with bridge reconstructions; and access easements and temporary construction easements; temporary relocations. Risk to the project is primarily associated with: Appraisals. The real estate cost estimate is very preliminary in nature and needs to be more precisely developed, should the project into PE. Design Changes. Design changes such as bridge abutments location changes; widening of the corridor to accommodate infrastructure requirements; and/or additional requirements to accommodate seismic retrofits of the existing viaduct would result in additional real estate requirements. SCC 70 - Vehicles This SCC totals approximately % of the total project cost at $ will be purchased for the GLX Project, equating to approximately $ per vehicle (excluding sales tax and contingency). Risk associated with SCC 70 is primarily associated with: Bid Results. The vehicle cost estimate probably needs review versus recent history of costs and order quantity. Vehicles are not standard LRV size, which may have an additional impact on costs; and the MBTA is a smaller order which may result in less favorable bids and delivery schedule. SCC 80 - Professional Services This SCC totals approximately % of the total project cost (SCC ) at $. The Professional Services estimate was generated by MBTA and, at its aggregate, appears reasonable and typical in that it represents approximately % of the construction cost (SCC 10-50). Risk for SCC 80 is primarily associated with: Estimating Basis. A refined estimate needs to be developed based on a detailed staffing plan and known consulting contract costs, such as the recently awarded CM/PM/PE contract. Schedule Extension. The project completion date will slip, with a commensurate increase in the professional services and overhead costs. Page 23

30 State Safety Oversight Requirements. MBTA self certifies, with the State Safety Oversight (SSO) through the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) acting in an oversight role. MBTA Safety appears to be the 'independent review' but the depth of review or involvement of MBTA Safety may vary by area, with signaling getting the most attention. Close coordination with local fire/life safety is required in order to verify emergency access/egress. Several other potential areas of concern were discussed at the risk workshop but resolved. These include the cut over to tie-in the new Lechmere Station and viaduct which was determined to be relatively easy from an operational standpoint because capability already exists at the North Station (2 stations up the line) to turn back the service. This capability was used approximately five (5) years ago for another MBTA project. It may also be possible to temporarily store a number of trains in the Science Park Station area once the storage around the Lechmere Station is lost due to commencement of work. 7.0 COST CONTINGENCY REVIEW The first part of the cost contingency analysis effort checked the integrity of the cost estimate, and the reasonableness of the cost estimate. The cost review analysis done under OP #33 was used for this analysis. Based on the cost review report, the $953.7 million (YOE) estimate submitted by MassDOT is professionally prepared and adequate. However, should the project advance into preliminary engineering the estimate will need to be reviewed and probably revised in order to be a solid baseline because the assumed revenue service date is not achievable and will likely slip. The PMOC evaluated the GLX Project s stated level of contingency from two separate and distinct perspectives: (1) forward pass, based on minimum requirements necessary to advance the project into the Preliminary Engineering Phase as per FTA Guidelines, and (2) backward pass, based on risk elements that are unique to this project and relative to the project at this point in time. These modeling techniques were applied in order to develop a set of minimum recommended contingency target values for each of the project phase milestones, and are further discussed below. 7.1 Cost Contingency Forward Pass Method The forward pass assessment compares stated contingency values to the FTA s recommended standard contingency values, expressed as a percentage of the total project cost, for any given phase of the project. The PMOC s assessment concludes that the GLX contingency amount in the estimate falls comfortably within the threshold of the FTA s guidelines. The Transportation Research Board s Managing Capital Costs of Major Federally Funded Public Transportation is a document that is used industry-wide to provide guidelines on the amount of contingency typically required for each stage of project development, and is also referenced in appropriate FTA Guidance. These amounts, expressed as a percentage of the total project cost (excluding contingency) are shown in Table 4 on the following page. Page 24

31 Table 4 - Typical Contingency Levels Minimum Project Phase Contingency Recommended Entry to Preliminary Engineering (PE) 30% Entry to Final Design (FD) 20% FFGA 15% % Bid 10% 50% Construction 5% Contingency is expressed in the GLX estimate as allocated, equating to $ (BY) and unallocated, equating to $ (BY). The scrubbed and reconciled estimate that was used as a basis for the risk assessment identifies $ (BY) in latent contingency. These contingencies, totaling $ (BY), equate to approximately % of the $ (BY) project cost. This compares to 30% recommended contingency for entry into PE as per the FTA guideline. The scrubbed baseline for purposes of conducting the risk modeling is the cost estimate exclusive of all contingencies, or $ (BY). The following forward pass subsections discuss how project progress is intended to provide demonstrated mitigation achievement that enable adjustments to the cost contingencies for a net reduction as each milestone passes, and how the status of risk exposures reduces over time Entry into Preliminary Engineering Phase Project Status PE/PM/CM contractor on-board Complete Advance Conceptual Design Design Advanced Phase 1 Bridge Re-Construction scope Environmental clearance documents submitted for FTA approval. Requirements Risk FRA separation requirements between commuter rail and light rail Community path requirements by local communities. Design Risk Preliminary Maintenance Facility program and design Contract approach method for the Track Relocation scope and Maintenance Facility Approval of station design aesthetics No detailed systems work (traction power, signal, communications, fare collection, operation control center) FTA Readiness to Enter FD review process FTA FFGA review process and funding. Page 25

32 Market Risk Limited contractors participation due to size of the project (over $600M) Protest from the unsuccessful contractors Material/commodity pricing Transfer of force account risk to the design/build contractor. Construction Risk Construction work interface with other projects Systems procurement and installation work planning is preliminary. Systems start-up, testing and pre-revenue operation activities are not well planned. Real estate acquisition and utility relocation. The cost contingency recommended by FTA for entry into PE is 30.0%. The chart, shown as Table 5 below, shows the contingency status in base year (BY) 2010 dollars. The BY estimate is $844.5 million, but adjusts down to $ when stripped of $ in allocated, unallocated and embedded contingency. Table 5 Cost Contingency Total Project Cost (millions) Adjusted Stripped Cost (millions) $844.5 $ $ Contingency Cost (millions) Patent Contingency $ Patent Contingency % Latent Contingency $ Revised Contingency % $ $ % % The % cost contingency allocated by the grantee is comfortable compared to the FTA recommended contingency of 30.0%. The adjusted stripped cost of $ million reflects an additional $ million in embedded or latent contingency. Combined, the total contingency of % compares favorably to the FTA recommended amount Entry into Design-Build Final Design Milestone As the GLX project progresses significantly with the start of Final Design, requirements and some design risk will be reduced. Market risk will be reduced because better forecasting information will be available. Forecast Project Status Complete Preliminary Engineering Finalized the contract delivery methods Complete negotiate, select and award the contract Complete Real Estate acquisition and easement agreements Full Funding Grant Agreement process almost complete or completed Advance Phase 1 Bridge Re-construction work almost complete or completed. Page 26

33 Requirements Risk None. Design Risk Unclear Maintenance Facility program and design Contract approach method for the Track Relocation scope and Maintenance Facility Approval of station design aesthetics No detailed systems work (traction power, signal, communications, fare collection, operation control center) FTA FFGA submittal review process and funding. Market Risk Limited contractors participation due to size of the project (over $600M) Protest from the unsuccessful contractors Construction Risk Construction work interface with other projects Systems procurement and installation work planning is preliminary Systems start-up, testing and pre-revenue operation activities are not well planned. The cost contingency recommended by FTA for Entry into the Design/Build Final Design Phase is % of the adjusted stripped cost of $ equating to $ In the PMOC s opinion, this contingency amount can likely be maintained because the total contingency (currently at %) is greater than typical, providing a basis to absorb some or all of the schedule risk and still maintain an adequate contingency level for other potential events Entry into Design/Build Construction Milestone With the start of construction, most Requirements Risk and Design Risk will be closedout. A commensurately reduced Market Risk will also be apparent. Forecast Project Status final design complete Grantee negotiating with for the commuter rail relocation work contractor preparing submittals for review to start construction work Phase 1 Bridge re-construction work is complete Maintenance Facility design work is complete and construction work can start. Requirements and Design Risk None. Pre-Construction Risk Removal and treatment of contaminated soil. Market Risk Commodity pricing in the event. Page 27

