Program Risk Report No.1 - COMMENTS

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RISK
REPORT No.01
March 2023
Risk Analysis Report on the impacts of the ongoing
Risks of Packages -1,2 & 3 on T2 Handing Over.
“Program Management Consultancy Services for

Construction of Kuwait International Airport
Projects”
Practice No: A/17/2018
DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET
Document Title
The impacts of the ongoing Risks of Packages -1,2 & 3 on T2 Handing over.
Reference Date Classification
00000 29 March 2023 CONFIDENTIAL Client Restricted
Edition Prepared by (Signature and Date)

Ranganatha Ovan
Rev-00
Reham Ramadan
Type of document Reviewed by (Signature and Date)
Program Management Risk
Report
Presentation -
David Williams
Bid/Proposal/Report Jaime Aragon
Ranganatha Ovan
Other
Status Approved by (Signature and Date)
Draft -
Final Document Angel Toro
File Name Program Management Risk Report No.1
File Path
Organisational Structure
Keywords
Summary of content
This Program-wide Risk Report is to brief the MPW on the impacts of the ongoing risks of Packages 1, 2
and 3 on T2 handing over and PMC’s findings and Recommendations.
Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

Page 3 / 33 180231/MPW-PRR-011-23/RR/RO/tb
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 DEFINTION OF RISK ................................................................................................................................6
1.2 ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................................6

2. PROGRAM DIRECT KEY STALKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................ 7
2.1 PROGRAM DIRECT KEY STAKEHOLDERS ..................................................................................................7
3. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 PACKAGE-1 MAIN TERMINAL BUILDING, CENTRAL PLANT AND THE SERVICES TUNNEL. ....................7
3.2 PACKAGE-2 SERVICES BUILDINGS, ROAD LEADING TO THE NEW TERMINAL II AND CAR PARK ...........7
3.3 PACKAGE-3 AIRCRAFT’S APRONS, TAXIWAYS, AND SERVICES BUILDINGS ..........................................8
4. CONTRACTUAL AND CURRENT DATA.................................................................................................. 8

4.1 PACKAGE-1 MAIN TERMINAL BUILDING, CENTRAL PLANT, AND THE SERVICES TUNNEL ....................8
4.2 PACKAGE-2 SERVICES BUILDINGS, ROAD LEADING TO THE NEW TERMINAL II AND CAR PARK ...........9
4.3 PACKAGE-3 AIRCRAFT’S APRONS, TAXIWAYS, AND SERVICES BUILDINGS ..........................................9
5. RISK MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 10

5.1 PROCESS ........................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2 RISK MANAGEMENT STEPS ................................................................................................................... 10
6. RISK IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................................................................... 10

6.1 PROGRAM RISK IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOPS .......................................................................................... 11
7. QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 11

7.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF PERFORMING QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYS ......................................................... 11
7.2 QUALITATIVE RISK RECHNIQUE .............................................................................................................. 12
7.3 RISK PROBABILITY AND IMPACT ............................................................................................................. 12
7.4 PROBABILITY SCALES ........................................................................................................................... 12
7.5 IMPACT SCALE .................................................................................................................................... 12
7.6 RISK RATING ( P X I MATRIX APPROACH) ................................................................................................ 13
7.7 QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS FOR PACKAGE-1,2 & 3 RISKS ......................................................................... 13
8. QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS......................................................................................................... 14

8.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 13
8.2 BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THIS RISKS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 14
8.3 QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS METHOD -MONTE CARLO SIMULATION .......................................................... 15
8.4 STEPS TO PERFORMING SCHEDULE QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS ................................................................ 16
8.5 ANALYSIS USING PRIMAVERA RISK SOFTWARE .......................................................................................... 16

8.6 SCHEDULE VALIDATION ........................................................................................................................ 17
8.7 DEVELOPING THE RISK MODEL- PRE-MITIGATION (QUALITATIVE) ................................................................. 18
8.8 RUNING RISK ANALYSIS -GENERATING RISK SCORE -PRE MITIGATION ............................................................ 24
8.9 RUNNING RISK ANALYSIS – PRE- MONTE CARLO SIMULATION ..................................................................... 25

8.10 PRE- MONTE CARLO SIMULATION RESULTS – PRE MITIGATION ................................................................... 26
8.11 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS -MITIGATION ACTIONS BY MONTE CARLO SIMULATION ........................................... 27
8.12 MONTE CARLO SIMULATION RESULTS -MITIGATED .................................................................................... 27
8.13 REVIEW RESULT – PROPOSRD MITIGATION .............................................................................................. 29
8.14 MONTE CARLO SIMULATION RESULTS – POST MITIGATED ......................................................................... 30

8.15 DISTRIBUTION ANALYZER ..................................................................................................................... 31
8.16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 32

9. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 33
9.1 RAR EXPLANATORY APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 31
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Total Risk Exposure = Uncertainty + Risk Events ............................................................................................ 15

Figure 2: Systematic Process to Performing Quantitative Risk Analysis ........................................................................ 16
Figure 3: Monte Carlo Schedule Validation ................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4: Templated Quick Risk showing Applied Filters ............................................................................................... 17
Figure 5: 3-Point Estimate Scoring for the Selected Activities .................................................................................. 19,19
Figure 6: Risk Register Created in the Primavera Risk Analysis Software ...................................................................... 21
Figure 7: Probability vs Impact Default Factor Matrix ................................................................................................... 22
Figure 8: Probability and Impact Scoring – Highest Impact Selected ............................................................................ 23
Figure 9: Risk Scoring and Tolerance Scale setup in Primavera Risk Analysis Software ................................................ 23
Figure 10: Risk Analysis Parameters – Selecting Number of Iterations and Result Display Format ............................. 24
Figure 11: Risk Analysis – Monte Carlo Simulation Complete ....................................................................................... 25
Figure 12: Probability vs Impact Default Factor Matrix ................................................................................................. 26
Figure 13: risk register with pre mitigation and post mitigation scores. ....................................................................... 27

