1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES NSLS-II Project Baseline Jim Yeck NSLS-II Deputy Project Director NSLS-II PAC Meeting November 20, 2007

1BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES

NSLS-II Project Baseline

Jim YeckNSLS-II Deputy Project Director

NSLS-II PAC MeetingNovember 20, 2007


Outline

NSLS-II Performance Baseline• Scope• Cost Baseline and Contingency Estimates• Schedule Baseline and Float Estimates• Funding vs. Obligation Profiles

Discussion Issues• Preparation for Construction Management• Funding Management• Staffing Ramp-up• Requirements Documentation


Baseline Summary

• Design, Construct, Commission a highly optimized synchrotron facility capable of meeting the mission need through delivery of:

- extremely high brightness and flux- exceptional beam stability- suite of advanced instruments, optics, and detectors that capitalize

on these special capabilities

• Total Project Cost $912M

• CD-4, Project Completion, June 2015


Project Scope

Accelerator Systems• Storage Ring (~ ½ mile in circumference)• Linac and Booster Injection System

Conventional Facilities• Improvements to Land• Ring Building with Operations Center and service buildings (~ 341k gsf)• Laboratory/Office Buildings for beamline staff and users (~71k gsf)• Utilities including upgrades to the BNL Chilled Water Plant (2 chillers)

Experimental Facilities• Initial suite of 6 insertion device beamlines and instruments• Capable of hosting at least 58 beamlines

Design Documentation

Global Reference Documents• Global Requirements Document and Global Parameters List• Work Breakdown Structure and Dictionary

Requirements, Specifications, and Interface Documents• Description of the technical attributes and design basis for major NSLS-II systems and

facilities. Includes system-level technical interface requirements and design authority definitions. Still a work-in-progress.

Preliminary Design Report (PDR)• Updates Conceptual Design Report (CDR) to current scope and design• Comprehensive draft complete with the final report planned for December

Design Drawings• Conventional Facilities Preliminary Design Drawing Packages• Accelerator Preliminary Design Drawings and Advanced Conceptual Design Drawings

for the six project beamlines

5

Baseline Assumptions

• Base estimates developed in FY07$ and do not include contingency, escalation, or burdens

• Construction Rate of 10.5%

• Escalation rates of 5.0% per year on construction contracts and 3.2% per year on all other activities

• Basis of Estimate• Estimates prepared by experienced accelerator and light source staff• Majority of the estimate supported by vendor quotes and catalog prices

• Project staff begin transitioning into operations in 2012 after beneficial occupancy of experimental floor space

6


NSLS-II Cost Baseline ($M)

1.1 Project Management 53 1.3 Accelerator Systems 242 1.5 Conventional Facilities 241 1.4 Experimental Facilities 73

Total Construction Cost Baseline 609 Contingency (~30% of Cost Baseline) 183

Total Estimated Costs (TEC) 792

1.2 R&D and Conceptual Design 60 1.6 Pre-Operations (includes 20% contingency) 60

Other Project Costs (OPC) 120

Total Project Costs (TPC) $ 912


DOE – Science Experience

Project Contingency as % of BAC for TPC

-2.0%

3.0%

8.0%

13.0%

18.0%

23.0%

28.0%

33.0%

38.0%

43.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% Project Completion

% C

onti

ngen

cy

NSLS II

LCLS

CFN

CINT

CNM

CNMS

Foundry

SPEAR 3

NuMI

LHC Accel

U.S.ATLASU.S. CMS

LAT

ITER

NCSX

PSF

CDF

DZero

12 GeV

SNS

% atBaseline


Funding Profile with Operations

TPC = $912M TEC = $792M (including 30% contingency)

Note: Operations funding is not part of the TPC.

