DoE Review June 6, 2000 Cost Estimate  New Cost Estimate u Manpower Costs (Op. SWF) u Equipment Costs (Eq. M&S) u Contingency  Conclusions Mike Tuts DOE Review June 6, 2000

DoE Review June 6, 2000 Re-evaluating Cost Estimate  Elements of the cost estimate u Manpower s Technical manpower costs are those assigned to D0 s We estimate contingency of ~50% on our estimates for FY00-01 u Equipment s Accepted the prior year costs (<FY00) in lab books s Concentrated on bottoms up estimate to complete u Contingency s Based on present experience, assigned larger than “normal” contingencies to assure fiscal success

DoE Review June 6, 2000 Manpower  Track actual manpower by effort reporting at WBS level 2 (data available from 1/98) u by type, eg MT, ME, ET, EE u by subsystem  Extract manpower profiles from MS Project u Based on schedule as of end 99 u Have observed that effort reported manpower larger than from schedule u Schedule delays => greatly underestimated in the outyears relative to baseline  Use effort reported manpower to estimate Operating SWF costs

DoE Review June 6, 2000  Effort reported Fermilab FTE by type  Converted to then yr k$ using average salaries (Op SWF)  Change request submitted & approved by Lab 3/20/00 Manpower (Op SWF) Labor (then yr k$) FY97FY98FY99FY00FY01Total Baseline4,2774,2952,9551,064012,541 Reported/Est.--3,9684,5985,640*654*19,087 Present Op SWF4,2773,9684,5988, , ,093 * Estimated + Including contingency

DoE Review June 6, 2000 Equipment (M&S) Cost Estimate  Performed new bottoms-up cost estimate to complete in Feb-March 2000 u Provided by subsystem managers u Clear we would exceed the baseline cost s Recall “uncomfortably” low contingency at last review  Change request to Lab u Include FY99 and before as in lab books s Accept Lab figures for (+$479k) u Review of ETC by John Cooper + 20 reviewers! March 15,16,21 s Reduce cost by $130k, raise contingency by $675k s D0 response to further raise contingency by $200k for management contingency based on recent experience to further assure success  Change request approved by Lab and submitted to DOE u Approved by DOE on 4/24/00

DoE Review June 6, 2000 M&S Cost Estimate  Estimate to complete through April 2000 u provided by Level 3 managers u M&S only, then year k$, incl. $70k contingency u EAC= estimate at completion, ETC = estimate to complete (based on obligations through April) WBSSystemEACETC% obligated 1.1.1Silicon Tracker7, Fiber Tracker7, Central Preshower Forward Preshower Tracking Electronics3, Cal Electronics4, Intercryostat Detector Cosmic Ray Scintillator1, Central Moun Forward Muon Trigger2, Forward Muon Tracking1, Muon Electronics3, Framework1, Lum Monitor L1 Trigger1, L2 Trigger2, L3 Trigger1, Online Solenoid/beam pipe/shield4, TOTAL46,4793,10593

DoE Review June 6, 2000 Cost Variance  Variances from Nov 99 DOE review (then yr k$)  PMP 6/98 baseline for reference (*=FY95 x 1.06) WBSPMP 6/98* 11/994/00Diff 4/00-11/99 Reason ,2497,5337,857324Lower yields, installation ,8207,1407,774634More fiber & waveguide, shop charges Clear waveguide fab ,4263,5293,704175Si & Fiber readout: design cycles, parts TOT16,33818,95120,0981,147 WBSPMP 6/98* 11/994/00Diff 4/00-11/99 Reason 1.116,33818,95120,0981,147See below 1.24,618 4,65739Spares, power supplies 1.39,0409,3589,498140Mechanical supports, Gas syst 1.45,6366, Software licenses 3.15,1684,9754,886-89Savings TOT41,44145,21946,4791,260

DoE Review June 6, 2000  Risk based analysis (Then Yr $) u Initial subsystem & project managers estimate s $528k + $200k (management) u Cooper committee adjusted s +$715k u Project managers adjusted for management contingency s +$200k  Used $71k of this contingency to date Contingency Analysis WBSUnobligated (end April) Est. Conting % of unobligated Issues 1.11, See below Spares, power supplies Mech supports, Gas syst Other Install/safety/… TOT3,1051,64353 WBSUnobligated (end April) Est Cont % of unobligated Issues Readout elec., F & 90 o Flex circuits, waveguides,… Waveguides, connectors Fiber cards

DoE Review June 6, 2000 M&S Cost Change Request  Based on prior obligations, new ETC, contingency analysis, and review (Then Yr $) – as of March 2000  Change request ( ) approved by DOE on 4/24/00 u Did not realize $1.5M of non-DOE funds originally anticipated u Cost increased by $1.5M (-$250k Plant) u Estimate $1.6M of contingency CategoryBaselineMarch 00 Cost Est. Cost increase Contingency EQ. M&S 38,66540,1761,5111,643 EQ. SWF 86818,676-5 G&A7,9588, TEC55,30457,4312,127 Plant5,1684, Non- DOE 3,2871,824-- TOT63,75964,173-- Actual: $282k

DoE Review June 6, 2000 Contingency use  Contingency now held by Lab (Deputy Director) & DOE Project manager  Have implemented change control to request contingency u Total $71k to date u Near future: s Silicon ~$100k –Shop charges, mechanical infrastructure, installation s Muon trigger ~$50k –Additional cards, engineering

DoE Review June 6, 2000 Funding Summary  Based on Lab spreadsheet u In Then Yr k$, and FY95 k$ u Includes all contingency in FY2001 u Includes: all approved changes (M&S, Op SWF, G&A)

DoE Review June 6, 2000 Obligation Profile  Based on input from subsystem managers u No contingency included  Forward funding u $1M Stony Brook -in place u $0.8M Michigan State – in process

DoE Review June 6, 2000 FY00 Funding  Given profile, do we have sufficient obligation authority this FY to move ahead?  Obligated the present (FY00) budget amount $2.8M  Conclude that we may need $0.5-1M in additional forward funding (have prospects)  We can defer some of the obligations (~$300k) NeedsThen Yr (K$) Comments Cost profile May-Sept 2,698From managers profile estimate Contingency??500Guessing based on present rate TOTAL3,198 Obligation AuthorityThen Yr (K$) Comments Lab0All $2.8M now obligated Lab (other)215PO closings, paybacks, MOU closing Forward Funds1,800MSU, Stony Brook Non-DOE385May not get all this FY TOTAL2,400

DoE Review June 6, 2000 Conclusions  Costs and contingency recently reviewed  Change to TEC implemented through DOE change control  Contingency use monitored & controlled more closely  Will need additional forward funding this FY (~$500k-$1M)  We believe that the funding (with contingency) is adequate to complete the project