1. Workshop Goals and Preparation Lucas Taylor Fermilab Risk Manager LBNF / DUNE Risk Workshop for Far Site Conventional Facilities Fermilab, 31 st August – 1 st September 2015

2. Goals of the workshop … and soon after Capture in Risk Register all risks that might impact CF-FS scope 1.Risks that could have direct consequences for CF-FS 2.Non CF-FS risks that may indirectly cause delays to CF FS 3.General PM risks that might affect CF-FS (e.g. funding) Many risks already identified – focus on review / updates / completeness Quantify risk probability and technical, cost and schedule impacts –(Start to) rank risks to prioritize further analysis Determine strategies to cope with the risks –Risk mitigations: reduce likelihood / impact BEFORE risk occurs –Response plans: cope with consequences AFTER risk occurs Build MC risk model and perform risk analysis –Summary Schedule and (maybe) full resource-loaded schedule –Determine risk drivers, assess mitigations and responses –Determine cost and schedule contingency needs Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop2 During the workshop Capture main strategies in the workshop Flesh out details later: risk forms / MC model Capture main schedule links in workshop Work on detailed MC modeling after

3. LBNF / DUNE Risk Register Workshop will use the Fermi-standard Web-based Risk Register tool –Everybody can see latest risk data (top risks, by WBS, by RBS, etc.) –Note-takers (and PMs, facilitators, etc.) can edit / update the risk data –Risk Owners can see a list of their own risks –Risk Manager can export the risk data for use in the cost and schedule risk contingency analysis (using P6 and PRA) – soon after the workshop The data in the risk register is rather fresh – LBNF / DUNE risks were comprehensively assessed for the CD-1 Refresh and subsequently updated to include the L2 Risk Registers –124 open risks: 19 High rank, 44 Medium, 61 Low –23 on a risk watch list – to be revisited Lucas Taylor 2015-08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop3 https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/collaboration/PM-Tools/Pages/Risk-Register.aspx I can summarize the latest status of the risk analysis in the opening session

4. Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop4 https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/collaboration/PM-Tools/Pages/Risk-Register.aspx General links Workshop-specific LBNF people login:your-service-account Externals login:ippm-reviewer-01 (password will be sent to them)

5. Web Risk Register Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop5 https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/collaboration/PM-Tools/Pages/Risk-Register.aspx To make it easier in the workshop, all LBNF / DUNE risks are being tagged according to their relevance to CF-FS Action (workshop participants): familiarize themselves with the existing risks before the workshop Action (LBNF): tagging needs to be finished a.s.a.p.

6. Web Risk Register Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop6 https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/collaboration/PM-Tools/Pages/Risk-Register.aspx “Add new risk” Web form Big screen #1: Risk Register Note-taker will enter risk data in real time

7. Web Risk Register Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop7 https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/collaboration/PM-Tools/Pages/Risk-Register.aspx Workshop should review and revise all the risk probabilities and impacts Risk Register data fields include all the required input to the subsequent risk Monte Carlo modeling

8. Web Risk Register Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop8 https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/collaboration/PM-Tools/Pages/Risk-Register.aspx Schedule impacts refer to the LBNF / DUNE Primavera P6 “Summary Schedule” (as used for MC modeling for the CD-1 Refresh review) Big screen #2: Summary Schedule (and PPT slides, risk forms, other materials …)

9. Web Risk Register Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop9 https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/collaboration/PM-Tools/Pages/Risk-Register.aspx Workshop needs to address Risk mitigations: pre-emptive actions to reduce the probability and impact of a risk BEFORE it happens. Such actions are included in the baseline plan. Risks responses: action plans that are executed AFTER a risk happens, to reduce the impacts. Cost and schedule implications of the response plans need to be included in the risk impacts. Soon after the Workshop Risk Forms: needed for all CD-3A risks to describe risk in more detail. Should (ideally) not duplicate any data that is already in the Risk Register.

10. Web Risk Register Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop10 https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/collaboration/PM-Tools/Pages/Risk-Register.aspx Don’t forget to save frequently Impact on the overall project schedule (critical path) and schedule contingency analysis will assessed after workshop using the MC model

11. SPARE Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop11

12. Current Status of LBNF / DUNE risk analysis In response to CD-1 Refresh review, I updated the entire risk analysis with: 1.All 31 risks that were originally in the CD-1 Refresh analysis –With minor updates to a few of the risk impacts 2.Additional 41 risks that were previously only on L2 Risk Registers –These are now also in the main project Risk Register 3.Revised Summary Schedule with new logic for the new risk events –Thanks to Bob and Mohammed! MC analysis used all risks of High / Medium rank (for cost) or potentially High / Medium rank (for schedule) – final rank is an output of the analysis MC does not include Low rank risks –Sum (Probability * Cost Impact) ~ 2 M$ ( ~3 M$ of contingency at 90% CL) Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop12

