123R-

22

INTEGRATEDCOSTANDSCHEDULE
RISKANAL YSI
SANDCONTI
NGENCY
DETERMINATIONUSI
NG
ESTIMATERANGINGAND
EXPECTEDVALUEWITH
MONTECARLO
SIMULATION

Rev
.Augus
t17,2023
 AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 123R-22

INTEGRATED COST AND SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS AND

CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION USING ESTIMATE RANGING
AND EXPECTED VALUE WITH MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
TCM Framework: 7.6 – Risk Management

Rev. August 17, 2023

Note: As AACE International Recommended Practices evolve over time, please refer to web.aacei.org for the latest
revisions.

Any terms found in AACE International Recommended Practice 10S-90, Cost Engineering Terminology, supersede terms
defined in other AACE work products, including but not limited to, other recommended practices, the Total Cost
Management Framework, and Skills & Knowledge of Cost Engineering.

Contributors:
Disclaimer: The content provided by the contributors to this recommended practice is their own and does not necessarily
reflect that of their employers, unless otherwise stated.

John K. Hollmann, PE CCP CEP DRMP FAACE Hon. Life Larry R. Dysert, CCP CEP DRMP FAACE Hon. Life
(Primary Contributor) Hossam Hefnawy
May Chetty, CEP
Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices
Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.

This document is copyrighted by AACE International and may not be reproduced without permission. Organizations may obtain permission
to reproduce a limited number of copies by entering into a license agreement. For information please contact editor@aacei.org
AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 123R-22
INTEGRATED COST AND SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS
AND CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION USING
ESTIMATE RANGING AND EXPECTED VALUE WITH
MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
TCM Framework: 7.6 – Risk Management

August 17, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................2
1.1. Scope ..................................................................................................................................................................2
1.2. Purpose ...............................................................................................................................................................3
1.2.1. Inherent Risks - General...............................................................................................................................3
1.2.2. Inherent Risks - Duration .............................................................................................................................3
1.2.3. Project-Specific Risks ...................................................................................................................................4
1.2.4. Systemic Risks (not covered except Inherent Risks) ....................................................................................4
1.3. Background .........................................................................................................................................................5
2. Recommended Practice .............................................................................................................................................7
2.1. Hybrid Application Steps ....................................................................................................................................7
2.1.1 Precursor Tools .............................................................................................................................................7
2.2. Hybrid Tool Example .........................................................................................................................................10
2.2.1. Cost and Duration Estimate Ranging Model ..............................................................................................11
2.2.2. R+EV Model ...............................................................................................................................................14
3. Special Considerations for Hybrid Application ........................................................................................................17
3.1. Note on Joint Confidence Level (JCL) Determination .......................................................................................17
4. Comparison of the R+EV Hybrid Method to RP 40R-08 Principles ..........................................................................18
5. Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................20
References ...................................................................................................................................................................20
Contributors.................................................................................................................................................................21

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 2 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Scope

This recommended practice (RP) of AACE® International (AACE) defines general practices and considerations for
integrated cost and schedule risk analysis and estimating contingency using a combination or hybrid of estimate
ranging and integrated cost and schedule expected value analysis with Monte Carlo simulation methods. R+EV is
used as a shorthand designation for this quantitative risk analysis (QRA) combination. The base methods are covered
separately in:
• RP 118R-21, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate Ranging for Inherent Risk with
Monte Carlo Simulation [1].
• RP 65R-11, Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Expected Value
[2].
Note: RP 65R-11, incorporates methods from RP 44R-08, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination
Using Expected Value for cost [3].

Those RPs should be reviewed for details of the respective methods; this RP is focused on how to use them in
combination. Descriptions of other recommended risk quantification practices can be found in AACE Professional
Guidance Document PGD-02, Guide to Quantitative Risk Analysis [4].

The R+EV method is a fit-for-use, practical, risk-driven method intended to support management’s need for
integrated distributions of bottom-line project cost and schedule outcomes. It is intended to support investment or
tender decision making for well-defined, relatively simple, low-technology projects at the sanction or tender phase
(i.e., Class 3 or better-defined estimates). See Professional Guidance Document PGD-01, Guide to Cost Estimate
Classification for more information on Classification [5]).

This method is not recommended for projects with significant systemic risks including projects at early scope
definition phases (Class 10, 5 or 4) or with significant complexity, and/or with significant levels of technology1.
Complexity can result in non-linear behaviors not usually captured by estimate ranging and can also result in large
numbers of minor risk events that together are significant but are not usually quantified in either ranging or expected
value methods. This exclusion from usage results from the estimate ranging method’s limitations (see: RP 118R-21).
For Class 4 or better definition, hybrid methods combined with parametric modeling are recommended when there
are significant systemic risks; refer to either:
• RP 113R-20, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Combined Parametric and Expected Value
[6] or
• RP 117R-21, Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using a Hybrid
Parametric and CPM Method [7].

For Class 10 or 5 definition, where systemic risks are dominant, the parametric method, used alone, is recommended
(i.e., RP 42R-08, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Parametric Estimating [8]).

While this method can provide limited insight of risks to some activities or milestones, this method is not
recommended for projects needing to understand schedule risk at a detailed level (i.e., more detailed than Level 1
or just the completion date) such as the impact of risk on specific schedule activities or on intermediate milestones
(these projects also tend to be more complex). This exclusion from usage results from expected value method
limitations regarding schedule (see: RP 65R-11). For detailed scheduling needs, QRA methods employing the risk-

1For an example method of measuring complexity or technology, see the Rand model in RP 43R-08, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination
Using Parametric Estimating – Example Models as Applied for the Process Industries [18]

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 3 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

driven critical path schedule method (CPM) are recommended including:

• RP 57R-09, Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis using Risk Drivers and Monte Carlo Simulation of a
CPM Model [9] or
• RP 117R-21, Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using a Hybrid
Parametric and CPM Method [7].

The method also excludes quantification of escalation risks (see: RP 68R-11, Escalation Estimating Using Indices and
Monte Carlo Simulation [10]).

1.2. Purpose

This RP is intended to provide guidelines, not a standard, for contingency estimating that most practitioners would
consider to be good practices that can be relied on and that they would recommend be considered for use where
applicable. There are a variety of useful risk analysis and contingency estimating methodologies; this RP, combined
with other QRA RPs outlined in PGD-02, will help guide practitioners in developing or selecting appropriate methods
for their situation.

