Global Design Effort U.S. ILC Cost Translation R. Stanek, et al. Vic Kuchler 1/26/07

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 2 General Comments Translate the ILC Value Estimate into an estimate that is consistent with U.S. project funding rules Can’t do this in a vacuum –Need support and collaboration of GDE (Cost Engineers) as well as other U.S. Labs (SLAC, JLAB, BNL, ANL, LBNL…) –Need access to some level of GDE Value Estimate if we are to use it as the starting point (proprietary numbers) Although we can make this translation now (using our present best understanding of the numbers), parts of the equation will certainly change with time (EDR phase) –A “process” not a “point estimate”

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 3 Issues To assure accurate translation we need to understand how the Value Estimates were done (GDE approval) –Need the numbers and need to talk to authors –Issue of proprietary information For cryomodules do not need access to European Cost Studies Many other numbers are generated in U.S. Need to agree on the “model for U.S. participation” Need to agree on exact indices and parameters to use (stay consistent with GDE Cost Engineers whenever possible) If we want to include PED funds –CF&S: Title I / Title II can be added as % of estimate –Decide on items like Environmental Assessments, Land Acquisition.. –Technical Systems such as Cavities & Cryomodules, RF systems, Magnets and Instrumentation must Estimate where the R&D will be in a few years and if they will be ready to use Preliminary Engineering & Design funds Determine how much work must be done prior to start of project

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 4 The Equation GDE Value Estimate (adjusted if there is a U.S. specific cost estimate) + Labor Cost + Move to 90/95 Confidence Level + Contingency (only the amount not covered in Value Estimate) + Escalation _________________ U.S. Cost for ILC* *using a given model for U.S. participation

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 5 Format for Output System GDE Value Estimate Labor Cost Move to 90/95 CL Additional Contingency EscalationTOTAL Technical & Global Systems CF&S Cavities & Cryomodules U.S. Estimate RF Power Systems U.S. Estimate Magnet Systems Controls Instrumentation Vacuum Systems Dumps & Collimators Cryogenic Systems Installation Accelerator Physics Management Area System Specific Experiments ???Does thisneed to beincluded here? Subtotal

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 6 Possible Models System % U.S. Participation Model 1 % U.S. Participation Model 2 Technical & Global Systems CF&S72%50% Cavities & Cryomodules 33%50% RF Power Systems33%50% Magnet Systems33%50% Controls50% Instrumentation33%50% Vacuum Systems33%50% Dumps & Collimators33%50% Cryogenic Systems20%50% Installation50% Accelerator Physics33%50% Management33%50% Area System Specific25%50% Experiments ???33%50%

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 7 Scope of GDE Value Estimate What “is/is not” in scope of GDE Value Estimate –Help from GDE Cost Engineers would be invaluable Everybody’s busy!

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 8 Adjusted GDE Value Estimate Incorporate regional differences => where U.S. estimate is different from GDE Value Estimate –Include things that are excluded in Value Estimate –Accommodate differences in component cost estimates –Take into account differences in the industrial participation model Really only an issue for Cavities & Cryomodules and RF Systems –Where separate regional estimates exist

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 9 Labor Cost Try to get more details on labor distribution –Separate out Eng/Sci, Techs, Admin & Support Costs are different, availability is different For institutional labor –Use average of SWF rates from participating DOE Labs SLAC, JLAB, BNL, ANL, LBNL… –Get average rates for non-U.S. institutional labor –G&A calculation For “ILC Lab” G&A need not be added as these services are explicitly costed in the Value Estimate For other U.S. Labs use an average labor G&A rate (if required) For industrial labor (if they are needed) –Use numbers from US Cost Study

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 10 Move to 90/95 % CL To move estimates to the “base estimate” range (from the 50/50 to 90/95) –Consistent with DOE funding rules Total $ amount depends on the exact model for U.S. participation

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 11 Escalation Use standard indices for escalation –Escalation different for labor, materials and construction –Stay consistent with GDE escalation methodology –DOE Guidance, DOL rates, Turner Building Index Escalate to middle of construction period –Might be different for different technical systems As a second order effect if commodities such as steel, copper, and niobium could be identified as a % of total estimate => these materials could be escalated separately (if substantial)

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 12 Contingency Bottom’s Up contingency analysis (assuming the present RDR baseline design) Contingency covers items like: –Technical risk –Schedule risk –Unit cost uncertainty –Uncertainty in project scope –Market conditions (at the time of order) Don’t want to double count if already included in Value Estimate Use accepted contingency methodology that takes into account maturity of the design, assumptions of the cost estimate, and risks In some cases we can quantify the cost consequences of “actual” versus “assumed” technical parameters (cavity yield, gradient…)

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 13 Graphical Representation xyz x = GDE Value Estimate at 50/50 probability (adjusted if U.S. specific estimate exists) y = U.S. cost estimate at 90/95 confidence z = U.S. cost estimate with all contingency and escalation added 50/50 90/95

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 14 CFS Example Conventional Facilities and Siting (CFS) The CFS Cost Estimate can be Divided Between Site-Dependent (or Site Specific) and Site-Independent Costs This Distinction was Reached by Consensus Among all Three Regional CFS Groups This Americas Region Cost Estimate and Model Reflect Work to Date on the Americas Region Sample Site The CFS Model is Applicable to Most of the Other Technical Aspects of the ILC Project

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 15 CFS Example Site Dependent Costs Indicated in Blue

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 16 GDE Value Estimate – Represents the Cost of the Conventional Facilities as Described by the Criteria, Design and Drawings Developed to Date Including Title I – IV Costs and Represents a 50% Confidence Level Contingency – Factor Required to Bring the Value Estimate to a 95% Confidence Level (Factor 1.1) Escalation – Factor Required to Move from the 95% Confidence Level Cost to the Cost Expected at the Midpoint of Construction. This Factor was Developed Based on the Turner Construction Index with a Base Year of 2006 and a Construction Midpoint Year of 2015 (Factor 1.5) Labor (Escalated) – Represents the Currently Estimated Cost of In-House CFS Labor Escalated to Midpoint of Construction Using DOE Escalation Rates (Factor 1.24) CFS Example

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 17 CFS Based Model to Move From GDE Value Estimate to US $’s GDE Value Estimate X 1.1 = 95% Confidence Level Cost 95% Confidence Level Cost X 1.5 = Cost Escalated to Cost + In-House Escalated Labor = Total Cost in US $’s Overall Markup Ratio from GDE Value Estimate to US $’s = 2.3 CFS Example

January 26, 2007 Global Design Effort 18 Summary Translation of the ILC Value Estimate to a U.S. Cost Estimate can be done, but –Need to agree on exactly what should be included –Must be done in full collaboration with the GDE and other U.S. Labs (who have contributed) –Consistency with GDE Cost Engineers’ methodology as well as their involvement/oversight of the translation process is important –Need access to more detailed numbers and assumptions Must not violate the proprietary nature of cost estimates