indigenous and northern affairs canada (inac) · 2.0 project location and accessibility 2.1 mathias...

INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA (INAC)

PROJECT APPROVAL REQUEST

Project information

Submission:

Project Number:

Project Name:

No. 1

AS734

Mathias Colomb Cree Nation (MCCN) - WastewaterTreatment Plant Upgrade

Asset Type: Municipal Infrastructure

Links to Community Profiles:

MCCN — http://fnp-DPn.aandc-aadnc.ac.ca/fnp/Main/Search/FNMain.asDx?BAND NUMBER=311&lana=enQ

First Nation Information

Band Number:

First Nation:

Chief:

Regional Information

Region:

Project Officer:

Regional Manager:

Regional Director

311

Mathias Colomb Cree Nation

Arlen Dumas

Manitoba

Derek Peha

Leona Tencha

David Moore

Regional Director General John de Francesco

W1NNIPEG#1579582 - vl

:

•i'X ;

APPROVAL SIGNATURES

First Nation Approvals

Chief - Mathias Colomb Cree Nation

——

Bafl6 Project Manager

iNAC Regional Approvals

INAC Regional Project Technical Officer

INACT RegionaTManager

Director

irector General

WINNIPEG#1579582 - vl

Date

ow oil li.

/4> ^3

Date

Date

\CpIozIDate

^ I 'StQ/CDate

• o'Z"

Date

Executive Summary:

This Project involves the planning, design and construction of the proposed wastewatertreatment facility upgrade including two Sequencing Batch Reactor process trains, a buildingexpansion, sludge drying bed expansion and ancillary civil works. This project is based onthe recommendations of MCCN's Water and Sewer Feasibility Study submitted in December2011.

Specific aspects of the project's planning, development and construction services deliveryprocess include, but may not necessarily be limited to, project management servicesprocurement, design engineering services procurement, detailed geotechnical investigation,preliminary design, detailed site assessments, detailed design, public construction tender,construction, commissioning and operator training.

The total cost of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Project is estimated to be$8,346,900 (excluding Risk), of which INAC has identified $30,000 for the 2015/16 FiscalYear pertaining to the engagement of project management, design engineering servicesand starting the design stage. INAC has also identified $414,000 in 2016/17 to complete thedesign to construction tender readiness. The estimate is corrected from the 2011 Class Cestimate ($7,560,000) in the feasibility study to current dollars by assuming a 2% inflationarycost increase per year over the 5 years from 2011 to 2016. Project Delivery is currentlyplanned to be completed over at least two fiscal years, depending upon available fundingwithin the Regional Office's capital project budgets.

The Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade construction will be completed at a date to bedetermined.

PROJECT PHASING:

2015/16 Planning, Design Start $30,000.00

2016/17 Design Completion $414,000.00

TBD Construction, Commissioning, and Warranty $7,902,900.00Total Project Cost $8,346,900.00Risk $200,000.00

Total Project Value $8,546,900.00

*lncludes contingency of 10%

**Timing of Construction Phase Funding, To Be Determined (TBD); Dependent uponavailability of funding in subsequent years.

PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT

The project risk for MCCN is 13.9% and low. (See Appendix VI - Risk Assessment)

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

CASH FLOW

The project cash flow Including contingency, Is Identified as follows;

Year 1(2015-16) Year 2(2016-17) Construction

Year (TBD)Total

INAC Contribution 30,000.00 414,000.00 7,902,900.00 8,346,900.00

Total Project Cost 30,000.00 414,000.00 7,902,900.00 8,346,900.00

Risk 200,000.00 200,000.00

Total Project Value 30,000.00 414,000.00 8,102,900.00 8,546,900.00

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

PROJECT INFO DOCUMENT

MATHIAS COLOMB CREE NATION - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

UPGRADE PROJECT

PROJECT NO. AS734

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I.0 BACKGROUND 6

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY 7

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 7

4.0 PROJECT SUBSTANTIATION 7

5.0 PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK 8

6.0 PROJECT COSTS 9

7.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE 10

8.0 DESIGN CRITERIA 10

9.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY 11

10.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 11

II.0 PROJECT APPROVALS 14

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX V

APPENDIX VI

WINNIPEG#1579582 -vl

EXISTING INFORMATION

DESIGN GUIDELINES

LOCATION MAP AND SITE PLAN

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

INAC PROJECT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE

RISK ASSESSMENT

1.0 BACKGROUND

Band;

Population:

Location:

Mathias Colomb Cree Nation Band #311

2,147 on reserve (December 2015 Indian Registry System)

The project is situated in Mathias Colomb Cree Nation,Pukatawagan, in the Province of Manitoba

Project Management Team

MCCN Representative:

Band Project Manager:

Engineering Consultant:

Project Officer:

Band Coordinator:

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

Chief Arlen Dumas.


General DeliveryPukatawagan, MB ROL 1L0Telephone: (204) 553-2090

Phillip Cesario, P.Eng.P.M. Associates Limited

1440 Erin Street

Winnipeg, MB R3E 258Telephone: (204) 949-5150

TBD

Derek Pena, P.Eng.Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada200-365 Margrave StreetWinnipeg, MB R3B 3A3Telephone: (204)983-4315

TBD

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

2.1 Mathias Colomb Cree Nation (MOON) is located in Pukatawagan, about 819 kmnorth-west of Winnipeg. The community is accessible by road and rail year round.Depending on conditions, the community is also accessible by winter road for aperiod during the first quarter of each year. The total population of the Cree Nation is3,721 of which 2,147 live on reserve according to INAC's December 2015 regionalstatistics.

2.2 MOON'S geographic zone classification is currently Zone 4. The Oree Nation islocated between 160 and 240 Km from the nearest service centre to which it has no

year-round road access. The community exhibits an environmental index of D(between 55 and 60 degrees latitude).