It is an AACE recommendation that whenever the term risk is used the term’s meaning should be clearly defined for
the purpose of the practice. This hybrid method is intended to quantify two types of risks for cost and schedule:
inherent and critical2 project-specific risks. It is not intended for systemic risks when they are significant (i.e., when
the systemic risks are much greater than the inherent risks).

1.2.1. Inherent Risks - General

RP 10S-90, Cost Engineering Terminology definition of inherent risk is “A risk that exists (but may or may not be
identified) due to the very nature of the asset, project, task, element, or situation being considered [11]. A similar
10S-90 term that could be said to apply is background risks which is defined as “A set of non-event risks specific to
the risk quantification method which cause variability for which probability of occurrence is 100%. When using a
particular method, the limited specific uncertainty must be communicated”. For specificity then, a third definition
in 10S-90 for background variability may be most applicable (this is found as one of three alternate definitions for
the general term uncertainty). That definition states that background variability is uncertainty that is “distinct from
the variation caused by identifiable risks, that is caused by at least three common factors in projects; (a) inherent
variability of the work not caused by identified risks, (b) estimating error and error of prediction, and (c) bias in
estimating or prediction.”

1.2.2. Inherent Risks - Duration

The estimate ranging method in RP 118R-21 quantifies the cost impact of inherent risk. However, there is no RP with
equivalent detailed mechanisms for deriving duration impact values for inherent risks. RP 32R-04, Determining
Activity Durations [12] speaks of inherent risk duration, and the CPM-based QRA RPs 57R-09 and 117R-21
incorporate inherent risk duration impacts as 3-point ranges. However, the only methods defined for deriving the
values of the range are general statements that they can be obtained from workshops, interviews and/or from the
analysis of historical data. Therefore, this RP incorporates inherent risk duration impacts using the same general

2Critical project specific risks are those with the potential of creating significant impacts on project success in terms of cost and/or schedule and
ultimately profit or other general outcomes. The criteria for a risk being identified as critical are defined in RP 65R-11.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 4 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

approach, i.e., a 3-point distribution with values derived from workshops, interviews and/or from historical data
analysis.

1.2.3. Project-Specific Risks

The expected value method in RP 65R-11 quantifies the cost and schedule impact of project-specific risks. The 10S-
90 definition of project specific risk is “uncertainties (threats or opportunities) related to events, actions, and other
conditions that are specific to the scope of a project. (e.g., weather, soil conditions, etc.). The impacts of project‐
specific risks are more or less unique to a project.” They consist primarily of risk events (i.e., probability of occurrence
of less than 100%), but also include project-specific condition uncertainties (probability of occurrence is 100%; such
as significant variability in weather impacts or soil conditions). These risks are clearly identifiable and commonly
included in risk registers.

1.2.4. Systemic Risks (not covered except Inherent Risks)

This hybrid method is not recommended for projects with significant systemic risks. RP 10S-90 defines systemic risk
as “uncertainties (threats or opportunities) that are an artifact of an industry, company or project system, culture,
strategy, complexity, technology, or similar over‐arching characteristics.” This encompasses inherent risks but is
broader. The historical data analysis used for parametric modeling of systemic risks captures the impacts of a wide
spectrum of uncertainties that extend to the overall project system’s interaction with external systems, uncertainty
causes such as the level of complexity and technology, but also the nominal impacts of minor, non-critical risk events
which often fall off the risk management radar.

Figure 1 uses a Venn diagram to illustrate the concepts of inherent risks and critical project-specific risks. The dashed
lines encompass risks covered by this RP. Note that if systemic risks are not significant, and the number of minor risk
events is insignificant (reflecting the limitations for using this RP), then systemic risks become roughly analogous to
inherent risk and the dashed inherent and project-specific pieces converge to essentially cover all the risks on these
simpler, well-defined projects.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 5 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

Figure 1 – Inherent and Critical Project-Specific Risks Covered by this RP

1.3. Background

The integrated, hybrid cost and schedule risk quantification method covered by this RP combines estimate and
schedule ranging of inherent risks and expected value with Monte Carlo simulation (EV w/MCS) modeling of project-
specific risks. R+EV is used as a shorthand designation for the combination. The component methods are addressed
in RPs 118R-21 (plus the description of duration ranging herein) and 65R-11 respectively. Two methods are combined
because no single method is optimal for quantifying both inherent and project-specific risks when scope is well
defined (i.e., Class 3 or better-defined estimates). MCS is used in both the ranging and EV methods and to integrate
the analyses results. MCS is needed for the combination because only the mean values of the individual method
outputs are additive (e.g., the overall cost or duration, at say P70 confidence level, is not the sum of the separate
analyses P70 values). Figure 2 illustrates the hybrid concept:

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 6 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

Figure 2 – Hybrid of Ranging and EV w/MCS method (R+EV)

In the EV method as defined in RP 65R-11, only critical project-specific risks are quantified, i.e., those with the
potential of creating significant impacts on project success in terms of cost and/or schedule and ultimately profit or
other general outcomes (the criteria for a risk being identified as critical are defined in RP 65R-11). Most risks in a
risk register will not meet these criteria. For these critical risks, the quantitative analysis will first assure that the
nature of the risk is well understood (e.g., is the root cause understood, has too much credit been taken for
mitigation efficacy, etc.?), and the probability of occurrence and their impact will be reviewed; the information in a
risk register should not be accepted or used verbatim.

Inherent risks by definition are generally not identifiable as to a specific cause; it is background variability. For this
risk type, estimate and duration ranging are applied. The typical quantitative analysis challenge with ranging is that
often there is limited historical data to inform the analysis, putting the onus on subjective team inputs from
workshops or interviews. Subjective inputs are prone to bias (optimistic or pessimistic), which, if not effectively
managed by the workshop facilitator, can greatly distort outcomes. Optimally, a robust historical database is
available to provide applicable range metric information (see: RP 114-20, Project Historical Database Development
[13]). Estimate ranging methods (see: RP 118R-21) attempt to dissect the sources of estimate variability (e.g.,
contributions of quantity versus rate uncertainty, etc.) providing some assurance that the range is well understood.
Duration ranging has no such documented methods. In either case, the quality of the result is highly dependent on
the skills and knowledge of both the facilitator and the team providing the input.

