Developing the "Guide for the Process of Managing Risk on Rapid Renewal Projects" (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

50 A p p e n d i x e pilot Workshop planning As explained in Chapter 2, an evaluation process was devised to fairly select from among the five DOTs identified as poten- tial candidates for pilot workshops of the guide and imple- mentation materials. A primary set of selection criteria was established: • High chance of success of that DOT’s workshop; • High contribution to the chance of success for that DOT’s future risk management program; and • High contribution of that DOT to the chance of success of future national risk management program. The factors that contribute to meeting these primary criteria were identified, and the specific information needed to assess those factors and evaluate the criteria was identified. The five DOTs were sent a request for information that would allow the research team to evaluate their suitability for piloting a risk management workshop for rapid renewal. The responses of the DOTs to the request for information have been summarized in Table E.1, which allows a side-by-side comparison. The table also summarizes the scoring based on the selection criteria. First pilot Workshop During the first pilot workshop, participants tested the guide and implementation materials on a North Carolina Depart- ment of Transportation (NCDOT) rapid renewal project on Topsail Island in the Outer Banks. The description reflects the status of the project at the time of the pilot workshop in 2009. Base Project Description: Topsail Island Bridge Replacement (TIP B-4929) Alternative 5 NCDOT proposed to build a new bridge to replace the exist- ing swing bridge No. 16 over the Intracoastal Waterway on NC-50/210 in Surf City (see Figure E.1). This is one of two bridges providing access to Topsail Island (the other is 7 miles away). The existing bridge, a steel-truss swing-span bridge, was built in the 1950s and was due for replacement (see Figure E.2 for a view of the replacement plan). The new bridge will address the following needs: • Provide a connecting structure between the mainland and the island with sufficient capacity allowing for emergency access, hurricane evacuation, and acceptable travel times. • Improve the structural capacity of the bridge. • Provide consistency with state and local land use and transportation plans (NCDOT 2009). Planned Project Scope, Strategy, Key Conditions, and Assumptions There are currently 16 alternatives for this bridge replace- ment. Each of the 16 alternatives is essentially a variation on location of the replacement bridge. There are several “bas- cule” bridge options in addition to high-rise bridges. For the purposes of this pilot risk management training course, Alternative 5 is assumed for evaluation (a cost estimate exists for this alternative). Therefore, all notes in this base descrip- tion reflect Alternative 5. At this time, all design criteria are assumptions based on similar bridges. Uncertainty about which alternative is ultimately selected is excluded from this training course. • Scope elements. Major scope elements included in Alterna- tive 5 are as follows: 44 Replacement bridge will lie on an alignment approxi- mately 450 ft north of the existing bridge that ties back to NC-50-210 at both ends. 44 Cost estimate is based on a single 42-ft by 2,647-ft bridge. 44 Bridge will accommodate two 14-ft-wide lanes, plus 2-ft shoulders and 5-ft sidewalks on each side of the bridge. Pilot Workshops (text continues on page 55)