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The existing community is serviced by a combination of piped and truckedwastewater systems. The piped wastewater system consists of about 7.5 km ofgravity sewer and 3.8 km offeree main with 7 community lift stations and 1 lift stationat the K-12 school. Liftstation 4 is the main lift station which collects the sewage fromthe community and then pumps through a 200 mm diameter force main to theexisting wastewater treatment plant located about 2.0 km southeast of the existingcommunity

The sewage is currently treated in a two reactor. Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)Wastewater Treatment Plant, which then discharges into Pukatawagan Lake. TheSBR plant, which was constructed in 1997, is well maintained and in good conditionbut has been operating over capacity at least since 2006.

Flows beyond design capacity have resulted in continuous decant faults and stormflow conditions as the facility. The plant cannot efficiently handle the volume ofwastewater it has been accepting over the last 9 years resulting in poor qualityeffluent being discharged.

4.0 PROJECT SUBSTANTIATION

A Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study was completed in December 2011 byAECOM to investigate various alternatives to provide suitable long term water andwastewater servicing throughout the MOON community to a 20-year planninghorizon. The Study was aimed at assessing the capacities of both the existing waterdistribution and wastewater collection and treatment, and conducting an optionsanalysis for developing both long term water and wastewater treatment for theCommunity. The resulting development alternatives were to meet INAC Level ofService Standards (LOSS) as well as satisfying current Federal/ProvincialRegulations.

WINNlPEG#1579582-vl

The study determined that the existing wastewater treatment plant had beenoperating above capacity for several years. The plant was not able to meetenvironmental regulations, discharging poor quality effluent, which would worsen withincreasing population, and that an expansion and upgrade of the existing plant wasrequired immediately.

MCCN will maximise the use of local equipment, human resources and material tocomplete this project. Execution of this project will benefit the health and environmentof the community. An engineered sewage treatment facility will require communitymembers to be trained and employed in the proper operation of the facility. The newsewage treatment facility will comply with the current Federal and Provincialregulations.

5.0 PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for this Project comprises the planning, design and construction ofthe proposed sewage treatment facility expansion for the Mathias Colomb CreeNation based on the recommendations of the December 2011 Feasibility Study asfollows:

• Expand the existing plant to include two additional 455 m^ (100,000 Igal) SBRsconstructed adjacent to the existing facility. Each new reactor willcontain two sludgepumps; Dissolved Oxygen (DO) probes with air purge ability to control liquid level, apressure cell, one additional blower, air diffusers, and one overflow to the UVsystem.The control system would need to take into account that the new reactors will belarger than the existing reactors.

• Install a larger UV system to treat the flows from all four SBRs. Replace the twoexisting blowers with four larger blowers, one for each of the four reactors, allequipped with sound enclosures.

• Expand the existing building to house all four blowers, washing facilities, a watercistern, eye wash station and a larger UV system. The building housing thisexpanded facility will also have to be expanded by about 50%. The actual size of thebuilding expansion will have to be determined during the design phase.

• Increase the size of the hatches for better viewing by operators into the tanks.• Replace all existing DO probes with those with air purge quality. Replace all transfer

pumps, and control systems.• Install a sludge thickening process to ensure that all sludge is a minimum of 3%

solids prior to transporting to the sludge lagoons.• Desludge the existing lagoon cells• Construct a 4^^^ sludge lagoon cell.

Neither the Feasibility Study nor the scope of work items listed above shall beconsidered to be absolute descriptions of the scope of work. The actual work shall be

8

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

developed through the pre-design and detailed design process with the fullconcurrence of the Project Team.

6.0 PROJECT COSTS

6.1 Cost Estimate and Cash Flow

The total cost for the project is $8,346,900.00, including contingency and excludingrisk.

Detailed project costs and construction cash flow requirements are presented inAppendix V "Project Cost Estimate".

Planned project allocations are as follows;

Fiscal Year 2015/16 2016/17 Construction

Year - TBD

Total

INAC

Contribution

$30,000.00 $414,000.00 $7,902,900.00 $8,346,900.00

FN

Contribution

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total

Allocation

$30,000.00 $414,000.00 $7,902,900.00 $8,346,900.00

6.2 Risk Assessment

Risk elements associated with the project at the construction stage are summarisedin Table 1 below. Access to these risk funds require INAC authorisation on a case bycase basis.

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

Table 1: List of Risk Elements

Risk Elements Projected Cost

1. Quantity/Quality of historical as-built information $50,000.00

2. Funding approval and impact to construction schedule $50,000.00

S.Unforseen subsoil conditions $50,000.00

4. Environmental mitigation measures $50,000.00

TOTAL $200,000.00

The project risk, as evidenced by the Risk Assessment in Appendix VI, is identifiedas "Low" with a score of 13.9.

7.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE

Table 2. List of Milestones.

Milestone Date

Project Initiation January 2016

Project Approval Request Development and Sign-off February 2016

Project Management Services Selection and Award February 2016

Design Consultant Selection and Award March 2016

Design Stage Kick-off Meeting March 2016

Preliminary Design Report Submission May 2016

66% Design Submission May 2016

Environmental Assessment Approvals May 2016

99% Design Acceptance June 2016

Final Design Acceptance June 2016

Project Construction Award To be determined

Construction Commences To be determined

Construction Complete (Interim/Final Cert, of Completion) To be determined

Final Acceptance -1 Year Warranty Complete (Final Cert,of Acceptance)

To be determined

8.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

All proposed systems shall be designed to conform to the latest editions of the codes,

10

WINNlPEG#1579582 -vl

standards and guidelines as applicable to the work included in Appendix II "DesignGuidelines".

9.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY

9.1 The New Wastewater Treatment System project will be implemented through INACmajor capital funding.

9.2 The project phasing is as indicated below:

Planning 2015/16Geotechnical Investigation Works and Design Start 2015/16Design Completion 2016/17Construction Mobilization To be determinedConstruction and Completion To be determinedFinal Acceptance To be determined

9.3 The Project Team jointly developed the scope of the work.

9.4 The design will be completed to meet approval of all reviewing authorities. Design willbe completed by June 2016.

9.5 The construction phase is proposed commence on a date to be determined by theavailability of funding.

9.6 The Warranty Period for this Project is proposed to be completed on a date to bedetermined.

10.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

10.1 Band Project Manager

The Band Project Manager is responsible for the following:

10.1.1 To act as chairperson for the project management team.

10.1.2 To administer the implementation of the project as indicated in theTechnical Terms and Conditions of the Project Brief.

