Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007

Report to the LCLS Facilities Advisory Committee

LCLS Project Management

M. Reichanadter / SLAC

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007

Overview•Funding / Cost Status

–FY07 CR and funding uncertainties have impacted the project.• Overall ~2 month delay. Hold on procurements ~six weeks.• Redirect resources to evaluate reduced funding options.• DOE-BES Directed Baseline Change.

–July ‘Lehman’ Review – EIR to validate new baseline.

•Schedule Status–Technical systems making steady progress.

• Milestone performance ~OK. Dip in recent performance (CR).• Injector complete in March! Late on Injector installation.

–Construction in full swing! • Start delayed due to high subcontract bids, tunneling coordination.• Schedule is CP. Updated Co- and Beneficial milestones.• Some issues with Turner activities. Coordination, safety.

–Most of on-site Turner team have been replaced.

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007

Overview•Management Status

–Procurement performance ~OK with dedicated cell.• Consultants (Miller/Dee), COR/FCO expediter and BOA’s• ~95% of civil construction under contract. • Remaining technical procurements largely commodities

and installation contracts.

–Integration management team in place (RM Boyce)–Organization

• Injector complete. Good time to re-org.–Stronger emphasis on functions (Engr, Controls, Main & Ops, Commissioning, improved integration with Lab operations)

• Preparing for EVM Certification (Surveillance audit, LBL)

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 4

LCLS showing steady progress overall

• 46% TEC comp • 43% TPC comp

• SPI = 0.91• CPI = 0.92

• Project burn rate ~$7-8M per/mo

• Labor burn rate ~$2.5M/mo

• ~175 SLAC FTE’s

LCLS Project Performance (TEC = $315M)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

AY

K$

BCWS (TEC)

BCWP (TEC)

ACWP (TEC)

BAC

BA

OBL-S (TEC)

$249.6M

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 5

LCLS Project Performance

• Injector construction completed in March. Commissioning underway.

1.1 Project Management 14,432 80.1% 18,013

1.2 Injector 16,196 96.6% 16,760

1.3 Linac 9,783 54.6% 17,932

1.4 Undulator 23,712 62.7% 37,833

1.5 X-ray Transport 10,776 47.8% 22,531

1.6 X-ray Endstations 1,665 17.4% 9,580

1.9 Conventional Facilities 39,572 31.5% 125,535

1.X Controls 13,263 43.0% 30,865

1 LCLS Total Base Cost 129,398 46.4% 279,049

315,000

35,951

24.0%

2 LCLS Other Project Cost 13,805 24.4% 56,689

64,000

7,311

17.0%

LCLS Total Obligations = $173,402K

LCLS Total Project Cost (TPC) 143,203 42.7% 379,000

LCLS Cost/Schedule Performance - February 2007 (AYK$)

WBS

LCLS Total Estimated Cost (TEC)

Available Contingency

Total Budget at Completion

% CompleteWork

Accomplished

% Contingency on ETC

LCLS Total Other Project Costs (OPC)

Available Mgmt Reserve

% Mgmt Reserve on ETC

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 6

Cost & Schedule Performance

• CPI trend: Low-Green. Some benign (Inj / Und Spares), but there are real cost overruns. (Injector Design/Install, RF, MMF, PO Staff).

• SPI Trend: Low-Green. CR impacting SPI and CPI (recent downward trend).

LCLS Cost and Schedule Indices (TEC Only)

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

BCWP/BCWS (SPI)

BCWP/ACWP (CPI)

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 7

Contingency Performance

• Steady, consistent rise in project % complete.

• % complete trend expected to increase with CF work ramping up.

• CF contingency (FCO) versus earned-value is a modest ~7%.

• Contingency based on BAC ‘Cost to Go’.

% Contingency AvaIlable (on remaining work)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Oct-04

Dec-04

Feb-05

Apr-05

Jun-05

Aug-05

Oct-05

Dec-05

Feb-06

Apr-06

Jun-06

Aug-06

Oct-06

Dec-06

Feb-07

% Complete

Cont/ETC

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 8

LCLS Estimate at Complete

•EAC includes all remaining work, overruns, potential credits / liens and corrections for mischarges.

•EAC degraded due to funding uncertainties over the past three months.

1.1 Project Management 18,013 18,858 844

1.2 Injector 16,760 20,385 3,626

1.3 Linac 17,932 21,112 3,180

1.4 Undulator 37,833 40,209 2,376

1.5 X-ray Transport 22,531 23,714 1,183

1.6 X-ray Endstations 9,580 9,456 -124

1.9 Conventional Facilities 125,535 126,536 1,001

1.X LCLS Controls 30,865 32,658 1,792

1 LCLS Total Base Cost 279,049 292,927 13,878

LCLS Total Estimated Cost 315,000 315,000

Contingency 35,951 22,073

AYK$

Remaining Work (EAC - BCWP) 151,434

Outstanding Phase-funded Awards 82,615Outstanding Phase-funded CF Awards (Includes A/E, CM/GC and Trade Subcontracts) 65,766 9,865 15.0%

Outstanding Phase-funded Technical Awards 16,849 842 5.0%

Remaining Uncommitted Work 68,819 11,365 16.5%

Estimate at Completion ($K)

Budget at Completion ($K)

Variance ($K)

At Completion

Contingency Based on EAC

WBS

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 9

6-mo Back/Forward L3 Milestones

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 10

LCLS ScheduleLCLS Integrated Schedule

Turner Contract Schedule Approved.100% Resource/Cost Loaded (>95% using trade input)Early-occupancy” dates acceptable and folded into LCLS P3 schedule.