34 Construction Risks technical capacity and capability, and track and systems work can only be installed after completes the commuter rail track relocation Working on an active commuter rail line Availability of flagging staff Stations construction work done in parallel Systems installation work not in detail and insufficient duration Availability of skilled labor during peak season Construction work being done during winter season Limited construction lay down areas for construction work Community complaints due to construction noise/dust Coordination delays between the Fitchburg Small Starts project and GLX regarding commuter rail track relocations and the utility pulls. The cost contingency recommended by FTA for the Construction Phase is % of the adjusted stripped cost of $ equating to $ The contingency goal can likely be achieved but the grantee will have to closely monitor the Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP) for mitigation opportunities; and to also understand if contingency draw-downs are generally consistent with identified risks Revenue Service Date Milestone Forecast Project Status Construction of the Green Line Extension is complete The GLX systems integration is complete with the existing Green Line alignment and the pre-revenue operation is complete Safety certification is accepted by state and local agencies The GLX contractor will begin demolishing the old Lechmere Station. Requirements, Design and Market Risk None. Construction Risk Delays in completion of GLX construction Interface with commuter rail relocation and light rail construction Optimistic construction and systems installation duration. Pre-Revenue Testing and Start-Up Risk Integration delays of any of the GLX systems: train signal and traction power, radio, PA and CCTV, SCADA, Fire Alarm, communications, Operation Control Center Delays associated with pre-revenue Service and operation cut-over to the new line Obtaining safety certification Availability of two (2) married pair vehicles for dynamic testing. The cost contingency recommended by FTA for Revenue Service Date milestone is % of the adjusted stripped cost, equating to $ The grantee can achieve this contingency amount provided that there is continued monitoring of the RCMP. Page 28

35 7.2 Cost Contingency Backward Pass Method The PMOC developed a backward pass set of minimum recommended cost contingency values for each of the Project Phase Milestones utilizing project specific information that was developed through the scope, cost, schedule, and technical capacity and capability reviews as well as the Risk Assessment Workshop process. This next step is essentially a step back sequentially through the various completion milestones for the project in order estimate the cost contingency required to complete the project on budget, relative to these identified risks. The PMOC then used professional judgment to evaluate the recommended set of minimum contingency levels, which were affected by an increase in the schedule factors as well as the risk factors that are unique to the GLX project. The assessment concludes that the trends point towards a contingency level that is sufficient for this stage. The following subsections addressing each phase discuss specific risks associated with the project that influenced the Beta assignments, and specific mitigation expectations over time Revenue Service Phase The cost contingency recommended by FTA for the Revenue Service Date milestone is % of the adjusted stripped cost, equating to approximately $ In the PMOC s opinion, FTA recommended % cost contingency may not be adequate for the Revenue Service Date milestone due to the following cost risks: Delay in revenue service date based on current October 2015 RSD Increase in force account cost during systems integration Increase in professional cost Increase in systems start-up cost due to integration with existing system with new system Increase in demolition cost for old Lechmere Station due to due to potential contamination Potential delay claim by contractor due to constructive acceleration. The PMOC recommends that the total contingency for this phase be maintained at 5% to 7%, or $30.8 million to $43.1 million, to appropriately address the above risks. If the grantee re-baselines the schedule to incorporate a completion date that is later than October 2015, some of the risk will be mitigated Entry into Design-Build Construction Phase The contingency recommended by FTA at this stage is 10% of the adjusted stripped cost. In the PMOC s opinion, contingency should be maintained at 15% for this phase because of the advanced Phase I bridge work, relocation of the commuter rail tracks, and the maintenance facility construction. During the construction phase, specific risks are: Delay in revenue service date based on current October 2015 RSD Delay in commuter rail relocation work by impacting the construction activities Page 29

36 Interface with other on-going MBTA capital improvement projects Availability of flagging staff for all construction areas Construction of all GLX stations simultaneously Delay in review of the critical submittals and shop drawings Potential delay claim by contractor due to constructive acceleration Entry into Preliminary Engineering Milestone The cost contingency recommended by FTA for Entry into Preliminary Design phase is 30% of the adjusted stripped cost. Identified contingency of % is sufficient for the Entry into PE Phase, even with the following significant risks: Delay in revenue service date based on current October 2015 RSD Crash wall and community path requirements Advance Phase 1 Bridge reconstruction and retaining wall construction ROW acquisition and utility relocation Preliminary Maintenance Facility program and design Systems design is conceptual Systems start-up and pre-revenue operations are not well planned Contract delivery method for commuter rail relocation and Maintenance Facility FTA process required for funding. In the PMOC s opinion, the approximate % contingency currently allocated is sufficient to absorb cost risks for the Entry into PE phase. This opinion is based on the Page 30

37 fact that the cost impacts that may result from an extension to the project schedule (in the range of $ to $ YOE) can be offset by identified contingency; and remaining contingency at or near 30% is consistent with FTA guidelines for this phase. 7.3 Contingency Management Oversight As part of its oversight plan, the PMOC will perform the following monitoring activities to evaluate the grantee s mitigation efforts throughout each of the project milestones: Monitor the progress of the cost loaded Master Schedule Review development of the ROW acquisition and utility relocation matrix (PE phase) Monitor development of the Contract Implementation Plan (CIP) for expedited development (PE phase) Review utility relocation plans and processes (PE and FD phases) Monitor the Schedule development and maintenance Conduct a workshop to discuss and evaluate GLX s cost contingency management efforts (PE phase) Monitor the grantee monthly reports to assess cost and schedule status and remediation activities/status of any claims and change orders Monitor and review close-out activities of all contracts Monitor the development of the design/build and other construction contracts, including the bid tabulation report and current expenditures vs. estimated costs (FD phase) Monitor development of sound cost and schedule baseline information in support of the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) application (FD phase) Monitor GLX management of force account resources including percent complete and comparison of planned versus actual production rates (FD and Construction phases). 7.4 Cost Contingency Assessment Conclusion Based on historical experience, this project is exposed to typical cost impacts such as third party utility work, real estate acquisitions, environmental issues, weather impacts especially during winter, as well as Requirements Risk, Design Risk, and Market Risk that cannot be mitigated until the project advances further. The grantee's cost planning provides for $ (YOE) in contingency (combined allocated, unallocated, and latent), equating to %, to address these risks. The results of the Forward Pass assessment indicate the cost contingency is within FTA guidelines and is acceptable for entry into PE. However, it is important to note that the cost estimate is based on a October 1, 2015 start of revenue service which the risk assessment process has shown to be unachievable. If the schedule is extended in the range of two years, the project contingency would be drawn down at a rate in the range of $ (YOE) to cover escalation, extended overhead, and professional Page 31

38 services costs. As a part of the preliminary engineering process, this schedule issue will need to be addressed to understand the impact to the project cost and the viability of remaining contingency to adequately address identified risks. Based on the Backward Pass method, the PMOC recommends that the grantee s cost contingency planning for the Revenue Service Date milestone be increased above the 2% FTA guideline to 7%. This opinion is based primarily on the fact that revenue service will begin after completion of the cut-over to the new system and before demolition of the existing Lechmere Station and old viaduct are done. Construction work, and risk, will remain after the start of revenue service. PMOC Recommendation #1: Assess the cost estimate with benefit of an updated schedule to understand the impacts to escalation, overhead, and professional services costs due to an extended completion date. Re-evaluate identified contingency levels against the revised project cost to determine adequacy of the remaining contingency to address risks. 8.0 METHODOLOGIES - SCHEDULE As a part of the OP #34 Schedule Review, the PMOC selected relevant documentation for review and assessed each document for reasonableness. The results of these assessments and associated data were incorporated into the PMOC s review process and analysis results. As required under OP #34, Section Project Schedule Contingency Review, the PMOC utilized the cost and schedule risk registers developed during the risk workshop conducted on March 8 through March 10, 2011 in conjunction with the grantee s project schedule to obtain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and meaningful project data and information to effectively achieve the objectives of this Schedule Risk Assessment and Contingency Review. The first part of the schedule contingency analysis effort checked the integrity of the schedule, interrelationships and dependencies among the activities, and the reasonableness of the durations and float. The OP #34 Schedule Review Report concluded that the schedule provided by the grantee was not realistic, but the schedule was constrained by the state mandated RSD. Even though the grantee's current schedule revised the mandated date from December 31, 2014 to October 1, 2015, the schedule still depicted an unachievable date based on the following PMOC findings that were discussed in Section 2.5, Schedule Review. During the schedule risk workshop meeting held on March 10, 2011, the risk team members concluded that the current project schedule was not valid because (1) the preliminary engineering contracting approach changed, which resulted in significant delay to the PE effort that was not incorporated into the schedule; (2) the schedule had not been updated since the March 2009 timeframe; (3) the identified durations for meeting the Revenue Service Date (RSD) were not realistic; and (4) the critical project activities, such as pre-revenue testing and operations, were not included in the schedule. The risk team members, including the grantee and its consultants, discussed the critical design and FTA activities to determine workable and realistic durations required before the grantee could issue a Notice to Proceed Revised design and procurement activities were developed during the workshop meeting from the Page 32

