RSVP Cost and Schedule Review 9 December 2004

RSVP Cost and Schedule Review 9 December 2004 AGS Upgrades Philip Pile WBS 1. 4 Project Manager 1

AGS Upgrades Outline • • • Overview of Process Cost and Schedule Roll-ups to Level 3 Project Roll-up Summary Toward a Project Baseline 2

AGS RSVP Project Office AGS Office P. Pile, Project Manager A. Pendzick, Deputy Project Manager WBS 1. 4 Fiscal D. Sappo QA D. Passarello ES&H E. Lessard Mechanical Engineering J. Tuzuollo Electrical Engineering J. Sandberg AGS/Booster K. Brown WBS 1. 4. 1 Switchyard A. Pendzick WBS 1. 4. 2 K 0 PI 0 C. Pearson WBS 1. 4. 3 MECO D. Phillips WBS 1. 4. 4 Project Office P. Pile WBS 1. 4. 5 3

Overview of Process by which estimates are constructed • Mechanics of process – Cost and schedule estimates are responsibility of level 3 managers – Cost estimates are “bottoms-up” with input coming from lead engineer/physicist for various subprojects – Level 3 managers collect costs and schedule input, wbs dictionary and check that cost basis is understood – Cost information is presently updated to excel spreadsheet for the project and forwarded to C-AD fiscal (Sappo) for entry into master excel spreadsheets and ACCESS data base – signifies level 3 manager has “signed off” on input. 4

Overview of Process by which estimates are constructed • Mechanics of process (cont’) – The updated excel spread sheets are then forwarded to me by Sappo and, if I find no problems/issues, it is published to our website as v. XX. This signifies my “sign-off” – Changes are logged on the “changes” sheet in the workbook – Excel spreadsheets will be phased out once the Access data base and/or MS Project files are available and are able to provide same information 5

Overview of Process by which estimates are constructed • Schedules (resource loaded) are being put into MS Project using common templates and common labor resource pools. – Common templates being developed with guidance from RSVP Project Office (\c-adfile 3RSVP_files) – Experiment schedule requirements/constraints are taken into account by AGS MECO and K 0 PI 0 project leaders through iterative discussions with Experiment Project Managers. – Help with roll-up into master schedule expected from RSVP Project Office 6

Overview of Process by which estimates are constructed • Responsible individuals – Resource Loaded Schedules – Overall Mechanics (Phillips/Kane) – WBS 1. 4. 1 AGS/Booster • Mechanical (Mahler) • RF Work (Zaltsman) • Electrical systems (Sandberg) – – WBS 1. 4. 2 Switchyard (Pendzick) WBS 1. 4. 3 K 0 PI 0 (Pearson) WBS 1. 4. 4 MECO (Phillips) Across multiple WBS’s • Instrumentation (Gassner) • Controls (Barton) • Over AGS project resource loaded schedule is Pendzick’s 7 responsibility

Overview of Process Project Management Guidance • Pass on guidance from RSVP Project Office (when received) • Provide interim guidance as appropriate, it’s all on the web at http: //server. c-ad. bnl. gov/esfd/RSVP_AGS_WBS. htm • Contingency for all projects will follow US Atlas contingency analysis (US Atlas Note 97 -005) 8

Project Management Guidance (present) (subject to change – i. e. we have not yet received guidance from Willis/Kotcher as result of 4 -5 Nov AGS Review • Continue cost scrubbing and schedule development • Highest priority to AGS/BOOSTER WBS 1. 4. 1 – Cost scrubbing, what can we postpone until operations phase? etc… – Schedule – in particular a plan to get the AGS/BOOSTER in shape for high intensity beam development --- by beginning of 3 rd year of construction? – Beam development plan that fits within constant effort RHIC budget scenario with 2 beams – i. e. figure on 80 hrs/week and 15 weeks/year • Case 1: Beam development during entire 5 year construction period • Case 2: Beam development beginning 3 rd year of construction • The construction plan should be developed consistent with no beam development in first two years of the project (Case 2 above) – D-line decommissioned – C-Line available beginning of 3 rd year for tests – there’s a risk (small) that we may have to revert back to the original plan (Case 1). 9