The hybrid approach in this RP results in an integrated cost and schedule analysis; it generates both project cost and
overall duration distributions. The cost and duration inherent risk can be correlated in the MCS model, and the EV
method correlates cost and schedule impacts based on the risk response(s) assessed for each critical risk. A joint
confidence level (JCL) determination can be made based on the integrated analysis.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 7 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

2. RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

2.1. Hybrid Application Steps

This is not a stand-alone RP. In this hybrid approach, details of each of the underlying methods must be reviewed
for background. These methods are described in RPs 118R-21, 44R-08 and 65R-11. In addition, RPs 32R-04, 57R-08
and 117R-21 can be reviewed in respect to their discussions of inherent duration uncertainty ranging (although the
treatment is limited). The following describes the steps of implementing the R+EV hybrid method.

2.1.1 Precursor Tools

The steps of this process assume that tools are in place for: 1) estimate ranging of inherent risk; and 2) expected
value analysis with MCS for project-specific risks. A tool that pulls these together, and that adds duration ranging of
inherent risks will be needed as well. The tools are typically custom Excel-based worksheets3 using an MCS add-on.
It is possible to implement basic MCS in Excel without an add-on, but it tends to be cumbersome and offers limited
risk analysis capabilities (e.g., dependencies are difficult to model).

The examples in Section 2.2 provide more information on typical tools. Note that the method described is quantifying
the distribution of cost growth and schedule (duration) slip resulting from the risk drivers. These define the
contingency contributions. The overall project cost distribution is then the sum of the base cost and duration
estimate values and these distributions. With the tools in place, the steps in applying them as a hybrid application
are as follows:

Step 1: Apply Estimate Ranging Model for Inherent Risk (See: RP 118R-21)
Assess and quantify the cost ranges (usually 3-point distributions at various levels of estimate breakdown) of the
estimate elements as appropriate and enter them in the estimate ranging model. Note that the examples in RP 118R-
21 model total cost as the final output. For the hybrid model, modify the ranging model output to generate the cost
growth (the resulting total cost distribution minus the base cost estimate value). For the hybrid model, only this cost
growth output distribution will be carried forward as an input to the overall MCS model (with correlation to the
duration uncertainty described in Step 3).

Step 2: Determine Overall Project Duration Distribution for Inherent Risk

Quantify the inherent duration uncertainty for the overall project from the start to the completion milestone. This
is typically a 3-point estimate (low, most likely, high or L/ML/H) with an associated 3-point probability distribution
function (PDF). The inputs to the distribution will be obtained from a workshop and/or interviews, optimally
supported by historical data analysis of duration ranges for similar projects (after adjusting the historical metrics to
deduct an allowance for the schedule impact of known critical risk events). The historical data analysis must attempt
to isolate the impact of the inherent duration uncertainty; and disregard the schedule impact from known critical
risk events.

This distribution entry can be added as a separate element to the bottom of an estimate ranging worksheet in order
to support an integrated hybrid application. The L/ML/H duration values can be entered as risk factors (e.g., 0.90,
1.05, 1.20) for which the result, after MCS, will be multiplied times the base duration (e.g., 1.05 times 20 months) or
duration uncertainty can be modeled as direct overall duration values (e.g., 18, 21 and 24 months). As with the
estimate ranging model, add a calculation to determine the schedule slip (the total duration distribution minus the

3AACE makes no endorsements or recommendations for specific software. Any references to software used in this RP are for illustrative purposes
only.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 8 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

base duration estimate value). For the hybrid model, only this schedule slip output distribution will be carried
forward as an input to the overall MCS model (with correlation to the cost uncertainty described in Step 3).

Step 3: Quantify the Inherent Cost and Duration Distributions Correlation

The hybrid model must apply a correlation coefficient(s) between the inherent cost and duration distributions from
Steps 1 and 2 for MCS. A key driver of inherent risk uncertainty is bias in the base estimate and schedule and the
respective biases tend to drive the uncertainty correlation factors. For example, consider the case where a large
value for the high range was assigned to the cost distribution to reflect the team’s opinion that the quantities are
understated for a generally aggressive base estimate. In that case, if an MCS iteration samples the cost distribution
at this high end (implying more quantity than estimated), then arguably the MCS sampling of the duration estimate
should also lean to its high end (i.e., it takes more time to install additional quantity indicating a strong correlation),
especially if the base schedule was also generally aggressive. However, what if the scheduler, working
independently, had a conservative bias and padded their base durations? In that case, estimate and schedule
development are more independent (not a good practice) and the correlations will be weaker.

Determining correlation coefficients is challenging in the best of circumstances. Typically, the inputs about inherent
cost and duration correlations will be qualitative (e.g., high, moderate, low correlation) and the analyst will need to
translate these into quantitative values for the model (as described in RP 118R-21). General rules such as 0.75, 0.5
and 0.25 for high, moderate, low correlations may be used (although negative correlations are possible); more
scientific methods for inherent risk are usually not justified. The important point is to address correlation through
looking at how integrated the estimate and schedule development process was (the more integrated, the more
correlated) and their relative biases (the more that the bias is directionally the same, the more correlated). A
conservative approach (because more correlation adds more span to outcome distributions) is to start with all
correlations being set to 1.00 (i.e., assuming a highly integrated estimating/scheduling process) and then only
reducing the correlation when there is a valid reason. Alternatively, when knowledge of the estimating process is
less, a correlation coefficient of 0.5 is suggested as a reasonable rule of thumb.4

With appropriate correlations, as schedule duration varies to the high side, so too will costs and vice-versa.
Therefore, there is no need to add a separate time-dependent cost allowance to account for duration uncertainty.

Step 4: Screen the Risk Register and Identify Critical Risks (See: RP 44R-08)
Optimally, the risk register will already have categorized each risk by type to be applied (i.e., create a column in the
risk register to identify if the risk is systemic, project-specific, escalation or currency). This categorization can be a
challenge because the individual risks in a register are often not well described as to their nature and cause. In
general, the more ambiguous the risk, the greater the likelihood it is inherent or systemic. It is important to make a
distinction between risk and concern/issue.