39 point when FTA approves GLX to proceed with preliminary engineering, with a range of potential increases in activity durations identified. The PMOC utilized this revised summary version of MBTA s schedule as a basis to construct a probabilistic model using Monte Carlo methods. As a part of the schedule risk simulations, the PMOC merged these newly developed design and procurement activities with the activities that were included in the grantee s project schedule. Additionally, the cost and schedule risk register data developed during March 8 through March 10, 2011 was utilized to further investigate the potential schedule risks at each project phase milestone. The PMOC analyzed the likely range of Revenue Service Dates (RSDs) based on the combined effects of schedule uncertainty and risks. For added perspective, additional industry data was also accessed for the analysis, including one study commissioned by the FTA and TRP on schedule duration and the historical overruns in time experienced on FTA transit projects. The study is the TRP G-7 study of transit Managing Capital Costs of Major Federally Funded Public Transportation Projects (Project No. G-7). This study indicates that the design effort comprises approximately 50% of the total project duration; and the average total delay equates to an approximate 37% increase in project duration (based on average project length of 8.4 years and average project delay of 3.1 years). The study notes that the predominance of delay is experienced in the preliminary engineering phase, followed by final design and then construction in terms of delay exposure. 9.0 SCHEDULE RISK ASSESSMENT The schedule risk assessment was conducted on March 10, 2011 based on the Major Project Activities as shown in the table below. Table 6 - Major Project Activities Grantee Schedule Risk Workshop No Summary Schedule Activities Schedule Start Finish Start Finish 1 Complete Environmental 01JUL11 31OCT11 2 Preliminary Engineering 17MAY10 15SEP11 01JUL11 29FEB12 3 Right of Way 02AUG10 14NOV11 01NOV11 31OCT FEB11 30APR12 01JUL11 30APR MAY12 09OC13 01MAY13 24OCT APR13 31MAR15 28APR14 03MAY16 7 Start-up 01APR15 01OCT15 04MAY16 08NOV16 8 Pre-Revenue Service 06OCT16 08DEC16 9 Revenue Service Date 01OCT15 22DEC16 These activities reflect the primary work focus which includes Advanced Phase 1 Bridge reconstruction work, real estate acquisition, the FTA processes through FFGA and Page 33

40 procurement of the contract; and the above dates resulted from discussion and development of a workable summary schedule through award of the contract. This information was merged into the summary PE schedule and supplemented by the design and construction activity durations as depicted in the grantee s current schedule. The revised project schedule also provided for adjustment made to the calendar work days and provided an activity for pre-revenue operations, which was absent from the grantee s schedule. Essentially, this revised schedule information was then used as a reasonable basis to conduct the risk assessment modeling, relative to the schedule risk factors that were identified during the workshop meeting. The Monte Carlo simulation was run utilizing Pertmaster software. Three durations were identified for each activity as minimum, most likely, and maximum. The minimum and maximums were based on schedule risk factors identified during the risk workshop, past PMOC experience, and the PMOC s understanding of the overall program. This Monte Carlo modeling resulted in the Pertmaster distribution graph as shown in Figure 5 below. The graph shows a 10% probability that the Revenue Service Date can be achieved by March 2017; a 50% probability by July 2017; and a 90% probability by December These dates are significantly later than the MBTA s currently assumed RSD of October Figure 5 - Pertmaster-Distribution Graph Entire Plan : Finish Date 100% 21JUN18 95% 17JAN18 Data Finish Date of: Entire Plan 90% 01DEC % 31OCT17 Analysis Iterations: % 12OCT % 22SEP17 70% 08SEP17 Statistics Minimum: Maximum: 13SEP16 21JUN % 24AUG17 Mean: 18JUL17 Hits % 11AUG17 55% 31JUL17 50% 18JUL17 45% 05JUL17 40% 19JUN17 Cumulative Frequency Bar Width: month Highlighters 50% 18JUL17 10% 10MAR17 90% 01DEC17 Deterministic (13DEC16) 2% 50 35% 05JUN % 22MAY17 25% 04MAY % 19APR % 30MAR17 10% 10MAR % 08FEB SEP16 11DEC16 21MAR17 29JUN17 07OCT17 15JAN18 25APR18 Distribution (start of interval) 0% 13SEP16 Page 34

41 For comparison, before the risk modeling the PMOC developed a Revenue Service Date based simply on incorporating delays to date into the schedule, missing activities and an accurate calendar into the grantee s schedule, which resulted in a Deterministic revenue service date of December The December 2016 date did not address the compressed design/build duration or risks unique to the GLX project that were identified in the risk workshop setting. The Backward Pass discussion beginning in Section 9.1 provides a PMOC recommendation for contingency levels that should be maintained for each phase of the project. Importantly, these contingency levels are intended for application to an overall schedule that is reasonable and achievable, which the preceding graph indicates is considerably later than the current GLX schedule showing an October 1, 2015 Revenue Service Date. For added perspective, the PMOC also produced a Pertmaster Tornado Graph (Figure 6 below) that prioritizes the schedule activities with the greatest schedule risk, from highest to lowest. Based on the current schedule assumptions, the greatest schedule risk lies with the start-up. This risk is followed by preliminary engineering; commuter track relocation; signal and systems work; light rail guideway construction; processing time for FFGA approval; completion of advanced conceptual design; pre-revenue testing and operations; final design approval; and PMOC review of the final design submittals. Figure 6 - Pertmaster Tornado Graph Schedule Sensitivity Index L Startup 48% Definition of Schedule Sensitivity Index The schedule sensitivity index of a task is calculated by multiplying its criticality index by the ratio of its variance ag Analysis Simulation Iterations 1000 Latin Hypercube R PreliminaryEngineering L Construct Guideway-CRTrack Lowell 30% 35% Calculation Values are calculated for: each task in the plan L Signals/Controls/Catenary L Construct Guideway- Green Line Lowell 28% 26% Display Normal tasks only Showing 10 highest values Values greater than: 0 R FTA Review FFGA 21% R Advance Conceptual 19% L Pre-revenue Operations & Certifications 16% R FDApproval by FTA 16% R PMOCReview FD Submittals 13% Page 35

42 9.1 BACKWARD PASS ANALYSIS OP #40 specifies that the schedule analysis be based on a Backward Pass evaluation of the project activities. A Backward Pass involves assessing the schedule contingency based on specific risks identified for GLX at each phase milestone, beginning with the start of revenue service and regressing to the start of preliminary engineering. The following subsections address important schedule milestones utilizing the Backward Pass method, beginning with Revenue Service Date, Start Construction, Start Final Design, and ending with the Preliminary Engineering Phase. The project milestone dates, as developed during the risk workshop meeting, are summarized on Table 7 below (except for the Start PE Phase which was added by the PMOC). Table 7 - Project Milestone Dates Milestone Phases Grantee Dates Risk Workshop Dates Entry into Preliminary Engineering 17MAY10 01JUL11 01MAY12 01MAY13 16APR13 31MAR14 Systems Start-up 01APR15 04MAY16 Revenue Service Date 01OCT15 22DEC16 Project Completion 03MAR16 The corresponding analysis discusses risk factors at entry to each phase; how the project contingency allowance is calculated and the contingency threshold, in theory, becomes reduced over time; and provides an opinion as to the adequacy of the schedule contingency. In practical terms, as the project progresses and a potential delay is identified that exceeds the FTA recommended contingency, the grantee is required to identify mitigation techniques that allow the schedule to again fall within FTA recommended contingency thresholds. The starting point for this assessment is identification of the standard contingency levels for each phase of the project, for comparison to the grantee s schedule. These standard contingencies are recommended under OP #40, and summarized in Table 8 below (except for Start PE Phase which was added by the PMOC for this table). Table 8 Typical Schedule Contingency by Phase Milestone Phases Start PE Phase Entry into Final Design; Construction Phase Revenue Service Date Contingency Allowance 25% of (RSD-FD) 20% of (RSD-FD) 15% of (RSD-FD) 0% of (RSD-FD) It is important to note that the grantee s schedule, as currently depicted, contains no contingency including for preliminary engineering, procurement,, or pre-revenue operations and testing. Page 36

43 9.1.1 REVENUE SERVICE PHASE The typical schedule contingency for this phase is 0%; this compares to the grantee s schedule contingency of 0%. Forecast Project Status Construction of the Green Line Extension is complete The GLX systems integration is complete with the existing Green Line alignment and the pre-revenue operation is complete Safety certification is accepted by state and local agencies The GLX contractor will begin demolishing the old Lechmere Station. Requirements and Design Risk None. Geotechnical and Utility Risk None. Market Risk None. Construction Risk The construction completion could be delayed and the overall schedule provides for an optimistic systems installation duration. Start-Up Risk Integration delays of train signal and traction power, radio, public address and CCTV, SCADA, fire alarm, communications, Operation Control Center Delays associated with pre-revenue Service and operations cut-over to the existing line Obtaining safety certification Availability of two (2) married pair vehicles for dynamic testing. PMOC Observations and Contingency Mitigation Plan As the grantee brings the project to the point of revenue service, all construction work will be complete. Grantee monitoring of the final phase of construction, systems integration with the existing Green Line alignment, and implementation of pre-revenue service is important. In order to ultimately maintain the cost and schedule objectives, close-out activities should also be closely monitored to assure execution in a timely fashion. The grantee s schedule is within the allowable FTA schedule contingency threshold of 0%; however, the PMOC notes the potential for schedule delay in the range of one to three months. In the PMOC s opinion, this risk needs to be incorporated into the grantee s contingency planning. The table below is the summary of the potential schedule impacts for the Revenue Service Date Phase as described above, with appropriate contingency allocations as identified by the PMOC. Page 37

44 Table 9 PMOC Contingency Allocation at Revenue Service No. Schedule Impact Items Potential Impact Dur* 1 Integration delays of GLX systems 0 mo 2 Delays associated with pre-revenue operation and systems cut-over to the 2 mo new Extension line 3 Obtaining safety certification 1 mo 4 Vehicle delivery, inspection and testing 0 mo *Data from GLX OP #34 report and 10MAR11 risk workshop Total Potential Schedule Impact 1-3 mo Potential systems integration delays referenced above can be mitigated during the construction period if identified early in the final design and construction phase, but the PMOC recommends that one (1) to three (3) months be provided for the pre-revenue service, safety certification and operation cut-over to the new GLX extension line. As part of the PMOC s oversight plan, monitoring activities will be performed to evaluate the grantee s mitigation efforts throughout this project phase. This effort will be accomplished through on-going monitoring of summary reports provided by GLX; monitoring the Master Schedule (monitoring schedule durations of all contracts); and monitoring remediation activities/status of any claims and change orders; and monitoring the close-out activities of all contracts CONSTRUCTION START PHASE The typical schedule contingency for this phase is 15%, which would equate to seven (7) months based on the forty-four (44) month project duration based on a May 1, 2013 entry into final design and a December 2016 start of revenue service. This compares to 0% contingency in the grantee s current schedule. Forecast Project Status final design complete Grantee is negotiating with for the commuter rail relocation work contractor is preparing submittals for review to start construction work Phase 1 Bridge re-construction work is complete Maintenance facility design work is complete and construction work can start. Requirements Risk and Design Delays None. Geotechnical and Utility Delays Removal and treatment of contaminated soil. Market Delays None. Page 38

45 Construction Delays Union holidays not assigned Working on an active commuter rail line Availability of flagging staff Stations construction work done in parallel Systems installation work not in detail and insufficient duration Availability of skilled labor during peak season Construction work being done during winter season Limited construction lay down areas for construction work Community complaints due to construction noise/dust Coordination delays associated with the Fitchburg Small Start project Construction noise mitigation, can lead to the construction of low noise walls Due to the complexity of the construction, the connection with the existing viaduct can have schedule delays Rail bridge type and construction sequence due to active commuter rail. The design team should work towards early approvals for bridge design. Archeological findings at the maintenance facility. GLX has indicated that extensive site investigations are being conducted well in advance of construction. Work in the Boston area that will involve work within congested areas, possible work windows during holiday periods, and complex utility relocations. Definition of construction staging areas is required in order to validate the overall construction approach. Equipment and/or commodity delivery delays. PMOC Observations and Contingency Management Plan With the start of construction, the project progress allows for close out of most Requirements and Design Risk and associated design delays, and for significant reduction in Market Risk. However schedule risk still remains as noted above. At the phase, the schedule contingency is not within the recommended FTA contingency threshold amount of 15% (7 months), as the grantee s schedule has no contingency allowed for any schedule delays. The Table 11 on the following page, PMOC Contingency Allocation for Start of Construction, is the summary of the potential schedule impacts for this phase as described above, with appropriate contingency allocations as identified by the PMOC. Page 39

46 Table 11 PMOC Contingency Allocation for D/B Start of Construction No. Schedule Impact Items Potential Impact Dur* 1 6 mo Working on an active commuter rail line NA Availability of flagging staff NA Stations construction work done in parallel 6 mo Systems installation work not in detail and insufficient duration 3 mo Construction work being done during winter season 4-6 mo Limited construction lay down areas for station work NA Community complaints due to construction noise/dust NA Total Construction Potential Schedule Impacts 6-9 mo Total RSD Potential Schedule Impacts 1-3 mo Total Project Potential Schedule Impacts 7-12 mo * Data from GLX OP #34 report and 10MAR11 risk workshop Based on the preceding table, the total potential schedule risks are in a range of seven (7) to twelve (12) months; and the PMOC recommends inclusion of contingency in this range in the grantee s next schedule iteration. Additionally, the PMOC recommends that to come within the recommended schedule contingency threshold of seven (7) months for this phase, the grantee implement the following mitigation strategies: 1. Confirm availability of flagging staff through development of a resource loaded force account schedule 2. Interface with Fitchburg Small Starts to better understand construction interfaces 3. Avoid simultaneous construction of the six (6) GLX stations 4. Further describe the systems work, which is depicted in the current schedule as only one activity 5. Provide proper allowances for low construction productivity during the winter season 6. Clarify the Maintenance Facility program and design approach. As part of the PMOC oversight, the following monitoring activities to evaluate the grantee s mitigation efforts will be conducted: Monitor the contract durations over the course of the GLX Master Schedule development Monitor the and other construction contracts, including the bid tabulation report; and expenditures vs. estimated costs Page 40

47 Monitor the status of remediation activities and status of any claims or change orders Monitor the utility relocation process Monitor the force account productivity, including percent complete and comparison of schedule and current expenditures to estimated costs Conduct a workshop to discuss and evaluate the GLX schedule contingency management efforts FINAL DESIGN START PHASE The typical schedule contingency for this phase is 20%, which would equate to nine (9) months based on the forty-four (44) month project duration. This compares to 0% contingency in the grantee s current schedule. Forecast Project Status Complete Preliminary Engineering Finalized the contract delivery methods Complete negotiate, select and award the contract Complete Real Estate acquisition and easement agreements Full Funding Grant Agreement process almost complete or completed Advance Phase 1 Bridge Re-construction work almost complete or completed. Requirements Delays None. Design Delay Unclear Maintenance Facility program and design Contract approach method for the Track Relocation scope and Maintenance Facility Approval of station design aesthetic No detailed systems work (traction power, signal, communications, fare collection, operation control center) FTA FFGA submittal review process and funding. Market Delay Limited contractors participation due to size of the project (over $600M) and the risk of re-bid Protest from the unsuccessful contractors. Construction Delay Construction work interface with other projects Systems procurement and installation work planning is preliminary Systems start-up, testing and pre-revenue operation activities are not well planned. Page 41

