Princeton University External Independent Review (EIR) of NCSX March 13-14, 2008 Cost and Schedule

Strykowsky 1PU External Independent Review March 13-14, 2008

Princeton UniversityExternal Independent Review (EIR)

of

NCSX

March 13-14, 2008

Cost and Schedule

Ron Strykowsky


Topics

• Cost, Schedule and Contingency Development Process

• Basis and Assumptions

• Contingency

• Cost Summary

• Schedule Summary

• Cost Profile

• Staffing

• EIR Summary Assessment


Process of Establishing a New Project Baseline

• Job Managers Reviewed and Updated WAF’s (realistic not best case)•Additional scope per August Lehman review recommendations•Critically reviewed all job estimates to reflect current design maturity & experiences to date

• Internal Engineering Department Review for Critical and Large Job Estimates• Updated overhead and labor rates• Updated resource Loaded Schedule

•Focus on critical path optimization•Off critical path scope (maximize free float)•Fit Program funding targets

• Expanded and quantified project risks• Contingency analysis process (probabilistic approach)• March 13-14 PU Review• Follow-up actions complete data processing and analysis• Final Updates, Packaging, Documentation• Submit New Baseline Proposal to OFES March 26• Office of Science Review April 8-10• Submit Baseline Change Proposal to OECM April 21• External Independent Review May 20-22

•The WAF’s are the basis of all estimates•The resource loaded schedule is the master schedule and cost estimate data base


Refined Estimating packages (table 1 of 6)

Table 1 - Work Approval Form



Table 2 - Design



Materials and Procurements



Fabrication and Assembly



Estimate Uncertainty and Risk



Basis of estimate


Key Planning Basis and Assumptions

• ETC forward from February 1st, 2008• Cost Incurred from April 1, 2003 (MIE project inception)

• Every Job Reviewed, most re-estimated• GPP and Infrastructure not part of MIE project. (Progress coordinated and

tracked by Erik Perry)

• Program BA constraints • Institutional Overhead Rates (CAS Compliant)

• Standard work week 8 hrs/day 5 days/week (Exceptions: Field period assy

(sta3 FPA#3, station 5, and Final Machine assy make use of select 2 shift operations). No

overtime or Saturday work planned.

• Holidays• Contingency Allocation by fiscal year (commensurate with risk & cost

uncertainty)

• Task durations - more detail on critical path and near term


• Based on deliverables and/or tasks identified by the job managers• Input varied from resource loaded schedules to deliverables and resource

estimate only

• Established tasks, internal milestones (PDR’s, FDR’s, contract awards)

• Task durations based on realistic resource loadings & crew sizes

• Logically linked (2,170 tasks, 2900 individual resource loadings)

• Non-critical path tasks scheduled within BA constraints with free

float to critical path

• Schedule iterated based on• Optimizing the critical path. (use of 2 shift operations, floor space for

assembly tasks, metrology/back-office support, crane utilization studies)

• Maximizing free float for non critical path tasks (ie procurements)

• Front end loading system designs

• Annual contingency set-asides

• Resource leveling exercises to optimize techs and key engineers (did not

impact critical path or cost)

Scheduling - Process


Cost Basis - Resource types and Rates

• Resource Types, labor and overhead rates

Overhead and escalation rates

Labor Skills (hourly rates)

Non-Labor Resource


Contingency - Process

• Structured process - probabilistic risk analysis based (Monte Carlo Analysis)

• Objective was to assess and analyze all areas of uncertainty and risk that

might affect the cost and schedule estimates

• Project Risk Registry key input (grown from 36 to 88 risks & monitored monthly)

• Job Manager and Project Team input

• Cost and schedule contingencies quantified

• Contingency Allowance Range - 90% and 80% confidence levels analyzed

Chris Gruber to provide comprehensive analysis


Contingency – Results

•Need to finalize our contingency proposal going forward•Use 90% confidence case for preliminary analysis being presented