10.1.3 To ensure that the project is executed in accordance with approved plans,specifications, standards and within budget.

10.1.4 To ensure all reviews are completed and approvals obtained beforeproceeding to subsequent phases.

10.1.5 To ensure operator training and maintenance materials are provided.11

WINNIPEG#l579582 -vl

10.1.6 To ensure that hard copy record drawings and CD ROM's are provided tothe Project Officer.

10.1.7 To provide a liaison to the Chief and Council of the Band in regard to allproject items.

10.1.8 To ensure that all expenditures charged against the project are legitimateand within the project authority. The Project Manager shall recommend allproject payments to the Project Management Team.

10.1.9 To review, evaluate and recommend all contract awards.

10.1.10 To obtain approval from the Project Officer for all designs, reports andcontract awards.

10.2 Proiect Officer

The Project Officer is responsible for:

10.2.1 Ensuring all reports, drawings and specifications are reviewed, evaluatedand approved.

10.2.2 Ensuring the project budgets are appropriate and payments are made in atimely manner. The Project Officer is responsible for monitoring projectcosts and for implementing any budget revisions.

10.2.3 Ensuring that all reports and designs are reviewed and revised accordinglyprior to acceptance in final form by the Project Management Team.

10.2.4 Ensuring that all reviews and approvals of other review agencies areobtained.

10.2.5 Ensuring that the project meets INAC's policies, procedures, objectivesand design standards.

10.2.6 Ensuring all contracts are within the approved project budget and scope ofwork.

10.3 Proiect Management Team

The Project Management Team is the decision making body involved in all phasesand aspects of the project. It is responsible to:

10.3.1 Coordinate the demands of user requirements, physical and financialconstraints, and Departmental policies into a clear definition of projectrequirements.

12

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

10.3.2 Overview the design, construction and commissioning of the system to theend that it will satisfy the needs of the community, including the trainingrequired for operation and maintenance personnel.

10.3.3 Act as liaison to provide information and recommendations to the Chiefand Council.

10.4 Band Project Representative

10.4.1 As a member of the Project Management Team, it is the responsibility ofthe representative to liaise with the Council and Band Members, as andwhen required to keep all informed of project progress and to seekdirection when necessary.

10.5 Consultant

The Consultant is responsible for the following:

10.5.1 To carry out design of this system in a professional manner, inconformance with all applicable federal regulations and codes and theterms of this Project Brief.

10.5.2 To adequately control and direct his/her own forces to ensure that thesystem design schedule is met, the estimated cost is not exceeded, andthe quality of design is maintained.

10.5.3 To provide a cost estimate at preliminary pre-design stages on thecompletion of the working drawings and tender documents prior to thetendering stage, to the Project Management Team.

10.5.4 To develop a project design brief for submission to the ProjectManagement Team with the final design.

10.5.5 To assist the Project Management Team in review of tenders received andto provide them with a recommendation on acceptance.

10.5.6 To complete all work items as outlined in the Project Terms of Reference.

10.5.7 To provide site inspection services during construction.

10.5.8 To review shop drawings as required, process progress payments, reviewand recommend acceptance of change orders, coordinate the substantialperformance inspection and cleanup of deficiencies identified; to carry outtotal performance inspection; to carry out warranty period inspection; andto issue certificates for substantial and total performance.

13

WINNlPEG#1579582-vl

10.5.9 The Consultant shall be fully licensed, carry sufficient insurance and havedemonstrated experience and qualifications designing and supervising thistype of project.

10.5.10 Provide the Project Manager with the following 'Record Drawing'information within thirty (30) days of substantial completion for distribution:

• Three (3) complete sets of clearly marked 'Record Drawings'• Three copies of CD containing the record drawings• All materials and components used will be identified on the record

drawings.• Record drawings will be done on AutoCad or equivalent approved

program. In addition to the hard copies, PDF copies of the recorddrawings will be acceptable.

11.0 PROJECT APPROVALS

11.1 The Project Approval Request for this Project will be submitted and approved byrepresentatives of the Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, the Project ManagementAgency and INAC.

11.2 The detailed design will be submitted for review by all authorities having jurisdictionat the 66% Design submissions.

11.3 The detailed design willbe submitted for review and acceptance by the Project Teamat the 99% completion level.

11.4 The Environmental Assessment Screening Decision Report will be approved prior toconstruction.

14

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

APPENDIX I

Existing Information

Regional office will ensure that all necessary supporting documentation, as itpertains to thisproject shall be appropriately kept on file as per the project Documentation Checklist (onceimplemented).

This office will also ensure that a large majority of the documentation created from thisproject will be kept and updated in the current INAC CIDM system to catalogue its currentavailability and future references. CIDM folder: WIN-E 4380-311 UNC, Reference AS734.

Hard copy documents will also be copied and kept in the INAC library located on the fourthfloor of the Manitoba Regional Office to facilitate any future references to a hard copy ofsuch technical documentation. Also the documents will be listed in the INAC librarydatabase.

15

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

APPENDIX II

Design Guidelines

The design must conform to the acts, codes and regulations of all authorities havingjurisdiction including the most recent edition of those of the following codes and standardsas may apply given the nature of the Project. In the event of conflicts or discrepanciesbetween two or more codes, regulations or standards, the best or most rigid criteria willgovern.

a) The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act, R.S.M. 1987 c. D12;b) The Environment Act, S.M. 1987-88, c.26:

c) all applicable federal and provincial codes and standards relating to good andacceptable practices of safety, engineering and architecture;

d) General/Architectural

National Building Code of Canada including all relevant supplements;Manitoba Building Code;National Fire Code of Canada;Canada Labour Code;CAN/CSA B651-04 Barrier Free Design Standards;R2000 Building Standards;Manitoba Building Code;Model National Energy Code for Buildings;National Research Council "Measure for Energy Conservation in Buildings";Municipal Zoning By-laws;Metrication Guidelines/Drawing Practices;CGSB and CSA standards;The Canada Environmental Protection Act;INAC Environmental Impact Assessment Standard;The Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations;INAC "Space Accommodation Standards for Schools";INAC "School Design and Construction Standards";Authorities having jurisdiction; andAll other Provincial/Territorial and Municipal Acts, Codes, By-laws andregulations appropriate to the area of concern.

e) Mechanical

Canadian Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Code;Fire Protection Engineering Standards of the Fire Commissioner of Canada;National Plumbing Code;Canada Plumbing Code;The Energy Efficiency Act S.C. 1992, c.36;National Fire Protection Association;ASHRAE Standards applicable to Schools;SMACNA Design and Construction Guidelines;Canadian Farm Building Code; and

16

WINNIPEG#!579582 -vl

• CAN/CSA B149.1 and B149.2 for natural gas and propane facilities,respectively.

• DIAND Corporate Manual System - Indian Programs - Volume 1 - CapitalFacilities and Maintenance - Chapter 1-1 - Fire Protection Services (seehttp://wwv\^.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ih/ci/pubs/fir/fir-eng.pdf).

f) Electrical

Canadian Electrical Code;Manitoba Electrical Code;Manitoba Hydro Power Smart Program relating to:

• Commercial Construction Program;• Energy Efficient Lighting Program;• Performance Optimization (Renovations) Program;

Treasury Board Occupational Safety and Personnel Management Manual;Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard, Part 1: GeneralRequirements, TIA/EIA-568-B.1;Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard, Part 2: BalancedTwisted Pair Cabling Components, TIA/EIA-568-B.2;Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard, Addendum 1 -Transmission Performance Specification for 4-pair 100 Ohm Category 6Cabling, TIA/EIA-568-B.2-1;Optical Fibre Cabling Components Standards, TIA/EIA-568-B.3;Optical Fibre Cabling Components Standard Addendum 1 - AdditionalTransmission Performance Specifications for 50/125 pm Optical Fiber Cables,TIA/EIA-568-B.3-1;CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 214-94 "Communications Cables", Canadian StandardsAssociation;Commercial Building Standard for Telecommunications Pathways andSpaces, ANSI/TIA/EIA-569-B;CAN/CSA-T528-93, "Design Guidelines for Administration ofTelecommunications Infrastructure in Commercial Buildings", CanadianStandards Association;J-STD-607A Commercial Building Grounding (Earthing) and BondingRequirements for Telecommunications, ANSI-J-STD-607-A-2002;DIAND Corporate Manual System - Indian Programs - Volume 1 - CapitalFacilities and Maintenance - Chapter 1-5 - Electric Power Supply andDistribution Systems (see http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ih/ci/pubs/ele/ele-eng.pdf)

g) Water and Sewage

• INAC "Protocol for Safe Drinking Water in First Nation Communities" (seehttp://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/enr/wtr/pubs/sdw/sdw-eng.pdf);

• INAC draft "Protocol for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal in First NationCommunities";

• INAC draft "Protocol for Decentralized (On-Site) Water and WastewaterSystems in First Nations Communities";

• INAC "Design Guidelines for First nations Water Works" (March 2006) (seehttp://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/enr/wtr/pubs/dgf/dgf-eng.asp);

17


• Environment Canada "Guidelines for Effluent Quality and Waste WaterTreatment at Federal Establishments" (seehttp://wvvw.ec.gc.ca/etad/BFAB867D-DF04-4E40-90D1-EEA80C8D5179/1976_Guidelines_En.pdf);

• Health Canada's "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality"(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/sum_guide-res_recom/index-eng.php):

• Health Canada's "Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality - TechnicalDocuments": (see http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/index-eng.php#tech_doc).

• DIAND Corporate Manual System - Indian Programs - Volume 1 - CapitalFacilities and Maintenance - Chapter 1-3 - Water and Sewer Systems (seehttp://vww.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ih/ci/pubs/wat/wat-eng.pdf); and

• Manitoba Regulation 83/2003 "Onsite Wastewater Management SystemsRegulation" under The Environment Act(http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/pdf/e125-083.03.pdf#page=1 );

h) Roads

• DIAND Corporate Manual System - Indian Programs - Volume 1 - CapitalFacilities and Maintenance - Chapter 1-4 - Roads and Bridges (seehttp://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ih/ci/pubs/roa/roa-eng.pdf)

1) Schools

• All those codes and standards set out in the preceding listing.• DIAND Corporate Manual System - Indian Programs - Volume 1 - Capital

Facilities and Maintenance - Chapter 1-6 - Level of Service Standards -Schools

(http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071127102219/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ps/hsg/cih/dl/spa_e.pdf);

• DIAND Corporate Manual System - Indian Programs - Volume 1 - CapitalFacilities and Maintenance - Chapter 1-12 - Level of Service Standards -Schools Site Development; (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ih/ci/pubs/sch/sch-eng.pdf)

• INAC Bulletin - Indian and Inuit Affairs - Program Directives 20-1, Chapter 6 -Capital Facilities and Community Services - PD6.16, Levels of ServiceStandards and Management of Teacherages on Reserve (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ih/ci/pubs/ste/ste-eng.pdf)

18


1*1Indian and Northern Affaires inckennes

Affairs Canada at du Nord Canada

v.v

Etob anS Flow

^Vriyw»]fioo<apoofirttNaa^TfMiya. ma

'OwKaari. .KiMMakeawann"

APPENDIX

Location Map

CKia

8t TherMA

Mathias

Colomb Cree

Nation

Locations of First Nations

in Manitoba

2002

KiMMakeo

t ^ \ yf

CanadS


19

nubkshad undar VteauBtonty of the Hon Roban 0 NatA PC.. M-P.Under of inAan and Nortwrn AMan Canada.OCawa.2002

os^i-ooeaaAi

20

WINNlPEG#1579582-vl

APPENDIX IV


21

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl


Item Total ($)

1. CONSTRUCTION

A. Mobilisation/Demobilisation 596,200

Sub Total Cost 596,200

B. Addition of two SBR trains, upgrade transfer piping and pumps, replace DO probes, replaceblowers, building expansion, upgrade UVsystem, alter controls, sludge thickening process and4°* Sludoe Laooon Cell 5,962,000

Sub Total Cost 5,962,000

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 6,558,200

II. NON-CONSTRUCTION

A. Project Management 139,500

B. Engineering 850,000

C. First Nation Coordination 75,000

TOTAL NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,064,500

III. CONTINGENCY 724,200

IV. TOTAL PROJECT COST 8,346,900

V. RISK 200,000

VI. TOTAL PROJECT VALUE 8,546,900

22

WINNIPEG#1579582-vl

APPENDIX V

INAC PROJECT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE

23

WINNlPEG#1579582-vl

INAC CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS

Band Name Mathias Colomb Cree Nation

INAC Project No. AS734

Certificate Use Final Certificate

Project Titie Mathias Colomb Cree Nation - Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade

Funding Arrangement No. 1415-MB-000023

Location: Mathias Colomb Cree Nation

Contractor: Mathias Coiomb Cree Nation

Project (Scope of Work) Appendix Attached _

Plan, design and construct a waste wastewater treatment facility upgrade for the Mathias Colomb CreeNation.

Incomplete Work, Deficiencies and Faults Appendix Attached _

General Remarks Appendix Attached.

Statement of Project Manager

We hereby certify that all work called for in the Project described above has been completed 100% asoutlined in the Project Brief.

Date Firm Project Manager

Statement of Chiefs

To our knowledge, all work called for in the Project described above have been completed to 100% as outlinedin the Project Brief and has fulfilled the terms of the Funding Agreement.

Chief - Mathias Colomb Cree Nation

24


APPENDIX VI

RISK ASSESSMENT

25


Major Capital Project Risk Assessment Tool

Overall Project Risk Assessment and Risk Mitigation Plan

Date;

First Nation Name:

I Region;

Project Name;

Project No.:

Total AANDC funding;

Funding spent to date:

Project Percent Risk:

Risk allowance; ^

2016-01-15


MB I

Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade

AS734

$8.4 million

$0.0 million

• To enter values for RRact in Column E, scroll down to Explanatory Notes at Row 85

** Per Tab 4, use the suggested weights provided in Column H on this spreadsheet.

Note; Regions may amend Column H but must justify and document the amendment.

Risk Score = Unadjusted Percent Risk (UPR) = (Sum (RRact x WTact) x 100] / (Sum (RRmax x WTmax)]

Percent Risk = Adjusted Percent Risk (APR) = [UPR x (Sum (RRmax x WTmax) / Sum (RRact x WTmax)]

This Project involves the planning, design and consUiiction of the proposed wastewater treatment facilityupgrade including two Sequencing Batch Reactor process trains, a building expansion, sludge drying bedexpansion and ancillary civil works.

Low Risk Asof 2012-11-06 Iyyyy-mm-dd

ITofind Percent Risk,scroll downto Explanatory Notesat Row85]

ProjectRisk Elements

General

Assessment

(CommunityCapacity)

Consultant/

Contractor

Capacity(Project

Management)

Consultant/

Contractor

Capacity(Design)

Consultant/

Contractor

Capacity(Construction)

Environmental

NCR#4790920-v3

Risk Level Description of Potential Risks Suggested Risk Mitigation Strategy

Low Risk

The community was assigned a GeneralAssessment score of 0 to 18.5 pursuant to tiieGeneral Assessment Workbook.

No action required, continue to monitor.Risk

Cost($.$$$,$$$)

Rationale on how the risk cost

estimate was calculated as well as

what the sum Is meant to cover.

I^k ExpiryDate

(YYYY-MM-DD)

Low Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated an adequate and consistent level ofexpertise in the management of similar projectswith a minimum of 20 years senior-levelexperience on directly related projects of similarscope and magnitude.

No action required, continue to monitor. 0

Example; Estimated cost of additional part-time consultant support for the duration ofthe project.

2012-12-02

Low Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated a consistent level of expertise in thedesign of similar projects with a minimum of 20years of senior level experience on directly relatedprojects of similar scope and magnitude.


Example; Estimated cost of additional pan-time consukant support for the design stageof the project.

2012-12-03

Low Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated an adequate and consistent level ofexpertise in the construction of similar projectswith a minimum of 20 years senior-levelexperience on directly related projects of simitarscope and magnitude.


Example: Difference in cost t>etween theselected general contractor and the highest-value bid.

2012-12-04

Low Risk

There is minimal Environment value to the projectarea and the project would have minimal impact tothe surrounding environment.


Example: Estimated additional cost of theproject if akemative site, rather than thecurrently selected site, has to be used toerect the Infrastructure.

2012-12-05

Remoteness

Project Stage

Project Duration

ProjectComplexity

Funding Limit

FundingSuspension

Cost

Shanng

NCRiM790920-t3

la

2 !

1

4

I ^

RiskScore = | 7.9 I*"

Percent Risks j 13.9 1%"

Medium

Risk

Project site is difficult to access but can beaccessed all year.

Review alternative access opportunities andinclude a project plan to improve the projectaccess prior to construction starting.

0

Example: Estimated additional cost if theproject is delayed by one year due to winterroads being unavailable w^en neededduring the planned project schedule.

2012-12-06

High RiskProject is just Starting the Pre-Designs or is justcompleting the Feasibility Stage.

Review the project schedule and determine if theproject needs to be broken into phases anddistributed to several project teams to implementthe designs and subsequent construction througha number of different contracts.