51 Table E.1. Evaluation of Proposals Questions FDOT MnDOT NCDOT VDOT NYSDOT A. Briefly describe the workshop logistics: Good attendance, but too much project team and not enough potential facilitators. Reasonable location/facility. Their dates are unavailable— we can see if they can do Oct. 15–16 (maybe), Oct. 22–23, or Nov. 12–13. Good attendance, but too much project team and not enough potential facili- tators. Reasonable loca- tion/facility—easiest to get to. They can do Oct. 22–23 (we can also see if they can do Nov. 12–13). Good attendance, but too much subject matter experts and not enough potential facilitators. Assume reasonable facil- ity, but hardest to get to. Their dates are flexible— assume they can do Oct. 15–16 (maybe), Oct. 22–23, or Nov. 12–13. Poor attendance for training and small facility. Reason- able location—relatively easy to get to. Their dates are unavailable—we can see if they can do Oct. 15–16 (maybe), Oct. 22–23, or Nov. 12–13. Assume good attendance for training (future facilita- tors). Assume reasonable facility, but hard to get to. Their dates are flexible— assume they can do Oct. 15–16 (maybe) or Oct. 22–23 (we can also see if they can do Nov. 12–13). 1. Proposed workshop attendance (i.e., type/ role of participants within the SHA and number)? (Note: max attendance is 23 plus up to two FHWA staff.) 23 (project VE team, project team, district and HQ VE). 23 (MnDOT district staff, MnDOT central staff, several from Wisconsin). 20 (design, construction, maintenance, ROW/ utilities, environmental, contracts, VE). 12 (district PM, innovative project delivery assistant director, discipline managers). 23 (max). 2. Proposed workshop venue (i.e., location, size, facilities, etc.)? Miami, FL District 6 Office Auditorium (several miles from Miami AP; nonstop flight into Miami from SEA, 6:47 p.m. flight out of Miami to SEA; airfare is $420 RT and 14 hours flying time). Capacity of 30 [e.g., Stoney Creek Inn in La Crosse, WI (previous workshop), near project site; 150 miles/2.5 hours from MSP, which has nonstop from SEA and 9:50 p.m. flight to SEA; airfare is $240 RT and 7 hours fly- ing time plus 4 hours driving]. NCDOT HQ in Raleigh (up to 20 mi/30 min from Raleigh AP, which has one-stop flight into Raleigh AP from SEA, and 6:50 p.m. flight out of Raleigh AP to SEA; air- fare is $220 RT and 15.5 hours flying time). (a) In VDOT northern district office in Chantilly, VA (near Dulles airport, which has nonstop from SEA, and 7:11 p.m. flight to SEA; airfare is $290 RT and 12.5 hours flying time). (b) Small facility (15). NYSDOT Schenectady conference and training center (less than 10 mi from Albany AP, which has one-stop flight from SEA but last flight out to SEA is at 5:50 p.m.; air- fare is $350 RT and 14.5 hours flying time plus extra night hotel). 3. Available dates for workshop (two contiguous days)? Oct. 26–27 or Nov. 4–5 Week of Oct. 19 or 26 Flexible Oct. 26–27 (Mon.–Tues.) 2nd, 3rd, or 4th week of Oct. B. Briefly describe the rapid renewal project(s) that would be evaluated in the workshop, spe- cifically in terms of the following key attributes: Project is too big/complex for training workshop and insufficient info provided or available on website. Presumably can either use portion of this project or select from among other projects—should be able to identify a suit- able rapid renewal proj- ect with adequate info. Project is too big/complex for training workshop and insufficient info provided or available on website, but has had RA recently. Also unclear what rapid renewal feature is. How- ever, presumably can select from among other projects—should be able to identify a suitable rapid renewal project with adequate info. Projects (a) and (c) are too small; not clear what rapid renewal feature is for (b) and (d). Need to select from among many projects—should be able to identify a suitable rapid renewal project with ade- quate info. Suitable project/info, but not clear what rapid renewal feature is besides D–B. Need to select from among many projects—should be able to identify a suitable rapid renewal project with adequate info. (continued on next page)

52Table E.1. Evaluation of Proposals Questions FDOT MnDOT NCDOT VDOT NYSDOT 4. Name and location of project? SR-93/I-75 Corridor Study [including Homestead Extension of Florida Turnpike (HEFT)]. Dresbach Bridge Replace- ment (SP8580-149) I-90 over Mississippi River near Dresbach, MN. Choices: (a) Hillsborough St. in Raleigh. (b) US-74 Independence Blvd. in Charlotte. (c) I-277 in Charlotte. (d) NC-55 in Durham. Route 27/244 IC, Arlington, VA. ? For example, (a) Tappan Zee Bridge replacement. (b) BQE triple cantilever project in NYC. (c) Other less complex projects (many projects to choose from). 