Overview of Process Iterations performed and how • We are in the process of making a second iteration on costs – Cost scrubbing using peer review process – Small groups (2 -6 people) to look over cost basis and justification – Goal to complete most of this by mid Jan 2005 • We have not yet generated a resource loaded schedule but have the methodology in place to do this and some of the sub-project resource loaded schedules in an advanced state of preparation – (\c-adfile 3RSVP_files) 10

Overview of Process Facility of sub-project mgrs with project tools • Adequate but requires fair amount of several good engineer’s time to input information into Project files • We don’t have a good understanding of how difficult it is going to be to combine all project files into a master project file • RSVP Project Office (Kane) help is helping us out with this and the help is appreciated 11

Overview of Process Meeting, discussions between PM and those developing information • Weekly (almost) meetings with WBS team leaders and others – Invitees include • DOE Local Area Office (Butler) • Experiment Project Managers • Others – Open to telephone conferencing • Agenda driven – usually review one or two systems • Discuss status of each L 3 WBS • All electronic presentations are placed on the Web prior to the meeting – http: //server. c-ad. bnl. gov/esfd/RSVP_AGS_WBS. htm 12

Cost, Schedule Status of each L 3 system - Schedule WBS 1. 4. 1 through 1. 4. 5 – In general needs lots of work – Present focus is on AGS/BOOSTER plan – Switchyard plan ~ developed – experiment plans evolving as experiment needs are understood 13

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 1 AGS/Booster Cost Scrubbing (as of 12/7/04) Reviewing each system with peers in department. Includes contingency scrubbing Systems reviewed so far# (AGS/Booster WBS): Scrubbed/Scrubbing in progress 1. *#Booster/AGS PFN upgrades, WBS 1. 4. 1. 2. 1. 3 & 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 6 ($876 K $653 K) 2. First pass at shield caps for AGS and Booster, WBS 1. 4. 1. 2. 6 & 1. 4. 1. 3. 5 ($3. 57 M ? ? , R&D req’d) 3. *#AGS Coils, WBS 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 7 ($644 K $634 K) 4. *#AGS H 20 electrostatic septum, WBS 1. 4. 1. 3. 2. 4 ($589 K $706 K) 5. #AGS F 5 Thin Magnetic Septum, WBS 1. 4. 1. 3. 2. 2 ($691 K up? ) 6. *#Project Support, WBS 1. 4. 1. 1 & others that were eliminated ($353 K $200 K) Revised cost 1. New cost estimates developed for RF cavities, WBS 1. 4. 1. 5. 2 & 1. 4. 1. 5. 3 (not scrubbed, $2. 0 M $2. 1 M) 2. Labor cost update (+1 -3% C-AD Labor) # Represents ~$3 M of $15 M (22%) direct costs (w/o cont’) * included in v 25 cost estimate 14

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 1 Upcoming scrubbing reviews (53% of cost) • This week: Booster/AGS Shield caps (WBS 1. 4. 1. 2. 6 and 1. 4. 1. 3. 5) o • Next Week: Booster RF Feedback (WBS 1. 4. 1. 2. 3) o • $878 K direct 3 weeks: Booster Injection (WBS 1. 4. 1. 2. 2. 2) o • $537 K direct 3 weeks: Booster/AGS Instrumentation (WBS 1. 4. 1. 2. 4 & 1. 4. 1. 3. 3) o • $603 K direct 2 weeks: LTB Collimation (WBS 1. 4. 1. 2. 2. 3) o • $3. 57 M direct (second scrubbing meeting today, plan to subcontract to PE for better cost estimate) $413 K direct 4 weeks: 25 MHz & 100 MHz RF systems (WBS 1. 4. 1. 5. 2 & 1. 4. 1. 5. 3) o $2. 0 M direct 15

