1. Cost, Schedule, & Risk

2. Review Charge

3. 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?

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

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

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

13. Budget Summary - Burdened

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. Labor Hour Summary by WBS
1 FTE = 1760 hours

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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%

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

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

35. 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, in overhead waived by university

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Schedule
Famous planning quote here – somebody fun

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

43. 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

44. L2 Level Scheduling

45. 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

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

47. 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

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

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

50. 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

51. 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)

52. 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.

53. Back up slides
Thank you

54. Budget Summary - Direct

55. 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

56. 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.

57. High level interactions