CCP Certification Paper for AACE International

Managing Supplier Risk on Firm Fixed Price Contracts with Integrated Design

Rev No. Prepared By

Date AACE Member Number

01 Bill Walkhouse

16-Sep-2015 131780

ABSTRACT

It is common practice in facility construction for Oil and Gas to outsource design scope for engineered equipment packages to suppliers who are experts in that field of practice. This makes good sense and also adds value to the project since the owner’s extended engineering and construction team could not possibly carry expertise in all process areas required for a new facility. However, the procurement and contract management processes used by the buyer are fundamentally at odds with the stated intention to integrate the supplier’s design into the overall project. The common practice is to generate competitive firm fixed price bids which limit collaboration and delay integration of design. It also creates an unrealistic expectation for the supplier to accurately estimate the level of effort required to complete the detailed and integrated design. So therefore a contractual strategy intended to assign risk to the supplier often actually increases overall risk to the project due to secondary risks: a late or poor quality piece of equipment can have disastrous effects on the overall project. This particular secondary risk subject matter has been discussed in great detail in RISK.1574, an AACE International Technical Paper. The purpose of this paper is to examine the challenge presented to the supplier at bid stage in more detail and provide specific methods to manage risk rather than simply assuming it and adding contingency to the estimate. These mitigation strategies will also benefit the buyer. We will also suggest an alternate contracting methodology that would mitigate risk for both the supplier and the buyer.

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF EQUATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 6

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 7

RISK DRIVERS ............................................................................................................................................. 8

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................................................................... 10

RISK IDENTIFICATION AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 11

RISK TREATMENT .................................................................................................................................... 12

RISK ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION ..................................................................... 15

INTERNAL BID REVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 16

ALTERNATE CONTRACTING STRATEGY .............................................................................................. 16

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF TABLES

Table # Description Page #

1 Example (Excerpted) of a Vendor Document and Drawing Requirement 11

2 Example of a Risk Register at Bid Stage 13

3 Typical Risk Response Strategies 14

4 | P a g e

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure # Description Page#

1 Process Map for Risk Management from TCM 7.6-1 12

2 Example Risk Identification Flow Chart from 62R-11 14

5 | P a g e

LIST OF EQUATIONS

Equation # Description Page#

1 Typical Parametric Calculation 17

6 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

For suppliers of engineered equipment packages on large projects with integrated design, providing an accurate estimate for the cost and duration of detailed design is very challenging. Design itself by its nature is difficult to quantify, but now we must add complexity because of the requirement to integrate the design into the overall project. We must also consider that some or all of the design may be subcontracted. Therefore having to accurately estimate design cost and duration for a firm fixed price bid in a competitive environment with tight deadlines can force the proposal manager to assume risk and make a decision as to how much contingency to assign to the bid. Assigning too much contingency renders the bid uncompetitive. Not enough contingency may prove costly to the company in the form of margin erosion, poor project performance, late delivery and possible loss of reputation. Often the risk is poorly understood and is not methodically identified and quantified, making it even more difficult to determine contingency. The basis for the discussion here will be centred around how to effectively manage risk at the bid stage. We will investigate mitigation strategies to reduce the risk and thus reduce the need for contingency. For the purpose of this discussion we will assume that the firm fixed price contracting strategy will continue to be in force. The strategies outlined here will align with the processes outlined in the Total Cost Management Framework 7.6: Plan>Assess>Treat>Control, with the goal being to increase the probability of project success for both the supplier and the buyer. We will suggest a combination of expected value and parametric methodologies to determine the required contingency for the residual and accepted risks in a controlled, repeatable, detailed and transparent manner. We will also examine the overall contracting strategy and suggest an alternate contracting method to pull the suppliers into the discussion sooner and to work collaboratively toward a technical solution that works for all parties while still preserving the competitive bid environment required in today’s economic climate.

