Project CloseOut Planning Critical Path Contingency Planning and

Project Close-Out Planning, Critical Path, Contingency Planning and Risk Analysis John N. Galayda – Director, LCLS Construction May 13, 2009 Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Closeout • Plan laid out 12/2008 – Based on DOE M 413. 3 -1 (3 -28 -03) – This manual was cancelled, 1/13/2009 • DOE N 251. 75 – Project Transition/Closeout (CD-4) • DOE G 413. 3 -16 (9 -24 -2008) Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 2 2 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 3 3 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Table of Contents 1. Tailoring 2. Project Performance and Completion Criteria 3. Readiness Assessment/Operational Readiness Review 4. Commissioning Plan 5. Transition to Operations Plan 6. Quality Assurance 7. Environmental Management System Revision 8. Safeguards, Security and Safety Plan 9. Post CD-4 Approval Requirements (related to transition/closeout) Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 4 4 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Performance and Completion Criteria • Defined in the Critical Decision approvals, refined in – Global Requirements Document • Defined minimum goals for each stage of commissioning, prerequisite to starting next stage – – http: //www-ssrl. slac. stanford. edu/lcls/PRD/1. 1 -001 -r 0. pdf LCLS Start-up Test Plan • Defined criteria for completion of commissioning stages: – – – – • Injector Linac-to-Undulator & Beam Dump Front-End Enclosure Near Experiment Hall X-Ray Tunnel & Far Experiment Hall Key Performance Parameters Prerequisite to the Approval of CD-4, Start of Operations http: //www-ssrl. slac. stanford. edu/lcls/prd/1. 1 -002 -r 1. pdf Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 5 5 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Performance and Completion Criteria Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 6 6 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Performance and Completion Criteria • For Closeout: Verify Performance Criteria Have Been Met Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 7 7 7 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Commissioning Plan • Equipment checkout integrated with staged accelerator readiness sequence • Safety readiness and technical readiness have been integrated – – – Injector linac Linac-to-Undulator, Beam Dump, Front-End Near Hall X-Ray Tunnel, Far Experiment Hall • Photon Beam Systems will follow this path • Technical/scientific accelerator commissioning plans are also in good shape • Conventional Facilities: “commissioning agent” (contract work) results Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 8 8 8 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Readiness Assessment/Operational Readiness Review Safety Assessment Document has been developed and expanded in stages, latest at https: //www-internal. slac. stanford. edu/ad/addo/SAD/sadindex. html System Lead Deliverable Date Injector Schultz/Hislop/ Scharfenstein. Injector SAD 3/2007 Linac Schultz/Hislop/ Scharfenstein Injector/Linac SAD 12/2007 Linac-to-Undulator-to- Schultz/Hislop/ Dump, Front-End Scharfenstein Enclosure Accel Sys SAD 8/2008 Near Experiment Hall Arthur SAD extension 8/2009 X-Ray Tunnel, Far Experiment Hall Arthur SAD extension 1/2010 Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 9 9 9 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Readiness Assessment/Operational Readiness Review Not governed by the Accelerator Safety Order (except for radiation shielding) SLAC Building Inspection Office assesses building readiness for handover BIO determination will be included in the closeout package System Lead Deliverable CF Saenz (for LCLS) Test results, cleared punchist Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 10 10 10 Date LTU-NEH 9/2009 FEH, Hutches 3/2010 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Quality Assurance, Safeguards/Security • Guidance: to keep the QA plan current • SLAC Quality Assurance Program– https: //www-internal. slac. stanford. edu/oa/documents/assurance. pdf – June 2008 – Governing document • Safeguards/Security – Existing SLAC program Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 11 11 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Transition to Operations Plan • SLAC Linac operations staffing, policies and procedures are mature • Criteria for transition to operations of new systems were wellestablished • Criteria were met at each stage as part of the Accelerator Readiness Review Process • Criteria for transition-to-operations of Photon Beam Systems will be patterned after SLAC SOP • XFD operations organization is in growth spurt – Handover from Project to Directorate/XFD commissioning organization will be part of ARR for the Near Hall and subsequent SLAC instrument readiness reviews – Handover deliverables will ensure safe operation; sophistication will grow as operations and organization mature • SLAC Guidelines for Operations will be amended to include XFD operations, and offered as part of Project Closeout Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 12 12 12 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Closeout Report • Target date: 10/2010 – Technical, scope, cost and schedule baseline accomplishments – Financial closeout, including a final cost report – Deactivation, decontamination and decommissioning planning (if required) – Closeout approvals – Permits, licenses, and/or environmental documentation – Contract closeout status – Adjustments to obligations and costs – Photographic documentation – Baseline change control log Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 13 13 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Critical Path • Detection of X-Rays in Far Hall after January-March 2010 shutdown for K-10 substation replacement • Accelerator, Undulator-to-AMO: maintenance only • Completion/testing of Personnel Protection for XRT and FEH. Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 14 14 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 15 15 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Level 2 Milestones Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 16 16 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