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 DEFINTION OF RISK
1.1.1 Project risk is an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on at
least one project objective.
1.2 ACRONYMS
1.2.1 In this Program Risk Report (“PRR”), the following words, acronyms and expressions shall have the
meanings stated, except where the context requires otherwise. The definitions herein are specifically
for the purposes of the context of the RMR and do not conflict with those in the Terms of Reference
(“TOR”). In the event of ambiguity, the definition of a term, acronym or expression as stated in the
TOR shall take precedence.
BL Baseline
BHS Baggage Handling System
BOQ Bill of Quantities
CAPT Central Agency for Public Tenders
CCS Contractor’s Construction Schedule
DGCA Directorate General of Civil Aviation
EV Earned Value
FPGC Foster + Partners and Gulf Consult
GCC Gulf Cooperation Council
H High
HLD High-Level Design
I Impact
ICT Information Communication and Technology
KD Kuwaiti Dinar
KIA Kuwait International Airport
L Low
LIMAK Limak Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret. A.S.
M Medium
MPR Monthly Progress Report
MPW Ministry of Public Works
No. Number
P Probability
P60 60% Probability
P95 95% Probability
PMC Program Management Consultant (INECO, KUD, DAJ)
PRA Primavera Risk Analysis
RAR Risk Analysis Report
REV Revision
SAB State Audit Bureau
T2 Terminal 2
VH Very high
VL Very low
VO Variation Order
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

2. PROGRAM DIRECT KEY STALKEHOLDERS
2.1 PROGRAM DIRECT KEY STAKEHOLDERS
2.1.1 The Client / Employer – Ministry of Public Works
2.1.2 The End User: Director General of Civil Aviation.
2.1.3 The Engineer – MPW Engineer
2.1.4 The Engineer’s Representative – Foster + Partners-Gulf Consultant and Sub-consultants
ARUP/NACO/KEO.
2.1.5 Main Contractor for Package-1 – LIMAK Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
2.1.6 Main Contractor for Package-2 - LIMAK Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
2.1.7 Main Contractor for package-3 – The Contract has not yet been signed.
2.1.8 The Engineer’s Representative for Package-3 – The Contract has not yet been signed.
2.1.9 State Audit Bureau.
2.1.10 Central Agency for Public Tenders.
2.1.11 Ministry of Finance.
2.1.12 Kuwait Municipality.
2.1.13 Kuwait Fire Force.
3. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
3.1 PACKAGE-1 MAIN TERMINAL BUILDING, CENTRAL PLANT AND THE SERVICES
TUNNEL.
3.1.1 As defined in the contract documents pertaining to Package 1, the description of this package is as
follows.
3.1.2 Main Terminal Building: The 25 million passengers will have a total built-up area of 710,000 sqm.
This comprises a basement level covering the building's entire footprint and houses MEP rooms and
baggage carousels and equipment. There also are other two levels that accommodate arrivals and
departures, as well as three mezzanine levels. The terminal building has a trefoil plan, comprising
three symmetrical wings of department gates.
3.1.3 Central Plant Building: It is located outside the main terminal and provides power and chilled water
to the airport via dedicated utility corridors.
3.1.4 Water Tank Building: A separate building for water tanks and pumps.
3.1.5 Utility Tunnel: This connects the central plant to the terminal building.
3.2 PACKAGE-2 SERVICES BUILDINGS, ROAD LEADING TO THE NEW TERMINAL II

AND CAR PARK
3.2.1 Car Parking: 5,127 car park spaces have a total built-up area of 325,000 sqm over a multi-story
three basement parking levels and one mezzanine level.
The car Parking Building is located toward the east of the terminal and is connected to the terminal
via the basements.
3.2.2 Landside External Works and Landscaping: This includes utility supply to the Car Park Building and
external and internal landscaping.
3.2.3 Packaged Sewage Treatment Plant: This is located below ground.

3.2.4 Roadways and Bridges: These comprise multi-level roads and bridges for access to and from the
Terminal II Building.
3.2.5 Storm Water Storage Tanks: These comprise four below-ground stormwater tanks located
between the roadways south of the Car Parking Building.
3.3 PACKAGE-3 AIRCRAFT’S APRONS, TAXIWAYS, AND SERVICES BUILDINGS

3.3.1 Taxiways enable airplanes’ eastern & western runways to be connected to and from the terminal,
across the taxiway to link eastern and western runways to allow planes to land on either of these
two runways to cross over the other side.
3.3.2 Multiple tunnels will link the new terminal with the rest of the Kuwait Airport, including tunnels for
a future Passenger Mover, Baggage Transfer Tunnel, Vehicular Tunnels, and Service Tunnels, the
major scope of this package-3 includes the following,
• Airside Civil Works
• Airside Special Systems
• Apron & Terminal Building System Network
• Landside Road & Landscape Works
• Utilities
• Tunnels
• Electrical Substation ES1
• Consolidation Centre
• Catering Building
• Aviation Fuel System
4. CONTRACTUAL AND CURRENT DATA

4.1 PACKAGE-1 MAIN TERMINAL BUILDING, CENTRAL PLANT, AND THE SERVICES
TUNNEL
4.1.1 Contract Number: SPA / 214.
4.1.2 Date of Enterprise: 28-August- 2016.
4.1.3 The Original Project Completion Date: 28-August-2022.
4.1.4 The Original Contract Duration: 2,192 Calendar Days.
4.1.5 The Original Contract Value: KD 1,312,000,000.
4.1.6 Maintenance Period:
4.1.7 Contractual Key Milestones: See attachment -1
4.1.8 Approved Number of EOTs: 01 for ICT Works.
4.1.9 Awarded EOT Period: 459 Calendar days.
4.1.10 Revised Project Completion: 30 November 2023.
4.1.11 Revised Contract Duration: 2,651 Calendar days.
4.1.12 Revised Contract Value: KD 1,323,049,042.777 (As of February-2023).
4.1.13 Time Elapsed: 2,368 (89%) as of 28 February 2023.
4.1.14 Cumulative Earned Value: KD 880,369,668.770 (IPC #77) as of February 2323.
4.1.15 Cumulative Earned Value in Percentage: 67.71 %
4.1.16 Projected Completion Date: 09-March-2025 (the Contractor’s Monitoring Schedule Update)
4.1.17 Current Delay: 923 Calendar Days (as of 20-February 2023).
4.1.18 Complete Package-3 Apron Work area is occupied by Package-1 Contractor, high level of
coordination is required to remove the materials storage, Plant and equipment workshops, pre-
cast units and yards batching plant, loading, and unloading Gantries, etc