7 | P a g e

RISK DRIVERS

FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTING PROCESS

In firm fixed price contracting strategy, the bid package must clearly define the scope by providing detailed requirements including all needed documentation, and must list the applicable codes, specifications, standard drawings, project drawings, equipment data sheets, general instructions to vendors, terms and conditions, level of quality surveillance, documentation procedures, approved manufacturer lists, preferred vendors and any other pertinent information. Creation of this package requires project engineering competency and a solid knowledge base of both the subject matter and the project requirements. These packages reflect mature design and are reviewed by all disciplines, so there is a significant level of effort expended. However, if we go back to the original intent to have the supplier complete the detailed design and integrate it into the overall design, we begin to see that this methodology is often not a good fit and has poor timing for the model we are pursuing. To re-phrase this in overly simplistic terms from the point of view of design integration, the buyer prepares the bid package ‘acting as a subject matter expert’ in order to engage the real subject matter expert who then completes the detailed and integrated design. Note the duplication of effort and paradoxical nature of the exercise. Often the assigned project engineer will lack the required specialized subject matter knowledge, which can result in a bid package that is confusing or unclear, overly prescriptive, incomplete, or which has an overabundance of content that does not pertain to the subject at hand.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMPLEXITY AND COMMUNICATION GAPS

One of the leading causes of failures in large projects is poor control of interfaces or communication gaps. In this case the RFQ is developed by the project engineer but is now administered by the procurement group. Often all buyer engineering disciplines are engaged for clarifications. There will be another lead individual who has final say on all changes to the contract. The supplier’s proposal manager has to interface with his internal team as well as with the subcontractor if they have design scope. Therefore during the clarification process at bid stage there are multiple groups and persons involved. If these interfaces are not well managed by both the buyer and the seller these gaps will end up contributing to errors, confusion and omissions in the final contract. More risk for both parties is the end result.

COMPLEXITY AND VARYING INTERPRETATION OF PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

The high degree of complexity of the bid packages makes it very challenging to fit the supplier’s standard product offering into the integrated design of the project. In all cases the supplier and their sub-suppliers must agree to conform to every clause and requirement in all of the bid documents before being awarded any work. In some cases the bid submission deadline can make it very challenging to read, interpret and understand all these requirements in time before the bid is submitted. The supplier must decide the level of resources needed to process this information in a timely manner, since these are sunk costs or overhead costs.

8 | P a g e

BUYER TEMPLATES FOR DOCUMENT AND DRAWING REQUIREMENTS

To define the required documentation for the contract, the buyer employs a generic template which has been developed for all engineered equipment packages on the project and which lists all possible documents and drawings required for any package. This key document defines the design scope for the project by a checking off the required documents or drawings from the template and specifying when they are due. The buyer may attach liquidated damages or payment milestones to delivery of key documents. However, this methodology is a blunt instrument, and will often specify documents that are unfamiliar or unclear to the supplier, which do not add value to the project, or which should be issued by the EPC. See the example below for an excerpt from a pump package. I have highlighted those documents which were disputed with my comment. During bid clarifications the dispute must be resolved. The supplier will have to evaluate the remaining requirements and identify any risks associated with them.

SYSTEM DIAGRAMS/SCHEMATICS Comment Required Date Turnover

Process Engineering Flow Sheets X (4 ARO) X

HVAC Schematic & Flow Diagrams No air conditioning. Ventilation by single exhaust fan so a flow diagram is of not of any value.

X (8 ARO) X

Electrical Single Line Diagrams X (8 ARO) X

Inst / Telecomms System Schematic Diagrams X (8 ARO) X

Weight Data Sheet Equipment Data Sheet X (4 ARO) X

Noise Level Data Sheet

Schedule of Elec. Equipment in Haz. Area Building is not in a hazardous area: these pumps are not commercially available with hazardous ratings.

X (4 ARO) X

Electric / Electronic / Pneumatic / Hydraulic Schematics X (12 ARO) X

Detailed Description of Operation X (6 PTS) X

PFD's and Heat Mass Balance

Supplier does not have this information or the capability to create it. This is an EPC deliverable.

X (4 ARO) X

Cause & Effect Charts Supplier can assist with this document but it should be issued by the EPC post Hazop.

X (4 ARO) X

Control Philos. and Block Logic Diagrams X (12 ARO) X

Oil Systems Operating Philosophy Does not apply to this pump package. X (12 ARO) X

Supplier's Technical Procedure Internal Wiring Diagrams (Connection Diagrams) X (6ARO) X

Other System Diagram/Schematic Table 1 – Example (Excerpted) of a Vendor Document and Drawing Requirement

9 | P a g e

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

Establishing your risk management plan is an essential step (TCM 7.6.2.1) to properly deal with risk while dealing with the deadline pressures for bids. The supplier must have a structured and orderly methodology that reflects the overall objectives of the organization, clearly defines roles and responsibilities, and provides the essential procedures, processes and templates needed to effectively and efficiently implement risk management. Ideally this plan is enterprise wide but can be effectively applied at the bid stage.

