Risk-based approaches to capital project cost and schedule estimation have been adopted by many public agencies in recent years. Such techniques are intended to produce more reliable cost and schedule forecasts, enhance risk management, and improve project management and project delivery outcomes. However, limited research has been conducted in relation to the true effectiveness of such risk assessment programs. The impact of process change must be measured to appraise the value differential. Where a high-value proposition exists, it is the duty of public servants to disseminate the opportunity to the industry for the good of the public. This paper measures and compares the cost and schedule performance of 28 highway projects completed in Washington state between 2016 and 2019. Results from a group of projects that deployed a formal cost/schedule risk assessment with risk management (referred here as “CRA”) are compared with a second group that did not. The data reveal that projects that completed a CRA were more likely to be completed with a total contract cost at or below the engineer’s estimate, experience lower post-award cost and schedule growth, and experience more predictable outcomes than those projects that did not deploy a CRA. Additional observed benefits of a CRA process are also discussed.
ReillyJ.McBrideM.SangreyD.MacDonaldD.BrownJ.The Development of a New Cost-Risk Estimating Process for Transportation Infrastructure Projects. Proc., Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Boston, MA, Civil Engineering Practice, Spring/Summer 2004, pp 53–75.
2.
MolenaarK.Programmatic Cost Risk Analysis for Highway Megaprojects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 3, 2005, pp. 343–353.
3.
ReillyJ. J.Cost Estimating, Probable Cost, Risk Identification and Risk Management for Infrastructure/Rail Projects. Proc. Investing Today for a Brighter Tomorrow. The 2006 Rail Conference, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., June 11–14, 2006.
4.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Guide for the Process of Managing Risk on Rapid Renewal Projects. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2012. https://doi.org/10.17226/22665.
5.
BaekM.KiaM.BaabakA.Recommended Practices for the Cost Control of Highway Project Development. Proc. Construction Research Congress, May31–June2, 2016, San Juan, PR, ASCE, Reston, VA, 2016.
6.
MolenaarK.R.Evolution and Application OF Cost and Schedule Risk Management on Complex Projects, Resilient Structures and Sustainable Construction, Boulder, CO, Edited by Pellicer, E., Adam, J. M., Yepes, V., Singh, A., and Yazdani, S. 2017 ISEC Press, pp 1–7 ISBN: 978-0-9960437-4-8
FlyvbjergB.HolmM. K. S.BuhlS. L.How Common and How Large are Cost Overruns in Transport Infrastructure Projects?Transport Reviews, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2003, pp. 71–88.
9.
CantarelliC. C.FlybjergB.MolinE. J.Van WeeB.Cost Overruns in Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Explanations and their Theoretical Embeddedness. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010, pp. 5–18.
10.
AndersonS.KeithR. M.CliffJ. S.Final Report for NCHRP Report 574: Guidance for Cost Estimation and Management for Highway Projects During Planning, Programming, and Preconstruction. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.
RoberdsW. J.McGrathT. C.Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Large Infrastructure Projects. Proc., 3rd Annual Conference of the PMI College of Scheduling, Project Management Institute (PMI), Newtown Square, PA, 2006.
13.
MolenaarK. R.WilsonC. R.A Risk-Based Approach to Contingency Estimation in Highway Project Development. Proc. Construction Research Congress, Seattle, WA, ASCE, Reston, VA, April5–7, 2009, pp. 786–795.
14.
BakhshiP.TouranA.An Overview of Budget Contingency Calculation Methods in Construction Industry. Proc. Creative Construction Conference, Vol. 85, Prague, CR, June21–24, 2014, pp. 52–60.
15.
ShaneJ. S.Risk-Based Engineers Estimate. Report No MN/RC 2015-10. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, March2015. http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201510.pdf.
16.
LiuL.NapierZ.The Accuracy of Risk-Based Cost Estimation for Water Infrastructure Projects: Preliminary Evidence From Australian Projects. Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2010, pp. 89–100.
17.
KeizurA. E.JohnT.ColeM.GrekN.A Case Study of Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Assessment and Risk Management Over the Life of a Major Transportation Project. Proc. International Conference on Transportation and Development 2020: Planning and Development. ASCE, Reston, VA, 2020, pp. 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483169.018.
18.
KeizurA. E.RoberdsW. J.Evolution of Risk-Based Cost and Schedule Estimates for North American Infrastructure Projects: What Have we Learned?Proc. International Conference on Transportation and Development. Virtual Conference, ASCE, Reston, VA, June8–10, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483541.014.
19.
RoberdsW. J.Methods for Developing Defensible Subjective Probability Assessments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1990. 1288: 183–190.
20.
KeizurA. E.RonaldI. M.Using Probabilistic Analysis Tools to Simulate Alternative Project Strategies. INCOSE International Symposium, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1996, pp. 909–916.
21.
MillerR. I.RickK.Probabilistic Simulation of Geologic Waste Disposal Facilities Using the Repository Integration Program (RIP). Proc. ASCE Uncertainty Conference, Madison, WI, ASCE, New York, NY, July31–August3, 1996.
22.
RoberdsW. J.KenK. S. H.EricL.Quantitative Risk Assessment for Landslides. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002. 1786: 69–75.
23.
Maria-SanchezP.CatherR.LowrieR.Contract Change Orders Data Analysis for Assessing the Contingency for Transportation Projects. Presented at 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January11–15, 2015.
24.
BordatC.BobM. G.SamuelL.KumaresS. C.An Analysis of Cost Overruns and Time Delays in INDOT Projects. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2002.
25.
VidalisS. M.NajafiF. T.Cost and Time Overruns in Highway Construction. Proc., CSCE 30th Annual Conference, Vol. 2002, Montreal, QB, Canada, June5–8, 2002, pp. 2799–2808.
26.
JaliliY.FordD. N.MorganJ.The Impacts of Design Errors and Omissions Change Orders on Highway Projects. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January10–14, 2016.
27.
PerkinsR. A.Evaluation of Risk in Change Orders Reports for AKDOT Construction Staff. FHWA-AK-RD-12-16, INE/AUTC 11.08. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., February2014.
28.
AllemanD.ArthurA. L. C.ScottS. M.KeithM. R.Project Delivery Methods’ Change Order Types and Magnitudes Experienced in Highway Construction. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2020, pp. 1–10.
29.
MacDonaldD.Keynote Address. Proc., North American Tunneling Conference, Seattle, WA, May18–22, 2002.
