Report from ILC GlobalGroup 5: Cost and Engineering (Updates since Snowmass)

Report from ILC GlobalGroup 5: Cost and Engineering

(Updates since Snowmass)

Wilhelm Bialowons, Peter Garbincius and Tetsuo Shidara · GDE

December 8, 2005

GDE Global Design Effort Meeting · INFN LNF Frascati · December 7 to 9, 2005 1

GDE Global Design Effort Meeting · INFN LNF Frascati · December 7 to 9, 2005

• Introduction• Summary of GG5 Cost & Engineering

Establishing ILC standardsCost & schedule methodologyIndustrial issues

• Update since SnowmassFirst ideas of cost and schedule methodologySuggestion for project and engineering tools

• Summary

Outline

2


• Snowmass GlobalGroup 5 recommendations are very ambitious

• The GDE Cost Engineers are trying to find a practical and pragmatic way, which will be accepted by the three regions, to speed up the process to obtain the cost estimate within the next year

• We are presenting a first idea which will be further developed up to beginning of next year

• Has to be confirmed by the GDE Design and Cost Board and the Executive Committee

Introduction

3


• Establishing ILC internal Standards is important• Near-term actions

– Choose an EDMS system– Choose cost and schedule software– Establish an engineering standards group– Choose common engineering tools (e.g. CAD

system)– Define the cost & schedule methodology for ILC– Develop parametric models to guide the design

• Study other large international projects and LEARN !

* Presented by Robert Kephart on August 19, 2005 at Snowmass

Summary of GG5*

4


EDMS Systems

5

Director’s corner 8 September 2005

There are many such EDMS systems out there, including ones developed in some of our high energy laboratories (CERN, DESY and Fermilab) and others that have been developed commercially and are broadly used in large engineering operations. Selecting which system of collaboration and engineering tools are right for the ILC is a complex decision. In order to help us select a system for the GDE, I have appointed a committee of experts, who have much relevant experience, including familiarity with the EDMS systems developed in our high energy physics laboratories. The committee that will be charged to make a recommendation to me consists of Tom Markiewicz (SLAC), John Ferguson (CERN), Lars Hagge (DESY), Rich Stanek (Fermilab), Nobu Toge (KEK) and Harry Weerts (Argonne). Tom Markiewicz will serve as chair. This committee will create a special web page for this task on our ILC website, so you will be able to follow and give inputs as their work unfolds.


Cost & schedule methodology

• Need to agree on a standard method for the “Basis of estimate” for the ILC project.

– Use this method to identify the “core cost” of the project– Core cost = best guess of the cost of all materials, labor, and

resources the Project will need to be built on an agreed upon schedule (50/50 that cost will be this number)

– An all inclusive estimate. “Public” with nothing hidden or assumed– Industrial costs included, but encrypted in a way that the numbers

will not be useful for “rigging” subsequent bids– No “hidden” contingency or risk management funds

Summary of GG5

6


Cost & schedule methodology

• Regions can then “interpret” these numbers in the way the regional funding agencies are used to seeing– Example: increase task prices or add

contingency to manage risk– Adjust labor costs as appropriate for the region,

etc.

Summary of GG5

7


Cost & schedule methodology• Agreeing on how to estimate the “core” costs is not enough

– To estimate the cost & schedule, we must also have a “model” for how the project will proceed

– Example: Regional funding agencies might force production of klystrons in 3 regions (3 orders of 200 klystrons will cost more than 1 order of 600)

– Example: A cryogenic plant built in Japan may be much more than one built by the same company that just built them for the LHC

– Make a model of how the project might proceed – Get regional funding agencies to endorse this model early

in the game (adjust as required)

Summary of GG5

8

General MethodologyCreate Technical

Requirements Document

Develop Technical Conceptual Design

Create the WBSEstablish C/S Coordinator for each Work Package

Establish rules for C/S & define assumptions

Set up tools and format for data input

Develop the RLS and Mgm’t Docs

Estimate Cost & Schedule and

create the BOE

ReviewNo

Yes

Fun Starts

C/S = Cost & ScheduleWBS = Work Breakdown StructureBOE = Basis of EstimateRLS = Resource Loaded Schedule

Interpret this CoreCost in each Region


First ideas of cost and schedule methodology• ‘Reliable’ cost estimate for the Reference Design

Report (RDR) by the end of 2006• One common estimate of the ‘value’ and labor with

(not too) different cost for the four sample sites• Definition of the ‘value’ (adopting the ITER model)

– Cost estimate on the basis of a (virtual) world wide call for tender as competition (world market price if exist)

– Best price for best quality – Two vendors for same package for risk minimization– Parametric cost estimate for scaling (i.e. cost improvement)– Different parametric cost estimate for design to cost for ‘small’

changes (for large changes redo of the project)

Updates since Snowmass

10


First ideas of cost and schedule methodology• ‘Definition of the ‘value’ (continued)

– No tax is included– No escalation (fixed date i.e. January 2, 2006) – No contingency but with risk analysis– One currency (fixed exchange rates)– External labor is included in the value– Internal (institute) labor will be estimated in man years– Site dependent cost due to real reasons is taken into account (i.e.

different geology and landscape, availability of electrical power and cooling water, different cycling rate of electrical power etc.)

– Site depending cost due to formal reasons are not taken into account (International treaty above national laws)

– No intellectual property rights


11


First ideas of cost and schedule methodology• The cost estimate below level one will not be public• One common design (including the footprint)

– Unavoidable differences due to physical reasons – Common set of rules, codes and laws which fits to the

regional sets if the cost impact is negligible– Use of ILC standards if necessary or– Adoption after site decision with additional cost– Additional regional options are allowed (i.e. use of existing

machines or substantial cost savings)


12


Standard project and engineering tools• Standard project tools

– We are suggesting to start with SLAC WBS tool, MS Excel for (parametric) cost estimate and MS Project for schedule

– For crosscheck structure, sheets and schedule could be published without cost numbers

– Adiabatic switch over to professional tools (Cobra from Welcom together with Primavera are promising (Object and data base orientated) but have to be further investigated)

• Standard engineering tools– One high-end 3D-CAD for the design including the civil

engineering and common models excepting the foot print– Start with different tools (DESY makes a very first layout for an

ILC twin tunnel design with IDEAS)– Adiabatic switch over to common tools and models


13


Parametric Cost Estimate

16


Parametric Cost Estimate

17

WorkBreakdownStructure WBS


High-end 3D-CAD Modeling


High-end 3D-CAD Modeling



• First ideas of cost and schedule methodology• WBS will developed on the basis of the TDR

and US cold option study• Parametric models will be developed• Strawman baseline will be used for first round• Next steps

– More detailed design, requirements, parts list etc.– Definition of work packages– Industrial studies for cost drivers

• Suggestion are welcome and essential

Summary

21

Documents

Report from ILC GlobalGroup 5: Cost and Engineering (Updates since Snowmass)