48 PMOC Observations and Contingency Management Plan As the GLX project progresses significantly with the start of final design, Requirements Risk, Design Risk and Market Risk should be reduced. However, schedule risk still remains as noted above. At the Start of Final Design Phase, the schedule contingency is not within the recommended FTA contingency threshold amount of 20% (9 months), as the grantee s schedule has no contingency allowed for any schedule delays. The table below is the summary of the potential schedule impacts for this phase as described above, with appropriate contingency allocations as identified by the PMOC. Table 13 PMOC Contingency Allocation at Start of Final Design [1] No. Schedule Impact Items Potential Impact Dur 1 Interface with MBTA Engineering Department 2 mo Station design comments/requests from local community Unclear, ambiguous documents and performance specifications Maintenance Facility and Systems work scope not detailed 2 mo 2 mo 2 mo Total Potential Schedule Impacts Carryover- Subtotal Project Potential Schedule Impacts Total Project Potential Schedule Impacts [1] Data from GLX OP #34 report and 10MAR11 risk workshop 1-2 mo 9-12 mo mo Based on the preceding Table 13, the total potential schedule risks are in a range of between ten (10) to fourteen (14) months; and the PMOC recommends that the next schedule iteration provide for contingency in this range. Additionally, the PMOC recommends that to come within the typical nine (9) month contingency threshold for this phase, the grantee implement the following mitigation strategies: 1. Maintain good communications/relationships with MBTA Engineering Department 2. Finalize station the design concept and no work to eliminate additional station design changes due to community input/request. 3. Provide a well prepared performance specification 4. Manage the maintenance facility program definition, design and best possible procurement method to minimize the impact to the vehicle procurement and future Green Line operations PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PHASE The typical schedule contingency for this phase is 25%, which would equate to eleven (11) months based on the forty-four (44) month project duration. This compares to 0% contingency in the grantee s current schedule. Page 42

49 Actual Project Status PE/PM/CM contractor on-board Complete Advance Conceptual Design Design Advanced Phase 1 Bridge Re-construction scope Submit environmental clearance documents for FTA approval. Requirements Delays Barrier separation between commuter rail and light rail ROW Community path requirements by local communities. Design Delay Unclear Maintenance Facility program and design Contract approach method for the MBCR Track Relocation scope and Maintenance Facility Approval of station design aesthetic No detailed systems work (traction power, signal, communications, fare collection, operation control center) FTA Readiness to Enter FD review process FTA FFGA review process and funding. Market and Construction Delay Limited contractors participation due to size of the project (over $600M) Protest from the unsuccessful contractors. Construction Delay Construction work interface with other projects Systems procurement and installation work planning is preliminary Systems start-up, testing and pre-revenue operation activities are not well planned Real estate acquisition and utility relocation. PMOC Observations and Contingency Management Plan As GLX progresses into the preliminary engineering effort, Requirements Risk and some Design Risk will be lessened but not eliminated. There is no available schedule contingency to cover these risks. Table 15 on the following page, PMOC Contingency Allocation for the Start of Preliminary Engineering, is a summary of the potential schedule impacts with contingency provisions as identified by the PMOC. Page 43

50 Table 15 PMOC Contingency Allocation for Start of PE [1] No. Schedule Impact Items Potential Impact Dur 1 Interface with MBTA Engineering Department 1 mo 2 Station design comments/requests from local community 3 mo 3 Unclear, ambiguous documents and performance specifications 2 mo 4 Maintenance Facility and Systems work scope not detailed 2 mo Total Potential Schedule Impacts 2-3 mo Carryover- Subtotal Project Potential Schedule Impacts mo Total Project Potential Schedule Impacts mo [1] Data from GLX OP #34 report and 10MAR11 risk workshop Based on the preceding table, the total potential schedule risks are in the range of twelve (12) to seventeen (17) months; and the PMOC recommends that the next schedule iteration provide for contingency in this range. Additionally, the PMOC recommends that to come within the typical eleven (11) month contingency threshold for this phase, the grantee implement the following mitigation strategies: 1. Finalize the contract delivery method for the project, which is still being evaluated, especially for the maintenance facility and commuter rail track relocation 2. Expedite the procurement, negotiation, and selection process 3. Assure that clarity with regard to plans, documentation, and the performance specifications 4. During the bidding process, exercise diligence to avoid protests from unsuccessful bidders 5. Work closely with FTA to understand the process for advancing the Phase I bridge work ahead of the contract 6. Assure ADA requirements with regard to station designs and community input are fully vetted during the Advanced Conceptual Phase 7. Expedite the real estate acquisition and easement/encroachment agreements for the maintenance facility and stations 8. Expedite submittal preparation for documents required to complete the New Starts evaluation process and entry into PE, such as the Financial Plan Schedule Contingency Assessment Results Based on historical experience, this project is exposed to typical schedule delay impacts such as third party utility work, real estate acquisitions, environmental issues, and weather impacts especially during winter. Factors unique to this project include technical capacity and capability related to working within a dense urban corridor, working in and around an operating railroad, and other factors as discussed in this report. The grantee's schedule planning does not address these risks through appropriate allocation of contingency. Page 44

51 The results of the Backward Pass assessment indicate the schedule contingency is not within FTA guidelines, nor is it adequate for managing the project schedule risks. Specifically, FTA guidelines equate to eleven (11) months at the start of preliminary engineering; nine (9) months at the start of final design; seven (7) months at the start of construction; and no contingency at the start of revenue service. The GLX project schedule carries no schedule contingency to absorb the schedule risks identified for these upcoming project phases. Even with the recommended OP #40 contingency allowance, the project contingency may not be able to sufficiently accommodate schedule risks identified in this report, as indicated below by the Schedule Contingency Trend Chart, Figure 7. The chart graphically compares the grantee s schedule contingency to the PMOC s recommended minimum and maximum contingency as well as the typical recommended levels for each project phase. Figure 7 - Schedule Contingency Trend Chart Months Revenue Operation Date GLX Schedule Contingency Trend D B Start Construction Start D B Final Design Start Preliminary Eng GLX Contingency OP #40 PMOC Min Contingency PMOC Max Contingency The revised project schedule developed as a part of the risk workshop process with more realistic preliminary engineering and contract procurement durations (but maintaining GLX s optimistic construction duration) still does not have contingency to manage the risks identified or meet the FTA guidelines for the Preliminary Engineering and phases. In the PMOC's professional opinion, the identified risks point to a prudent contingency level in the range of twelve (12) to seventeen (17) months. In order to meet the FTA recommended Schedule Contingency thresholds of 25% (11 months) at the Start of PE milestone, the PMOC recommends the following to reduce the schedule risks and to conform with the Schedule Contingency thresholds: Provide a realistic and workable design and construction schedule. Provide a more detailed activities for start-up and pre-revenue operations. When planning the revised GLX schedule, use the realistic design and construction schedule to project the RSD date versus having a mandated RSD date. Page 45

52 Add FTA recommended contingency duration to a realistically revised schedule. When the revised GLX schedule is complete and approved by all stakeholders, update the schedule monthly to analyze the project progress. Include utility relocation activities to the revised GLX schedule. When working on the revised GLX schedule, assign holidays to the schedule and consider work productivity issues during winter season. If the FTA funding is the prerequisite for issuing NTP to the contractor, include all FTA review and submittal activities leading to the federal funding. PMOC Recommendation: Prepare a workable and realistic project schedule which is not constrained by a mandated Revenue Service Date, but a Revenue Service Date driven by logical ties from Advanced Conceptual Engineering, Preliminary Engineering, procurement, design and construction, start-up and pre-revenue operations activities. The project schedule should include the contingency duration which can be a minimum of twelve (12) months to a maximum of seventeen (17) months, to absorb the potential schedule risk impacts. Status Update: Since the risk assessment workshop was conducted, the grantee s risk mitigation approach was to develop a project schedule with the benefit of the Risk Assessment Workshop discussion that incorporates revised durations, sequencing, and logic. This schedule is currently under development, and indicates the grantee will accept the schedule risk and rebaseline the schedule CONCLUSION Scope: The PMOC completed a review of the Conceptual design package and prepared a Scope Review Report under FTA Operating Procedure No. 32c (OP #32c). The report concludes the design was developed to a level adequate as for this phase; is consistent with the stated LPA and with the environmental documents; and represented an adequate baseline to commence the risk assessment process. Contract Packaging and Project Delivery: In January 2011 the PMOC reviewed the Project Delivery Alternatives Report for adequacy for the current stage of project development and prepared the Project Delivery Review Report under OP #32d. The PMOC's report concluded that the grantee's documentation is developed to an acceptable level; but if the project advances into PE, the project delivery planning needs to further evolve into a Contract Implementation Plan. In the PMOC's opinion, some of the project attributes are not conducive to a project delivery. The MBTA and its consultants are assessing how the construction work can be approached to minimize risk Page 46