0

Example: Estimated potential increase incost (+30 percent) between the project'scurrent Class D cost estimate and a Class

A cost estimate.

2012-12-07

Medium

RiskProject can be constructed with 1 year

Review the proposed construction schedule andensure resources available and project stage isconsistent with meeting project plannedcompletion.

0

Example: Estimated increase in costs fromall sources if project cannot be completedduring the planned project schedule.

2012-12-08

Medium

Risk

The project is somewhat complex witt) somecomponents requiring specific project expertise. Alist of the unusual project components should bequickly summanzed.

Review the proposed works and ensure there isadequate expertise to address the componentidentified as not being typical, request additionale)q36rtise as required.

0

Example: Estimated additional co^ tomodify the project and complete it on timedue to unforeseen geotechnicalcomplications.

2012-12-09

Medium

Risk

Total Project value from $5 to $10 million with apotential chance of exceeding 10 millionrequiringapproval from Head Quarters.

Project value needs to be monitored. Additionalfunds and time may be required to allow forreviews by headquarters.

0

Example: Estimated increase in cost due todelay caused by cost increase, leading toadditional oversight causing delay in projectapproval.

2012-12-10

Low Risk

Community regularly completes necessary reportson-time and the community has no otfter on-goingprojects.


Example: Estimated increase in cost due tofunding suspension (resulting in projectdelay) caused by failure of First Nation tomeet reporting deadlines.

2012-12-11

Low Risk There is no cost sharing fiTDm the community. No action required. 0

Example: Estimated cost yiprease due tocommunity defaulting on its cost sharingcommitments.

2012-12-12

Total allowance for Hsitexpressed Indollars:

Explanatory NotesUse descriptions of potential risks to select values forRRact and type them into the yellow boxes below.

mmmwim

NCM4790920.V3

isk Elements

^^eraT^ssessment Score fCommunity CapacftyT"he General Assessnwnt (GA) score is an assessment of the community's abilityto manage ftjnding agreementsmd capital projects as calculated according to the instructions In the General Assessment Workbook.

Risk Level Descripyon of Potential Risks Potential or Suggested Mitigayon Strategy

Low Risk

The community was assigned a GeneralAssessment score of 0 to 18.5 pursuant to theGeneral Assessment Workbook.

No action required, continue to monitor.

Medium

Risk

The community was assigned a GeneralAssessment score of 18.6 to 37.5 pursuant to theGeneral Assessment Workbook.

Project Manager is hired jointly by the First Nationand AANDC. Funding is flowed to the First Nationon a payment term-by-payment term basis thatmirrors the project's contractual progress paymentterms.

High Risk

The community was assigned a GeneralAssessment score of 37.6 to 56 pursuant to theGeneral Assessment Workbook.

Project Management and project progresspayments will be managed by an AANDC-appointed third party.

"*•*" - Risk Elements 1 to 12 should be assessed (and

the mitigation plan updated) periodically throughout the

life of a project. The risk descriptors (provided in Column

N) and suggested mitigation measures (provided in

Column O) are generic and high level. Thus, regionaloffices should customize risk descriptors and suggested

mitigation measures to suit specific projects.

**•"* Note:

The risk costs (with rationales explaining what they cover, how they werecafcuiated, and expiry dates for the risks) are entered for Risk Elements 2 to 12 In

the appropriate blanks t>eiowstarting at Row 102.

L Consultant/Contractor Capacity for Project Management I

This would generally be a measure of the Consulting Group / Contractor abilities to Project Manage this particularproject based on their past project experience on projects of similar scope and their years of expertise in dealing withprojects of similar scope and magnitude.

estimated

cost of risk

below

. In the space below, Insert a brief

explanation of how the estimated 'cost of risk was calculated. ****** '

Insert risk

expiry datebelow. •—**rVYVY-MM-DD)

Risk Level Description of Potential Risks Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy ***** 0Example; Estimated cost of additionalpart-time consultant support for theduration of the project.

2012-12-02

Low Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated an adequate and consistent level ofexpertise in the management of similar projectswith a minimum of 20 years senior-levelexperience on directly related projects of similarscope and magnitude.


Medium

Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated an adequate and consistent level ofexpertise in the management of similar projectswith junior-level experience on directly relatedprojects of similar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise at a seniorengineering level with experience directly relatedto projects of similar scope and magnitude.

Medium

Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor has a minimumof 20 years senior-level experience in themanagement of other projects not specificallyrelated to projects of similar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise vnthexperience directly related to projects of similarscope and magnitude.

High Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor has notdemonstrated consistent level of expertise in themanagement of similar projects and does notpresent a team with any experience on projects ofsimilar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise and add tothe senior engineering group staff with experiencedirectly related to projects of similar scope andmagnitude.

Insert RRact value here:!

NCR#4790920.*3

3. Consuitant/Contractor Capacity for Project Design I

Thiswouldgenerally be a measure of the ConsultingGroup / Contractor abilitiesto complete the necessary Project-pesign for this particular project based on their past project experience on projects of similar scope and their year^.bfexpertise indealing with projects ofsimilar scopeand magnitude, y®

estiniated

cost of risk '. J«low

in the space below, Insert a briefexplanation of how the e8tiin<itedcost of risk was catcuiated

insert risk

1 expby dateb^ow.*"*""

RRaet Risk Level Description of Potential Risks """ Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy 0 Example: Estimated cost of additionalpart-time consultant support for thedesign stage of the project.

2012-12-03

0 Low Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated a consistent level of expertise in thedesign of similar projects with a minimum of 20years of senior level experience on directly relatedprojects of similar scope and magnitude.


1®Medium

Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated an adequate and consistent level ofexpertise In the design of similar projects virlthjunior-level experience on directly related projectsof similar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise at a seniorengineering level with experience directly relatedprojects of similar scope and magnitude.