• SXR instrument – LCLS Project has no obligation to install/integrate SXR hardware after 3/2010 Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 17 17 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Contingency • Major scope additions since last review – SXR Instrument installation/integration: +$1. 5 M • Adds scientific capability to LCLS in 2010 • Leverages a $5 M hardware contribution by consortium – 3 instruments (AMO, XPP, SXR) by end of 2010 – Far Hall Hutch 6 and Mezzanine +$800 K • Adds workspace to Far Experiment Hall • Completes originally envisioned count of hutches • Mezzanine installation would be disruptive later in operation – Building 28 office area increase +$2. 15 M • • Additional technical/safety oversight of work Refined basis of estimate (A/E design) Expansion to area previously envisioned for SSRL Permits co-location of XFD personnel (albeit far from LCLS) Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 18 18 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Estimate at Complete LCLS EAC for TEC $345. 0 M Remaining Work (ETC) Remaining Contingency $29. 4 M $ 7. 0 M % Contingency (Cost to Go) % Contingency (Comm to Go) 23. 9% 27. 5% Adding scope to optimize science. Reserve adequate contingency to address remaining risks to project. LCLS EAC for OPC $62. 0 M Remaining Work (ETC) Remaining Mgmt Reserve $16. 7 M $ 6. 0 M % Mgmt Reserve (Cost to Go) 36. 0% Increasing Mgmt Reserve due to lower than anticipated commissioning costs, so far… Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 19 19 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Bottoms-up Contingency Assessment • Assessment is a bottoms-up, risk-based estimate of “potential need” by each CAM • Historically conservative Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 20 20 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 21 21 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 22 22 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Top-Down Contingency Assessment • Correct cost-to-go for Pending BCRs – $800 K in allowances • Assume all schedule variances are real • Remaining work, assuming all schedule variances will be realized as cost: $32 M • Remaining contingency: $ 8 M • Contingency allocation, top down: 11% avg – – 20% to civil construction not yet awarded 5% to civil construction already contracted 5% to SLAC effort-to-go 10% on other M&S not yet awarded • $4. 5 M unassigned contingency Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 23 23 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Contingency Wish List • Technical: Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 24 24 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Alternative for Office Space • Tilt-up building – Fast construction – LEEDS Gold – ~18, 500 GSF • More convenient access to LCLS Halls • Proposals under evaluation • Will wait for award of hutches and April (maybe May) actuals to decide Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 25 25 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Other Project Costs • Allocated $2 M for ramp-up of x-ray commissioning effort in 2009 – not fully committed • $6 M cumulative management reserve • Wish list: • $1. 77 M reserve in 2009 – Commit $1 M soon • 2010: – must reserve $2 M for risk mitigation – $3 M to go Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 26 26 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Risk Assessment • Happily, many technical risks to the project may be retired • Civil construction generic risks are pretty invariant right up to the end of the project. • While less cost-to-go means less schedule risk, the approach of CD-4 milestone means schedule risk becomes more significant Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 27 27 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

Risk Assessment (cont’d) • Major $ risk is civil construction claims – appropriate accrual was put in baseline TEC • Major schedule risk is civil construction schedule – As noted in Risk Registry Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 28 28 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed

End of Presentation Project Overview & Assessment DOE Status Review of the LCLS Project 29 29 29 John N. Galayda galayda@slac. stanford. ed