53 to the contractor, including utilization of force account labor for inspection only; advancing the completion of bridge, track relocation, utility relocation, sound wall, and retaining wall work ahead of the main construction work; and packaging the maintenance facility separately as a design-bid-build contract. Cost: The PMOC completed an assessment of the $953.7 million estimate in June 2010 and prepared the associated Cost Review Report under OP #33. Although the estimate was well developed and thorough, the PMOC concluded the $953.7 million (YOE) estimate was not reliable primarily because it was overlaid against an unrealistic schedule. The cost contingency at % (patent and latent contingency) compares to the FTA guideline of 30% for entry into PE. On a percentage basis, the contingency is acceptable for this stage and appears to adequately address risk identified in this report. The PMOC recommends that 5% to 7% contingency be held for the Revenue Service Phase, where the FTA guidance calls for 0%, because in the case of GLX demolition work that will occur after track cut-over and the start of revenue service. It is important to note that the cost estimate is based on an October 1, 2015 start of revenue service which the risk assessment process has shown to be unachievable. If the schedule is extended in the range of two (2) years the project cost could increase in the range of $0.96 billion to $1.01 billion to cover escalation, assuming an annual inflation rate of 3.5%. Although the cost contingency appears adequate for this stage, the PMOC recommends the estimate be recalculated based on a more realistic schedule to understand the impact to the project cost and the viability of remaining contingency to adequately address identified risks. Schedule: The schedule provides for a revenue service date (RSD) of October 1, 2015 and a project completion date of March The RSD is a statute-driven completion date as mandated by the State of Massachusetts. The PMOC performed a detailed schedule review in August 2010 under FTA Oversight Procedure No. 34 (OP #34). The review concluded the project completion date is not reliable because it is overly aggressive due to a constrained revenue service date. Since that time, the schedule has continued to be delayed, particularly related to commencement of the preliminary engineering effort. The results of the schedule modeling point toward a revenue service date that could be in the range of March 2017 to December 2017, but the completion date can only be determined through development of a ground-up and detailed schedule that is based on realistic durations, work sequencing and work calendars. The PMOC recommends that the grantee prepare a workable and realistic project schedule that is not constrained by a mandated Revenue Service Date and includes adequate contingency levels. Technical Capacity & Capability (TCC): MBTA possesses the technical capacity and capability to manage the PE effort, with the help and support of its CM/PM/PE consultant (HDR-Gilbane). TCC will continue to be developed by MBTA with particular regard to (2) continuing development and implementation of enhanced project control methods and procedures. Page 47

54 APPENDICES Page A-1

55 APPENDIX A - LIST OF ACRONYMS ADA AGM BCI BF BFMP BRF BY CCB CCI CER CFO CFR CIP D-B DPU EIR/EA FD FFGA FRA FTA GLX KKCS LPA MAS MassDOT MBCR MBTA MOW NEPA NTP OCC OCS OMP PDG PE PDA PDR PQAP PMOC PMP PMT PTC QA Americans with Disabilities Assistant General Manager Building Cost Index Beta Factor Bus Fleet Management Plan Beta Range Factors Base Year Change Control Board Construction Cost Index Cost Estimate Relationship Chief Financial Officer Code of Federal Regulations Contract Implementation Plan Design Build Department of Public Utilities Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment Final Design Full Funding Grant Agreement Federal Railroad Administration Federal Transit Administration Green Line Extension Kal Krishnan Consulting Services, Inc. Locally Preferred Alternative Maximum Authorized Speed Massachusetts Department of Transportation Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Maintenance of Way National Environmental Policy Act Notice to Proceed Operations Control Center Overhead Catenary System Operations and Maintenance Plan Project Development Group Preliminary Engineering Project Delivery Alternatives Project Delivery Report Project Quality Assurance Plan Project Management Oversight Consultant Project Management Plan Project Management Team Positive Train Control Quality Assurance Page A-2

56 QAP QA/QC RAMP RCMP RFP RFQ ROW RSD SCADA SCC SSMP SSO TCC TPSS VHB VMT WBS YOE Quality Assurance Plan Quality Assurance/Quality Control Real Estate and Acquisition Management Plan Risk and Contingency Management Plan Request for Proposal Request for Qualifications Right of Way Revenue Service Date Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Standard Cost Categories Safety and Security Management Plan State Safety Oversight Technical Capacity and Capability Traction Power Substation Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Vehicle Miles Traveled Work Breakdown Structure Year of Expenditure Page A-3

57 APPENDIX B PMOC TEAM The Risk Assessment Report was prepared by Kris Kim, Ron Anderson, and Reza Mohammadina, PhD. Mr. Anderson has a B.A. degree with 33 years of experience, including over 24 years of transit experience; Mr. Kim possesses a M.S. degree in Construction Management and has over 27 years of construction and project management experience; and Dr. Dr. Mohammadinia is the KKCS Risk Manager with over twenty years of experience including 16 years of transit or transit related experience. The technical review of this report was provided by Roberta Manshel. Ms. Manshel has an M.B.A. in Finance and over 30 years of project management experience. The quality control review was performed by Janice Johnson (KKCS). Ms. Johnson has a background in English Studies and over ten years of experience providing quality review checks of PMOC work products. Page A-4

58 APPENDIX C RISK ASSESSMENT EVALUATION TEAM The personnel noted below were participants in the GLX project Risk Assessment workshop and evaluation. FTA Team Member Organization/Address Telephone/ Role Laurie Fucini-Joy Federal Transit Office () Task Order Manager Administration, Region II Cell () Fax () GRANTEE ORGANIZATION Team Member Frank DePaola Mary Ainsley Organization/Address Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 500 Arborway, 1 st Floor Jamaica Plain, MA Telephone/ Office () Cell () Fax () Office (617) Fax (617) mainsley@mbta.com Role General Manager (AGM) for Design and Construction Program Manager, Director of Design and Construction Katherine Fichter MassDOT Long Range Planning 3.3 PMOC Team Member Ron Anderson Reza Mohammadinia, P.E. William Byrn, P.E. Kris Kim Organization/Address Kal Krishnan Consulting Services 900 Wilshire Blvd., #1230 Los Angeles, CA Kal Krishnan Consulting Services 17 Battery Place, Suite1328, New York, NY David Evans & Associates th St., Suite 900 Denver,CO Kal Krishnan Consulting Services 900 Wilshire Blvd., #1230 Los Angeles, CA Office Cell Fax Office Cell Fax Office Cell Fax Office Cell Fax Telephone/ (213) (818) (213) ron.anderson@ kkcsworld.com (212 ) (917) (212) mohammadinia@ kkcsworld.com (720) (720) (720) bbyrne@deainc.com (213) (818) (213) lakriskim@gmail.com Role PMOC Task Order Manager PMOC Risk Manager PMOC Risk Workshop Facilitator PMOC Senior Project Manager Allison Agliardo StanTomlinson, P.E. Arie Ravid Kal Krishnan Consulting Services 17 Battery Place, Suite1328, New York, NY Kal Krishnan Consulting Services 344 Thomas L. Berkley Way, #302 Oakland, CA Kal Krishnan Consulting Services 900 Wilshire Blvd., #1230 Office Cell Fax Office Fax Office Fax (212 ) (720) (212) aggli@yahoo.com (510) (510) stan.tomlinson@ kkcsworld.com (213) (213) Arie.ravid@ PMOC Technical Specialist Geotechnical PMOC Technical Specialist Bridges/Structural PMOC Technical Specialist Cost Estimator Page A-5

59 Team Member Organization/Address Telephone/ Role Los Angeles, CA kkcsworld.com Candy Spitzer Spitzer & Associates 1406 Hether Street Austin, TX Office Fax (512) (512) PMOC Technical Specialist Real Estate Richard Lime Office Fax Associates.com () () Albert Scala Stantec Rickey Grenn Stantec Office: 1700 Pacific Avenue Suite Fax: Dallas TX Denis Broadhurst Stantec th Street SE Calgary AB T2A 7HB Office Cell Fax (214) Ext (214) Rickey.Green (403) (403) (404) PMOC Technical Specialist Systems/Signals PMOC Technical Specialist Vehicles/ADA PMOC Technical Specialist Safety PMOC Technical Specialist Track Page A-6