Screen the project-specific risks to develop a list of those that are critical and refine the descriptions of their nature
and cause. The definition of critical risks is included in RP 44R-08, but in general these are risks that may have a
material impact on the project economics. Risks are selected based on their post-treatment, residual status. Check
for any risks that were critical pre-treatment, but non-critical after treatment; assure that the risk reduction credited
to the treatment is realistic. Post-treatment, there should typically be no more than 5 to 15 critical risks, keeping in
mind that any one critical risk will put project success at risk. Having too many critical risks implies that the project
may not be viable. Note that escalation and currency risks are not covered in this RP (see: RP 68R-11).

4 The RAND Corporation research referenced in RP 42R-08 found a correlation coefficient of 0.41 between cost growth and schedule slip outcomes

[8]

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 9 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

Step 5: Quantify the Probabilities of Occurrence (See: RP 44R-08)

Capture the critical risk titles and clarified descriptions from the risk register into the EV tool. These entries should
be manually added and not simply linked to the original risk register. Assess and input the percent probability of
occurrence for each critical risk (post-treatment residual risk). Probability may be treated as a distribution depending
on the team’s confidence in their assessment as discussed in RP 44R-08. Establish any dependencies between the
risks (or combine risks if they are similar in nature), as discussed in RP 44R-08 and RP 65R-11.

Step 6: Quantify the Burn Rates (See: RP 65R-11)

The burn rate is the approximate spending per time period during the anticipated delay duration. This typically
includes direct field labor, indirect costs, and owner and contractor project and construction management. Burn rate
can be estimated on a case-by-case basis or pre-determined for project contracts or phases. These burn rate
estimates are generally Class 5 level estimates recognizing that cash flow can vary widely (e.g., some portion of the
labor may be productively employed on other activities). Optionally, the burn rate(s) could be entered as a 3-point
distribution in MCS.

Step 7: Plan the Risk Responses (See: RP 65R-11)

Determine and document the assumed or planned risk response (i.e., the contingency or contingent plan). Note that
this response is the ex post action(s) the team will take if and when the risk occurs. It is not a treatment; the term
treatment and response are separate and unique in this methodology. The response defines the scope of the impact
estimates. For example, if the project is schedule-driven, cost may not be an important objective (within reason) to
the business in exchange for recovery of the schedule; in these instances, a fast but costly risk response may be
appropriate. If management is unsure of the efficacy of the response, then the impact estimates in the next step will
have a correspondingly wide range to cover the various response possibilities.

Step 8: Quantify the Schedule and Cost Impacts (See: RP 65R-11)

Estimate and input the schedule and cost impacts of each critical risk. These are typically 3-point estimates with an
associated 3-point probability distribution function (PDF). The impact estimates reflect the risk response(s)
anticipated, i.e., the risk response largely defines the scope of the impact estimate.

For schedule, the duration impact is to the completion milestone considering the risk response. As described in RP
65R-11, team knowledge of what is on or near the critical path and the network’s dynamic behavior is necessary. If
confidence is low in determining the potential impact to the completion date, this should be reflected in the range
of the 3-point delay estimate.

For cost, the impact is a combination of time-dependent costs for schedule delays plus the non-time driven cost
considering the risk response. The time-dependent cost is the schedule delay times the applicable burn rate from
Step 6. The non-time dependent cost is the range of potential expenditures considering the risk response.

The EV tool must be set up to perform the calculation of the EV of the cost and of the schedule duration impact of
each risk (i.e., probability times impact). In MCS, the simulation results for each risk, or subtotal of several risks, can
be captured independently if desired. This subtotal result can be used to assess the impact on intermediate
milestones if one or more of the risks drive that milestone (see: RP 65R-11).

Step 9: Integrate the Ranging Outputs into the EV Model (this creates the hybrid)
To integrate the cost and duration ranging results with the EV results, include inherent risk and its cost growth and
schedule slip output distributions (re: Step 1 to 3) as the first critical risk in the EV w/MCS tool. The probability of
occurrence of the inherent risk is 100 percent per the definition of inherent risk. Inherent risks are treated as
independent of the project-specific risks for this method.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 10 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

Step 10: Run the R+EV MCS Simulation

The R+EV tool must be set up to sum the cost (cost growth) and duration (schedule slip) impacts for the inherent
and critical project-specific risks. Running the MCS will generate the overall distributions of these risk sums (including
any subtotals that were defined as MCS outputs).

Adding the base cost and duration estimates to the risk outputs will provide the overall cost and schedule
distributions. From the total distributions, determine the overall cost and schedule contingency (and management
reserves if appropriate) based on risk policy or management’s risk tolerance. The cost and schedule results are
integrated since there is correlation between: 1) the inherent cost and duration outcomes; and 2) the project-specific
risk impacts in the EV method are based on assumed risk responses that consider cost/schedule trading.

Figure 3 summarizes the hybrid R+EV application in flow chart format. Note the input of ranging inherent risks into
the EV w/MCS model is shown in the bottom row. Escalation is not included in the R+EV method but is shown here
to illustrate that the cost and schedule distributions can be used as inputs to a probabilistic escalation tool (see: RP
68R-11).

Figure 3 – Hybrid Ranging and EV w/MCS Method Flow Chart [ [14]; with permission]

2.2. Hybrid Tool Example

This section provides an example of a combined R+EV toolset and illustrates the analysis steps applied in a tool. The
toolset shown in the example figures are stylized for the RP but are based on working tools.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 11 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

2.2.1. Cost and Duration Estimate Ranging Model

Figure 4 is a simplified example table of inputs for an estimate ranging worksheet in Excel. This is taken from RP
118R-21 (with the addition of duration ranging). This example, and Figure 4, are derived from an engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor analysis of cost and duration estimating, inherent uncertainty,
which are used as input to an overall hybrid project QRA that adds analysis of critical project-specific risks.

RP 118R-21 describes this example in more detail including comments on its strengths and weaknesses. In summary,
the example applies estimate ranging at the summary level of a process plant cost estimate that has been broken
down by direct (including labor and material categories) and indirect accounts at a discipline level. Duration is
entered as the total number of months. In this example, the approach was to multiply probabilistic range factors (in
this case 3-point distributions) times various cost elements and summing the products. The same is done for overall
duration. Using an MCS add-on, the distributions of each individual factor times cost, the subtotals, and the total
cost are obtained for reporting. The same is done for the duration distribution (i.e., duration factor x duration).