Figure 1 - Process Map for Risk Management from TCM 7.6-1

10 | P a g e

RISK IDENTIFICATION AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

The AACE International Recommended Practice 62R-11 is an excellent resource for methods, tools and techniques to flush out risks and to then quickly rank them to determine which ones require further study. This activity should take place early in the bid development process. The earlier a risk can be identified the more effectively it can be dealt with. The use of checklists, lessons learned and project histories can be very effective in a time constrained environment. As the bid progresses, the risk register can be updated. Only those risks which meet the criteria ranking as defined in your risk management plan will have to be addressed with risk treatment and contingency determination. In the example below I have simply provided a 1 to 5 ranking of likelihood and severity: and any risk ranked 10 or above will be dealt with.

Identified Risk Driver Likelihood (1-5)

Severity (1-5) Ranking

VDDR Items #39,40,71 are not understood creating unknown level of effort VDDR 4 2 8

VDDR Items #15,22,80, 122, 128, 129, 132 are disputed which if required will lead to extended design time

VDDR 3 2 6

Owner organization is immature – may lead to difficulty with approvals And subsequent added design time with potential for rework

General 3 4 12

Project Specifications are overly prescriptive – may lead to difficulty With interpretation and integration of design –added design time

Spec 4 4 16

Both EPC and Owner must approve documentation – long review times Schedule delays

General 5 3 15

Owner’s preferred vendor list conflicts with suppliers preferred vendors Must investigate using client’s vendors – no history – added risk on delivery

Spec 2 3 6

Client drawings are incomplete, immature or inaccurate – may lead to Misinterpretation of scope of work – added design time and rework

Spec 2 3 6

Incorrect reference to non-applicable Code – in dispute – may lead to Unnecessary extra work

Spec 4 4 16

Bid deadline is very tight, all specifications cannot be reviewed – will have To accept risk which may lead to rework

General 5 3 15

EPC firm is new to the project – potential for difficulty with design- added design time

General 3 4 12

Required by date is not given – opportunity to provide reasonable duration no overtime required

Spec 5 3 15

Unreasonable contract terms – unlimited liability, etc. – subject to Negotiation – may have to assume risk

Contract 2 5 10

Buyer is very slow to answer clarifications, answers are vague – may lead To misinterpretation of scope – future disputes, added costs, delays

Clarifications 3 3 9

Material requirements are very forgiving – can use less expensive materials Without affecting quality or conflicting with code requirements – reduced cost

Spec 5 3 15

Scope of work includes vibration study – no prior experience – will Have to subcontract out work – risk of unexpected cost or secondary risk

VDDR 3 5 15

Table 2 – Example of a Risk Register at Bid Stage

11 | P a g e

Figure 1 – Example Risk Identification Flow Chart from 62R-11 See Figure 1 for an example of a risk identification flowchart. For the purposes of risk management at the bid stage, we recommend going directly from your qualitative analysis to Risk Treatment before examining your secondary risks and residual risks.

RISK TREATMENT

Risk treatment is outlined very well in AACE International Recommended Practice 63R-11. In addition to this reference, I have included some tips and techniques uniquely applicable to this situation.

Threat Opportunity

Avoid Exploit

Reduce Share

Transfer Enhance

Accept Accept

Table 3 – Typical Risk Response Strategies

12 | P a g e

AVOID RISK

Avoiding risk is quite difficult in a competitive firm fixed price environment. In my experience risk can be avoided by notifying the buyer that a certain aspect of the scope cannot be performed by the supplier or by offering an alternate strategy. You introduce secondary risk because this will make your bid less attractive to the owner. Nevertheless this strategy has been employed in the case where the supplier simply does not want to assume the risk. In many cases the buyer will insist, and then the supplier must decide whether to comply or pull out of the tender.