Results –Cost Reconciliation

NCSX Project TEC Budget Reconciliation

WBS

Baseline (ECP-31 DOE

Directed re-baseline April

2005)EAC JUNE

2007Increase from

April 2005ETC from 2/1/08

Proposed Baseline EAC MARCH 2008

Increase from June 2007

Total increase

from April 2005

12 Vacuum Vessel $9,531 $9,909 $378 4% $1,356 $11,099 $1,190 12% $1,568 16%13 Conventional Coils $4,790 $6,686 $1,896 40% $4,472 $8,302 $1,616 24% $3,512 73%14 Modular Coils $28,091 $40,447 $12,356 44% $2,636 $40,808 $361 1% $12,716 45%15 Structures $1,413 $1,602 $189 13% $1,569 $2,119 $517 32% $706 50%16 Coil Services $1,140 $864 -$276 -24% $1,141 $1,144 $280 32% $4 0%17 Cryostat & Base Support

Structure$1,361 $1,215 -$146 -11% $1,069 $1,558 $343 28% $197 14%

18 Field Period Assembly $5,430 $13,573 $8,143 150% $14,564 $20,104 $6,531 48% $14,674 270%19 Stellarator Core Mgmt & Integr $2,752 $3,748 $996 36% $2,259 $4,576 $828 22% $1,824 66%1 Stellarator Core $54,508 $78,045 $23,536 43% $29,066 $89,710 $11,665 15% $35,201 65%2 Auxiliary Systems $783 $589 -$194 -25% $828 $1,176 $587 100% $393 50%3 Diagnostics $1,143 $1,671 $528 46% $815 $1,946 $274 16% $802 70%4 Electrical Power Systems $3,301 $3,145 -$156 -5% $2,674 $3,289 $144 5% -$12 0%5 I&C Systems $2,050 $1,169 -$881 -43% $2,097 $2,130 $961 82% $80 4%6 Facility Systems $691 $1,403 $712 103% $1,838 $1,862 $459 33% $1,171 169%7 Test Cell Prep & Machine $4,413 $8,914 $4,501 102% $8,586 $9,294 $380 4% $4,881 111%81 Project Management and

Oversight$4,509 $7,714 $3,206 71% $5,568 $9,593 $1,879 24% $5,085 113%

82 Project Engineering $4,885 $11,198 $6,314 129% $7,631 $14,131 $2,933 26% $9,246 189%84 Project Physics $470 $470 $0 0% $470 $0 0% $0 0%85 Integrated Systems Testing $1,189 $765 -$424 -36% $771 $771 $6 1% -$418 -35%8 Project Oversight & Support $11,052 $20,147 $9,095 82% $13,970 $24,965 $4,818 24% $13,913 126%

Allocations $1,577 $2,874 $1,296 82% $1,867 $3,659 $785 27% $2,082 132%

Subtotal $79,521 $117,957 $38,436 48% $61,741 $138,031 $20,074 17% $58,509 74%

Contingency $12,804 ### $14,380 28% on ETC $23,670 38% on ETC (90% confidence)DCMA $75 $75 $75

TOTAL $92,401 $132,412 $40,011 43% $61,741 $161,776 $29,364 22% $69,375 75%

Planned Finish = Feb-09 Jan-11 23 mo. Increase Dec-11 10.4 mo. Increase 33.5 mo. IncreaseCD-4 = Jul-09 Dec-11 29 mo. Increase Jul-13 18.8 mo. Increase 47.8 mo. IncreaseSchedule Contingency = 5 mo. 11 mo. 19.4 mo. (90% confidence)


Cost growth by category

August 2007 (ETC from

5/1/07)

March 2008 (ETC from

5/1/07)Increase ($K)

CorrectionsDesign Maturity

Risk Reduction

New Scope

Schedule Stretch

12 Vacuum Vessel $156 $1,346 $1,190 100%13 Conventional Coils $3,462 $5,077 $1,615 100%14 Modular Coils $6,246 $6,608 $397 50% 50%15 Structures $1,262 $1,779 $517 50% 25% 25%16 Coil Services $861 $1,141 $280 100%17 Cryostat & Base Suprt Structure $784 $1,127 $343 100%18 Field Period Assembly $10,104 $16,636 $6,522 32% 23% 16% 10% 19%19 Stellarator Core Mgmt & Integr $1,620 $2,444 $824 45% 55%

2 Auxiliary Systems $241 $828 $587 100%3 Diagnostics $717 $991 $274 100%4 Electrical Power Systems $2,425 $2,569 $144 100%5 I&C Systems $1,136 $2,097 $961 100%6 Facility Systems $1,379 $1,838 $459 50% 50%7 Test Cell Prep & Machine Assy $7,951 $8,331 $380 36% 64%