5. Approximate size of project (e.g., construc- tion cost in inflated $)? Total: $900 million (without contingency). Without HEFT: $400 million (without contingency). Construction cost: $231 million YOE. Construction amount: (a) $3.0 million. (b) $77.3 million. (c) $3.6 million. (d) $25.8 million. Construction contract: $40 million. ? (Many projects to choose from.) 6. Scope of project (including rapid renewal elements)? (a) Add two managed lanes in each direction on I-75 and SR-826. (b) Three new special-use lane Ices, and one other new IC. (c) Road/IC improvements. (d) P&R lot and noise walls. New bridge over Missis- sippi River offset from old bridge, requiring realign- ment of approaches and reconstruction of IC. Adjacent to RR, lock/ dam, and recreation area. (a) Bridge replacement. (b) Widen corridor, road- way, structures (includ- ing reversible lane BRT accommodations). (c) New IC on major urban Interstate. (d) Widen/replace RR bridges. Replace Washington Blvd. Bridge and related road improvements. Rapid renewal element(s): only D–B? ? (Many projects to choose from.) 7. Procurement method (D–B–B or D–B)? D–B or D–B–O (toll) D–B–B ? D–B ? (Many projects to choose from.) 8. Current status of project? Draft EIS. 30% design (draft EA). (a) Let date: Nov. 2009. (b) Let date: June 2012. (c) Let date: May 2012. (d) Let date: May 2014. 30% design—RFQ. ? (Many projects to choose from.) 9. Major project decision alternatives (e.g., regarding scope or strategy)? (a) D–B vs. D–B–O (toll) vs. PPP. (b) ICs. (c) Interagency coordination. (a) D–B vs. D–B–B. (b) Change alignment (less offset and cost). (c) Innovative construction techniques to reduce disruption. ? ? ? (Many projects to choose from.) 10. Quality of information available for work- shop (e.g., cost esti- mate, schedule, and project description)? Only website provided. Apparently late 2008 CRAVE report (not provided). Some info available at MnDOT website (but not cost or schedule). ? (a) Parametric estimate. (b) Schedule. (c) D–B design/contract requirements. (d) Preliminary design/RFP. Some info available on website. ? (Project description, cost estimate, and schedule should be available for selected project.) (continued) (continued on next page)

53 Table E.1. Evaluation of Proposals Questions FDOT MnDOT NCDOT VDOT NYSDOT 11. Key project issues? Funding and project deliv- ery, MOT, Ices, inter- agency coordination. MOT (I-90 truck freight), RR, lock/dam, recreation area, topography (500-ft high bluffs). (a) Urban, utilities, MOT, constructability, coordination. (b) Urban, MOT, utilities, constructability, coordination with city and transit. (c) Urban, MOT, utilities, constructability, coordination with city. (d) Urban, MOT, utilities, constructability, coordination with RR. MOT, utilities, environmen- tal, contract administration. ? (Many projects to choose from.) C. Briefly describe the interest your SHA has in setting up a formal risk management program: Large need, but currently developing RM program—high interest. Moderate need, but devel- oping RM program— moderate interest. Large need and no RM pro- gram—high interest. Moderate need and no RM program—moderate interest. Large need, but currently developing RM pro- gram—high interest. 12. What experience does your SHA have with formal risk manage- ment (including an existing formal risk management pro- gram within your SHA)? Have conducted formal risk analysis on several mega projects. Currently devel- oping RM program through Office of Design team (with district and HQ staff), procuring an external resource and drafting procedure. Starting to establish formal risk management pro- gram, both at broad proj- ect level and at project level. Have established Project Scope and Cost Management Office. RM not used on regular, recurring basis. To date: informal RA for D–B projects. Currently: no formal RM program. Starting to establish formal risk management pro- gram. Have draft guidance. 13. Is your SHA inter- ested in implementing formal risk manage- ment more widely and, if so, why and to what extent? Currently setting up RM program to satisfy FHWA requirement of develop- ing risk-based cost esti- mates if >$100 million. Need to broadly implement RM strategies. Yes (enthusiastically). Yes for larger/more com- plex projects. Yes—high priority. 