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 1 Scrubbing to be scheduled (~22 % of costs) WBS Number and description Direct Cost (no cont’) • 1. 4. 1. 2. 1. 1, 1. 4. 1. 2. 4. 5, 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 1, 1. 4. 1. 3. 3. 8 Cables - $209 K • 1. 4. 1. 2, 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 2 Cable Trays - $ 22 K • 1. 4. 1. 2. 2. 1 Booster Spare F 6 - $270 K • 1. 4. 1. 2. 5, 1. 4. 1. 3. 4 Controls - $226 K • 1. 4. 1. 3 AGS Active filter - $125 K • 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 4 AGS F 5 P. S. - $123 K • 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 5 AGS F 10 P. S. - $299 K • 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 8 AGS J 10 P. S. - $195 K • 1. 4. 1. 3. 2. 6 AGS Sextupole coils - $191 K • 1. 4. 1 MECO AC Dipole - $264 K • 1. 4. 2 MECO Stripline kickers - $502 K • 1. 4. 1. 5. 1 Booster/AGS Kickers (CFI) - $713 K • 1. 4. 3, 1. 4. 1. 5. 4 Simulations - $320 K 16

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 1 Resource Loaded Schedule Status Resource loaded schedules available: (not integrated) • AGS Coils • Booster Coils • F 5 Septum • F 10 Septum • H 20 Septum (almost ready) All else (except controls) available by 15 Jan 05 17

Controls Status (Barton) • Our plan for cost scrubbing comprises review by the management team of the Controls Division (Joe Skelly, Brian Oerter, John Morris and Ted D'Ottavio). Very small adjustments are to be expected since this work uses standard parts in both hardware and software. Scope changes elsewhere (e. g. instrumentation) would have a larger effect. • Resource-loaded schedules will be prepared, but not likely by mid-January, based on schedule dependencies indicated by individual subsystem integration and operations schedules. The general philosophy will be ALAP with adequate slack to be sure of scope requirements, especially for software. • Total estimated cost for this is ~$756 K direct w/o contingency distributed between WBS’s 1. 4. 1 -4 • Goals: – Cost scrubbing complete 12 Jan 05 – Resource Loaded Schedules complete 28 Jan 05 18

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 1 AGS/Booster 4 Nov 04 Review 7 Dec 04 19

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 2, Switchyard General Comments from sub-system manager • Status is good, cost scrubbing in progress (~38% complete) at LE/small peer group level, complete by 15 Jan 05 • Details to come, such as a detailed beam transport design should not seriously affect the cost or schedule. • Instrumentation may be the biggest delta upon scrubbing. • In the past, the info presently available would be sufficient for a project start. 20

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 2 Switchyard Cost Scrubbing (38% complete as of 12/7/04) WBS • • • Number and description 1. 4. 2. 2. 1 Modify Shielding at AD 2 1. 4. 2. 2. 2 Rebuild D/S Labyrinth 1. 4. 2. 3. 1 Modify Royals 1. 4. 2. 3. 3 Provide Power in Cave 1. 4. 2. 3. 6 Refurbish PS 1. 4. 2. 3. 7 Reconfigure racks 1. 4. 2. 3. 8 Provide security couduit & tray 1. 4. 2. 4. 1 Fabricate beam plugs 1. 4. 2 Modify PS water cooling 1. 4. 2. 4. 3 Prepare 4 magnets 1. 4. 2. 5. 8 Install beam plugs Direct Cost (no cont’) ($22. 1 K $21. 7 K) ($22. 4 K $17. 0 K) ($149 K $108 K) ($16. 0 K $16. 2 K) ($ 0 K $41. 4 K) ($ 8. 8 K $ 9. 0 K) ($ 0 K $ ? K) ($158 K $106 K) ($15. 4 K $15. 6 K) ($22. 9 K $39. 1 K) ($25. 5 K $16. 9 K) 21

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 2 Switchyard Cost Scrubbing (as of 12/7/04) WBS Number and description Direct Cost (no cont’) • • • 1. 4. 2. 4. 3 Prepare 4 magnets 1. 4. 2. 5. 8 Install beam plugs 1. 4. 2. 6. 1 Install Vacuum in Ring 1. 4. 2. 6. 2 Install Vacuum in A-Line 1. 4. 2. 6. 3 Install Vacuum in B-Line 1. 4. 2. 6. 4 PLC Modifications 1. 4. 2. 7. 2 Controls Enclosure 1. 4. 2. 7. 3 Cave Dehumidification 1. 4. 2. 5. 1 Remove Equipment in Ring 1. 4. 2. 5. 2 Remove Equipment in A-Line 1. 4. 2. 5. 3 Remove Equipment in B-Line 1. 4. 2. 5. 4 Rad Waste Removal ($22. 9 K $39. 1 K) ($25. 5 K $16. 9 K) ($57. 9 K $58. 0 K) ($129 K $140 K) ($149 K $122 K) ($16. 0 K $17. 3 K) ($38. 8 K $26. 9 K) ($28. 5 K $10. 4 K) ($41. 3 K $41. 8 K) ($119 K $121 K) ($79. 4 K $80. 1 K) ($54. 5 K $54. 7 K) • TOTAL ($1, 202 K 1, 119 K) 22