81 Project Management and Oversight

$5,795 $8,460 $2,665 70% 30%82 Project Engineering $5,949 $8,880 $2,931 30% 10% 25% 15% 20%85 Integrated Systems Testing $765 $771 $6 100%

$50,853 $70,924 $20,096 18% 15% 20% 30% 17%New Scope,

30%

Risk Reduction,

20%

Design Maturity, 15%

Corrections, 18%

Schedule Stretch, 17%


Results – Cost by RLM and Job


Results – Cost by RLM and Job (con’t)


Results – Cost by RLM and Job (con’t)

LOE NON-LOE

$ % $ % ETC (bottoms-up) from 2/1/08

WBS 81 7,435 100% - 0% 7,435

WBS 82 7,342 96% 289 4% 7,631

WBS 19 2,255 100% - 0% 2,255

WBS 18/7 Field supervision,oversight & support

7,494 100% 0% 7,489

Balance 3,894 11% 33,027 89% 36,927

TOTAL 28,420 46% 33,317 54% 61,737

LOE budgeting applies mainly to management, supervision, & technical support functions-basis of estimates shown in WAF’s.


Results – Program BA Profile

FUNDING PROFILE2003-07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

target = 16.6 20.3 20.8 38.7 52.3 52.8

NCSX Program by Activity 16.7 20.3 20.8 38.7 57.6 52.8 Research 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.5 16.5 17.0 TEC EAC

MIE Project 74.2 16.0 19.6 20.1 21.6 10.2 - 161.8

Operations - - - 14.6 30.9 35.8 Facility Ops - - - 4.5 11.0 22.8

Facility Upgrades - - - 9.0 13.3 9.0 Diagnostic Upgradess - - - 1.1 6.6 4.0

MIE Project by Institution 72.5 16.0 19.6 20.1 21.6 10.2 - contingency included in total line - 2.5 3.7 9.4 8.2

PPPL 1.6 14.1 18.2 19.1 20.7 4.7 - ORNL 0.2 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.2

carryover

•Delayed research start•Schedule requires further iteration to improve contingency distribution


Results – Schedule (Summary)

•Critical path through field period assembly, final machine assembly and start-up operations•Major procurement of components as well as ancillary system have ample schedule margin (months off critical path)

Stellarator Core Critical Procurements Schedule Margin

job Procurement

Estimated Fabrication Lead Time

Months off critical path

schedule margin

1260 Neutral Beam Transition Ducts 12 10 83%1270 Heater control system 12 7.4 62%1361 TF Coils (10 left) 7.5 23.2 309%1352 PF Coils 16.5 14 85%1354 Trim Coils 6 10 167%1353 Central Solenoid Support structure 6 7 117%1550 Coil Support Structure 5 7 140%1451 Last Modular Coil (3 reminaining) 8 5 63%1601 Coil Services -Lead stubs & LN manifolds 4.3 9.3 216%1601 Coil Services -Cables 6 21 350%1752 Base Support Structure 8 8.1 + 101%1751 Cryostat 9.3 8.1+ 87%1803 Station 5 Fixtures 5 10 200%1803 Station 6 Fixtures 7 9 129%


Results – Milestones

• Milestones provide good metric of schedule progress• Distribution of milestones reasonable• Must still set DOE dates by adding schedule contingency


Results – Resource Loaded Schedule

Resource skill and hours (from

WAF)

Cost (= hours x rates)