14. How would such a program likely fit in your organizational structure (e.g., cen- tralized with VE group versus decentralized, internal resources versus outsourced, etc.)? HQ Office of Design for policy, procedures, and oversight; districts responsible for doing RM. Policy, Analysis, Research and Innovation Office charged with RM at broad program level. Project Scope and Cost Management Office established to cover RM at project level. Centralized (along with con- structability, VE, etc.). Centralized using internal/ external resources. Decentralized RM practice with oversight and QA from HQ. (continued) (continued on next page)

54Table E.1. Evaluation of Proposals Questions FDOT MnDOT NCDOT VDOT NYSDOT 15. Approximate size of your SHA capital pro- gram (i.e., $/year) and portion that would be considered rapid renewal (i.e., %)? $3 billion to $4 billion per year. Rapid renewal (e.g., D–B): 25%. 2009–2011: $950 million per year. Rapid renewal: 30%. $1.0 billion per year for next 5 years in traditionally financed projects. 2010: $3.0 billion by NCTA. Rapid renewal: 15–20%. Currently $1.5 billion under contract. 2010: 276 contracts to ad at $1.1 billion. 2011: 70 contracts to ad at $350 million. 2012: 38 contracts to ad at $205 million. But D–B (not included above) increasing rapid renewal: ? $2.5 billion per year (including ARRA). Rapid renewal: 25% (and growing). 16. Approximate average cost increase and delays on your recent capital projects (i.e., in %) from planning through construction? Cost increase just during construction: 5%. Schedule increase just dur- ing construction: 8%. Presumably, generally more from planning. 40% of projects have time overruns (how much?). ?% of projects have cost overruns. >25% cost and >25% time overruns. TBD. 0% to 100% cost increase (refers to website). Timeliness/quality of response On time, moderate quality (little re candidate project). On time, moderate quality (little re candidate project). 1 week late, moderate qual- ity (little re candidate project). On time, good quality (good candidate project info). 1 week late, moderate qual- ity (little re candidate project). Category FDOT MnDOT NCDOT VDOT NYSDOT A B+ A- B+ B- B B B B- B A- B- C A- B- A B B+ Weighted score 3.42 3.05 3.555 3.035 3.075 Grade Points A+ 4.3 A 4.0 A- 3.7 B+ 3.3 B 3.0 B- 2.7 Category Weight A 0.35 B 0.2 C 0.45 (continued)

55 Source: NCDOT. Figure E.1. Topsail Island bridge replacement. 44 Structure type for the bridge is assumed to be prestressed concrete (posttensioned girders at channel). The bridge will be a fixed structure (i.e., not movable over the waterway). 44 Vertical clearance of the bridge over the navigation channel is 65 ft. 44 Assumed substructure (foundation) type is drilled piers. Number of foundations/piers is 2. 44 Bridge will have 19 to 22 spans. 44 Total project length is 0.92 miles. Construction of new roadway section is required for most of the alignment; thus, fill import, compaction, roadway construction and asphalt paving are also included. 44 Removal of existing bridge No. 16 and its approaches is included. 44 A fender system may be required. • Funding. Project is funded (State Transportation Improve- ment Program) as follows: $200,000 for PE/design; $1 million for right-of-way (ROW); $25 million for construction. • Design 44 Design level: Alternative 3 is at 0% design overall. 44 Structural: See above. 44 Geotechnical: No information yet on subsurface conditions. 44 Pavement: No pavement design has been determined yet. 44 Design deviations: None expected. • Environmental 44 Environmental documentation: NCDOT will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project and is completing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) checklist. 44 Wetlands: The area is surrounded by wetlands to the north and south; bridging of most of these wetlands is anticipated. 44 Streams: Intracoastal Waterway. 44 Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): Impacts to ESA are not yet known. Colonial water bird nesting sites are present in the project area. Mitigation may be required.