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 2 Switchyard Cost Scrubbing, what’s left to be done (as of 12/7/04) 23

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 2 Switchyard 4 Nov 04 Review 7 Dec 04 24

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 2 Resource Loaded Schedules § Subsystem resource loaded schedules are being developed in parallel with scrubbing efforts § Should completed 2 weeks after the last scrubbing review. § There remains a very large effort to integrate these individual schedules into an overall RSVP effort and to manpower level the Project. 25

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 3, K 0 PI 0 General Comments from sub-system manager (who has been buried in RHIC Start-up and finishing SNS obligations) • None of KOPIO costs have been systematically scrubbed since the 3 -4 Nov review • Contingencies for all of the WBS areas with the exception of the security area have had a first pass review using the Atlas contingency analysis. • There has not been any resource loading effort. • My level of confidence in the spreadsheet is commensurate with the level of information I have been given. 26

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 3, K 0 PI 0 General Comments from sub-system manager • Beam line design is somewhat confident. • Target is somewhat confident • Neutral beam and experimental area is low confidence. • Response to the requested questions from the experiment followed by a conceptual design is required to proceed with a detailed estimate and schedule. 27

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 3 K 0 PI 0 Cost Scrubbing, what’s left to be done (as of 12/7/04) 28

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 3 K 0 PI 0 4 Nov 04 Review 7 Dec 04 29

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 4, MECO General Comments from sub-system manager (who has been directing most of his effort to general use MS Project templates during the past month) • Most of MECO costs have not been systematically scrubbed since the 3 -4 Nov review • Contingencies have been figured using the Atlas contingency analysis. • MECO resource loading is in MS Project but scheduling is not. 30

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 4, MECO 31

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 4, MECO WBS 1. 4. 4 MECO 4 Nov 04 Review 7 Dec 04 32

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 5, Project Office • Cost increases since Nov 04 review includes (informal scrubbing, more scrubbing planned understanding of work required improves) – – – Chief Mechanical Engineer, 0. 1 FTE x 5 years Chief Electrical Engineer, 0. 1 FTE x 5 years QA Person, 0. 05 FTE x 5 years 33

Cost, Schedule Status of WBS 1. 4. 5, Project Office 4 Nov 04 Review 7 Dec 04 Project Head Deputy Project Head Chief ME Chief EE QA Fiscal MSTC $559 K $ 0 K $125 K $ 60 K $571 K $115 K $ 58 K $128 K $ 60 K TOTAL (Direct w/cont’) TOTAL (w/indirect) $1, 302 K $1, 817 K $1, 617 K $2, 251 K 34

Roll-ups to Level 3/Summary RSVP AGS Project Costs, with indirects 11/4/04 – version 21 5 years beam development, 1 year contingency, (CASE 1) 35

Roll-ups to Level 3/Summary RSVP AGS Project Costs, with indirects 12/7/04 – version 26 5 years beam development, 1 year contingency, (CASE 1) 36

Roll-ups to Level 3/Summary RSVP AGS Project Costs, with indirects 12/7/04 – version 26 3 years beam development with no contingency (CASE 2) 37