Total float in working days (~1 month = 21 days)Planning assumption: 1

shift per day or 2 shifts per day


Staffing Requirements- Technicians

• Staffing requirements achievable and being satisfied

TFTR D&D manpower profile for comparison


Future needs achievable with new hires to provide depth & backup

TOTAL DESIGNERS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

FEB FY08

APR FY08

JUN FY08

AUG FY08

OCT FY09

DEC FY09

FEB FY09

APR FY09

JUN FY09

AUG FY09

OCT FY10

DEC FY10

FEB FY10

APR FY10

JUN FY10

AUG FY10

OCT FY11

DEC FY11

FEB FY11

APR FY11

JUN FY11

AUG FY11

OCT FY12

staff as of August 2007 = 8

current staff = 10

TOTAL EA Engineers

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

FEB F

Y08

APR F

Y08

JUN F

Y08

AUG F

Y08

OCT F

Y09

DEC F

Y09

FEB F

Y09

APR F

Y09

JUN F

Y09

AUG F

Y09

OCT F

Y10

DEC F

Y10

FEB F

Y10

APR F

Y10

JUN F

Y10

AUG F

Y10

OCT F

Y11

DEC F

Y11

FEB F

Y11

APR F

Y11

JUN F

Y11

AUG F

Y11

OCT F

Y12

TOTAL Electrical ENGINEERS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

FEB F

Y08

MAR F

Y08

APR F

Y08

MAY F

Y08

JUN F

Y08

JUL

FY08

AUG F

Y08

SEP F

Y08

OCT F

Y09

NO

V FY09

DEC F

Y09

JAN F

Y09

FEB F

Y09

MAR F

Y09

APR F

Y09

MAY F

Y09

JUN F

Y09

JUL

FY09

AUG F

Y09

SEP F

Y09

OCT F

Y10

NO

V FY10

DEC F

Y10

JAN F

Y10

FEB F

Y10

MAR F

Y10

APR F

Y10

MAY F

Y10

JUN F

Y10

JUL

FY10

AUG F

Y10

SEP F

Y10

OCT F

Y11

NO

V FY11

DEC F

Y11

JAN F

Y11

FEB F

Y11

MAR F

Y11

APR F

Y11

MAY F

Y11

JUN F

Y11

JUL

FY11

AUG F

Y11

SEP F

Y11

OCT F

Y12

NO

V FY12

current staff = 19


TOTAL EA Engineers

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

F

EB

FY

08

M

AR

FY

08

A

PR

FY

08

M

AY

FY

08

JU

N F

Y08

JU

L F

Y08

A

UG

FY

08

S

EP

FY

08

O

CT

FY

09

N

OV

FY

09

D

EC

FY

09

JA

N F

Y09

F

EB

FY

09

M

AR

FY

09

A

PR

FY

09

M

AY

FY

09

JU

N F

Y09

JU

L F

Y09

A

UG

FY

09

S

EP

FY

09

O

CT

FY

10

N

OV

FY

10

D

EC

FY

10

JA

N F

Y10

F

EB

FY

10

M

AR

FY

10

A

PR

FY

10

M

AY

FY

10

JU

N F

Y10

JU

L F

Y10

A

UG

FY

10

S

EP

FY

10

O

CT

FY

11

N

OV

FY

11

D

EC

FY

11

JA

N F

Y11

F

EB

FY

11

M

AR

FY

11

A

PR

FY

11

M

AY

FY

11

JU

N F

Y11

JU

L F

Y11

A

UG

FY

11

S

EP

FY

11

O

CT

FY

12

N

OV

FY

12

current staff = 18


TOTAL FO&M ENGINEERS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

FEB F

Y08

MAR F

Y08

APR F

Y08

MAY F

Y08

JUN F

Y08

JUL

FY08

AUG

FY08

SEP F

Y08

OCT F

Y09

NO

V FY09

DEC F

Y09

JAN F

Y09

FEB F

Y09

MAR F

Y09

APR F

Y09

MAY F

Y09

JUN F

Y09

JUL

FY09

AUG

FY09

SEP F

Y09

OCT F

Y10

NO

V FY10

DEC F

Y10

JAN F

Y10

FEB F

Y10

MAR F

Y10

APR F

Y10

MAY F

Y10

JUN F

Y10

JUL

FY10

AUG

FY10

SEP F

Y10

OCT F

Y11

NO

V FY11

DEC F

Y11

JAN F

Y11

FEB F

Y11

MAR F

Y11

APR F

Y11

MAY F

Y11

JUN F

Y11

JUL

FY11

AUG

FY11

SEP F

Y11

OCT F

Y12

NO

V FY12

TOTAL FO&M ENGINEERS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

FEB F

Y08

MAR F

Y08

APR F

Y08

MAY F

Y08

JUN F

Y08

JUL

FY08

AUG

FY08

SEP F

Y08

OCT F

Y09

NO

V FY09

DEC F

Y09

JAN F

Y09

FEB F

Y09

MAR F

Y09

APR F

Y09

MAY F

Y09

JUN F

Y09

JUL

FY09

AUG

FY09

SEP F

Y09

OCT F

Y10

NO

V FY10

DEC F

Y10

JAN F

Y10

FEB F

Y10

MAR F

Y10

APR F

Y10

MAY F

Y10

JUN F

Y10

JUL

FY10

AUG

FY10

SEP F

Y10

OCT F

Y11

NO

V FY11

DEC F

Y11

JAN F

Y11

FEB F