56 The project is also located within a Primary Nursery Area. 44 Floodplain: The project is in the 100-year floodplain, and the area is tidal influenced. 44 Storm water: It is assumed that a collection system will be required; there will be no direct discharge into the waterway. 44 Contaminated/hazardous waste: No known sites. 44 Section 106: Existing bridge is eligible for listing in the national register of historic places; no historic districts or individual properties are known at this time. 44 Section 4(f): Soundside Park is located adjacent to the roadway on the south side. Wildlife Resources Commis- sion also has a boat landing at this site; it is the only public boat access in the vicinity. 44 Permitting (including 404): Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) major development and/or dredge/fill per- mit is required; state storm water permit is also required. Permits will be required with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and North Carolina Division of Water Quality. • Right-of-way and other agreements 44 Right-of-way: The project assumes that a 100-ft right- of-way will be required. Beyond that, easements will be required. 44 Utilities: No major utilities are involved in Alternative 5. 44 Railroad: There is no railroad involvement. 44 Other: Additional stakeholders include Surf City, North Topsail Beach, Topsail Beach, and various service agen- cies (e.g., North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard). • Procurement 44 Delivery method: The project expects to use traditional procurement. 44 Contract packaging: Single contract. Source: NCDOT. Figure E.2. Topsail Island bridge replacement (plan view).

57 • Construction 44 Construction access/restrictions (including seasonal, events, shifts/hours): There will likely be an in-water construction moratorium from February 15 to Septem- ber 30 for the Primary Nursery Area. 44 Maintenance of traffic/business (disruption): During construction, traffic will continue to use the existing movable bridge. There will be interruptions due to inter- section tie-ins. Services to businesses and residences will be affected. 44 Construction phasing 4▪ Assumption is that new bridge will be built first, then tie-ins, and then the old bridge will be removed. 4▪ During construction, traffic will remain on the existing movable bridge No. 16. On completion of construction, the existing bridge will be removed (demolished). 44 Rapid renewal: There are no plans for rapid-renewal construction elements/methods. • Postconstruction (longevity) 44 Operations and maintenance (O&M): No projections for operation/maintenance. 44 Replacement: 75 years. Table E.2 shows the project activity and planned start and completion dates. Project Cost Estimate (Delivery, O&M, Replacement) • Professional engineer (preliminary and final design/ PS&E): $5 million, 2009 dollars, without contingency. • Right-of-way: $12.5 million, 2009 dollars, without contingency. • Utilities: $546,000, 2009 dollars, without contingency. • Construction: Contract cost of $30.7 million, including 15% E&C. 44 Estimate is in October 2009 dollars (per the spreadsheet). 44 Line items labeled “Misc. and Mob” allowances for known costs and contingency for risk. • O&M: Estimated average annual O&M for new bridge is $50,000/year. • Replacement: Not estimated. Project Schematics See Figures E.1 and E.2. evaluation of First pilot Workshop The evaluation of the first pilot workshop was held in Raleigh, N.C., for NCDOT/NCTA on October 29–30, 2009. It con- sisted of the following: • Participants’ evaluation of the workshop (using an evalua- tion form that accommodated comments; see Table E.3); • Initial SHRP 2 staff comments on the workshop and mate- rials, and the research team response to those comments; and • Additional SHRP 2 staff comments on the workshop and materials, and the research team response to those comments. A proposal was developed by the project team and subse- quently approved by the SHRP 2 program officer to resolve some of the major comments (see the subsection Approved Changes). Table E.2. Project Schedule Project Activity/Phase Planned Start Date Planned Completion Date Scoping Complete Complete Preliminary design/engineering Ongoing 6/2013 Environmental process [NEPA, environmental assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)] Ongoing EA: 11/2010 FONSI: 12/2011 Permitting 12/2010 6/2014 Final design/plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), including approvals 6/2013 3/2015 ROW acquisition (including demolition, relocation, and certification) 6/2013 3/2015 Utility coordination/relocation 7/2013 6/2015 Procurement (e.g., advertisement/bid/award/notice to proceed) 3/2015 6/2015 Construction 8/2015 8/2017

