DRAFT RISK REGISTER

St. Croix Crossing Project

Rev: 0_
Date: 7/2/2012

Risk
Ref.#

Description of Risk / Opportunity

Consequence)

(Cause and

ProbabilityImpact
Matrix

Certain Not To
Happen

Somewhat
Unlikely

Slightly Unlikely

Unknown

Slightly
Likely

Somewhat
Likely

Prob

<5%

5-25%

25-40%

40-60%

60-75%

75-95%

>95%

Cost ($)

<250K

250 - 500K

500K - 2M

2-5M

>5 -7 M

7 - 10 M

Time (Days)

1 Week

1-2 weeks

2 weeks-1 months

1-2
months

Schedule
Impact

Rank

On-Time
Completion

Within
Budget

Probability Cost Impact

2 - 3 months 3 - 6 months

Utility relocations needed over and above those

identified results in increased costs, delays and
20.4 offers more opportunities for protests from antiproject groups. Utilities that may need
relocation and they have not been identified.

>10 M
>6 months

Impacts Project Objectives

Highest
Quality

20 Minnesota Approach
Difficulty in constructing foundations due to
contaminated materials and remnant from the
energy plant, land fills site or other unknown
20.3 difficulties related to the Super Fund site that
may create environmental issues and cause
delays to project schedule and increase costs or
impact the environment.

Certain To Happen

30

30

Public/
Worker
Safety

Public Trust &

Confidence

Agency
Reputation

Protecting
Environment

Mitigation/ Management Actions

1. Identify the boundaries of the potentially

contaminated areas and determine design work and
impacts.
2. Spread the foundation and study settlement issues.
3.The above needs to be done before the RFP, and a
consultant has been hired to assist with geotech and
contaminated property assessments.

1. Incorporate all public utility work in the contract

documents.
2. Incorporate scope and schedule into the contractor
documents.
3. Require private utility companies to relocate at their
own expense.
4. There is a 3 way agreement between state, contractor
and utility owner and contractor is responsible for
coordinating the work.
5. Complete utility information sheets, scope, schedule
and budget. (Utility coordination with all parties should
occur in summer 2012.)

1. Perform thorough geotechnical investigation and

analysis.
2. Review construction techniques and other water
treatment options.
3. Review need for the drop shaft.
4. Plan for temporary drainage, review BMPs for soil
erosion

10 Wisconsin Approach
Complications during construction of the drop
shaft on the Wisconsin bluff results in excessive
10.4 bluff disturbance, probable construction
modifications, delays, Agency friction and
compromisesWisDOT reputation.

20

Unfavorable weather may impact construction

activities. Time of year of erection and
expansion / contraction given extreme
10.13 temperature variances may need special
handling and 'weather windows' which may not
have been considered in design, construction
approach or overall schedule

25

18

31.2

28

Unfavorable weather may impact construction

activities. Time of year of erection and
expansion / contraction given extreme
40.1 temperature variances may need special
handling and 'weather windows' which may not
have been considered in design, construction
approach or overall schedule

18

Foundation work, difficulty in construction due

40.2 to artesian pressure or other difficulties causing
delays to overall project schedule.

16

To cover for both quality and construction time:

1. including grading contract with the bridge contract
2. Offer incentives/ discounts

1. identify historical patterns

2. clearly define acceptable conditions
3. they can manage schedule
4. incentivize for additional forces during optimal times

Include construction windows in the schedules. Allow for

weather related risk in the construction cost estimates.
Allow for specified storm events and high water levels in
the contract. Transfer residual risk to the Contractor.

30 Extradosed Bridge Deck

Material and labor costs increase above
30.2 estimated inflation increasing project costs and
causing potential loss of public trust.
Procuring an early foundation contract my offer
potential schedule advantages for the project
although increases the coordination with other
contracts.
40 Extradosed Bridge Piers and Foundations

St Croix River Crossing Project Risk Register

Parsons Brinckerhoff

1 of 2

Advanced purchase of materials that are at risk price

increase (steel, reinforcement etc. )1. Early piling contract
2.Consider labor agreements.

1. Test shaft and method shaft

2. Limit shaft depth
3. Identify artesian layer
Plot : 8/20/2012 5:18 PM

DRAFT RISK REGISTER

St. Croix Crossing Project
Rev: 0_
Date: 7/2/2012

Risk
Ref.#

Description of Risk / Opportunity

Consequence)

(Cause and

ProbabilityImpact
Matrix

Certain Not To
Happen

Somewhat
Unlikely

Slightly Unlikely

Unknown

Slightly
Likely

Somewhat
Likely

Prob

<5%

5-25%

25-40%

40-60%

60-75%

75-95%

>95%

Cost ($)

<250K

250 - 500K

500K - 2M

2-5M

>5 -7 M

7 - 10 M

Time (Days)

1 Week

1-2 weeks

2 weeks-1 months

1-2
months

Schedule
Impact

Rank

On-Time
Completion

Within
Budget

Probability Cost Impact

2 - 3 months 3 - 6 months

>10 M
>6 months

Impacts Project Objectives

Highest
Quality

20 Minnesota
Approach
130
Environmental
/ Permits
Presence of endangered species may impact the
construction of the bridge (during construction)

Certain To Happen

Public/
Worker
Safety

Public Trust &

Confidence

21

33

20

There is a risk of possible legal challenge by

third parties, e.g. Sierra Club, City of Oak Park
Heights. Consequence: Costs, time, momentum,
funding, political

24

There is a possibility that opponents of the St.

Croix project induce delay tactics such as :
1. Requiring additional studies of any topic
2. Propose alternatives that are more
environmentally damaging
110.8
3. Propose alternative that later is not
supported.
Consequence: Delays project delivery due to restudy. Delays letting which inflates costs.
Purpose and need of project not resolved.

20

18

130.5

Permits from other regulatory agencies

(complex mix of federal, WI and MN) are
131.2 delayed as they are not processed in a timely
manner. Consequence: Schedule lost time,
delivery date delays inflate costs
Road salt entering river during / after
131.8 construction. Consequence: Agency friction.
Bad press coverage
110 Stakeholders/ Political/Funding

110.1

Agency
Reputation

Protecting
Environment

Mitigation/ Management Actions

Any newly found species would need to be evaluated.

pre-application meetings; have all information ready

Address fish and wildlife concerns before permit

submittals

Follow WisDOT/ MnDOT process, document the process

and listen to stakeholders

Work with communications staff to develop message to

support transparency model, scope the delta between
compared versus commitment.

140 Design, Agency Administration & Contract Procurement

Ability of transferring design through to DBOM
140.4 seamlessly to achieve schedule whilst
maintaining form, quality and function

If early foundation contract, problems or delay

141.7
in completion causes delay in 2nd contract.

St Croix River Crossing Project Risk Register

Parsons Brinckerhoff

21

2 of 2

A white paper should be developed on the pros and

cons of an early foundations contract and a decision
made as early as possible either to remove the
options from consideration or place resources on it to
develop it further.

Plot : 8/20/2012 5:18 PM