Roll-ups to Level 3, Cost comparison with previous estimates WBS 1. 4 AGS Upgrade – Cost Summary (Direct Costs, FY 05$’s, No Contingency) 3 Dec 2004 • • • 1. 4. 1 AGS/Booster 1. 4. 2 Switchyard 1. 4. 3 K 0 PI 0 1. 4. 4 MECO 1. 4. 5 Project Office $ 0 DIRECT TOTAL Total with Cont’ and Indirect Jan 04 4 Nov 04 Change 2 Dec 04 Change(11/2 -12/2) $ 3, 562 $ 0 $ 5, 573 K $ 4, 773 K $ 1, 035 K $15, 184 K + $11, 624 K $ 3, 244 K + $ 3, 244 K $ 6, 960 K + $ 1, 387 K $ 7, 634 K + $ 2, 861 K + $ 1, 035 K $ 1, 059 K $15, 086 K $ 3, 273 K $ 7, 002 K $ 7, 692 K + $ 24 K $13, 908 K $34, 057 K + $20, 149 K $21, 268(est) $52, 080 K + $30, 082 K • 1. 4. 1. 6 Beam Development --- not included • Not much change – – • - $ 98 K + $ 29 K + $ 42 K + $ 58 K $34, 114 K + $ 55 K $51, 616 K - $464 K new labor rates (slightly higher) Corrected indirects for AGS CAPS Revised (lower) costs for AGS/Booster PFN’s for WBS 1. 4. 1 Cost scrubbing for other AGS/Booster high cost systems in progress AGS RSVP Home Page: http: //server. c-ad. bnl. gov/esfd/RSVP_AGS_WBS. htm 38

Toward a Project Baseline • Assumptions – Experiment technical and personnel requirements baselined – Plan for MECO magnet system procurement settled – Beam development issues settled • The Timeline – Resource loaded schedule available ~ 3 months after above issues are settled 39

Issues of particular concern to me • WBS 1. 4. 1 AGS/Booster – AGS/Booster Environmental CAPS • Direct cost is estimated at $4. 1 M w/ contingency • Could be low, may take a while to come up with a plan • Plan to spend engineering $’s this year to properly cost this – Schedule for component replacement • Lots of critical items needed prior to high intensity operation • Engineering/Designer/Tech requirements • Could delay high intensity beam development – MECO muon beam intensity • Could be off a factor of two due to proton intensity • Could be off another factor of two due to muon production uncertainty 40

Issues of particular concern to me • WBS 1. 4. 2 Switchyard – No concerns unless new switchyard plan is not adopted 41

Issues of particular concern to me • WBS 1. 4. 3 K 0 PI 0 – Lack of base-line for experiment beam line and equipment • Cost escalation • Floor space considerations – Pit size/depth – neutral beam production angle • Controlling neutron background • Neutral beam tests may lead to design changes • Schedule slips 42

Issues of particular concern to me • WBS 1. 4. 4 MECO – Loss of Project Manager – Lack of project management presence at BNL – Lack of final plan for solenoid and refrigeration system procurement and installation • Unknown C-AD personnel requirements • Likely infrastructure cost escalation • Schedule slips – Beam Line Issues • extinction monitoring not yet finalized • Plan for beam alignment on target with opposite polarities in PS yet to be worked out • Protection of PS and TS from primary proton beam excursions 43

Issues of particular concern to me • WBS 1. 4. 5 Project Office – Communications • Good direct line to RSVP Project Office but there’s a sea of managers above the AGS Project Office • Lack of RSVP PMP/PEP • Lack of weekly meetings between RSVP project managers – Insufficient budget for work to be done this year (plan to use K 0 PI 0 and MECO funds as required once Project Office funds are exhausted to complete base-line work) – $’s and plan for experiment support set under former management structure, little willingness to change this – Lack of timely guidance • no guidance received following MECO magnet and AGS reviews – Personnel – balancing RHIC and RSVP needs, March 2005 C-AD RIF 44

General Comments § Most construction costs are not expected to change significantly § Most cost/schedule uncertainty comes with AGS/Experiment interface § NEED BASE-LINE FOR EXPERIMENT REQUIREMENTS! § NEED TO UNDERSTAND PROCUREMENT STRATEGY FOR MECO MAGNET SYSTEM AND BNL ROLE 45

Comments § The area’s we believe could be fast-tracked to a baseline by Spring are: § WBS 1. 4. 1 AGS/BOOSTER (except experiment specific) § $18 M direct w/cont’ § WBS 1. 4. 2 Switchyard § $3. 8 M direct w/cont’ § WBS 1. 4. 3 K 0 PI 0 and WBS 1. 414 MECO Removals § A line for MECO $430 K direct w/cont’ § B line for KOPIO $520 K direct w/cont’ 46