EXPLOITING OPPORTUNITY

When the bid provides an opportunity to lower the cost and/or shorten the schedule, this provides a competitive advantage to the supplier. The supplier must decide how to best exploit the opportunity based on market position, economic environment, shop loading, etc. Should these savings be accounted for in a more competitive bid? Or will the supplier decide to increase the margin? This is business decision.

TRANSFER RISK OR SHARE OPPORTUNITY

Transfer of risk is essential and not optional when the supplier is utilizing subcontractors. All of the bid requirements must flow down to the subcontractor and they must assume that risk for their scope. Transfer of risk is also a very important tool when it comes to integrated design and collaboration with the client. The supplier should clearly state the expectations that will be placed on the client for the integration of the design such as drawing and document review cycle times, drawing and document review general expectations, timing of the HAZOP, turnaround time on RFIs, timing of operations review, and any and all other services provided by the client in this collaborative effort. Then the execution team can refer to these rules of engagement and reinforce them at the kick-off meeting. The supplier can also choose to share opportunities with the buyer or the subcontractor, especially when it is of mutual benefit to share. This is also a business decision.

REDUCE RISK

The most important activity for the proposal manager is to reduce risk. Being proactive on all those things that are within your control is the key to a competitive bid. The more detailed and complete your bid is the less risk you have to assume and the client will also see the strength of your bid. Often you will win the work even though your bid is not the lowest cost when you vigorously pursue the most thorough and complete bid package.

• Be very specific about every aspect of your scope of supply. For example, always list the brand and model of instrumentation and equipment even if the bid does not require it. This provides a baseline to protect you from change down the road. Demand the same level of detail from your subcontractors.

13 | P a g e

• Provide an accurate level 2 schedule – accounting for all major activities and lag times. For example, it is prudent to show a realistic lag time between client award and supplier project start date. For this schedule though, it is better to not show too much detail. Do not sandbag nor promise the moon with your schedule either. Be realistic.

• Be very thorough on clarifications, both with the buyer and with your subcontractors. The more we can define the scope, the less risk there is to all parties. Asking the right questions also will provide you with an insight into the maturity level of the buyer’s organization, which can be a critical factor.

• Be upfront with the buyer when there is uncertainly or lack of clarity. If you feel that you are assuming more risk, make sure the client is aware. Asking for more clarity so that you can reduce the amount of contingency in your bid demonstrates a shared value with the client, which is a powerful weapon when it comes to establishing trust. For example, if you do not understand a document deliverable, ask the client to provide an example of a similar document rather than accepting the risk and adding contingency.

• Tighten your supply chain: having close alliances with your vendors and subcontractors is essential to reducing risk and being competitive in today’s market economy. We need to have support in all phases of the project especially when we are integrating the design.

• Be thorough and proactive on all communications with the client, subcontractors, internal customers and other stakeholders. Take the time to pick up the phone or walk over to the project manager’s desk and make sure there is clear understanding and open communication.

ENHANCING OPPORTUNITY

Opportunities are essential to the competitive advantage help by the supplier. If your organization possesses unique skill sets, software tools, specialized equipment, etc. this is to your great advantage to enhance these as much as possible when preparing your proposal.

ACCEPTING RISK

By submitting a fixed firm price on a competitive bid, we are by the very nature of the exercise accepting risk. Once again this is very much a business decision, and is most often driven by the culture of the organization. Accepting risk is still a very important tool to be utilized to win work in a competitive environment. But if you have done a good job with your risk management plan, you have an advantage because you understand and have quantified that risk. In the end, there must always be a compromise. The supplier must accept some risk, because if we attempt to transfer all risk back to the client, or avoid all risk, the bid will be uncompetitive.

RESIDUAL RISK AND SECONDARY RISK

Once you have done your due diligence to treat the risk to your best ability, take the time to analyse and define your residual risks and secondary risks. This should be done as a team with more than one set of eyes on the problem. Being thorough and taking the time for planning here will save you more money down the road. New risks must be ranked to determine if more action is required.

14 | P a g e

RISK ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION

AACE International has published a number of recommended practices for quantifying risk and determining contingency:

• 41R-08 – Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination using Range Estimating • 42R-08 – Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination using Parametric Estimating • 43R-08 – Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination using Parametric Estimating: Example Models as

Applied for the Process Industry • 44R-08 - Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination using Expected Value • 65R-11 – Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination using Expected

Value For residual or accepted risks that are specific to an activity in the scope of work, I suggest that you follow the recommended practice 65R-11 and look at the integrated schedule and cost risk for that activity. Integrating cost and schedule in the analysis provides very valuable information. For example, if your activity is going to take longer due to risk, but that activity is not on the critical path, your overall duration may not need to increase. Monte Carlo analysis can be employed once you have completed your model to provide you with options and best recommended methods to preserve your schedule and minimize cost and will also provide valuable probability data about predicted cost and duration of your project. For residual or accepted risks that are systemic, the best method for determining contingency is Parametric Estimating. Systemic risks affect the project overall. For example, you know that your design department and your shop are heavily loaded. Or you have determined through the course of your bid submission and by market intelligence that the EPC or Owner organization is immature.

Outcome = Constant + Coefficient 1*(Parameter A) + Coefficient 2*(Parameter B) +….. Equation 1 – Typical Parametric Calculation

Outcome = Recalculated overall cost or duration Constant = Original cost or duration Coefficient 1,2 = Mathematic factor, usually a regression coefficient Parameter A,B = Particular Risk Driver – shop loading, client maturity level, etc.

Parametric estimating for systemic risk must be approached with great care and attention to historical data. The basic intent is to apply a factor to the overall cost and/or the overall schedule duration to account for the systemic risk. Determining contingency is quite simply accomplished once the coefficient factor and parameters are established, but establishing that factor must only be done with a good understanding of the causes and effects as they specifically apply to your business.

15 | P a g e

INTERNAL BID REVIEW

Once you have completed your risk analysis and contingency determination, you are in a position to finalize your bid and conduct your internal review. By sticking to your risk management plan and developing your risk documentation, you will have a well laid out and transparent method for determination of your contingency. This will greatly assist in the bid review process as it allows your team members and senior management to understand the risk and provide their final input and approval to the estimate. In the end the amount of contingency is dependent upon the culture of the organization – how much risk are you willing to accept?

ALTERNATE CONTRACTING STRATEGY

Up to this point with have assumed that the firm fixed price contracting methodology has remained in force and have provided strategies, tools and techniques to optimize the supplier’s proposal in that environment. According to AACE Recommended Practice 67R-11 the Firm Fixed Price contract assigns the highest amount of risk to the supplier (see Figure 2 on Page 18). Further to this point, 67R-11 also warns that when the party with the higher bargaining power attempts to protect itself with inappropriate risk allocation they can generate self-inflicted risk. The risk allocation we have discussed is inappropriate because asking the supplier to hold all of the risk in fact generates secondary risk of greater consequence - as was so well described in RISK.1574 by Richard Plumery. It is also inappropriate and self-contradictory because the buyer wishes the supplier to assume all the risk yet also insists on a great deal of intervention and prescriptive demands on how the supplier delivers the asset. According to 67R-11 “When performed effectively, risk transfer equitably allocates risk among parties according to their ability to control and insure against risk”. Following that principle, we believe that the risk to cost and schedule associated with creating an integrated design should be shared between the owner and the supplier. We propose the following change to the contracting strategy: instead of waiting for the design to be mature and issue a Firm Fixed Price Request for Quote, we suggest that the buyer instead issue a Request for Information much earlier in the schedule when the design is not yet mature. The RFI would ask the supplier to provide information about its organizational competencies including historical data on similar projects, a rate sheet and org chart for design, planning and project management staff, list of specialized equipment and software etc. The RFI would also ask for a budget price for the equipment or system to be purchased based on the known process requirements at that time. The contract award would then be cost plus fixed fee with incentive (CPFF-I) for the design phase, converting to Firm Fixed Price (FFP) once design is complete.

16 | P a g e

This contracting strategy has the following advantages:

• The RFI process allows the buyer to understand the capability of the supplier’s company with the intent being to forge an alliance rather than a typical buyer/supplier relationship. A completely different strategy when compared to the Firm Fixed Price RFQ.

• By asking for a budget price based on process requirements the buyer will have market information much sooner in the overall project schedule.

• Risk for design cost and schedule is partially transferred to the buyer promoting an open and collaborative relationship.

• Use of incentive during the design stage will keep the supplier on track for design schedule.