4.2 PACKAGE-2 SERVICES BUILDINGS, ROAD LEADING TO THE NEW TERMINAL II
AND CAR PARK
4.2.1 Contract Number: 14 / 2017.
4.2.2 Date of Enterprise: 10-August- 2020.
4.2.3 The Original Project Completion Date: 26 January 2023.
4.2.4 The Original Contract Duration: 900 Calendar Days.
4.2.5 The Original Contract Value: KD 169,000,000.
4.2.6 Defects Liability Period: 730.
4.2.7 Contractual Key Milestones: See attachment -2
4.2.8 Approved Number of EOTs: NIL
4.2.9 Awarded EOT Period: NIL.
4.2.10 Revised Project Completion: NIL.
4.2.11 Revised Contract Duration: NIL.
4.2.12 Revised Contract Value: NIL.
4.2.13 Time Elapsed: 925 Calendar Days (103%) as of 28 February 2023.
4.2.14 Cumulative Earned Value: KD 89,101,251.581 (IPC #30) as of February 2323.
4.2.15 Cumulative Earned Value in Percentage: 52.82%.
4.2.16 Projected Completion Date: 07-October-2024 (Updated Approved Baseline).
4.2.17 Current Delay: 619 Calendar Days (as of 20-February 2023).
4.3 PACKAGE-3 AIRCRAFT’S APRONS, TAXIWAYS, AND SERVICES BUILDINGS
4.3.1 Contract Number: Tender No. A /23/ 2018.

4.3.2 Date of Enterprise: Contract not yet signed.
4.3.3 The Original Project Completion Date: Not Known.
4.3.4 The Original Contract Duration: 730 Calendar Days.
4.3.5 The Original Contract Value: Not Known.
4.3.6 Defects Liability Period: 730.
4.3.7 Contractual Key Milestones: No intermediate milestones, start and finish milestones only.

5. RISK MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
5.1 PROCESS
5.1.1 The following chart summarizes the Risk management process.
5.2 RISK MANAGEMENT STEPS
5.2.1 There are seven major steps in the risk management.

5.2.1.1 Preparation of Risk Management Plan.
In this stage ‘Program Risk management Plan” will be prepared by the “Program Risk Manager”, this is
the strategy of the PMC on how the risk in this program is managed.
5.2.1.2 Risk Identification.
In this stage the risks are identified, all the team members of the PMC, the MPW, the supervision
consultant and the Contractor and other stakeholders should provide the input to identify the risks and
all the identified risks are entered in the risk register and monitored during project execution.
5.2.1.3 Performing Qualitative Risk Analysis.
The Program risk manager and Program manager will perform the qualitative risk analysis for all the
identified risks during the previous process, as an outcome of this analysis, all the risks are categorized
into Low, Medium, and High risks.
5.2.1.4 Performing Quantitative Risk Analysis.
In this stage, the risk analyst will prepare quantitative analysis for all the medium and high-level risks in
the risk register.
5.2.1.5 Risk Response Planning.
Based on the risk analysis results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis, the Program risk manager,
the Program Manger, and the Construction Managers will select a suitable risk response strategy for
each medium and High risks.
5.2.1.6 Implementing Risk Response Strategies.
Package construction managers will implement the risk response strategies selected by the Program risk
manager and Program manager.
5.2.1.7 Controlling the Risks.

Program Risk Controller will monitor all the risks in the risk register, update the status of the risks on
periodically and send to the client.
5.2.2 The Risk Registers developed for each package are updated on monthly basis. (See the attachment # 3,4 & 5)
6. RISK IDENTIFICATION
6.1 PROGRAM RISK IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOPS
6.1.1 Objective of the program risk identification workshops is to identify and analyse the risks that
impact the program handing over date and their cost impacts on the overall budget.
6.1.2 On 15-February 2023, a risk identification meeting for Package-2 & 3 has been conducted by the
PMC team, participants have been reviewed the list of risks in the registers for package-2 & 3, and
subjectively selected two each risk from Package-2 and Package-3 risk registers.
6.1.3 On 22 February 2023, a risk identification meeting for Package-1 has been conducted by the PMC
team, participants have been reviewed the list of risks in the risk register for package-1, and
subjectively selected seven (7) from the risk register.
7. QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

7.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF PERFORMING QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYS
7.1.1 Assess characteristics of individually identified project risks.

7.1.2 Evaluate the probability that each risk will occur.
7.1.3 Evaluate the effect of each individual risk on project objectives.
7.1.4 Prioritizes risks based on the severity of the impacts.
7.1.5 Categorize risks according to their impacted area.
7.1.6 Root cause - several risks arise from a common source. Risk responses are more effective when
addressing the root cause.

7.2 QUALITATIVE RISK RECHNIQUE
Select Risk
Characteristic
Iteration Collect and

Analyze Data
Quality
Prioritize Risks
Information
Agreed-Upon Categorize Risk

Definitions Causes
Agreed Upon Approach Document
Critical Success Factor for the Performance of Tools and Techniques for the Performance of
Qualitative Risk Analysis
Qualitative Risk Analysis
7.3 RISK PROBABILITY AND IMPACT
7.3.1 Risk probability is the likelihood that a risk will occur.