13. Summary of LBNF / DUNE risks analysis Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop13 Risk contingency (at 90 % C.L.) CD-1 Refresh July 2015 Updated August 2015 Risk cost contingency (High / Medium rank risks) 53 M$ (31 original risks; full MC analysis) 68 M$ (31 original + 41 L2 risks; full MC analysis) Risk cost contingency (Low rank risks) Was not included 3 M$ (estimated; not full MC) Risk cost contingency (from burn rate) 29 M$31 M$ Risk cost contingency (Total, including High / Medium / Low ranks risks and burn rate) 82 M$102 M$ Risk schedule contingency1 year 5 months1 year 7 months

14. 31 original CD-1R risks plus 41 newly-included L2 risks Top 20 cost risk drivers Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop 14 * New in MC analysis since CD- 1 Refresh DOE Review (previously on L2 risk registers) * * * * * * * * * * This allows for risk probabilities, the magnitudes of the impacts, the shapes of the impact distributions (single value, uniform range, or triangle function) and correlations.

15. 31 original CD-1R risks plus 41 newly-included L2 risks –Mean: 30.4 M$ (original) and 14.6 M$ (new) –> 45 M$ –90% CL51.7 M$ (original) and 23.7 M$ (new) –> 68 M$ (CLs not additive!) Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop15 CD-1 Refresh was 53 M$ (at 90% C.L.) Risk cost contingency = 68 M$ (at 90% C.L.) Not including burn rate Risk cost contingency = 68 M$ (at 90% C.L.) Not including burn rate Probability distribution of total cost of risks

16. 31 original CD-1R risks plus 41 newly-included L2 risks Top 20 schedule risk drivers Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop16 * New in MC analysis since CD- 1 Refresh DOE Review (previously on L2 risk registers) * * * * * * * * This allows for risk probabilities, the magnitudes of the impacts, the shapes of the impact distributions (single value, uniform range, or triangle function) and correlations.

17. “CD-4a Approval (Completion of CF at the Far Site)” including all risks 31 original CD-1R risks plus 41 newly-included L2 risks Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop17 Difference = 16 months CD-1 Refresh was 12 months Probability distribution of finish date for: “CD-4a Approval (Completion of CF at the Far Site)”

18. 31 original CD-1R risks plus 41 newly-included L2 risks Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop18 Schedule contingency = 1 year 7 months CD-1 Refresh was 1 year 5 months (increase of 1.3 months) to ensure project is completed on time at 90% confidence level Difference = 18.7 months CD-1 Refresh was 17.4 months (increase of 1.3 months) Probability distribution of finish date for: “DOE Project Complete”

19. CD-3 “Ready for Construction” Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop19 Scope Assess completeness and quality of design specifications, whether bid packages are sufficiently clear and well defined, technology readiness to proceed, if any process is planned and its potential impact to the design Design Assess whether identified technologies are at sufficient level of maturity to be included in construction, sufficient cost and schedule for implementation are in the baseline, and the associated risks are captured in the Risk Registry. Assess whether any design activities to be performed during construction as appropriate as to type and amount of design to be performed, the design basis for this additional work, and the basis to proceed with construction. Cost and Schedule Determine reasonableness of resource loading, cost assumptions, and if any potential trends or planned changes are adequately identified to provide firm basis to proceed with construction. Assess whether the Critical Path is reasonably defined, reflects an integrated schedule with reasonable durations, and has a suitable lead between completion and CD-4. Document- ation Review and revise all documents to reflect relevant approved changes. Documents include ISM, HAR,QAP, PEP, PMP, AS, CMP, ProcMP … Ensure effective use of certified EVMS system and associated Project Controls and Change Controls Protocols

20. CD-2 “Performance Baseline” Although CD-2 comes later for LBNF/DUNE, we should nonetheless determine – already for CD-3a – the cost and schedule risk contingency at (Lab-standard) 90% C.L., as indeed we already did for CD-1 Refresh Lucas Taylor 2015- 08-31 LBNF Risk Workshop20 Scope Work breakdown structure (WBS) encompasses all project scope and/or contractual scope requirements/work authorization defined to levels sufficient to support detailed cost and schedule estimates under formal change management procedures and configuration management. Design Is mature when a point estimate can be developed, can establish a high-quality, reliable cost and schedule estimate for a PB, and is ready for an independent review. See DOE O 413.3B, Figure 3, page C-6, Facility Design Maturity General Guidelines for CD-2. KPPs P rimary KPPs defined, understood, and agreed to by the AE, Program sponsor, and FPD, and forms the requirements of the prime contract. CostTotal Project Cost (TPC) established with 70-90% confidence level. Higher confidence level should be considered for changes to the PB. See DOE O 413.3B, page C-21. ScheduleProject completion date established with 70-90% confidence level. Higher confidence level should be considered for changes to the PB. Refer to DOE O 413.3B, page C-21. Document- ation All baseline documentations should be complete, approved by an appropriate authority, and effectively organized to enable traceability of supporting plans, assumptions, and analyses from the lowest to the highest level, and summary statement of the PB should be contained in the Project Execution Plan (PEP) or in the program requirements document (PRD) for NNSA projects.