58 Table E.3. Summary of Participants’ Evaluations of First Pilot Workshop Question 1 2 3 4 5 Total Average 1. Did the presentation follow the course materials? 11 6 17 4.35 2. Were the workshop goals and objectives clear? 2 11 4 17 4.12 3. Were the goals and objectives met? 3 10 4 17 4.06 4. Did the workshop advance your knowledge of risk management? 6 11 17 4.65 5. Was the workshop useful in assessing and managing risk on the project reviewed on Day 2? 3 4 10 17 4.41 6. Will the workshop help you assess and manage risk for your projects? 4 8 5 17 4.06 7. For your DOT implementation, what type of implementation do you believe would have benefit? Yes No Total Average (0 = no, 1 = yes) Use for moderately sized conventional projects [design–bid–build (D–B–B)]. 4 13 17 0.24 Use for major conventional projects (D–B–B). 15 2 17 0.88 Use for nonconventional projects [design–build (D–B), concessionaire, etc.]. 6 11 17 0.35 Provide general training to department staff. 5 12 17 0.29 Develop a formal risk management program that is integrated in the project development process. 13 4 17 0.76 Other 1 16 17 0.06 Please provide your comments/suggestions on the workshop. <in comments> Would your DOT be interested in having additional training or project evaluations? 7 0 7 1.00 Participant Evaluations of First Pilot Workshop Seventeen course participant evaluations of the first pilot workshop were submitted. Those responses are tallied and summarized in Table E.3. Approved Changes A change in scope was proposed to remedy most of the substan- tive issues identified in the first pilot workshop evaluation, which led to the postponement of the second workshop. The primary issue associated with the first pilot workshop was that there was too much lecturing on Day 1 (although this was balanced by the real project application on Day 2). Instead more exercises needed to be integrated with the lec- tures. Also, feedback suggested that too much material was presented too quickly on Day 1. Instead, a slower pace was needed, with more introductions, summaries, and reviews of each module, as well as more breaks. The original agenda had been developed to accommodate the original scope of work, which included a real project application, while minimizing the time of busy project staff (who needed to attend only on Day 2 and would otherwise dilute the class on Day 1). The original agenda had also worked successfully on a previous, similar training course and been approved for this course. The proposed rescoping consisted of replacing the real proj- ect application in the course with a more fully developed hypo- thetical project. The hypothetical project then allowed for more extensive exercises to be integrated with each lecture and did not require attendance by project staff. The course was still to be completed in 2 days but at a more relaxed pace, with ade- quate time for discussions, introductions, reviews, summaries, and breaks. The rescoping also involved inviting primarily potential future facilitators from the various state DOTs that had submitted proposals to host a pilot workshop to the sec- ond and final training workshop. The course instructors (under additional or separate funding) could subsequently observe and advise the newly trained facilitators when they conduct risk management on their own projects, as needed. Other comments that were addressed related primarily to presentation style (some of which was affected by the fast pace noted above) and material format. It was also agreed that the following changes would be made to the guide and implementation materials: • Expand the example rapid renewal project (including a complete risk management plan) to become a central and integral part of the guide and training (per the approved