7.3.2 Risk impact (or consequence) is the effect on project objectives if the risk event occurs.
7.4 PROBABILITY SCALES
7.4.1 The probability of an event is defined, for risk management purposes, as the probability of that
event occurring in the absence of any actions to forestall it.
7.4.2 A 1 to 5 scale for probability is used:
PROBABILITY DEFINITION
LOW 1 1 in 50 Chance
MEDIUM 2 1 in 10 Chance
HIGH 3 1 in 3 Chance
7.5 IMPACT SCALE

7.5.1 The impact of a risk is a numerical rating of the effect that the risk would have on the project,
should it occur. (Impact is sometimes known as consequence).
7.5.2 Typically, a 5-level scale is used to measure impact:

IMPACT DEFINITION
LOW 1 A small area of Influence (e.g., A few activities or a work
package)
MEDIUM 2 Several elements impacted (e.g. An Entire Room or System)
HIGH 3 Building functionality impacted
7.6 RISK RATING ( P X I MATRIX APPROACH)
7.6.1 Each risk gets assigned a Risk Rating which is a product of the Probability multiplied by the Impact
7.6.2 Risks with high probability and high impact will require further analysis including quantification and
aggressive risk management coordination is required with the Package.
7.6.3 The higher the risk rating the more serious the risk.
RISK RATING MATRIX

PROBABILITY
IMPACT
POSSIBLE LIKELY PROBABLE
LOW 1 4 8
MEDIUM 9 12 14
HIGH 15 20 25
RISK RATING DEFINITION
Monitor; Re-assess the Risk Monthly; Rectify where

LOW 1 1 to 8
possible; Identify mitigation options
Develop Mitigation Plan; Notify Stakeholders; Rectify

immediately where possible; Prepare detailed Cost and
MEDIUM 2 9 to 14
Time Impact Assessment; Define Deadline for
Mitigation Action; Rectify before the deadline
Immediately call a meeting of Stakeholders and

HIGH 3 15 to 25 Decision Makers; Present Cost and Time Impact; Agree
on Mitigation Action; Implement Mitigation Immediately
7.7 QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS FOR PACKAGE-1,2 & 3 RISKS

7.7.1 On 23-March-2023, the PMC team assessed the risk registers, performed the qualitative risk analysis and risk
ratings have done for all the risks in the risk register, the same is entered in the appropriate columns in the
risk registers.

8. QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS
8.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS
8.1.1 The purpose of this analysis report is to perform a fact-based objective analysis of the risks associated
with three packages of the (“KIA”) Project, due various reasons in relation to the planned works both
on and off the Construction Site, and their impacts to the Package1, 2 and 3 works. The Program
Management Consultant (“PMC”) aimed at providing mitigation options and recommendations to
the Ministry of Public Works (“MPW”).
8.1.2 The integrated program CCS for March 2023 shows a Forecast opening Date of the T2.
8.1.3 This report details result of the analysis of the top critical risks, as identified from the February 2023
issued Package1, 2 & 3 risk registers1, with the aim to determine a ´realistic´ forecast opening Date
of the T2 by identifying these risks, analyse the CCS with that risk, and the CCS with mitigation of
these risks.
8.1.4 The report also provides mitigation measures aimed at reducing or eliminating the impact of these
identified risks.
8.2 BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THIS RISKS ANALYSIS
8.2.1 The top critical four risks identified in Package 1, for the purpose of this analysis are:
i. Risk No.1 (Risk No. 7 in risk register) – Limak delay submission for drawings Div. 27 (ICT High Level
Design).
ii. Risk No.2 (Risk No. 19 in risk register)– Vertical carrousels to be executed by LIMAK.
iii. Risk No.3 (Risk No. 21 in risk register) – Delay in chilled Water line testing & Commissioning.
iv. Risk No.4 (Risk No. 26 in risk register) – Package-3 Work area occupied by Package-1 Contractor by
means of various obstacles.
8.2.2 The recommended mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the identified top five (4) risks,
mentioned in 8.2.1 above, are:
i. For Risk No.1 (Risk No. 7 in risk register) – MPW must request Limak submit an ICT high-level design.
ii. For Risk No.2 (Risk No. 19 in risk register) – LIMAK should submit the new proposal for vertical
carrousels.
iii. For Risk Nos. 3 (Risk No. 21 in risk register)– MPW to instruct the chilled water line contractor to
finish the testing and commissioning ASAP.
iv. For Risk No.4 (Risk No. 26 in risk register) – Package-1 Contractor should start removal of the
obstacles ASAP.
v. Risk No.1 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – Delay in activation of Provisional Sums BHS
vi. Risk No.2 (Risk No. 2 in risk register) – Delay in Provisional Sum for ICT works.
8.2.4 The recommended mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the identified top two (2) risks,
mentioned in 8.2.3 above, are:
1 Package 2 - Risk Register for February 2023

v. For Risk No.1 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – The MPW should expedite the final decision in order to
keep or remove the Provisional Sum BHS according with DGCA Letter opinion.
vi. For Risk No.2 (Risk No. 2 in risk register) – The MPW must obligate FPGC and Limak to finish the
design, BOQ and ICT design for the package 2.
Risk No.1 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – Delay in signing the Contract for package-3
Risk No.2 (Risk No. 2 in risk register) – Work area of package-3 occupied by Package-1 & 2 Contractors
8.2.6 The recommended mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the identified top two (2) risks,
mentioned in .8.2.5 above are:
vii. For Risk No.1 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – The MPW should expedite the final decision in order to
keep or remove the Provisional sum BHS according with DGCA Letter opinion.
viii. For Risk No.2 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – 1.- the MPW must obligate FPGC and Limak to finish the
design, BOQ and ICT design for the package2.
8.3 QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS METHOD – MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

8.3.1 The PMC has chosen the Quantitative Risk analysis approach in this report, which helps to provide
objective and fact-based results.
8.3.2 The quantitative risk analysis method used in this report is the Monte Carlo risk analysis method,
which uses a 3-point estimate technique to determine the likelihood of the outcomes of the 5 critical
risks on Package 2. These are:
i. Optimistic Estimate (Minimum) – This value represents the best-case scenario, and if everything
proceeds smoothly and there are no project challenges.
ii. Pessimistic Estimate (Maximum) – This value represents the results that can be expected if an
unfavourable condition in encountered in the course of the project execution. This represents a
worst-case scenario, where everything goes wrong.
iii. Realistic Estimate (Likely) – This is a realistic estimate, where some challenges are encountered, but
mostly everything goes smoothly. This accounts for unforeseen circumstances, which are likely over
the period of the entire project.
Figure 1: Total Risk Exposure = Uncertainty + Risk Events

