Mu2e WGM 6/15/2011 R. Ray Mu2e Project manager

Reviews We were on Lehman’s schedule for early August. We gave up that slot 2 weeks ago when it became apparent that we would not make it. We are now working with Lehman’s office to get on their schedule sometime in the fall. Based on discussions with Procario and Lavine, the emphasis has shifted from going as soon as possible to doing a “really good job.” Our current emphasis is on getting a first rollup of our RLS by July 8.  Lots of work required to get to that point  Will be the first of many rollups R. Ray - Mu2e WGM2

Argonne Light Source Review Last month the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade Project at Argonne had a CD-1 Lehman Review with joint participation from OECM. By all accounts they did a good job and give us an idea of what constitutes “ a really good job” by today’s standards. In General, the Committee provided its support to advance to CD-1 noting:  The strength of the Management and Technical team  Level of design exceeded CD-1 expectations  Cost Estimate level of detail/ traceability surpassed CD-1 expectations  Project Prioritization process was impressive, allowing for scope contingency strategy moving forward. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM3

Cost and Schedule Approach R. Ray - Mu2e WGM4

Cost and Schedule Approach R. Ray - Mu2e WGM5 This is just the WBS and can be produced by P6.

Cost and Schedule Approach R. Ray - Mu2e WGM6 This report would have to use numbers dumped out from COBRA to another program like excel or Fast Track.

Cost and Schedule Approach R. Ray - Mu2e WGM7 This is just output from P6. Want to show the un- escalated cost in FY12 $ and the budgeted labor units for easy comparison with BOEs.

Cost and Schedule Approach R. Ray - Mu2e WGM8 This information would be included in our BOE form.

Cost and Schedule Approach R. Ray - Mu2e WGM9 BOE form

Cost and Schedule Approach R. Ray - Mu2e WGM10 Not sure how this was generated, but would seem to require encoding of BOE estimation method into P6.

For Mu2e We might not want to make this identical set of tables and plots, but we want something close.  Must be able to point to exactly the same base number (FY11$, no escalation, no overhead) in P6 and BOE. o Need to include a column in P6 that, for every activity, has the docdb number for the corresponding BOE. o Need someone to check BOEs vs P6 entries, make sure BOEs are complete.  Want to be able to show the fully loaded cost in a clear, simple way, similar to Argonne “Blue Sheets.” Can do this by dumping COBRA output into excel.  Want to be able to make pie charts to at least L3. Maybe L4. Only know how to do this by hand at this point. o Need to include a column in P6 that encodes the BOE estimation technique applied for each activity. We need more people entering data into P6.  Working with Dean to augment staff. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM11

Escalation Argonne used the following escalation rates:  M&S – 2.4% (DOE Office of Cost Analysis)  Labor – 5% (Source unknown) A recommendation from the review was to “revisit escalation rates” rather than use the DOE published rates for M&S. My comments:  Labor rates seem too high  2.4% for M&S seems OK for most things (including civil construction), not for others (steel, tungsten,…) R. Ray - Mu2e WGM12

DOE Escalation Rates R. Ray - Mu2e WGM13 From the DOE Office of Cost Analysis – Office of the CFO

DOE Escalation Rates Escalation Rate Assumptions For DOE Projects (November 27, 2009) The following rates are to be used for the FY 2011 Congressional Budget Call These rates are to be used starting with CD-0. If an escalation rate other than the above is being used, the project must provide the CFO, Office of Cost Analysis (CF-70) with the following information: (a) project title, (b) total project cost or cost range, as appropriate, (c) reason for the alternative escalation rate along with substantiating data The CEPCI is heavily influenced by steel prices. Although steel prices increased during the first two quarters of FY10 we expect the prices to fall during the latter part of FY10 and even more so in FY11 as global steel production exceeds 2008 peak levels and supply exceeds demand. As a result of this analysis, the quarterly update analysis in June 2010 indicated that no change to escalation rates is required as this time. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM14

Metal and Metal Products R. Ray - Mu2e WGM15 Nearly identical slopes, interrupted briefly by the 2008 recession. Costs increasing at 17% per year. Can’t go on forever, but can go on for many years.

Tungsten R. Ray - Mu2e WGM16 Tungsten prices from 2008 to present (2011 is average of Jan – May) Escalation from 2009 – 2010 ~17%. 43% from 2010 to Tungsten prices in 2011 Big jump from Feb to March.

Escalation Rates for Mu2e Still pondering this. Will see what MicroBooNE is doing and see how they do at their CD-2 Review in August. Presently inclined to use DOE rates for Labor and M&S (2.4%) Use 17% for steel and tungsten. Thinking will likely continue to evolve on this… R. Ray - Mu2e WGM17