Cost - Duration and Range Factor Inputs

The table labeled “A” on the left side of Figure 4 shows the estimate summary. This table is all inputs and
summations; there are no MCS formulae. The worksheet simply sums the direct cost elements to get the direct line-
item totals, and then adds the indirect item costs to get various subtotals and the total cost. The direct cost elements
(in color) that will be multiplied by range factors are the Labor, Equipment, Bulk Materials, and Sub-Contracts cost
entries plus the line-item costs entered in the Indirect Cost section. Note that the columns labeled Quantity, Hours,
and Labor Rate are not used in the model simulations but are inputs derived from the estimate basis report.

The table labeled “B” on the right of Figure 4 shows the range factor or multiplier inputs for use in trigen
distributions. This table is all inputs; there are no MCS formulae here. A range factor of 1.00 (or 100% as shown in
Figure 4) has no effect on the cost. Trigen is a 3-point distribution requiring a low, most likely, and high input
(L/ML/H). This model uses a multiplier of cost rather than entering cost directly as a 3-point range. Another common
approach is to enter high/low +/- percentages of the base estimate with 0% often assumed for most likely (an
unbiased base estimate); the percentages are applied as factors so the outcome is the same. Note that in this case,
the “most likely” factor used was not always 1.00, implying that the team is recognizing that the base estimate is
somewhat aggressive.

The table labeled “C” on the bottom of Figure 4 shows the base duration entry (in this case execution duration from
sanction through mechanical completion) and the range factor inputs for use in trigen duration distributions. The
comments regarding table B ranges also apply here.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 12 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

A. Cost Estimate Summary Tabulation (Cost Inputs) B. Risk Factor (multipliers) Inputs entered as Low/Most Likely/High Ranges

Item UoM Quantity Hours Labor Labor Equip. Bulk Sub- Total Labor Equipment, Materials and Subcontracts
Rate Cost Materials Contracts Hours Labor Rate Quantity Price
$/Hr $Thous $Thous $Thous $Thous $Thous Low ML High Low ML High Low ML High Low ML High
Direct Cost
Site Prep m3 2,361 4,946 80 396 0 87 57 540 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105%
Earthworks m3 94,448 38,475 80 3,078 0 295 4,023 7,395 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105% 100% 100% 125% 85% 100% 125%
Civil m3 6,460 154,506 80 12,360 0 2,976 0 15,336 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105% 100% 100% 105% 95% 100% 110%
Architecture m2 3,413 8,549 80 684 0 84 319 1,087 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105%
Structural Steel ton 886 68,704 100 6,870 0 3,159 0 10,030 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105% 100% 105% 110% 90% 100% 110%
Mech Equipment each 194 92,968 100 9,297 22,805 0 0 32,102 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105% 100% 100% 128%
Vessels ton 210 23,923 100 2,392 569 0 305 3,266 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105%
Piping m 11,205 87,737 100 8,774 0 2,774 122 11,670 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105% 95% 100% 110% 95% 100% 115%
Electrical each 58 7,696 100 770 2,816 0 0 3,586 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105%
Cables m 241,742 71,958 100 7,196 0 2,511 1 9,708 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105% 95% 100% 120% 95% 100% 110%
Raceway m 73,844 86,880 100 8,688 0 1,136 0 9,824 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105%
Instrumentation each 801 16,886 100 1,689 1,519 2,472 595 6,275 100% 121% 144% 90% 100% 105% 95% 100% 110% 85% 100% 110%
Subtotal 110,818
Indirects
Indirect Cost Low ML High
Construction Equipment 4,101 95% 100% 120%
Field Indirects Construction Contract 11,729 100% 100% 120%
Fee 8,666 95% 100% 115%
Freight 3,664 90% 100% 120%
Vendor Reps 1,802 90% 100% 120%
Spare Parts 1,441 90% 100% 120%
Initial Fills 1,018 90% 100% 120%
Field Distributable cost 2,224 90% 100% 120%
Camp, Catering & Lodging 5,829 95% 100% 115%
Precomm & Comm 382 90% 100% 120%
Subtotal Indirect Cost 40,855
EPC Services (Home & Field Office)
Home Office Services 11,087 90% 100% 110%
Field Office Services 8,517 90% 100% 125%
Subtotal EPC Services 19,604
TOTAL COST 171,276

C. Duration Inputs and Inherent Risk Low/Most Likely/High Ranges

Low ML High
Execution Duration 21 months 95% 100% 120%

Figure 4 – Example Cost and Duration Model Inputs for Inherent Risks [1]

MCS Distribution Application

Note that this RP (and other QRA RPs involving MCS) expects users to have basic familiarity with applying MCS. The
details of defining distributions and dependencies are not covered here. Also, it is difficult to illustrate MCS
application, which largely takes place within spreadsheet formulae with software-specific terms, so the example’s
MCS approach is described narratively.

The general MCS approach as shown in Figure 5 is to multiply probabilistic range factors times the respective cost
and duration inputs is illustrated in Figure 4. For example, Mech Equipment cost is multiplied by a range factor
applied as a trigen distribution with input low, most likely and high factors of 1.00, 1.00, and 1.28. When the MCS
simulation is run, the MCS add-on will iteratively sample (e.g., say 10,000 iterations) from this range factor
distribution, multiply it by the Mech Equipment cost, and hence derive and store a dataset of resultant products of
factors times cost for Mech Equipment. These factor times cost products for various elements are then subtotaled
and then finally grand totaled, and each total can also be named, stored, and reported as outputs by the MCS
application.

