Atch (1)_APPENDIX E Risk Assessment Example Format - 06 Dec 2019.pptx
PPTX presentation 86 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FY21 Content Conversion Draft Solicitation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N61340-20-R-0037_DraftSolicitation
About this file
This document contains a risk assessment template and example for a Navy program called Sailor 2025 - Ready Relevant Learning. The risk assessment identifies insufficient access to fleet and schoolhouse subject matter experts during analysis, design, development, and testing phases as a key risk that could result in delayed contractor deliverables, analysis outputs, and content conversion. The risk is rated as high likelihood and moderate consequence initially. Plans to mitigate the risk include coordinating with schoolhouse staff and fleet experts before and during acquisition phases, as well as holding risk working group meetings. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division is listed as the risk owner.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.
APPENDIX E: Risk Assessment Example Format 06 Dec 2019
Sailor 2025 – Ready Relevant Learning (RRL) Risk Assessment
Likelihood [5] Near Certainty (~90%)
[4] Highly Likely (~70%)
| 1 | |
| [3] Likely |
(~50%)
[2] Low Likelihood (~30%)
[1] Not Likely (~10%)
| Consequence | [1] | |
| Minimal | [2] | |
| Minor | [3] | |
| Moderate | [4] | |
| Major | [5] |
Unaccept-able
O
- Original X
- Current Low Moderate High
Consequence Likelihood
Action/Event Date Schd.
ECD
Act.
Current Status Risk Level if Successful C L Suc.
Comments Plan:
T
- Target New Plan - Current Plan Current Original Risk Level N/A N/A
1. Coordinate with schoolhouse staff and TYCOMs for SMEs.
10/1/16 1/26/17 1/26/17 Coordinating with schoolhouse and TYCOMs for SMEs.
Y
2. Coordinate with fleet SMEs prior to and during the acquisition phases.
1/2/17 05/10/17 5/10/17 Continuing coordination with schoolhouse and SMEs.
Y
8/14/17 8/14/17 8/14/17 Continue to coordinate with schoolhouse staff and fleet SMEs prior to and during the acquisition phases.
Y
Risk Status:
Open
Risk Type (Check one in each area Technical Schedule Cost Risk Summary Worksheet Team: Sailor 2025 Risk Owner: NAWCTSD Date Opened: 01 Oct 2016 Updated: 14 Aug 2017 Risk Title: Sufficient Access to Fleet and Schoolhouse SMEs Risk #: 1 Description of Risk: If sufficient access to fleet and schoolhouse Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) is not available during analysis, design, development, and testing, for each wave, then contractor deliverables, the analysis output, and content conversion may be late.
Root Cause: Fleet and schoolhouse SMEs are busy working and teaching classes and have limited availability for RRL visits.
Consequence: Contractor deliverables, the analysis output, and content conversion may be late.
X O X
3. Risk working group meeting
Action/Event Date Schd.
ECD
Act.
Success Criteria L C Suc.
Comments Risk Level if Successful
Plan:
New Plan - Current Plan Current
Team: Sailor 2025 Risk Owner: NAWCTSD Date Opened: 01 Oct 2016 Updated: 14 Aug 2017 Risk Title: Sufficient Access to Fleet and Schoolhouse SMEs Risk #: 1 Risk Summary Worksheet
Backup Information
Program Risk Assessment
Not Likely:
Low Likelihood:
Likely:
Highly Likely:
Near Certainty:
...Will effectively avoid or mitigate this risk based on standard practices ~10% ...Have usually mitigated this type of risk with minimal oversight in similar cases ~30% ...May mitigate this risk, but workarounds will be required ~50% ...Cannot mitigate this risk, but a different approach might ~70% ...Cannot mitigate this type of risk; no known processes or workarounds are available ~90%
Determination of consequence for Schedule and Cost are program Specific.
Consequence
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
| Level | Technical Performance | Schedule | Cost | |
| 1 | Minimal or no consequence to technical performance | Minimal or no impact | Minimal or no impact | |
| 2 | Minor reduction in technical performance or supportability, can be tolerated with little or no impact on program; same approach retained | Additional activities required, able to meet key dates. | ||
| Slip <___Month(s) | Cost increase or unit production cost increases |
< 1_% of budget
| 3 | Moderate reduction in technical performance or supportability with limited impact on program objectives; workarounds available | Minor schedule slip, no impact to key milestones | |
| Slip < __ month(s) plus available float of critical path. Sub-system slip > __ month(s) plus available float. Slip <__Month(s) | Cost increase or unit production cost increase |
<___ 5% of budget
| 4 | Significant degradation in technical performance or major shortfall in supportability; may jeopardize program success; workarounds may not be available or may have negative consequences | Prgm critical path affected, all sched float assoc. w/key MS exhausted | |
| Slip <__ Months | Cost increase or unit production cost increase |
<____ 10% of budget
| 5 | Severe degradation in technical performance; Cannot meet KPP or Key technical/supportabilility threshold; will jeopardize program success; no workarounds available | Cannot meet key program milestones | |
| Slip >___ Months | Exceeds APBA threshold |
> ____ 10% of budget
Consequence Level Probability of Occurrence image1.bin image2.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .