Cost, Schedule, & Risk

Review Charge

Review Charge Are the cost, schedule and contingency realistic? Is there a system in place for tracking progress?   Are risk analysis and mitigation strategies in place?   Is there a plan to track the risks?   Does contingency reflect the risks?

Outline Cost (50%) Schedule (30%) Risk (20%)

Unique Project Aspects Two labs with a shared goals, differing perspectives Both labs with incredible track records Different styles and cultures Cornell: Continuation of long term program of ERL development Germination in 1960’s Injector technology from 2003 Proposal of full scale light source 2013

Cost san-teg-zy-pey-ree Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Ideal project costing Project Definition / Scope Capital and Labor Requirements Risk Analysis Risk Based Contingency Requirements Total Project Cost Total Project Cost Capital and Labor Requirements Is there anything left? Contingency driven not by risk, but by what could be cut from the construction scope

Cost Estimation Process Cost estimate spreadsheets developed for each WBS by the L2 leader using C-AD spreadsheet template Vetted multiple times by management team: Tested for completeness, missing items, forgotten costs Labor hours reasonable and based on historical work Cross checked with available labor data (RF Example) Inspected for double counting across WBS s July, Sept, Nov, Dec, Jan archived versions Every task line resource loaded with names at CU and labor pool at BNL

Cost Estimation Process Cornell Internal Expert Reviews BNL Independent Cost Reviews Led by Rob Michnoff Reports from both available on Indico site

Cost Estimation Process Take away message: Project is well detailed… but optimistic with limited staffing Response: many corrections were made and double counting eliminated Further staff additions are not possible within budget More Details from Rob in the next Talk

Excerpt from example L2 Spreadsheet Small excerpt from 430 task lines for the RF Systems…

Budget Summary - Burdened Contingency of $468,135 or 2%

Budget Summary - Burdened

Project Breakdown BNL: Project Management FFAG Magnet & Girders BPM system (Instrumentation / Controls) Cornell: Injector RF Systems Splitters Power Supplies Controls Instrumentation Vacuum System & Beam Stop System Integration Safety Dual Responsibility: Accelerator Physics Beam Commissioning

Summary by WBS List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Project Management Management team labor based on a level of effort (non-task) Project Travel $175,000 Basis of Estimates: Travel based on past trips List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Accelerator Physics Accelerator Physics (Design) Team Labor Milestones Baseline Lattice Design Multipass Lattice Splitter Lattice Simulations Minimal non-labor expenses Basis of Estimates: Labor thusfar List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

DC Gun / Injector Minor upgrades to existing laser Building injector diagnostic beamline Cathode Preparation Basis of Estimates: Catalog pricing for laser equipment Similar vacuum projects Milestones: Ready for MLC Test May 2017 Risks: ICM vacuum failure DC Gun FE / vacuum failure List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

RF System Dominated by large purchases: SSA RF Power supplies $550,000 Pump Skids $350,000 Cornell LLRF $150,000 Basis of Estimates: RFP based quotations or past construction costs Milestones: Readiness for MLC test May 2017 Risk: MLC List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

FFAG Magnets & Girder Dominated by magnet purchases: ~200 magnets $1.6 M$ Basis of Estimates: Vendor Budgetary estimates, RFP to follow quickly Milestones: Prototypes Spring 2017 Fractional Arc Test Spring 2018 Risk: (drill-down) List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Splitter Dominated by large purchases: Magnets $1.7M Girders / tables $150,000 Basis of Estimates: Vendor budgetary estimates, with RFP prepared and ready to release Milestones: Readiness for FAT test spring 2018 Risk: (Drill Down) List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Power Supplies Power supplies $813,700 Racks and Wiring ~$100,000 Assembly / Wiring labor Basis of Estimates: Actual quotes via RFP Catalog pricing List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Controls Relatively minor purchases: IT / networking hardware Basis of Estimates: Similar past projects Milestones: Readiness for FAT tests Spring 2018 Risk: Operational delays due to readiness List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Instrumentation Driven by BPM electronics costs $950,000 Basis of Estimates: Previous construction costs Milestones: Readiness for FAT tests Spring 2018 Risk: Preliminary tests successful ! List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Vacuum System & Beamstop Vacuum Hardware Basis of Estimates: Largely based on catalog pricing or previous construction costs Milestones: Readiness for FAT tests Spring 2018 Risk: Operational delays due to readiness List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Systems Integration / Installation Dominated by Utility Costs (Electricity and Cryogens) And installation labor Basis of Estimates: Existing pricing, and past projects Milestones: Risk: Operational delays due to readiness List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Commissioning Purely labor costs Basis of Estimates: Extremely challenging Milestones: Risk: Suffers from any delays List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Safety Minor Radiation Monitoring Costs Basis of Estimates: Catalog pricing (Quotes) Milestones: Readiness for MLC tests May 2017 Risk: List the main expenses, and their basis of estimate — List the main risks, and steps needed to retire them. — Main milestones

Labor Hour Summary by WBS 1 FTE = 1760 hours

Labor Hour Summary by WBS Technical subsystems roughly 1.5 FTE for 2.5 years (1 Engr / Scientist with ½ Technician) 1 FTE = 1760 hours

Burden Rates Cornell: Our lab has negotiated a zero overhead rate on labor and materials for fabrication (design / planning / construction / installation) for this project. Project management, commissioning, travel, and safety (non-construction) bears the full university rate of 61% We apply a 14% lab support fee to labor and M&S covers project related expenses such as computing support, safety training, research infrastructure maintenance

Burden Rates BNL: We have used Extraordinary Project Rates (EPR) for this project. Labor varies from 17% - 36% depending on labor category Material varies from 20% - 35% depending on magnitude Travel at 55%

Burden Costs Total Burden costs BNL: $1,698,550 Cornell: $1,046,615 $8,025,309.72 in overhead waived by university

Utility Costs Developed a energy usage model working with Jerry Codner (CESR Technical Director) and RF group $8,025,309.72 in overhead waived by university

Modeled Total Electricity Costs over 3.5 years: $780,500 Utility Costs Modeled Total Electricity Costs over 3.5 years: $780,500 Actual costs are metered Assuming MLC warm up to minimize Cryo plant operation costs “Klystron on” time minimized $8,025,309.72 in overhead waived by university

Value Engineering Opportunities To this point: Splitter magnets Magnet vendor vs. in house (general contractor) Simplification of lattice to minimize the number of Halbach magnet types

Scope Reductions To this point: Reduction in participation of graduate students from 4 to 2 Commissioning reduced - 3 shifts to 1.5 shift No power supplies for FFAG quad correctors RF system maintenance reduced Minimal / no spare parts BNL Commissioning participation has been moved off-project Philosophy: The whole machine must be built Options: Reduced project management Shortened commissioning (e.g. to KPP goals only) Partial population of BPM electronics channels

Scope Reduction Scenario Shortened Commissioning (to KPP only) single pass 42MeV with low current Direct (Commissioning Team) savings (4 months) $267k Electricity savings $140k Project management $293k Accelerator Physics $214k Safety $45k Total maximum savings of $959k Technical concern: planned shielding may not be sufficient for 40mA UPP operations, source term can only be determined by actual operations

Reporting Time Card Tracking Replicon weekly / biweekly / tracking at hour level by L2 All Capital / M&S expenses tracked at L2 level Example Monthly report Cornell has a history of providing support for external labs: JLab / CEBAF cavities LCLS II cavities LeREC electron source

Cost Estimate - Conclusions Budget is relatively well understood, but with a few large risk items to address Nevertheless budget contingency is very lean If contingency is exceeded, the plan is to reduce scope to deliver only KPPs Schedule delays would impact commissioning time, leading to only a partial commissioning

Schedule Famous planning quote here – somebody fun

Schedule Development Process: Task spreadsheets (resource loaded) WBS definition MS project Sequential logic Resources

Cornell Project Matrix Labor is 80% Cornell specific and is planned within existing CU methods MS Project is used with a master resource pool Most employees support multiple projects Projects are integrated with all ongoing projects and operational programs to identify resource limitations Manual scheduling

L2 Level Scheduling

Schedule Development Master schedule in MS Project is underway Additional time needed to complete BNL driven with input from L2 leaders across project Statusing done (at Cornell) through two mechanisms: Daily stand up meetings run by Richard Gallagher Weekly L2 / engineering group meetings

Risk Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go – T.S. Eliot

Risk Analysis L2 leaders generated list of their concerns / risk items What do you worry about ? What keeps you awake at night ? Risk Summit – December Complete technical team met to review lists of risks Developed project level risks Interface risks / effects of outside each WBS Scott Berg maintains web-based master risk register Retirement of risks tracked in monthly reporting

Risk Register Summarizes 83 risks over all WBS Living document maintained by Scott Berg

Risk Examples Leaving risks from the drill-downs for later speakers Some representative risks that concern the project

Risk Examples Unforeseen problem with ICM / MLC / Electron Gun Both ICM and Gun have had show-stopper failures (during their development) Rebuilding either would have ~6 month impact and multiple key personnel fully occupied by repairs. Gun failures are predicated by severe processing at voltages >450kV ICM is sensitive to thermal cycling Any repair to the MLC would have ~1 year impact to schedule Beam through MLC is a go / no go for this very reason Mitigation: ICM to remain cold for duration of project Intense focus on MLC handling and performance No gun processing in excess of 400kV

Risk Examples FFAG Magnet Issues Delays in delivery / cost overruns Magnet error budget Potential for radiation degradation Mitigation: Technical focus issue Multiple magnet reviews (technology, construction, physics) Early vendor interaction (vendor visits, discussions, partnerships) Management focus for duration of project Collaborative effort (we’re all in this together)

Conclusions Cost Thorough vetting of costs Very minimal contingency Minimal commissioning option provides important additional cost and schedule contingency Schedule High level milestones and timeline fixed Master MS Project development in progress, but more work needed Current work already being managed by Project file Risk Risk Analysis available Living document, risk retirement as project proceeds Special Thank You from whole team to Khianne Williams whose contributions to organizing this project are manifold.

Back up slides Thank you

Budget Summary - Direct

Engineering Status Report Experienced Engineering (ME / EE) teams at both laboratories Extensive prior art on which to draw Large fraction of CBETA is already built or based on existing proven designs BPM system (DAQ and vacuum side hardware already existent) Halbach magnets already extensively prototyped and validated by testing Remaining work in progress

Engineering Documentation All engineering documentation generated by the collaboration is fully shared Both laboratories use different engineering software platforms A shared, cloud based repository of models and drawings will be maintained (Box most likely) All models will be shared as STEP files for interoperability, but also in their native formats All drawings will be stored in their native formats, but also in PDF Cornell is upgrading to a new version of Autodesk Inventor this spring which will allow direct import of BNL’s CREO model files Due to security both groups will maintain their current cloud based data storage (Vault at Cornell, Sharepoint at BNL). Outside access is difficult.

High level interactions