Figure 5 also shows at the bottom that duration uncertainty was quantified in a similar manner with the only
connection to cost being defined by the correlation coefficients between the duration and appropriate cost element
range factor distributions.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 13 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

Base Estimate Items X Range Factor Sampling = Probabilistic Cost Output

n iterations
Base Estimate Item 1 X

L1 ML1 H1

correlations
n iterations
Base Estimate Item 2 X

L2 ML2 H2

n iterations
Base Estimate Item n X

Ln MLn Hn
∑

Cost Total (or subtotal)

P10 P50 P90

Correlations to appropriate cost
distributions

n iterations
Duration Estimate X

L ML H
P10 P50 P90
Figure 5. Illustration of the Example MCS Application by Cost Item and for Duration Using Range Factors

The total cost and duration distributions will typically be of most interest to management; they are used to
determine contingency values. For example, if management decides (or if it is company policy) to fund contingency
at a 50 percent confidence level of underrun (P50), then that value (and any P-value such as the P10 and P90 for the
range) from the total distribution can be displayed using an MCS add-in formulae. The outcome P-values can be
presented in tabular form, a frequency diagram (as illustrated in the bottom curve of Figure 5) or cumulative
frequency diagram (S-curve).

The example MCS used trigen distributions of the low, most likely, and high range factors. The example in Figure 4
assumes that the team’s inputs (and/or the facilitator’s ability to elicit true lows and highs) were optimistically biased
(see RP 66R-11 concerning distributions). [15] The selection of distributions and the various distribution attributes
applied are assumptions that need to be carefully considered by the facilitator and/or analyst. This example MCS

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 14 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

application is an illustration of how a variety of MCS approaches are possible.

MCS Dependency Application

MCS best practice requires that correlation be defined between distributions where there is a dependency
relationship between them. This is illustrated by the dashed arrows in Figure 5. Correlation can be reasonably
addressed outside of MCS math; for example, performing the QRA at the discipline level of costs assumes all detailed
items within that discipline behave the same way (i.e., they are 100% correlated). Similarly, the example model in
Figure 4 combines the uncertainty evaluation of labor hours and rates (and the uncertainty evaluation of quantity
and material/subcontract price) to costs through multiplication of their L/ML/H values and only applies the trigen
distribution to the resultant L/ML/H product of the multiplication. This multiplication therefore assumes 100%
correlation of these drivers.

Correlation can commonly be addressed by two different methods. One method is to aggregate related items with
similar uncertainty profiles. The other is to separate items with dissimilar uncertainty profiles so that correlation can
be addressed through explicit correlation coefficients.

An example of correlation through aggregation is performing the QRA at the discipline level of costs that assumes
all detailed items or components within that discipline behave the same way (i.e., they are 100% correlated). For
example, with Civil: if Piling and Concrete have similar uncertainly profiles (as modeled by a typical 3-point estimate)
then their cost can be aggregated so that a trigen distribution can be applied to the aggregated value. If Piling and
Concrete have dissimilar uncertainty profiles, then correlation may need to be addressed by separation into multiple
line items or through the use of correlation coefficients (a more involved method of correlation typically through
the use of MCS formulae). The modeling assumptions regarding correlation, whether through aggregation or specific
correlation coefficients, should always be carefully considered.

The example model in Figure 4 assumes that three sets of item distributions are internally correlated; specifically
the labor item distributions, the bulk material and subcontract item distributions, and the indirect item distributions
(major equipment price was assumed to be not correlated to anything). The example does not define correlations
between these broad cost categories. For example, civil and piping discipline labor cost are assumed correlated, but
direct labor and indirect costs are not. It should be obvious to an estimator that the later assumption is questionable
(e.g., if direct labor hours increase, so too will field office indirect costs).

The last correlations in Figure 5 are between the duration range factor distribution and the cost range factor
distributions as appropriate. In the example which has multiple cost range distributions by element, correlations
between the cost estimate quantity and hour inputs and duration make sense (more quantity and hours implies
longer duration), but correlation between the rates and prices and duration is not as logical.

2.2.2. R+EV Model

Figure 6 is a snapshot of a simplified R+EV tool model worksheet in Excel. Note that this is the same tool worksheet
as used in the parametric + EV example in RP 113R-20 with the exception that Step 4 carries over the inherent risk
from the ranging model rather than the systemic risks from the parametric model. It has been set up to use PDFs
and an MCS add-on. In a fully developed tool, there would be additional and more detailed entries, enhanced
features such as 3-point probabilities and burn rates, etc. The various user input sections are numbered and
described as follows:

1) Enter the base cost estimate and schedule duration.

2) Enter the critical risks (e.g., one risk is entered for a Mudslide in Figure 6).and probability of occurrence
(see: Section 2.1, Step 5). This could be enhanced to 3-point entry and PDF application. Note the inherent

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 15 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

risk probability is 100%.

3) Enter the burn rates (see: Section 2.1, Step 6) for respective contract/elements. This would usually be
enhanced to contain multiple possible burn rates for elements, phase, contracts, etc. and/or combinations
thereof. The user could select which burn rate applies for each critical risk. It could also be enhanced to 3-
point entry and PDF application.
4) This section carries over the cost and duration ranging model outcomes for inherent risks. A trigen PDF has
been applied; this is Risk #1 in the R+EV tool with MCS.
5) Finally, enter the critical risk responses (see: Section 2.1, Step 7) and schedule and cost impacts (see: Section
2.1, Step 8) (only one risk entry area is shown). The mean results of probability times impact are shown. In
addition, the sum of the means of all the risks and the total mean project schedule duration and cost are
shown.

After running the MCS simulation, the outcome distribution tables at the bottom are populated from which
management may determine contingency and reserves values.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 16 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

1) Base Cost Estimate $ 1,000,000

Duration (mos) 30
2) Risk Critical Risk Entry Probability No
Probabilities Mudslide 20%
Example Risk 2 0%
Example Risk 3 0%
Inherent Risks 100%

3) Burn Rates $/month 50.0% Random

General $ 10,000
Main Contract $ 30,000 Used below, but can override for each risk

4) Inherent Risk (carried over from Ranging tool)

Duration Months Cost % Cost $
p10 1% 0.3 3 point percentage outcomes for schedule slip and -10% $ (100,000)
p50 13% 3.9 cost growth are carried over from the ranging model, 9% $ 90,000
p90 28% 8.4 and multiplied by the base cost and schedule duration 35% $ 350,000
Schedule Months (EV) 4.3 < Risk Trigen applied to the 3-point estimates > Cost (EV) $ 120,100