8.4 STEPS TO PERFORMING SCHEDULE QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS
8.4.1 PMC has developed Integrated Schedule to show the integration between the Packages 1, 2 and 3 and for the
purpose of analysing the Program wide risks to the opening of KIA, This Integrated Schedule has been
developed at high-level, to summarize and reflect the detailed Packages 1 and 2 CCS submitted by LIMAK with
updates for February 2023, and the PMC’s Master Schedule which contains indicative Package 3 Schedule and
ORAT summary Schedule.
8.4.2 Five (5) steps were followed to carry out this analysis, using the Monte Carlo simulation method.
8.4.3 In performing the Schedule quantitative risk analysis, a systematic process was followed, taking the
following steps:
i. Start with Schedule Validation, which will identify any basic schedules problems, such as broken logic
or lag.
ii. Perform Pre-Analysis check.
iii. Develop Risk Model
iv. Run Risk Analysis
v. Review the results.
Figure 2: Systematic Process to Performing Quantitative Risk Analysis
8.4.4 These steps are executed using Primavera Risk Analysis software, whereby, a copy of the updated
CCS is imported into the PRA and the aforementioned steps are executed.
8.5 ANALYSIS USING PRIMAVERA RISK SOFTWARE

8.5.1 Monte Carlo Analysis is a risk management technique used to conduct a quantitative analysis of risks.
This mathematical technique is used to analyse the impact of risks on the project — in other words,
if this risk occurs, how will it affect the schedule or the cost of the project? Monte Carlo gives a range
of possible outcomes and probabilities to allow us to consider the likelihood of different scenarios.
8.5.2 The results based on 1000 iterations of simulations would have outputs in a format similar to the
below. These would be estimates as generated with the Primavera Risk Analysis software.
i. 60% chance of project Completion
ii. 95% chance of project Completion
iii. 100% chance of project Completion

8.6 SCHEDULE VALIDATION
8.6.1 This updated CCS was validated to make it suitable to upload onto the Monte Carlo software. A pre-
check was carried out in the Primavera Risk Analysis, that produces a report2 of the scheduling
defects. This is shown in the extracts below:
Figure3: Monte Carlo Schedule Validation
2 MONTECARLO Schedule validation

8.7 DEVELOPING THE RISK MODEL – PRE-MITIGATION (QUALITATIVE)
8.7.1 The Schedule Pre-analysis check starts with the importing the CCS that has been checked and
validated as required. The next step is to load the Duration quick Risk values and the templated quick
risk for all activities. If satisfied with the CCS composition, then the Minimum and Maximum range
values can be set or adjusted.
8.7.2 Applying templated quick risk based on remaining duration – uncertainty ranges are set with the
following assumptions (As per best practicing):
i. Duration < 10 Min 50%, Likely 100%, Max 200%
ii. Duration < 20 Min 70%, Likely 100%, Max 150%
iii. Duration < 40 Min 80%, Likely 100%, Max 130%
iv. Duration >= 40 Min 90%, Likely 100%, Max 120%
v. Duration >= 100 Min 90%, Likely 100%, Max 105%
Figure4: Templated Quick Risk showing Applied Filters

➢ After applying the uncertainties to all activities, we got the 3 points estimates for each activity as
shown below:
Figure 5: 3-Point Estimate Scoring for the Selected Activities

Figure 5: 3-Point Estimate Scoring for the Selected Activities

8.7.3 Prepare the risk register in the Primavera Risk Analysis software and import the data from (updated February 2023 risk register) as below image
with assumptions for each factor (probability schedule, cost, performance, scope). For example: the below image shows the details for risk
No.1.
Figure 6: Risk Register Created in the Primavera Risk Analysis Software

8.7.5 After updating the risk register in the Primavera Risk Analysis software, the risk score is calculated
in the software with the equation as below:
Risk Score = (Probability x Impact)
8.7.6 The overall risks scores are categorised as follows:
i. Red colour is High (H) risk,
ii. Orange colour is Medium (M) risk,
iii. Yellow colour is Low (L)risk.
iv. No colour is Negligible (N)
v. Blue colour is the parameter for multiplication.
8.7.7 The Primavera Risk Analysis pre-set factors for probability and impact is as below.
High 7 7 14 28
PROBABILITY (P)
Medium 5 5 10 20
Low 3 3 6 12
1 2 4
Low Medium High

IMPACT (P)
Figure 7: Probability vs Impact Default Factor Matrix
Probability (P) (Low) = 3, (Medium) = 5, (High) = 7

Impact (I) (Low) = 1, (Medium) = 2, (High) = 4
8.7.8 To calculate the risk score for a risk No. P1-01 (Risk no.7 at P1 risk register) , for example, Limak delay
submission for drawings Div.27 (ICT high level design). The risk impact is affected by the factors
below.
i. Schedule (H), Cost (H), hence we choose from (figure 6 above) highest impact and probability (H).
ii. Where the Impact Scoring is as follows: Schedule (H=4), it is noted that the highest Impact value of
(4) is chosen and multiplied with the highest Probability value of (7).
iii. The Risk Scoring calculated from figure 6 above, would be:
Risk Scoring = Highest Probability Value X Highest Impact Value
Risk Scoring = P x I = 7 x 4 = 28
Therefore, the Risk Scoring is Twenty Eight (28)

8.7.9 The Highest Impact button is selected from the next matrix as shown below. Note that the Primavera
Risk Analysis software rounds up the data in the Very Low column from one (1) decimal place to a
whole number, as the software displays its data in whole numbers.
Figure 8: Probability and Impact Scoring – Highest Impact Selected
The goal of the Tolerance Scale is used to setup buckets or traffic light values to categorize unacceptable
levels of risk.
Figure 9: Risk Scoring and Tolerance Scale setup in Primavera Risk Analysis Software