CP - Und Hall E.O. – install – FEL commission – Photons in FEH Total project float to CD-4; 131 working days (~6-1/2months)Working to recover recent procurement delays for upcoming shutodwn Near CP – Undulator vacuum system, Undulator testing

Schedule IssuesConstruction schedule is critical path.

Delays in civil construction (tunneling coordination, utilities, weather)Track Turner EV in LCLS PMCS, site walk validation, OAC meetings

Equipment installation schedule is critical path. (RM Boyce talk)BTH-NEH equipment installation must be well-planned

CR uncertainty required a hold procurements in Project Office. Installation reviews for FY07 shutdown and BTH-NEH installation.

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 11

Procurement planning in decent shape

Major LCLS Procurements to be Awarded (~$31.0M)

19%

3%

9%

13%22%

12%

10%

12%

Controls

Laser

Linac

UN (ANL)

XT (LLNL)

XES

CF

D-B Install

•Procurement cell (8 staff)

•Tracking APPs, FCOs, CORs, and Crit. Proc.

•LCLS-BSD-SSO meet regularly for good coordination.

•B. Miller reducing on-site presence

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 12

Technical specs continue to mature

LCLS Specs

• Open ICD’s•XTOD-LUSI•XES-LUSI•XES-CT

• Most open requirements are in photon area.

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 13

Risk registry identifies key project risks

Management 24 20 4 Contingency, Cost Control, Installation, Integration, Controls Management

Injector 13 13 0 Design, Procure, Construct phase is 100% Complete.

Linac 5 5 0Undulator 29 26 3 Undulator Motion, Vacuum Chamber, RF BPMs

X-Ray, Transport, Optics & Diagnostics

14 11 3 User Requirements, Mirror Design and Procurements

X-Ray Endstations 5 3 2 Procurement and Scope UncertaintiesConventional Facilities 30 20 10 Tunneling, Linac Legacies, Utilities, CF and

UTR Staffing, Turner Management and Legal Total 120 98 22

CommentsProject System Total Risks Identified

Risks Retired Risks Open

• The Risk Registry is now ‘owned’ by the LCLS System Managers.•Better uniformity in assessing risks across the project•Greater visibility with senior management (reviewed monthly)•Better execution of resources (FTE’s & $$$) to handle the risks.

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 14

Project Management IssuesTurner CM/GC contract

Still have open issues with Turner. Additional partnering sessions may improve relations. Stay up with FCO’s, RFI’s and trade correspondence

Directed Baseline ChangeFY07 ~$114M (peak funding year), ~$8M less than planned

Restore funding in FY2009. Key goals:Maintain civil construction, technical procurements under contract.Maintain core staff an ANL, LLNL and SLACFull Injector – BC1 commissioning plans

CD-4a ~Mar-Jun 2009 soft X-ray science in Near HallCD-4b ~Mar2010 hard X-ray science in Far HallRebaseline cover extended schedule, escalation, army costs

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 15

‘Top-down’ projection of revised baseline

LCLS Rebaseline Funding Profile (TPC = $406M, TEC = $338M, OPC = $68M)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Prior Yr FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

AY

M$ Ops

OPCTEC

FY09 fundingTEC = $30.5M XT, XE Proc + Install, Constr staff, POPre-Ops = $16.0M, BTH-NEH Commission, Physics Support, Pow er, etc.Ops = $9.0M, supports ~6-mo NEH Science, ~500 hours operations

FY10 fundingTEC = $7.4M Complete Install, Constr staff, POPre-Ops = $12.5M, XT, XE, FEH Commission, Physics Support, Pow er, etc.Ops = $13.0M, supports 6-mo NEH and FEH Operations, 1000 hours operations

FY11 fundingOps = $27.3M, Full LCLS operations

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 16

Project Management Issues

Estimate At Complete shows contingency tight.~16.5% on commitments to go.Track performance on commitments and FCO’s.Timely closing of control accounts on labor.

Hire Deputy Controls Manager ASAPRecent offer did not converge. Still interviewing.

EVM CertificationSurveillance review Feb12 with J. O’Hearn (LBNL).Scheduling OECM visit for certification in near future.

End game planningInstallation / Integration must be well-plannedRebaseline will optimize segue into operations.

Mark Reichanadter

LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu

April 16-17, 2007 17

Summary

LCLS continues to make steady progressTPC/TEC 46%/43% complete. Milestone performance is good.~All beam path civil contracts awarded or in hand. CLOC removed.Cost and schedule contingencies adequate for stage of the project.

Contingency on EAC will be managed carefully.Remaining cost risk related to schedule, labor overruns or FCO’s

Staffing in all areas is adequate (except Controls Manager).Critical path and obligation planning understood, being optimized.

Turner management and safety performance is primary concern. Project staff making plans for presenting a revised cost and schedule baseline to address reduction in FY07 funding.