Y11

MAR F

Y11

APR F

Y11

MAY F

Y11

JUN F

Y11

JUL

FY11

AUG

FY11

SEP F

Y11

OCT F

Y12

NO

V FY12

current staff = 17


Staffing Requirements- Engrs & Designers


Metrology staff

0

2

4

6

8

10

FEB F

Y08

APR F

Y08

JUN F

Y08

AUG F

Y08

OCT F

Y09

DEC F

Y09

FEB F

Y09

APR F

Y09

JUN F

Y09

AUG F

Y09

OCT F

Y10

DEC F

Y10

FEB F

Y10

APR F

Y10

JUN F

Y10

AUG F

Y10

OCT F

Y11

DEC F

Y11

FEB F

Y11

APR F

Y11

JUN F

Y11

AUG F

Y11

OCT F

Y12

ORNL Engrs/Designers

0

2

4

6

8

10

FEB F

Y08

APR F

Y08

JUN F

Y08

AUG F

Y08

OCT F

Y09

DEC F

Y09

FEB F

Y09

APR F

Y09

JUN F

Y09

AUG F

Y09

OCT F

Y10

DEC F

Y10

FEB F

Y10

APR F

Y10

JUN F

Y10

AUG F

Y10

OCT F

Y11

DEC F

Y11

FEB F

Y11

APR F

Y11

JUN F

Y11

AUG F

Y11

OCT F

Y12

Staffing Requirements- ORNL & Metrology


EIR Summary Assessments

1. Resource loaded Schedule• Organized by WBS (refer to WBS and WBS Dictionary)• Resource estimate loading based on detail WAF packages signed

by Job managers. (see detailed WAF packages)• Estimates based on prior experience, vendor quotes, fabrication

estimates, design calculations. Basis of estimates include in WAF’s. (requires analysis and verification of resource loading)

• Task durations based on realistic manpower loadings and crew sizes. Balance of task durations based on reasonable loadings Schedule detail commensurate with schedule criticality (e.g. wbs 18 job 1810. minimum task duration 1 day).

• Proposed baseline BCWS and contingency profile consistent with anticipated funding levels.

• Shows estimate detail and priced cost estimate (see resource loaded schedule)


EIR Summary Assessments (continued)

2. Key Project Cost and Schedule Assumptions

• Standard 8 hour/day 5 day/week work assumed except where 2 shift operations called out in resource loaded schedule. (see slide 10)

• Institutional overhead and labor rates utilized (see slide 11)• Contingency quantified based on estimate uncertainty and risk

using Monte Carlo simulation plus a subjective increment based on project management experience. (see slides 12 & 13 and detailed contingency analysis)

• Contingency distributed annually consistent with needs. (NO -WORK IN PROGRESS).


EIR Summary Assessments (continued)

3. Critical Path

• See critical path plot on wall • See detail Primavera predecessor & successor report for logic

linkages

4. Funding Profile

• Project proposed baseline consistent with preliminary guidance (see slide 17)

5. Work Breakdown Structure

• Resource loaded schedule is organized by WBS (see WBS and WBS Dictionary)


SUMMARY

• Project has followed a disciplined path for updating its cost and

schedule estimates highlighted by;• Formal & consistent basis of estimate

• Independent reviews by PPPL engineering and PU

• Focus on obtaining realistic estimates from job managers

• Project has followed a methodical process for quantifying cost as

well as schedule contingency.

• Project has expanded its risk registry and incorporated into monthly

status review meetings

• Project has proposed a sound baseline cost estimate backed-up by

a resource loaded schedule and detailed estimate basis.

• Completion of data analysis and verification of resource loaded

schedule required to ensure completeness


DETAILED STAFFING BACKUP

Designers



Analysts/Mechanical Engineers (EA)



Electrical and FO&M Engineers



ORNL Engineers/Designers

Documents

Princeton University External Independent Review (EIR) of NCSX March 13-14, 2008 Cost and Schedule