8.8 RUNNING RISK ANALYSIS – GENERATING RISK SCORE – PRE-MITIGATION
8.8.1 Following the steps and format explained above, the Primavera Risk Analysis software used the input
data to calculate the Risk Scores associated with each of the risk loaded into the software. Using the
integrated Risk Register, the matrices and calculations stated above, the Risk Score results are as
follows.
i. For Risk ID. No.1: P1-01 (Risk No. 7 in risk register) – Limak delay submission for drawings Div. 27 (ICT
High Level Design)
ii. Probability = High (H)
iii. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N)
iv. Overall Score = 28
8.8.2 For Risk ID. No.2 P1-02 (Risk No. 19 in risk register) – Vertical carrousels to be executed by LIMAK.
i. Probability = High (H)
ii. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N).
iii. Overall Score = 28
8.8.3 For Risk ID. No.3 P1-03 (Risk No. 21 in risk register) – Delay in chilled Water line testing &
Commissioning
ii. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N)
8.8.4 For Risk ID. No.4 P1-04 (Risk No. 26 in risk register) – Package-3 Work area occupied by Package-1
Contractor by means of various obstacles.
ii. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N)
8.8.5 For Risk ID. No.5 P2-05 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – Delay in activation of Provisional Sums BHS
ii. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N).
8.8.6 For Risk ID. No.6 P2-06 (Risk No. 2 in risk register) – Delay in Provisional Sum for ICT works.
iv. Probability = High (H)
v. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N).
vi. Overall Score = 28
8.8.7 For Risk ID. No.7 P3-07 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – Delay in signing the Contract for package-3
vii. Probability = High (H)
viii. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N).
ix. Overall Score = 28
8.8.8 For Risk ID. No.8 P3-08 (Risk No. 2 in risk register) – Work area of package-3 occupied by Package-1
& 2 Contractors
x. Probability = High (H)
xi. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N).
xii. Overall Score = 28

8.9 RUNNING RISK ANALYSIS – PRE-MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
8.9.1 Following the generation of the Risk Scores, the Monte Carlo Simulation is progressed to generate
the results in the form of a distribution curve. The below snapshots show further steps that was taken
in the Primavera Risk Analysis, to generate the final result of the analysis.
8.9.2 The dialog box below shows the options that was chosen in the Primavera Risk Analysis software, for
the Monte Carlo Simulation to commence. The Analyse button initiates the analysis to a thousand
(1000) iterations, meaning the software executes the simulation using 1000 scenarios, and the
output is set to generate and display a Distribution graph on completion.
Figure 10: Risk

Analysis Parameters – Selecting Number of Iterations and Result Display Format
8.9.3 The software runs the Risks Analysis, using the Monte Carlo Simulation and when complete, it
displays the below box.
Figure 11: Risk Analysis – Monte Carlo Simulation Complete

8.10 PRE-MONTE CARLO SIMULATION RESULTS – PRE-MITIGATION
8.10.1 The risk data in the Primavera Risk Analysis Software was executed with the identified risks using the Monte Carlo Simulation, but without
mitigation. The below Profile/distribution curve and data are the results.
Master Schedule - Risk Analysis - Feb.23 (Pre-mitigated) Data
Entire Plan : Finish Date Finish Date of:
100% 13/03/2027
80.0 Entire Plan
95% 16/01/2027
90% 29/12/2026 Analysis

Simulation: Latin Hypercube
70.0 85% 13/12/2026
Iterations: 1000
80% 03/12/2026
75% 26/11/2026 Statistics

60.0
70% 20/11/2026 Minimum: 08/07/2026
Maximum: 13/03/2027
65% 13/11/2026
Mean: 30/10/2026
50.0 60% 06/11/2026
Cumulative Frequency
Bar Width: week
55% 02/11/2026
Iterations
Highlighters
50% 28/10/2026
40.0
Deterministic (02/07/2026) <1%
45% 23/10/2026
60% 06/11/2026
40% 17/10/2026 95% 16/01/2027
30.0
35% 11/10/2026
30% 06/10/2026
20.0 25% 02/10/2026
20% 25/09/2026
15% 17/09/2026
10.0
10% 08/09/2026
5% 23/08/2026
0.0 0% 08/07/2026
22/07/2026 10/09/2026 30/10/2026 19/12/2026 07/02/2027
Distribution (start of interval)

8.11 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS –MITIGATION ACTIONS BY MONTE CARLO
SIMULATION
8.11.1 Following the proposed mitigation measures to the related Risks assigned in the Primavera Risk
Analysis software, the Monte Carlo Simulation software is used to simulate the out of effectively
implementing the proposed mitigations.
8.11.2 The Primavera Risk Analysis software is setup and programmed to apply these mitigations, using a
quantitative method to apply the relevant data, running 1000 iterations in the process.
8.11.3 Using the Primavera Risk Analysis software, the Quantitative tab is used to assign each risk via the
WBS contained in the CCS and asl the corresponding proposed mitigations, then the software is
instructed to analyse the data and produce a result on the basis of 1000 iterations.
8.12 MONTECARLO SIMULATION RESULTS – MITIGATED

8.12.1 The mitigated risks were evaluated, and the critical risks are scored and can be deduced from the
below matrix.
High 7 7 14 28
PROBABILITY (P)
Medium 5 5 10 20
Low 3 3 6 12
1 2 4
Low Medium High
IMPACT (I)
Figure 12: Probability vs Impact Default Factor Matrix
v. For Risk ID. No.1: P1-01 (Risk No. 7 in risk register) – Limak delay submission for drawings Div. 27 (ICT
High Level Design)
vi. Probability = Medium (M)
vii. Impact = Schedule (M), Cost (N)
viii. Overall Score = 10
8.12.2 For Risk ID. No.2 P1-02 (Risk No. 19 in risk register) – Vertical carrousels to be executed by LIMAK.
iv. Probability = Medium (M)
v. Impact = Schedule (M), Cost (N).
8.12.3 For Risk ID. No.3 P1-03 (Risk No. 21 in risk register) – Delay in chilled Water line testing &
Commissioning
v. Impact = Schedule (M), Cost (N)
8.12.4 For Risk ID. No.4 P1-04 (Risk No. 26 in risk register) – Package-3 Work area occupied by Package-1
Contractor by means of various obstacles.