- ——

1bMedium

Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor has a minimumof 20 years of senior level experience in thedesign of other projects not specifically related toprojects of similar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise withexperience in directly related projects of similarscope and magnitude.

2 High Risk

The Consulting Group / Contractor has notdemonstrated an adequate and consistent level ofexpertise in the design of similar projects and doesnot present a team with adequate experience onprojects of similar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise and add tothe senior engineering group staff with experiencedirectly related to projects of similar scope andmagnitude.

I. ConstiteiitlG^tawtorCapacity iofCOBSIructte#-

Thiswould generafly be a measure of the Consulting Group/ ConTOcw^nraww ffie'Construction Stage for particularproject based on their past project experierure on projects of similarscope andtfieir the years of expertise in dealing with projects of similar scope and magnitude.

Risk Level

Medium

Risk

Medium

Risk

High Risk

Description of Potential Risks *

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated an adequate and consistent level ofexpertise in the construction of similar projectswith a minimum of 20 years senior-levelexperience on directly related projects of similarscope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor hasdemonstrated an adequate and consistent level ofexpertise in the construction of similar projectswith junior-level experience on directly relatedprojects of similar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor has a minimumof 20 years of senior level experience in theconstmction of other projects not specificallyrelated to projects of similar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor has notdemonstrated consistent level of expertise in theconstruction of similar projects and does notpresent a team with any experience on projects ofsimilar scope and magnitude.

Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy'


The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise at a seniorengineering level with experience directly relatedprojects of similar scope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise withexperience directly related projects of similarscope and magnitude.

The Consulting Group / Contractor shouldconsider acquiring additional expertise andincorporate senior engineering group withexperience directly related projects of similarscope and magnitude.

estimated

cost of risk

below

; r.:in the space foeiow, insert a briefvexplanation of how the estimatedcost of risk was calculated. y

Example: Difference in cost betweenthe selected general contractor andthe highest-value bid.

expiry datebelow.

NCR#4790920 - v3

>.^nvironmenui

Environmental would evaluate the relative sensitivityof the project site withrespect to biological,physical, andsociological elements and the extent of the impacts of the project on these elements.

Risk Level

Med/am

Risk

Medium

Risk

High Risk

Description of Potential Risks'

There Is minimal Environment value to the projectarea and the project would have minimal impact tothe surroundinQ environment.

There is significant Environment value to theproject area but the project v/ould have minimalimpact to the surrounding environment.

The project has the potential for significant impactto the surrounding environment, however there isminimal Environment value to the project area.

There is significant Environment value to theproject area and the project has the potential forsignificant impact to the surrounding environment.

Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy *


Additional environmental investigations should becompleted to ensure that the project has propertyindentified the environmentally sensitive area andthe project is adequately avoiding impact(s) to thearea.

Additional environmental investigations should becompleted to ensure ti^at the project has properlyindentified the value of the surroundingenvironmental area.

Additional environmental investigations need to becompleted to clearly identify the areas ofsignificant environmental value and the projectteam needs to review the designs to furtherreduce or avoid the areas of concern. Additional

mitigation measures willalso need to be includedto further minimize or avoid any impacts.

estimated

cost of risk

fr»l9vy

In the space below, insert a briefexplanation of how the estimateicost of risk was calculated.

Example: Estimated additional cost ofthe project if alternative site, ratherthan the currently selected site, has tobe used to erect the infrastructure.

epinsnexpiry date |below.(YYYY-MM-DD)g

2012-12-05

Evaluates the location of the project site and its accessibility during construction. . .v ;estimated

costofriek :

below

:! explanation of how the estln^^ra , B; cost otrisk was calculatsd. f J

Risk Level Description of Potential Risks Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy "•** 0Example: Estimated additional cost ifthe project is delayed by one year dueto winter roads being unavailable whenneeded during the planned projectschedule.

[ 2012-12-06 1Low Risk Project site is easily accessible all year. No action required.

Medium

Risk

Project site is difficultto access but can beaccessed all year.

Review alternative access opportunities andinclude a project plan to improve the projectaccess prior to construction starting.

Medium

Risk

Project site cannot be accessed all year but canbe easily accessed.

Review project schedule to ensure co-ordination isallowed within the project contract for accessingthe site and allowing for adequate time to constructthe proposed works.

High RiskProject site is difflcuitto access and cannot beaccessed throughout the year.

Review project schedule to ensure co-ordination isallowed within the project contract for accessingthe site and alloMring for adequate time to constructthe proposed works. Review alternative accessopportunities and include a project plan to improvethe project access prior to construction starting.

NCRi4790920-T3

Project Stage |

MIows for the evaluation of the project stage and the abilityto have the project construction completed over a pre-letermined period.

. estimated^cost of rttlil

âihe space below, insert a brief .jaiîanation ofhow the estlmeteil•cbst of risk was calculated.

Insert risk

[.Oxplrydate-below.***"**fspmi-mian'

RRact Risk Level Description of Potential Risks ***** Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy ***** 0 1Example: Estimated potential increasein cost (+30 percent) between theproject's cunent Class D cost estimateand a Class A cost estimate.

2012-12-07

0 Low RiskProject Designs are completed and the project isready to proceed to construction.

No action required.

1Medium

Risk

Project is in the Design Stage of the process. Review the proposed constmction schedule anddetermine if additional resources are needed to

expedite the project designs.

2 High Risk

Project is just Starting the Pre-Designs or is justcompleting the Feasibility Stage.

Review the project schedule and determine if theproject needs to be broken into phases anddistributed to several project teams to implementthe designs and subsequent construction througha numt)er of different contracts.

1. Krotect uuration

Assesses the potentialfor riskarisingfromthe fact tf?at longerprojectdurationmayimpacton tfie originally definedScope, budget, and schedule.

Insert

estimated v

cost of risir

Înthespace below, insert a brief .p^lanatlon ofhow theestimated

of risk was calculated. ****** {

insert nskexpiry datebelow.

RRact Risk Level Descnption of Potential Risks ***** Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy ***** 0 Example; Estimated increase in costsfrom all sources if project cannot becompleted during the planned projectschedule.