59 change in scope), replacing the actual project evaluation on the second day of the workshop. Note that to generate a risk management plan, this would include a project description, base cost and base schedule (including ranges/ correlations for full uncertainty version), risk register (identification and assessment, for both expected value and full uncertainty version), risk analysis model/results, and risk mitigation identification/evaluation. • Revise the guide, slides, and syllabus to incorporate the example rapid renewal project throughout (per the approved change in scope), replacing the actual project evaluation on the second day of the workshop. Note that the example rapid renewal project was to be used through- out the guide and training to illustrate the process. Once finalized, this example project was to be integrated into the training materials as the primary learning exercise for each module (i.e., each step of the risk management process would be conducted by the students for this example proj- ect using the provided methods, guidance, and forms), followed by the instructors’ “solution,” which would be used going forward to subsequent steps in the process. • Edit the guide and materials. 44 Revise Chapter 8 of the guide (in particular) to be more consistent with the slides and other chapters. 44 Revise the template (an MS Excel workbook) and hard- copy forms to be more functional, and develop a user’s guide for the template. 44 Develop an introductory slide module (in MS Power- Point) for risk workshops. 44 Reformat animated/annotated training slides (in MS PowerPoint) to the extent possible. 4▪ Simplify slides as necessary and as possible (consider- ing available budget and original scope of work). 4▪ Avoid red/green colors when possible. 4▪ Add definitions as necessary (e.g., in notes). 4▪ Identify learning outcomes better (e.g., in objectives). 4▪ Make training module number same as guide chapter number. 44 Reformat the notebook. 4▪ Print some of the paper forms on 11 × 17 paper (as needed) and include copies of the relevant ones at the end of each module for use in the exercises (as well as in the guide for future use). 4▪ Create a specific exercise packet (i.e., the hypotheti- cal project write-up) that can be easily removed from the notebook for use during the class and then reinserted back into the notebook, along with the relevant filled-in forms when done (both student version and instructor version). This would create a sample stand-alone risk register and risk manage- ment plan for the hypothetical project and enhance student learning. 4▪ Produce the rapid renewal risk and risk management inventories (which are guide appendices) so that they can be easily removed from the notebook for use dur- ing the class and then reinserted back into the note- book when done. Second (and Final) pilot Workshop Attendance at the second pilot workshop was opened up to various DOTs. Positions of attendees are found in Table E.4. evaluation of the Second (and Final) pilot Workshop A survey was handed out to participants at the second pilot workshop. The results of that survey are documented in Table E.5.

60 Table E.5. Summary of Participants’ Evaluations of Second Pilot Workshop Question 1 2 3 4 5 Total Average 1. Did the presentation follow the course materials? 1 2 3 4.67 2. Were the workshop goals and objectives clear? 2 1 3 4.33 3. Were the goals and objectives met? 3 3 4.00 4. Did the workshop advance your knowledge of risk management? 1 1 1 3 3.67 5. Was the workshop useful in assessing and managing risk on the project reviewed on Day 2? 1 2 3 3.67 6. Will the workshop help you assess and manage risk for your projects? 1 1 1 3 3.00 7. For your DOT implementation, what type of implementation do you believe would have benefit? Yes No Total Average (0 = no, 1 = yes) Use for moderately sized conventional projects (D–B–B). 2 1 3 0.67 Use for major conventional projects (D–B–B). 1 2 3 0.33 Use for nonconventional projects (D–B, concessionaire, etc.). 1 2 3 0.33 Provide general training to department staff. 2 1 3 0.67 Develop a formal risk management program that is integrated in the project development process. 3 0 3 1.00 Other 0 3 3 0.00 Please provide your comments/suggestions on the workshop. <in comments> Would your DOT be interested in having additional training or project evaluations? 1 0 1 1.00 Table E.4. Attendance List at Second Pilot Workshop, May 18–19, 2010, Redmond, Washington Affiliation Position TRB SHRP 2 program officer FHWA Columbia River Bridge (major project) engineer FHWA Washington Division: Construction, pavements, materials engineer Washington State DOT Cost risk estimating team leader Washington State DOT Manager of project development Washington State DOT Director of project control and reporting Washington State DOT Lead risk modeler Washington State DOT Transportation technical engineer Minnesota DOT Director of Office of Project Scoping and Cost Management Minnesota DOT Office of Project Scoping and Cost Management Nevada DOT Program director North Carolina DOT Quality Enhancement Unit Oregon State University Professor University of Colorado Co-principal investigator/professor Golder Associates Co-principal investigator/principal Golder Associates Principal