v. Impact = Schedule (M), Cost (N)
8.12.5 For Risk ID. No.5 P2-05 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – Delay in activation of Provisional Sums BHS
xiii. Probability = Medium (M)
xiv. Impact = Schedule (M), Cost (N).
xv. Overall Score = 10
8.12.6 For Risk ID. No.6 P2-06 (Risk No. 2 in risk register) – Delay in Provisional Sum for ICT works.
xvi. Probability = Medium (M)
xvii. Impact = Schedule (M), Cost (M).
xviii. Overall Score = 10
8.12.7 For Risk ID. No.7 P3-07 (Risk No. 1 in risk register) – Delay in signing the Contract for package-3
xix. Probability = Medium (M)
xx. Impact = Schedule (H), Cost (N).
xxi. Overall Score = 20
8.12.8 For Risk ID. No.8 P3-08 (Risk No. 2 in risk register) – Work area of package-3 occupied by Package-1
& 2 Contractors
xxii. Probability = Medium (M)
xxiii. Impact = Schedule (M), Cost (N).
xxiv. Overall Score = 10
Figure 13: risk register with pre mitigation and post mitigation scores.

8.13 REVIEW RESULT – PROPOSED MITIGATION
8.13.1 Following the above stated result, the below table show the proposed mitigations by the PMC, in line
with those contained in the Packages 1, 2 & 3 Risk Registers.
RISK
RISK DESCRIPTION PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
ID
Limak delay submission
1. for drawings Div. 27 (ICT • MPW must request Limak submit an ICT high-level design.
High Level Design)
• Contractor has proposed to substitute vertical carrousels by goods
Vertical carrousels to be
2. elevator. After several request, updated information has been
executed by LIMAK
submitted which is currently under FPGC review
• The central Utility plant for air conditioning is part of the Package-1
Delay in chilled Water
Scope, However, the chilled water lines (perforated pipes) are part
3. line testing &
of another contractor's scope, the chilled water line net-work
Commissioning
testing is not yet completed.
Package-3 Work area
occupied by Package-1
4. • Package-1 Contractor should start removal of the obstacles ASAP
Contractor by means of
various obstacles
Delay in activation of • MPW should expedite the final decision in order to keep or remove
5.
Provisional Sums BHS the Provisional SUM BHS according with DGCA Letter opinion.
Delay in Provisional • MPW must oblige Foster and Limak to finish the design, BOQ and
6.
Sum for ICT works ICT design for the package.
Delay in signing the • The MPW and the other concern authorities to expedite the tender
7.
Contract for package 3 process and sign the Contract
• Package-1 & 2 Contractor must remove all the obstacles from the
Work area of package-3
work area of the package-3.
8. occupied by Package-1
• The PMC has recommended to include all the site clearance
& 2 Contractors
activities in the revised baseline of approved EOT #1 for Package-1.

8.14 MONTE CARLO SIMULATION RESULTS – POST-MITIGATED
8.14.1 The risk data in the Primavera Risk Analysis Software was executed with the mitigation actions using the Monte Carlo Simulation, the below
Profile/distribution curve and data are the results.
Master Schedule - Risk Analysis - Feb.23 (Post-mitigated) Data
Entire Plan : Finish Date Finish Date of:
100% 12/02/2027
Entire Plan
95% 02/12/2026
80.0
90% 15/11/2026 Analysis
Simulation: Latin Hypercube
85% 03/11/2026
Iterations: 1000
70.0 80% 23/10/2026
75% 16/10/2026 Statistics
70% 10/10/2026 Minimum: 02/07/2026

60.0
Maximum: 12/02/2027
65% 03/10/2026
Mean: 19/09/2026
60% 26/09/2026
Cumulative Frequency
Bar Width: week
50.0
55% 20/09/2026
Iterations
Highlighters
50% 14/09/2026
Deterministic (02/07/2026) <1%
40.0
45% 10/09/2026
60% 26/09/2026
40% 05/09/2026 95% 02/12/2026
30.0 35% 31/08/2026
30% 26/08/2026
25% 20/08/2026
20.0
20% 14/08/2026
15% 09/08/2026
10.0
10% 01/08/2026
5% 21/07/2026
0.0 0% 02/07/2026
22/07/2026 10/09/2026 30/10/2026 19/12/2026 07/02/2027
Distribution (start of interval)

8.15 DISTRIBUTION ANALYZER
The distribution analyser takes any curve generated by the distribution graph and allows us to view the curves in one chart. we can show 2 scenarios
for finish dates, a schedule and a cost curves or other chart wish to sell. also highlight the delta between multiple curves and show an unlimited number
of items side-by-side.
• As per the graph shown up, we can observe the following:

• The expected days to be save after mitigation (at probability 60% -chance to finish project) is: 141 days.
• The expected days to be save days after mitigation (at probability 95% - chance to finish the project) is: 150 days.

8.16 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDINGS
➢ The above distribution graph highlights the P60 and P95 dates, in line with the recommended
industry standards by Risk Management Professionals (RMP).
8.16.1 The Current Forecast Completion Date for the project is 21 June 2026.
8.16.2 The following can be deduced from the above risk model (pre-mitigated program), that current
forecast of 21 June 2026 is unachievable, however:
i. There is a 60% Probability (P60) of achieving a Completion Date of 06 November 2026.
ii. There is a 95% Probability (P95) of achieving a Completion Date of 16 January 2027.
8.16.3 The following can be deduced from the above risk model (post-mitigated program) after applying
mitigation, that current forecast of 21 June 2026 is unachievable, however:
iii. There is a 60% Probability (P60) of achieving a Completion Date of 26 September 2026.
iv. There is a 95% Probability (P95) of achieving a Completion Date of 02 December 2026.
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.16.4 Risk ID. No.1 – Limak delay submission for drawings Div. 27 (ICT High Level Design).
M/S GMR is approved as a subcontractor on 31-May-21. During January-23 the Contractor have been
submitted 160 with a current cumulative of 779 and the Consultant has been approved 128 no’s with
a cumulative of 408 no’s.
8.16.5 Risk ID. No.2 – Vertical carrousels to be executed by LIMAK.
On 15-January-2023, the PMC has issued a letter with recommendations that the Contractor should
get the approval of the vertical carrousels from the DGCA and submit a detailed financial proposal,
in response to this PMC's letter, on 22-January-2023 the MPW requested a detailed study on the
impact of the new vertical carrousels, security issues and time and cost impacts instead of the goods
lift as per the original contract. The PMC also recommends that the MPW explores opportunities to
expedite the process of submissions to the SAB and the approval for the Package 2 ICT and avoid it
slipping on to the Critical Path of the Package 2 CCS.
8.16.6 Risk ID. No.3 – Delay in chilled Water line testing & Commissioning
Meetings are ongoing for chilled Water line testing & Commissioning.
8.16.7 Risk ID. No.4 – Package-3 Work area occupied by Package-1 Contractor by means of various obstacles.
Still the situation is same, Package-1 Contractor not yet started removing the obstacles.
8.16.8 Risk ID. No.5 – Delay in activation of Provisional Sums BHS
The DGCA has sent a letter of cancellation to the MPW, and now MPW should take a decision to
inform to the Contractor. Meanwhile, the Contractor has submitted a revised proposal for BHS
Provisional sum on 31-Jan-2023 as per the original contract.