5) Critical Risks: (only one shown: same work table for each risk Note: results are probability x impact
Risk Response Mobilize maximum resources to quickly remove mud, build retaining wall, and restore road
Schedule Impact Months Time Driven $ $/mo Non-time Driven $ Total Cost
Low 1.0 General $ 10,000 Low $ 100,000
Most Likely 1.5 Main $ 30,000 Most Likely $ 150,000
High 2.0 Burn Rate $ 40,000 High $ 250,000
Schedule Months (EV) 0.3 Time Driven $EV $ 12,000 Non-time Driven $EV $ 31,700 $ 43,700

Months Costs
Mean Contingency 4.6 < ∑ of inherent + critical project specific risk impacts > $ 163,800
TOTAL INCL BASE (mean) 34.6 < ∑ of base values and respective impacts > $ 1,163,800

OUTPUT Contingency Tables Total Cost Contingency As percent

COST 10% $ 950,400 $ (49,600) -5%
20% $ 1,005,100 $ 5,100 1%
30% $ 1,064,000 $ 64,000 6%
40% $ 1,115,100 $ 115,100 12%
50% $ 1,158,500 $ 158,500 16%
60% $ 1,204,800 $ 204,800 20%
70% $ 1,254,400 $ 254,400 25%
80% $ 1,321,700 $ 321,700 32%
90% $ 1,402,300 $ 402,300 40%

Total Duration Contingency As percent

SCHEDULE 10% 30.8 0.8 3%
20% 32.0 2.0 7%
30% 32.9 2.9 10%
40% 33.7 3.7 12%
50% 34.4 4.4 15%
60% 35.1 5.1 17%
70% 36.1 6.1 20%
80% 37.2 7.2 24%
90% 38.5 8.5 28%

Figure 6 – Example R+EV Model Integrating Inherent and Project-Specific Risks [ [14]; with permission]

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 17 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

3. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR HYBRID APPLICATION

The following are considerations for assuring that all critical uncertainties and risks are covered by the combined
methods (keeping in mind that this tool is not to be used for projects with significant systemic risks) while also
assuring there is no redundancy.

Start-Up and Commissioning and Other Phasing

The nature of the risk profile for the execution phase often differs from that of the start-up and commissioning
(SU&C) phase. The example was focused on the execution phase (sanction through mechanical completion).
However, the example for the inherent risk ranging model could be expanded to include a SU&C cost estimate entry.
Also, the SU&C duration and risk factors could be added as their own entries with the overall duration outcome
being the sum of the sequential execution and SU&C phases. Project-specific risk events during SU&C could then be
added to the EV model section. The same approach could be used for other phased risks.

Uncertainties that are Project-Specific

There are risks commonly found in risk registers that are uncertainties (P=100%) but are not inherent risks (i.e., they
are identifiable and manageable to some extent). Examples are weather or soil condition variabilities that are not
caused by an event (e.g., not a hurricane). The nominal uncertainty from these risk drivers may partly be covered by
the team’s ranging inputs (e.g., quantity of rock in the soil); however, extreme condition variability may not be
covered in these ranges. For example, assume an analysis was based on 20% of a pipeline trench containing rock;
however, the trench may be just one item in a broad civil discipline entry and the trench rock risk may not have
received full attention. In this case, the risk that the rock content may range from say 10% to 80% of the trench
length could be added as a critical specific condition uncertainty in the EV tool. Note that extreme or critical variation
is not an event; i.e., there is 100% probability the rock content will not be exactly 20%. This example risk should be
entered as an uncertainty (P = 100%) with a most likely cost impact of 0% (quantity and cost is the same as the base
plan) but a low and high reflecting the extreme variability applicable to that pipeline trench.

Impacts to Intermediate Milestones

While the EV method cannot examine the impact of risk to the internal elements of a CPM model, it is capable of
assessing impacts to a major intermediate milestone. A common example is a project with seasonality where a harsh
winter, monsoons, or other weather condition puts a premium on completing part of the work prior to the onset of
the adverse season (i.e., a phased project). The section on dealing with SU&C describes how the duration uncertainty
could be quantified by phase in the ranging model. For risk in the EV model, the phasing approach is described in RP
65R-11. In summary, this involves creating a subtotal of the schedule impacts for risk events that occur prior to the
seasonal deadline plus that phase’s inherent duration risk. This subtotal is established as an MCS output that one
can review independently of the other phase(s). After running the MCS, a review of this subtotal will provide the
distribution of the pre-milestone delay. From that a decision could be made whether to revise the schedule to
include an appropriate schedule contingency as a buffer prior to the intermediate milestone. The R+EV method is
quite flexible for addressing various risk analysis situations that may arise.

3.1. Note on Joint Confidence Level (JCL) Determination

In 2009, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) instituted a policy that certain project budgets
were to be based on a “joint cost and schedule probabilistic analysis” with budgets to reflect a “percent probability
that the project will be completed at or lower than the estimated amount AND at or before the projected schedule.”
[16] NASA calls this the joint confidence level or JCL. In NASA practice, the JCL is based on the cost-loaded CPM-
based risk analysis method. However, CPM modeling is not required for JCL; the hybrid parametric and expected
value (P+EV) method integrates cost and schedule and supports JCL determination. [6] Figure 7 is an example cost

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 18 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

and schedule MCS output scatterplot (in this case using Palisade @Risk® software) from the R+EV hybrid method.
Note that RP 65R-11 also has an example JCL plot; in that case resulting solely from the project-specific risks.

Figure 7 – Example JCL Graph from a R+EV Hybrid Model [using Palisade @Risk® software]

4. COMPARISON OF THE R+EV HYBRID METHOD TO RP 40R-08 PRINCIPLES

RP 40R-08, Contingency Estimating – General Principles, provides objective principles against which one can assess
the suitability of a contingency estimating method [17]. The following are the RP’s general principles that any
methodology developed or selected for quantifying risk impact should:
• Meet client objectives, expectations, and requirements.
• Be part of and facilitate an effective decision or risk management process (e.g., TCM).
• Be fit-for-use.
• Start with identifying the risk drivers with input from all appropriate parties.
• Provide methods that clearly link risk drivers and cost/schedule outcomes.
• Avoid iatrogenic (self-inflicted) risks.
• Employ empiricism.
• Employ experience/competency.
• Provide probabilistic estimating results in a way the supports effective decision making and risk
management.