2012-12-08

Q Low Risk Project can be constructed within 6 months No action required, continue to monitor.

Medium

Risk

Project can be constructed with 1 year Review the proposed construction schedule andensure resources available and project stage isconsistent with meeting project plannedcompletion.

High Risk

Project vyill take 2 Years for construction Review project schedule and determine if theproject needs to be broken into phases anddistributed to several project teams to implementthe designs and subsequent construction througha number of different contracts.

jl.Prefect Comi>tex>fr^Âssess theproject complexity andwhether theproject istypical orspecial expertise isneeded forffie projectmanagement, designs, and construction of the project. This would also review the number of unusual projectcomponents are included.

fl estimated^cost of

below •

KM Risk Level Description of Potential Risks *"*' Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy ***'* 0

0 Low RiskThe project is typical and matches the expertise ofthe project team.


'

Medium

Risk

The project is somewhat complex wiffi somecomponents requiring specific project expertise. Alist of the unusual project components should bequickly summarized.

Review the proposed vrorks and ensure there isadequate expertise to address the componentidentified as not being typical, request additionalexpertise as required.

2 High Risk

The project has several complex components thatare significant to the project's success, withspecific project expertise being required to leadthe project. A list of the major unusual projectcomponents should be quickly summarized.

Review the proposed works and ensure the primeproject team has adequate expertise to lead theproject through design and construction.Potentially request additional expertise to lead orprovide value engineering. Determine if the projectneeds to be broken into phases and distributed toseveral project teams to implement the designsand subsequent construction through a number ofdifferent contracts.

iln.tfie space below, Insert a briefPîanationofhow theestimated'4^costof risk was calculated. ******

Example: Estimated additional cost tomodify the project and complete it ontime due to unforeseen geotechnicalcomplications.

expiry datebelow. *•*•**

iTpnr-MM-op)

2012-12-09

InsertRRact valuehere; ] 0 |

iinlsert RRact value hef»; J 0

NCR»4790920-v3

i». hungmg umrt

Evaluate the project cost and the number of review levels needed to support the projectestimated i

cost of risk -

below

In the space below, Insert a briefexpkmation of how the estlmeted;cost of risk was calculated. •*•••*

g Insert riskapiexpiry dateH

1 2012-12-10 1Risk Level Description of Potential Risks Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy *"** 0 Example: Estimated increase in costdue to delay caused by cost increase,leading to additional oversight causingdelay in project approval.

Low RiskTotal Project value less then $5 million or not likelyto exceed $10 Million.


Medium

Risk

Total Project value from $5 to $10 million with apotential chance of exceeding 10 million requiringapproval from Head Quarters.

Project value needs to be monitored. Additionalfunds and time may be required to allow forreviews by headquarters.

High Risk

Total Project value exceeding $10 million with apotential chance of exceeding $30 million requiringTreasury Board Approval.

Project value needs to be monitored. Additionalfunds and time will be required to allow for reviewsby headquarters. More time and funds may berequired to allow for a Treasury Board approvalprocess.

Evaluate the potential for tiie project being delayed by potential funding suspension Issues, community's history oncompleting the necessary reports, and the number of on-going projects costofrisk

below

explanation of how the estfniatod'cost of risk was calculated. **•••" 1{'YYYY-MM-OdH

Risk Level Description of Potential Risks ***** Potential or Suggested Mitigation Strategy ***** 0 Example; Estimated increase in costdue to funding suspension (resulting inproject delay) caused by failure of FirstNation to meet reporting deadlines.

1 2012-12-11 1Low Risk

Community regularly completes necessary reportson-time and the community has no other on-going


Medium

Risk

Community has been late in submitting regularreports, however the community has no otherprojects in progress.

Monitor communit/s reporting requirements andprovide regular updates on reporting deadlines.

Medium

Risk

The community has several projects in progress,however the community regularly completesnecessary reports on-time.

Include discussions on the community's otherprojects as part of the regular meetings. Reviewproject schedules and reporting deadlines.

High Risk

Community has been late in submitting regularreports and the community has several otherprojects underway.

Include discussions on the community's otherprojects as part of the regular meetings. Reviewproject schedules and reporting deadlines. Monitorcommunity's reporting requirements and provideregular updates on reporting deadlines. Possiblyrecommend additional resources to assist the

community's management of projects.

12. Cost Sharing

Evaluate if the project is being cost shared by tiie community, whether the cost sharing is a substantial amount thatcommunity can afford, whether the community can afford a potential increase in costs, and the history of thecommunity with respect to cost sharing in the past.

Risk Level

Medium

Risk

Medium

Risk

High Risk

Description of Potential Risks ^

There is no cost sharing from the community.

The band is proposing to cost share a substantialamount that the community can afford and thecommunity has a history of cost sharing. Howeverthe community cannot afford a potential increasein costs.

The band is proposing to cost share a substantialamount that community can afford, however thecommunity does not have a history of cost sharingin the past.

The community plans to cost share a substantialamount, the community cannot afford a potentialincrease in costs, and the community has not costshared in the past.

Potential or Suggested MitigationStrategy *'

No action required.

Monitor the project costs, in particular thecomponents the community is cost sharing, tominimize potential of escalating costs.

Monitor the project costs, in particular componentsthe community is cost sharing. Ensure thecommunity understands the potential projectdelays if the community funds are not providedwhen needed.

Monitor the project costs, in particular componentsthe community is cost sharing. Ensure that thecommunity has secured funds for their contributionand ensure that the community understands thepotential project delays if the community funds arenot provided when needed. The department couldalso propose alternative methods of cost sharingttirough deferred O&M.

—iimuri

estimated

cost of risk

below

in the space below, insert a briefexplanation of how the estimated'cost of risk was calculated.

Example; Estimated cost increase dueto community defaulting on its costsharing commitments.

Insert risk [^iaxplry date|below.

"fYYVY-MM-C

2012-12-12