• Detailed design input from the supplier is available much earlier in the schedule, thus mitigating overall schedule risk and potentially fast tracking the schedule as well

• The buyer and supplier can work together in a collaborative manner to advance the design to a point where it can be submitted for formal review - a much more efficient use of time and resources.

• By converting to firm fixed price, the risk is once again transferred to the supplier, but by that time there will have been enough transfer of information that the supplier’s cost and schedule will be much more accurate. This reduces the probability of future disputes and late deliveries.

• This contracting format reduces risk and increases the probability of project success for both parties.

17 | P a g e

67R-11: Contract Risk Allocation – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction • January 10, 2014

RISK

CONTRACT TYPES

FCP

Description Lump Sum

(contractor's burden) Reimbursable

(owner's burden) LH: Labor Hour Contracts FALSE TRUE TM: Time and Materials Contracts FALSE TRUE CPFF-SCS: Cost plus Fixed Fee with Agreement to Share any Cost Savings FALSE TRUE CPFF-I: Cost plus Fixed Fee with Incentive FALSE TRUE CPIF: Cost plus Incentive Fee (Alliance) FALSE TRUE CPAF: Cost plus Award Fee FALSE TRUE CPFF: Cost plus Fixed Fee FALSE TRUE CPFP: Cost plus Fixed Percentage FALSE TRUE CS: Cost Sharing FALSE TRUE CC: Cost Contract FALSE TRUE UR: Unit Rate Contracts TRUE FALSE FFP-LOET: Firm Fixed Price, Level of Effort Term Contracts TRUE FALSE FCP: Fixed Ceiling Price Contracts (w/ Retroactive Price Redetermination) TRUE FALSE FP-PPR: Fixed Price Contracts with Prospective Price Redetermination TRUE FALSE CPFF-GMP: Cost plus Fixed Fee with Guaranteed Maximum Price (reimbursable with upper fee limit) TRUE FALSE

FP-AF: Fixed Price Contracts with Award Fee TRUE FALSE FPIC: Fixed Price Incentive Contracts TRUE FALSE FP-EPA: Fixed Price Contracts with Economic Price Adjustment TRUE FALSE FFP: Firm Fixed Price TRUE FALSE

Figure 2 – Allocation of Risk between Owners and Contractors

18 | P a g e

SUMMARY

For a supplier working on a firm fixed price bid for supply of an engineered equipment package on a project with integrated design, using AACE International’s recommended practices for understanding and controlling risk will allow the proposal manager to reduce the amount of assumed risk to the benefit of both the buyer and seller, and will also provide the supplier’s company with a valuable record of how risk was managed during the bid process, and how residual and accepted risks were accounted for by adding contingency to the bid. By following these widely accepted practices, the supplier will demonstrate competency and establish trust with the buyers’ organization, thus improving his company’s chance to win the work, while also promoting the best probability for good project performance and returned margins. An alternate contracting strategy – cost plus fixed fee with incentive converting to firm fixed price when design is complete, would mitigate risk for both the buyer and supplier, and increase the probability of project success for both parties.

19 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

No.

Description

1

Plumery, Richard EVP 2014 Risk.1574 Managing Risk in Supplier Design Integration AACE International Technical Paper

2

AACE International 2014 Recommended Practice 67R-11 Contract Risk Allocation - As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction

3

AACE International 2014 Recommended Practice 10S-90 COST ENGINEERING TERMINOLOGY

4

AACE International 2008 Recommended Practice 41R-08 RISK ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION USING RANGE ESTIMATING

5

AACE International 2011 Recommended Practice 42R-08 RISK ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION USING PARAMETRIC ESTIMATING

6

AACE International 2011 Recommended Practice 43R-08 RISK ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION USING PARAMETRIC ESTIMATING – EXAMPLE MODELS AS APPLIED FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES

7

AACE International 2012 Recommended Practice 44R-08 RISK ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION USING EXPECTED VALUE

20 | P a g e

8

AACE International 2012 Recommended Practice 62R-11 RISK ASSESSMENT: IDENTIFICATION AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

9

AACE International 2012 Recommended Practice 63R-11 RISK TREATMENT

10

AACE International 2012 Recommended Practice 65R-11 INTEGRATED COST AND SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION USING EXPECTED VALUE

11

TCM Framework 2nd Edition 2015 Web Edition 7.6 Risk Management

21 | P a g e