60 ATTACHMENTS Attachments Page 1

61 A. Cost Risk Register Attachments - Page 2

62 Attachments - Page 3

63 Attachments - Page 4

64 Attachments - Page 5

65 Attachments - Page 6

66 ISK A SSE SSMENT GLX New starts A l ication P MOC _ Kal Krishnan Consuftin Services, In Ern t o Prelim in En ineerin March , ~ S Ii ~ I<I ~. n~l<s...ui too lirt1»<di<w<<ow In II» Scf>o.d... R,<I< s..~"""" BanV. Risk Auessme'" Risk Ide... ificatlon and OesenpUon STANDARD COST $"'" Ad; ru I_ Low. 2 _ loi edium, 3_HI h IoI ldgation NonlO,ll... CATEGORIE S Total wlo P,oblty ched... o.ii".,~,," Ennl Outcom I~1 <, ~~~S l Pn>"""'_y """'tn'lo... (.... "".,.~1 ~,."::~:;:;,!=~",,,,,,, mobl!'7"',onl ""d,,,, ~-- r,,. d_n... rc a"""ss '''''''n:>t''1'' ''''' Pn)IKI can no<,,-,... I&IV ~,.. _~ '" "'" "''''*< _... I ~O:sHA. NFPAI$lar.»n:t>---. ~ _ 10 1)I'OI.ct the SlI.. "'9_ deyeiopmenr "",,<'OI '<m,,,, ~ Oa.. Du. Rnlsed Bet TO Attachments - Page 7

67 Attachments - Page 8

68 Attachments - Page 9

69 Attachments - Page 10

70 Attachments - Page 11

71 A. Schedule Risk Register Attachments - Page 12

72 ASSESSMENT - SCHEDULE GLX New Starts A lication-2012 Ent t o Prelim ina En ineerin Assessment Performed by I PMOC - Kal Krishnan Consulting Services, Inc_ Date of Review.08MAR11-11MAR11 ~ame project I capadty, 6' Attachments - Page 13

73 Attachments - Page 14

74 Attachments - Page 15

75 Attachments - Page 16

76 Attachments - Page 17

77 Attachments - Page 18

78 ASSESSMENT - SCHEDULE GLX New Starts A lication Ent t o Prelim ina En ineerin Assessment Performed by I PMOC - Kal Krishnan Consulting Services, Inc_ Date of Review.08MAR11-11MAR11 before track can dlri'lg mer season "'" lias 10 be done under or be debyed due 6' Attachments - Page 19

79 Attachments - Page 20

80 AsH'S... ni Mlltrics " actor.. Assessment M ed,um M., Performed by I PMOC - Kal Krishnan Consutting Services, Inc Date of Review OOMAR11-11 MAR11 Hi h H,. 75% V. ''''''' HihVH 1 The 1.2 rnonlhs lor the guideway preparation fortlle lowd Iile ~em; aggressive (6,0B4lfperweelend) werslr.> 1.!t months for the Flchtug Iile (1.188 IflWeekend)_ TrackwOlk IIOtOrly inolves lijying running ral but ai$o inchjdes /robilzlloon, n..,eying, ballast. tan..-,g welding, grinding, nspection, ilstaling speciallrack'mlrk. liiili ion IIIl1thod 2 stagilg area is req~dfor tra~ lower production l'liie wilhout. staging area. instalalion lor runnilg mils and/or track panels, sleepers and tie~ baltasl il Ufban con5ljuttion are3. siems -S. alslconiroisicalcil3 t OnIJ one actmty for systems wort ilthe project scllecue. Developmenl of /rore debd $)"Stems wort coft1lrisinll signal tonijoi. traction p~r, toojninitations and its relal~tvps wii ncrease the system dlr.ltion. PnxlRmeni of the ~mlt1l5 equipment tan a1'5o ~tthe syilems wort. Inlefface delays Development of de-tai systems wolk with ilterlace ties wi ilerease tile construction dlr.l1ion. "., 15-Oct Mar Attachments - Page 21

81 Attachments - Page 22

82 ASSESSMENT - SCHEDULE GLX New Starts A Ilcation 2012 Ent to Prelimina En ineerin Assessment Performed by Date of Review GLX-ScheduteRiskRegi!SltlO' _lin al-.lune 11.xls " Attachments - Page 23 6I2fJl2fJ 11

83 ASSESSMENT - SCHEDULE GLX New Starts A lication-2012 Ent to Prelimina En ineerin,,, _ and can in1>act the sche1l~e_ Use of start. or start to start logic Service Dat, is targ et driv... wm be When wor1c is delayed on ~ can have ripple effect:o RSO, up with a reah&!ic _ With this wor\:ab!e a what-w schedules I achieve the Attachments - Page 24

84 B. Risk Assessment Action Items Matrix ACTION PLAN DAn 1 Assign Specialty ParticilJill nts, Tn.Or. 14 Jin ll b 8 ridl~ 14 ),,,-11, Strllctu,~ 14 J;on 1l d 5y>tem~ i ~nab 14-I"n-ll Med!ania l ",. Utili!.", l4 bn 11, Vell id~ 14 )an 11 ~, h 14 Jan 11 ; Sched~l" IHan-ll j 'M \4 J;on Jan 11 k ~.., OJ>efalion~ 14."n-ll m Gealed1nlcal I4 Jan II " Real E~"'te 14 Jan 11 0 Dnicl>/8uild Delivery 14']an-1l, Moderate Work>hop 14 Jan 11, M ~nt.:litl Sp'eadsheocts at RIA than 11, ObUl,n Remat,,;nRWQ A~p t.. lo, RIA Stalf 2Han-ll 1 Scope/Cost/Schedule Baselines CompleteOP '32t RePOrt 3O-llug-tO b Complcte OP '33 RellOrt 30 Jun 10 0 Cond'-:I Cost Worksnop Mo:«ing 19-5ep-10 d CompieteOP 134 Report 3O-~p - l0 Cond.-:t s.:hcd ~ l c W()(kshop Mcct!n(l l De.: 10, Complp-Ie Dr"'l OP _32d Re ~-10, Complcte D,aft OP.3201 Rcport 18 ""'b-ll ] PMP and Sub-Plans R"v",", PMP 2!1-h:b-11 b PMO PMP Rcv,.ion Rev,ew 31 M~ ' II 0 RevCsi! RFMP 3O - ~o~ - tn d PMO RFMP~i_ 31).1,,"-11 GLX RISK A SSESSM ENT ACTION ITEM LIST ~AL ASSIGNED TO (confirmed) Ol/ll/l1 10-J;o:\-11 8,,,,,clh,,,.1 Tomlinwn 10 Ja" 11 TomliMOrl IO-Ja n-1l l iroe ",. LeneYaant IQ I,m tl "aliaroo l1-jan l1 "", 10 Ju-ll Ravid 10-)a,,-11 I;':;", n -I,m-ll "", 11 J:m 11 G ' ~n t-j...,1 By"'" 10 Jan 11 Asha,do 11 Jan 1\ Sp:trer 14 Ju 1l 13-Ja"-lI ~ I a ne' By.r>e/ An<icr..,.,' ReIa 10 Jan II Re.31Kim J lan l1 ~ '~h n~nll'te, 6-lIug-tO 29lun-tO IInde rwn AndctsOn 19 Sep-IO R:o~ i d JO-Sep-ll K im/fln~"'" 2-[lec-1O "m 211-0ec-10 Asliar(k> IS Mar II B~me,~ "" 3O - ~Qv - 10,~ 3O - M~r - ll k," Su... te<; '''' "" KKCS rusume mlmimal,eoq ui.emenb "" SI3.. te<; '''' "" Su... tk Stant.:.< KI(CS Stante<: Spit:c,Awx Hill int'i DEA/KKCS '''' '''' REMARKS Rc~ f t lo FTA Ian 3; to be '".ubmilted aftef next "",,,,[on Attachments - Page 25

