20230126_FTG251 Joint Risk Register.pdf

Joint Risk Register FTG251 Maintenance Support Facility (MSF) ‐ Design Charrette

REF Risk Event Description PDT Discussions on Impact and Likelihood

1 Material Price Volatility While there has been some recent easing in construction material pricing for some commodoties, material prices overall are still relatively volatile. For firm‐fixed‐price contracts, material price spike risks are borne by the contractor and recent bid results demonstrate this risk being passed back to the Government through increased pricing

2 Limited Construction Labor Availability Trade labor within the state of Alaska has been limited, especially recently, driving wages approximately 20% above prevailing to retain needed labor.

3 Long Lead Item Schedule Impacts Transformers, Generators, and Other Specialized Mechanical and Electrical equipment have experienced procurement timelines exceeding 1 year due to residual supply chain impacts.

These items should be identified early and project schedule should adequately account for longer lead times to develop a realistic schedule

4 IDAC Acquisition Opportunities and Risks associated with this relatively new‐to‐USACE acquisition method.

Opportunities include early contractor involvement and "buy‐in" during the design phase of the project. Add risk to

5 Contaminated Soil Encountered During Excavation

It is possible that sampling of the proposed project will not be representative of the entire site, resulting in unforseen site conditions encountered during construction. As per Tina Lemmond, risk is very low.

6 Construction Disrupts Existing/Emergency Operations

It is possible that construction operations will have to comply with additional constraints to minimize impact to existing operations on the compound, especially during emergencies, that may not be typical of other projects. These additional constraints may impact schedule and productivity, increasing project costs and project period of performance

7 New Boiler Location New boiler for the MSF is currently assumed to be installed at the existing utility building, however, other factors may drive placement of the boiler(s) at the MSF instead. There are cost, scope, and schedule implications if this were to occur that are not fully researched yet.

January 2023

REF Risk Event Description PDT Discussions on Impact and Likelihood

January 2023

8 Existing Utility Infrastructure ‐ Insufficient Supply Existing Utility Infrastructure may be inadequate to supply the new facility. Current assumption is that it is with some degree of confidence, but has not been confirmed. If additional supply is needed, additional infrastructure improvements outside of the current project boundary may be necessary, increasing project cost.

9 Existing Construction Contracts by Others in Vicinity of the Project Site

There is anticipated to be construction work in an around the ECF, which is adjacent to the MSF proposed location, with activities which may overlap with MSF construction and require deconfliction. Deconfliction resolution may introduce ineffeciencies that would not otherwise impact the MSF project.

10 Scope Requirements of the MSF and supporting site work by All Shared End Users not fully defined

Several action items exists that have not been resolved yet pertaining to the scope requirements of the MSF are still in flux. Risk of major changes appear to be relatively low, however, small changes/additions have a cumulative effect on project costs. Potential scope change items in discussion include:

1. Internal Layout and Orientation (inc. forklift turning radius)

2. Hazardous Material/Waste Storage

3. Unclassified Waste/Refuse Storage

4. Calibration Lab Addition and Tool Crib Placement

5. Additional Exterior Wash Rack to tie in to planned Oil‐Water seperator

6. Warming Shelter at the ECF Parking Area

7. Protected Pedestrian Access from ECF to MSF

11 Construction in vicinity of ECF, IDT, and fenceline

Preliminary analysis of construction contraints in and around the ECF, IDT, and perimeter fenceline may not be fully defined/codified yet. Additional constraints may impact project costs and schedule

12 60000SF MSF may not be sufficient to accommodate all required activities

Shared space within the MSF is not fully defined yet between various entities. Full time equivalent employees currently assumed at 11 and may not be sufficient and is under analysis. Supporting utilities such as water, telecom, septic inherent to the current design may not be sufficient as a result.

13 Snow Fence Location Standoff Final location of snow fence placement may need to expand from currently assumed locations. This would likely increase project limits, expand CFZ construction, and may encroach on other restricted space, increasing project costs.

REF Risk Event Description PDT Discussions on Impact and Likelihood

January 2023

14 Septic System Undersized Total load basis may not be accurate. Adjacent ECF had problems with their septic, what additional design changes can be made to overcome this? Addition of exterior wash rack and flow from oil‐water seperator may further increase septic system size requirements

15 Snow Storage Area Inadequate Final Location must be approved by DPW. With height restrictions on the compound, surface area will need to be sufficient to account for this. MDC has a snow storage plan ‐ need to get, as well as show on contract drawings. Will have a height restriction of XX feet (CW3 Craig).

16 Existing FGACC CFZ may be able to partially reused.

Opportunity to reduce CFZ costs may be realized, however, risk is that existing CFZ may not be reusable or meet contract requirements by the time the MSF project is awarded.

17 Contractor Laydown Area Insufficient CFZ may need to expand from the concept layout to allow for contractor laydown and trailers. This expansion may also encroach on other restricted space, introducing additional constraints that may impact project costs and schedule.

18 Sustainability Requirements Undefined While we msut meet sustainability requirements, there are a couple ways this could possibly be done that has not been defined yet. Selected/approved method may have additional cost and schedule implications not fully understood at this time

19 Borrow and Construction Water Source Unclassified, Classified, and NFS fill is assumed to be screened and sourced from Borrow Pits on Fort Greely <5 miles of the project site. Construction water is assumed similarly, however, this assumption needs to be confirmed. If borrow and construction water must be sourced further away, productivity will be impacted and project costs and schedule may increase.

20 Differing site conditions Example: FGACC utilidor and duct bank

21 Tapping into existing infrastructure. electrical, hot water, etc. How to do without impacting the mission.

22 COA: new utilidor vs. direct bury

REF Risk Event Description PDT Discussions on Impact and Likelihood

January 2023

23 Long term manufacturer support for building equipment

Choose basis of design item to last through end of life.

24 Cybersecurity Laptop, software needed for O&M. Equipment not hooked to GOV network; or ensure it is approved for use on a secure/GOV network. Currently happening on the MDC.