1. Build to Cost Directions & Guidelines Peter Wizinowich SSC Meeting November 3, 2008

2. 2 Presentation Sequence New Directions & Guidelines Implications Build to Cost Concept Review Conclusion

3. 3 New Directions & Guidelines $60M cost cap in then-year dollars –From start of system design through completion –Includes science instruments –Must include realistic contingency –Cap of $17.1M in Federal + Observatory funds ($4.7M committed) Reviews –NFIRAOS cost comparison report at Nov/08 SSC meeting To better understand the fidelity of the SDR costing –Internal review of build to cost concept –Report on internal review no later than Apr/09 SSC meeting

4. 4 Implications of New Directions & Guidelines – 1 Work required to reduce costs to fit in $60M cap –NGAO estimate at SDR, plus SD phase, ~ $53M (then-year $) –Science instrument estimate at proposal ~ $27M (then-year $) –Need to provide a major breakthrough in science capability for $ Need Science Advisory Team to help insure this Work required on science instruments as part of NGAO project –Cost cap requires NGAO project to integrate all costs & planning including instruments During PD phase, instrument program management will continue for instruments, but as part of NGAO project –Need to develop at least system designs, preferably preliminary designs, & costs during the NGAO PD –Need to identify funds & people for this (none in WMKO FY09 plan) & determine impact on NGAO PD plan

5. 5 Implications of New Directions & Guidelines – 2 Report/Reviews –NFIRAOS cost comparison already planned –Phased implementation & descopes review no longer required May need something for PDR, but not for build to cost concept review –Need success criteria, & plan to prepare, for build to cost review

6. 6 Build to Cost Concept Review – 1 Proposed Success Criteria –The revised science cases & requirements continue to provide a compelling case for building NGAO –We have a credible technical approach to producing an NGAO facility within the cost cap –We have reserved contingency consistent with the level of programmatic & technical risk Proposed Deliverables for the review –A summary of the: Revisions to the science cases & requirements, & the scientific impact Major design changes Major cost changes (cost book updated for design changes) Major schedule changes Contingency changes

7. 7 Build to Cost Concept Review – 2 Proposed Deliverables from the review –A summary of the reviewer findings (not by the team) –A team response to the reviewer report –A report of the results to the SSC (not by the team) Proposed assumptions –Starting point will be the SD cost estimate with the addition of the science instruments & refined by the NFIRAOS cost comparison Better cost estimates will be produced for the PDR –No phased implementation options will be provided Some may be for the PDR to respond to the reviewer concerns –Major documents will only be updated for the PDR SCRD, SRD, FRD, SDM, SEMP –This is an internal review. Directors will identify reviewers in consultation with NGAO team. –Take into account the Keck Strategic Planning 2008 results

8. 8 Build to Cost Actions to Date Evaluated implications & requested some clarifications Build to Cost team meeting (Sept. 11/12 at UCSC) –Reviewed/discussed core science requirements, performance cost drivers & a range of cost savings ideas –Made some modest cost reduction decisions –Identified a number of potential cost savings areas that we are currently investigating Identified success criteria for NFIRAOS cost comparison & build to cost concept review Reworking NGAO PD phase plan –Working with instrument program manager to incorporate NGAO instruments

9. 9 Conclusion We understand the need for a build to cost cap & accept the Director/SSC wisdom that this is what is needed to ensure NGAO’s future Our emphasis will be on maximizing the science return within the cost cap The short-term impact has been a delay in the planned NGAO preliminary design work To successfully prepare for the build to cost concept review we need: –Active participation from the NGAO Science Advisory Team –Agreement on the success criteria –Creative & focused work from the NGAO team