85 PlAN DAn, Submit BFMP lv-nov-lo f PMO BfMP R""i"w 30 J~n ll, SubmitOMP 30 NO'< 10 h PMO OMP Review lq Jan ll, R~v i,., OAP IS DevIO ; PMO OAP Review 15 Fcb 1l ~I Submit SSMP PMO SSMP Rt:vi~w 10 Jan II lr F~b l1 m Rcvi.eRAMP 7 Oct 10 " PMO Revised RAMP Review 30 Nov 11 0 QeV.,r"f> RCMP~, p;orlor PMP JO.A,,, Technical Capacity & Capability Idcntif'; Interviewcc:s IOlan II b Provide CMjPMjPE RfP 30 J~,, 11, 0.:,.,,<:101' Interview Schedule & PMO Lead. 20 Jan II d Provide Rc.umcs 30J3nl1 e (,,,,d,,,'1 )nte,view, 10 Feb l1 f Write IntefV;Cw Findings 11 Feb 11, P'''p",'' Oralt OP "21 Report ls Feb ll 5 RI A Meeting Preparation, 0.,.,,101' Work,fK>1' Mp'"ting Ag"",J~, 14 J~ n ll b 5.-nd Conform in\! ( mail to Team 17 J3n 11, R""..,,,,, 81,,,," Ho lt:1 Rl>lHn~ 17 J~n_ll d R" sp',,,] Top.l R;," Q"",tion"~ ; 'e 19 J~n l l, Contact IIlnsley to 5.-t up M~ti"l: Venu.. 30 Jan l1 f f i".ii,,, SI"~"'hh.,,,t, f,, ' m~l' l4 F"b l1, Ri, k T " ~,,, ljpr]~\e, IS Feu 11 h Distr ibute OP ,i.. <tot"3m I -Ma,-ll, ncsd,y. Ru" 2 M., 11 i Ocv"lnp pp Ch~rl$/T" bl~.$ fur D<! Brid 24 M~ f I I 6 Workshop Meeting #1 (Aug 2010), RIA O,ip'"!.!.i,,,, p,,,,,,,,!;rti,,,, 31.Au g.io GlX RISK ASSESSMENT ACTION ITEM LIST...,uAl DAn JO Nov-lO ASSIGNED TO '" '" It-Mar-n,.,." 30 NOV Fe b-11 Byrne 10 Jan 11 '" Trep!> '" '" 21 M~r l1 G,~"n" 7 Oct Nov 11 Spitzer '" 10 Jan II Anderson li! J~,, 11 Ain,l"y 20 Jan 11 Andcr.on (Ieadl 30 Jon 11 Ainslqo 10 Feb ll A,><J.""", jl,,~d) 14 Fcb 11 Anderson jle3dl ls F.. b l1 IInd.."on jl.. adl 16 F"b ll And",,"n 17-Jan-11 IInderson 17 ]~,, _ 11 A",J""on/Joh""lrl R Feb 1 1 A"d",,"n 30-Jan-11 IInderson 14 Feb ll Kim 1 M.. l1 A"d"" "" l Mar 11 2 M., ll IInderson/Johnson A"d",,,,,t/Byr,,,,/Kim/R,,,. 24 M3r II Kim/AoocrsonRc...'1I.Aug.l0 And.,,,,,,, REMARKS Review underway of MBTA doc; HOR cioc pending receipt o,~rt PMO '''pori d"",,; ur. le, 'eview Wil l require minor cdits Andc,son/l(im/ Aglia rdo fp.br th,u Febl!l SUWOr1: Kim!ARl iardo Support: IIr.l iaroo W""kly,, rn~ii, (lj~nw.. di,.,~1i ",,,. gp.oo. holel. "le.1 Attachments - Page 26

86 PLAN DATE b H,,,,d,,,,l Top II R i ~lc~ Q"">lin,m"i,,, Jl Au~. 10, RC'Vicw ark! R" Confirm RIA DatC'> & Plan 31 Aug 10 d Rc-vicw RIA Datc:s/ Actiom. 8 feb 11 GlX RISK ASSESSMENT ACTION ITEM LIST DAT Jl A~. ll1 ASSIGNED TO And",,..,,, 5 Jan 11 And"~n 8 Feb 11 AndCfSOIl OffIcial RCMP " Itcr RIA REMARKS O, S<:U ~s ReM P Jl i\ u ~ lo 7 Workshop Meet ing #2 (Feb 2011), Abb"... j"ted Coualim."<J<1 MI!!.' t ' F"b l1 b Rc, Iss<IC Hilndout & M i ni Prescntoltion 11 Fe b 11, Coofirm RIA MlK Vcr"..::: and Equipment 25 Feb 11 d Col l~t Top J Rl*" g M", ll e...,bi..., Ri... R"gi,I.", ll_f"b lt f PO!.lII"to: Ri.b/Sl>lr.l;"d s"r.., lr F"b l1 8 Workshop Meeting #3 (Mar 2011), Ron/lim Tra"",1 ~M"r ll b Coord l "a~ R~p tion 7-M"r-ll, R/A T".. m T,... f! 1 & Ro:oeplion 7_M..,_1! d PMOC Team Huddle 8 Mar 11 Alignmen t Tour in AM 8 Mar 11 f Sp~" l ty GrOllp Bre"It-Ollt Mtcs in PM 8-M",-11 R!,.k A-'~f! "'m,, nt W<><k" hup 10_Mit,_1 1 h Bt:t>o A",i!!nm"nl.' in AM l ' _ M~,_ 1 t, GLX Beta Input Mc-cting in PM 11 Mil r 11, Travel Day 12 Mar 11 k Develo p Su mmarv Find;n&,- & a."rts 16-Ma,-11 I o., B''''1 w/coord M4! ]1 1.1",_1 1 9 Final Reports (late April & May 2011), W rite OP 11'40 Risk Assessment 1 A~ 11 b W rite OP If~ Ent ry into P[ ~ port ]l-may-ll ll ",UE -lo "':>d~r)c"'l i m 11 Ft,b 11 Welr/A!!.I;..,do 11 Feb 11 AndCfSOIl 2S Feb 11 Andc""'rIIA i "~cy 8 M"r-ll And"",.,,, 11 Ft,b 1! Kim UI_F"b l1 Kim/ R"", 6-M,,,-ll PMQCT"am 7-M"r-ll l rishn"n 7_M"'_11 PMOCT".. m 8 Mar 11 PMOCTeam 8 Mar 11 Aim lcy 8-M"r-11 GLX/ FTN PMOC 10 M",_ M",_11 PMOCT,,~m Ande,,,,,,, (I"itd) 28 Mar 11 Anderson (lead) 12 Mar 11 Andcrs.on!Kim/Rc.iI/Byrne Ui-Mar- n Byr"",/Rela ]1 1.1,,, 11 And",,,,,,,,K,m 18 Jun 11 AnderSOn/lim lo-jun-ll Anderson ~e,. d) PP projc<:tor, m icropl!o,""" wnl li"". whitcboard Travel on Sunday 8:00.. m cult.,., huddlf! p,io< to n>f!f!lin!! Orientation MtR ilnd touf M", 9 " n d M"r 10 A,"'""""n/lim/By-,nf!/Moh.. mrnitdin;" A,.J",,,,,n/K'nr/By-'nf!/Moh~mmitd ' n i ~ Travcl on SaturdiIV Combin" w/coo,dim. tion Mil! Trip Attachments - Page 27

87 C. GLX Alignment Pictures Figure A-1 Bridge Structure View 1 Figure A-2 Bridge Structure View 2 Figure A-3 Lechmere Station Figure A-4 Right of Way Figure A-5 MBTA Tire Repair Warehouse Figure A-6 Business to be Relocated To be Closed Because of ROW Attachments - Page 28

88 Figure A-7 Bridge to be Reconstruction Figure A-8 Bridge to be Reconstructed Figure A-9 Business to Be Relocated Figure A-10 Bridge to be Reconstructed Figure A-11 Bridge to be Reconstructed Figure A-12 Existing Commuter Rail Attachments - Page 29

89 Figure A-13 Landmark Building Figure A-14 Residential Development Near ROW Figure A-15 Bridge with Utilities Figure A-16 Recently Renovated (2008) to be Rebuilt Bridge to be Rebuilt Figure A-17 Scrap Metal Yard to be Effected by ROW Attachments - Page 30