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

AY

M$

Operations

Pre-Ops

Construction

PED

OPC

R&D


12 Months Total Schedule Contingency

Baseline Schedule

Schedule Development

Cost Estimate Emphasis at CD-1 with Schedule at Planning Level

Increased Emphasis on Schedule in Preparation for CD-2• Created technically limited resource-loaded schedule with 2013 early finish. • Relaxed early completion date to April 2014 (CD-1 preliminary date) and delayed work

to accommodate funding constraints.• Incorporated latest risk information (contingency) prior to tuning the schedule in an attempt

to bring obligations in line with funding, moved completion date two months to June 2014.• Delayed Conventional Facilities (CF) given the large demand on funding in early years.• Delays in CF considered unacceptable given the cost and schedule risk; elected to pull

CF forward and delay other activities, e.g., the accelerator injection system, to reduce risk.

Assessment• The resource-loaded schedule is of high quality with adequate activities and interdependencies

to allow the management team to proactively manage schedule within the available resources.• The project will ensure that the CF schedule has priority and will manage activities in the

shadow of the CF schedule to ensure they do not become critical to the overall schedule.

11

Summary Schedule



Schedule Float & Critical Path

CD-4, Start of Operations, June 2015• 12 months after the early project completion date

Early Project Completion, June 2014• Conventional facilities design and construction is recognized as the most

critical activity until the BOD of the storage ring tunnel in February 2012.• There is six months of float on the CF schedule.• Some accelerator subsystems will become critical if there are delays in CF.

Critical Path(s) Analysis• Conventional facilities CF/Booster Ring Storage Ring Commissioning

– Conventional facilities design and procurement until April 2009– Booster ring and CF until February 2012 and Booster installation and commissioning

until September 2013– Storage ring commissioning is the critical path from October 2013 until project

completion


Funding vs. Obligations

Prior FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TOTALCarryover From Prior Year 683 9,474 16,950 -755 3,862 6,977 137 9,250

Total Planned Funding 30,800 65,000 88,000 164,500 254,400 173,800 81,800 48,700 5,000 912,000

Total Funding Available 30,800 65,683 97,474 181,450 253,645 177,662 88,777 48,837 14,250

Obligation Plan (excluding Contingency) 30,117 56,209 76,386 148,051 192,273 125,901 63,828 25,074 717,839

Estimate of Additional Funding Required 0 4,138 34,154 57,510 44,784 24,812 14,512 14,250 194,161

Yearly Balance (carryover) 683 9,474 16,950 -755 3,862 6,977 137 9,250 0

Risk Registry Estimates 7,606 13,138 34,154 57,510 38,784 18,812 2,823 172,827

• Funding Profile is less than optimum in FY2009 and FY2010• Plan to carry-over funding from FY2008 and FY2009 into FY2010• Construction contracts placed in mid FY2009• Contingency profile adjusted based on management evaluation

• Labor during ramp-up unlikely to exceed cost plan, cost risk at later stages• Manage to baseline budget in FY2008• Funding must enable award of construction contracts on schedule, 20% contingency

Funding vs. Obligation Plan ($K)


NSLS-II FTEs by YearNSLS-II Project FTEs

-

50

100

150

200

250

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Fiscal Year

FT

Es

Project Management Accelerator Systems Conventional Facilities Experimental Facilities

Today


Conclusion

Technical Baseline• NSLS-II preliminary design provides a sound basis for the start of final design.• Technical risk factors are manageable and are being addressed by a modest R&D

program and mitigation plans.• The approach to conventional facilities is realistic and responsive to recent experience.

Cost Baseline• The cost baseline is sound and contingency is adequate.

Schedule Baseline• The resource-loaded schedule is very well developed and the the critical path(s)

are clearly understood.• The schedule baseline is reconciled with the anticipated funding plans.

Project Management Systems• The management tools are commensurate with the size and complexity of NSLS-II.


Discussion Issues• Preparation for Construction Management

– Are we going to be ready for the issues and challenges? – What can we do to be better prepared?

• Funding Management– Are the funding management plans realistic?– Are there other ways to more fully exploit the funding profile?

• Staffing Ramp-up– Are the staffing plans realistic and what more can be done to increase our

chances of adhering to the plan?– What options can we pursue to hold schedule if we fall short of hiring plans?

• Requirements Documentation– Is the current plan workable?