Table 1 summarizes how the R+EV hybrid method performs in respect to the principles.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 19 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

General Principles Hybrid R+EV Method Characteristics

Realistic and practical for projects without significant systemic risks. Can be used for
Meets client objectives and
estimates and schedules of any quality at Class 3 or better-defined estimates. It is
requirements
highly customizable.
The method is risk driven supporting risk management. The EV method is an
Part of a risk and decision
elaboration of the risk matrix (no conceptual discontinuity between qualitative and
management process
quantitative assessment).
Can be used on any estimate or schedule of any quality at Class 3 or better definition,
Fit-for-use and can be applied using common software (i.e., spreadsheets with MCS add-on) that
can be customized.
It does not address systemic risks well, which limits its use to better-defined projects
with lower complexity and technology. Elements of inherent uncertainty can be
Starts with identifying risk drivers
assessed in the ranging method and critical project-specific risks are individually
assessed.
Driver-to-outcome linkages are explicit for project-specific risks and uncertainties
Links risk drivers and (albeit not suitable for high systemic risk projects). The EV method focuses on risk
cost/schedule outcomes response planning including cost/schedule trading. Cost and schedule inherent
uncertainty can be correlated. Method supports JCL.
Ranging can be done in a way that minimizes correlation challenges (e.g., range
Avoids iatrogenic (self-inflicted)
subtotals or similar cost items). The EV method only quantifies critical project-specific
risks
risks which also minimizes MCS correlation challenges.
While it is optimal to use historical data in the ranging and EV methods, good data is
generally not available at most companies. The method is largely dependent on the
Employs empiricism
elicitation skills of the facilitator to assure experiences of the team are brought to the
table.
As with all methods, requires experienced risk analysis facilitation. Since it is not using
Employs experience /competency
a CPM schedule, the EV method requires experienced planner/scheduler input.
Provides probabilistic estimating All integrated methods covered by AACE RPs produce probabilistic outcomes.
results Supports JCL evaluations.
Table 1 – R+EV Hybrid Method versus RP 40R-08 General Principles

Table 2 provides a strength/weakness evaluation of the R+EV hybrid method.

Strengths Weaknesses
• Integrates cost and schedule risk analysis • Ranging is highly subjective and can be prone to team bias
• Allows changes to schedule logic due to risks to be • No explicit empirical basis
included without the complexity of branching in a CPM • Does not address significant systemic risks; hence not
network applicable to early phases (e.g., not for Class 10, 5 or 4)
• Ranging leverages team’s knowledge of the estimate and • Not being CPM model based, requires more skilled/intuitive
schedule basis scheduling assessment
• Explicit risk-impact linkage for project-specific risks • The EV method does not encourage the use of quality
• Fairly simple, flexible, and widely used method can be planning and schedule methods.
applied in a myriad of ways (e.g., various levels of detail for • Does not support evaluation of the risks to intermediate
ranging) schedule milestones as directly as CPM-based methods.
• EV method addresses risk response (i.e., cost/schedule
trading)
Table 2 – R+EV Hybrid Method Strength and Weaknesses

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 20 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

5. SUMMARY

This RP provides guidance to practitioners in developing or selecting appropriate methods for their situation with
the understanding that no one method is best for quantifying all types of risk. This RP integrates cost and schedule
risk analysis (and supports JCL) using a hybrid approach. It documents the steps to combine the ranging and expected
value methods covered by other RPs in detail. It provides an example using a demonstration toolset. It also
documents situations where a hybrid approach requires or may benefit from special considerations.

REFERENCES

[1] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 118R-21, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination
Using Estimate Ranging for Inherent Risk with Monte Carlo Simulation," AACE International, Morgantown,
Latest revision.
[2] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 65R-11, Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and
Contingency Determination Using Expected Value," AACE International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[3] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 44R-08, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using
Expected Value," AACE International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[4] AACE International, Professional Guidance Document (PGD) 02, Guide to Quantitative Risk Analysis,
Morgantown, WV: AACE International, Latest revision.
[5] AACE International, Professional Guidance Document (PGD) 01, Guide to Cost Estimate Classification
Systems, Morgantown, WV: AACE International, Latest revision.
[6] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 113R-20, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination
Using Combined Parametric and Expected Value," AACE International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[7] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 117R-21, Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and
Contingency Determination Using a Hybrid Parametric and CPM Method," AACE International, Morgantown,
Latest Revision.
[8] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 42R-08, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using
Parametric Estimating," AACE International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[9] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 57R-09, Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis Using
Risk Drivers and Monte Carlo Simulation of a CPM Model," AACE International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[10] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 68R-11, Escalation Estimating Using Indices and Monte
Carlo Simulation," AACE International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[11] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 10S-90, Cost Engineering Terminology," AACE International,
Morgantown, Latest revision.
[12] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 32R-04, Determining Activity Durations," AACE
International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[13] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 114R-20, Project HIstorical Database Development," AACE
International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[14] J. Hollmann, "Chapter 12, Project Specific Risks and the Expected Value Method," in Project Risk
Quantification, Sugarland TX, Probabilistic Publishing, 2016, pp. 249-266.
[15] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 66R-11, Selecting Probability Distribution Functions for use
in Cost and Schedule Risk Simulation Models," AACE International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[16] NASA, "NPD 1000.5A; Policy for NASA Acquisition," National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington DC, 2010.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.
123R-22: Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using Estimate 21 of 21
Ranging and Expected Value with Monte Carlo Simulation

August 17, 2023

[17] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 40R-08, Contingency Estimating - General Principles," AACE
International, Morgantown, Latest revision.
[18] AACE International, "Recommended Practice No. 43R-08, Risk Analysis and Contingency Determination Using
Parametric Estimating - Example Models as Applied for the Process Industries," AACE International,
Morgantown, Latest revision.

CONTRIBUTORS

Disclaimer: The content provided by the contributors to this recommended practice is their own and does not
necessarily reflect that of their employers, unless otherwise stated.

John K. Hollmann, PE CCP CEP DRMP FAACE Hon. Life (Primary Contributor)
May Chetty, CEP
Larry R. Dysert, CCP CEP DRMP FAACE Hon. Life
Hossam Hefnawy

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.