Bridge Bundling Toolkit Step 5 | Illinois Soybean Association

Step 5: Perform Risk Assessment

Threats	Opportunities
Lack of inter-governmental cooperation Legal challenges to procurement methods (i.e. P3) Inflationary pressures Competing interests for limited state/federal funds Unavailability of financing mechanisms (i.e. PABs cap is reached) No public champion at the state level Increased diversions of state tax revenue (i.e. gas tax) Political pressures to include bridges based on criteria other than bridge condition Procurement-specific risks (i.e. change orders, contractor default) Overbundling (i.e. inclusion of too many bridges in one bundle vs. resources available) Stakeholder threats (i.e. residents impacted by construction)	Economies of scale Use of new procurement methods that may be better suited for Bridge Bundling projects Bridge Bundling is a new concept in Illinois, can be used as another model for other states Decreased travel times for goods and people Safer travelling experience Lower procurement costs (i.e. multiple bridges included in one procurement) Bridges delivered faster than if not bundled Tap into new pools of federal funding Develop quantitative based criteria for inclusion of bridges in bundle, eliminating bias and political pressures

Lack of inter-governmental cooperation
Legal challenges to procurement methods (i.e. P3)
Inflationary pressures
Competing interests for limited state/federal funds
Unavailability of financing mechanisms (i.e. PABs cap is reached)
No public champion at the state level
Increased diversions of state tax revenue (i.e. gas tax)
Political pressures to include bridges based on criteria other than bridge condition
Procurement-specific risks (i.e. change orders, contractor default)
Overbundling (i.e. inclusion of too many bridges in one bundle vs. resources available)
Stakeholder threats (i.e. residents impacted by construction)

Economies of scale
Use of new procurement methods that may be better suited for Bridge Bundling projects
Bridge Bundling is a new concept in Illinois, can be used as another model for other states
Decreased travel times for goods and people
Safer travelling experience
Lower procurement costs (i.e. multiple bridges included in one procurement)
Bridges delivered faster than if not bundled
Tap into new pools of federal funding
Develop quantitative based criteria for inclusion of bridges in bundle, eliminating bias and political pressures

Primary Risks	Mitigation Strategy
Lack of Inter-Governmental Cooperation	Clear understanding of project-enabling legislation. Robust project management plan outlining responsibilities, and communications plan outlining how communications should be handled. Identify point person(s) at each level of government involved in developing.
Limited Funding	Identify all local funding sources available, and develop a plan to ensure full utilization of all currently available funding sources. Preemptively allocate future local funding streams to undergird Bridge Bundling project.
No public champion for project identified	Identify public champion early in the project’s development. This person will be the face of the project to the public and state legislators – they will be the one championing the project at the state level to secure funding and necessary approvals. It may not be clear at the start of the project who the public champion will be. This person may have to be determined through a nomination process by the key stakeholders early on in the development process. Putting all of the moving pieces in place for the project is not the sole responsibility of the public champion, but this person will be responsible for winning hearts and minds of public and elected officials, and ensuring the project is viewed favorably in the zeitgeist.

To properly mitigate risks, the outcome would be a robust project risk management plan and a project risk register (excerpt of an example below):

Nature of Risk	Risk Description	Primary Risk Consequences	Major Risk Mitigation Measures	Impact	Level	Type	Allocation
Project Scope
Macroeconomic Risks	A downturn in the economy	Private entities may face economic constraints that prevent them from bidding or that reduce competition	Evaluate financial viability of proposals; surety and bonding, builders insurance, evaluate financial viability	3	1	Go/No Go	Agency
Procurement
Shortlisted team drops out	A shortlisted team drops out without submitting a proposal in response to the RFP	Reduced competition, remaining shortlist (if aware) is less incentivized to innovate, fewer proposals to evaluate after RFP process	Evaluate whether there is still sufficient competition or whether to re-procure; assess why the shortlisted team dropped out	2	1	Procure	Agency
Construction Phase
Construction Quality	Quality of construction work is deficient	Reduced asset performance and additional remedial costs; service life of roadway is not as long as planned; additional future costs	Monitor compliance and enforce contract intent; require adjustments; retain right not to accept project unless and until performance standards are met; engage third part inspectors	3	2	Delivery	Contractor
Site Conditions
Preliminary survey/base map	Survey/base map or plan is inaccurate	Change orders, delays, hazards not identified	Contractual clause shifting risk to contractor	1	2	Contract	Contractor

Source: WSP