8.16.9 Risk ID. No.6 – Delay in Provisional Sum for ICT works.
LIMAK and FPGC need to finalise the BOQ considering the contract conditions. There are
discrepancies between the BOQ prepared by
FPGC and the final BOQ proposal done by LIMAK. LIMAK must submit a revised proposal. Meanwhile,
on 30-October-2022, via letter ref: KP2-LET-LKW-MPW-000586 LIMAK has submitted an interim
particular of claim for 541 days, on 23-Jan-2023. In this regard, the FPGC issued a letter to the MPW
stating that interim claim cannot be processed until the claim event comes to an end.
8.16.10 Risk ID. No.7 – Delay in signing the Contract for package-3.
The tender process is ongoing, the PMC has submitted tender evaluation report to the MPW on 7-
July-2022.
8.16.11 Risk ID. No.8 – Work area of package-3 occupied by Package-1 & 2 Contractors.
The MPW has sent several letters to the Package-1 & 2 Contractors in this regard, however, Package-
2 Contractor has submitted a schedule to remove the stockpiles from the Package-3 work area, still
ongoing, while the structural concrete rebar fabrication near Wastewater tank is not yet removed.
Package-1 Contractor not yet started removing the obstacles. the PMC has issued a letter to the MPW
regarding this subject on 8th January -2023 with recommendations.
9. APPENDICES
9.1 RAR EXPLANATORY APPENDICES
9.1.1 The following appendices are attached to this RAR in the same nomenclature in which they are
included in the report as footnotes.


Program Risk Report No.1 - COMMENTS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Program Risk Report No.1 - COMMENTS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RISK

“Program Management Consultancy Services for

Reference Date Classification

00000 29 March 2023 CONFIDENTIAL Client Restricted

Edition Prepared by (Signature and Date)

Status Approved by (Signature and Date)

Final Document Angel Toro

File Name Program Management Risk Report No.1

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

1.2 ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................................6

3. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 PACKAGE-3 AIRCRAFT’S APRONS, TAXIWAYS, AND SERVICES BUILDINGS ..........................................8

4. CONTRACTUAL AND CURRENT DATA.................................................................................................. 8

4.3 PACKAGE-3 AIRCRAFT’S APRONS, TAXIWAYS, AND SERVICES BUILDINGS ..........................................9

5. RISK MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 10

5.2 RISK MANAGEMENT STEPS ................................................................................................................... 10

6. RISK IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................................................................... 10

7. QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 11

7.3 RISK PROBABILITY AND IMPACT ............................................................................................................. 12

7.4 PROBABILITY SCALES ........................................................................................................................... 12

7.5 IMPACT SCALE .................................................................................................................................... 12

7.6 RISK RATING ( P X I MATRIX APPROACH) ................................................................................................ 13

7.7 QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS FOR PACKAGE-1,2 & 3 RISKS ......................................................................... 13

8. QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS......................................................................................................... 14

8.2 BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THIS RISKS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 14

8.3 QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS METHOD -MONTE CARLO SIMULATION .......................................................... 15

8.4 STEPS TO PERFORMING SCHEDULE QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS ................................................................ 16

8.5 ANALYSIS USING PRIMAVERA RISK SOFTWARE .......................................................................................... 16

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

8.7 DEVELOPING THE RISK MODEL- PRE-MITIGATION (QUALITATIVE) ................................................................. 18

8.9 RUNNING RISK ANALYSIS – PRE- MONTE CARLO SIMULATION ..................................................................... 25

8.13 REVIEW RESULT – PROPOSRD MITIGATION .............................................................................................. 29

8.14 MONTE CARLO SIMULATION RESULTS – POST MITIGATED ......................................................................... 30

8.16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 32

Figure 1: Total Risk Exposure = Uncertainty + Risk Events ............................................................................................ 15

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

3.2 PACKAGE-2 SERVICES BUILDINGS, ROAD LEADING TO THE NEW TERMINAL II

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

3.3 PACKAGE-3 AIRCRAFT’S APRONS, TAXIWAYS, AND SERVICES BUILDINGS

4. CONTRACTUAL AND CURRENT DATA

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

4.3.1 Contract Number: Tender No. A /23/ 2018.

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

5.2 RISK MANAGEMENT STEPS

5.2.1 There are seven major steps in the risk management.

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

7. QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS

7.1.1 Assess characteristics of individually identified project risks.

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

Iteration Collect and

Agreed-Upon Categorize Risk

Agreed Upon Approach Document

7.3 RISK PROBABILITY AND IMPACT

7.3.1 Risk probability is the likelihood that a risk will occur.

7.5 IMPACT SCALE

Program Management Risk Report No. 01 – March 2023

7.6 RISK RATING ( P X I MATRIX APPROACH)

RISK RATING MATRIX

RISK RATING DEFINITION

Monitor; Re-assess the Risk Monthly; Rectify where

Develop Mitigation Plan; Notify Stakeholders; Rectify

Immediately call a meeting of Stakeholders and