W.J. Foyt [email protected] LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 1 Project Management W. J. Foyt Project Scope Timeline Cost Estimate

W.J. [email protected]

LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007Project Management 1

Project ManagementW. J. Foyt

Project ManagementW. J. Foyt

Project ScopeTimelineCost EstimateRisk/ContingencyStaffingProject Controls ProcurementCD-1 DocumentationIssuesSummary

Project ScopeTimelineCost EstimateRisk/ContingencyStaffingProject Controls ProcurementCD-1 DocumentationIssuesSummary



Project ScopeProject Scope

Work breakdown structure –WBS 1.1 Project ManagementWBS 1.2 X-ray Pump/Probe (XPP)WBS 1.3 Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI)WBS 1.4 X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS)WBS 1.5 DiagnosticsWBS 1.6 Controls & Data SystemsWBS 2.0 Other Project Costs

Work breakdown structure –WBS 1.1 Project ManagementWBS 1.2 X-ray Pump/Probe (XPP)WBS 1.3 Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI)WBS 1.4 X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS)WBS 1.5 DiagnosticsWBS 1.6 Controls & Data SystemsWBS 2.0 Other Project Costs




Scope definition –LUSI project consists of three x-ray instruments (XPP, CXI and XCS), associated diagnostics, controls & data systems and project management. Priority – CXI and XPP to be baselined (CD-2a) in Dec. 2007.These instruments to be capable of producing science when LCLS operational. This will be LUSI’s CD-4a.3rd instrument (XCS) to be baselined at CD-2b. 3 instruments to be complete at CD-4b.

Scope definition –LUSI project consists of three x-ray instruments (XPP, CXI and XCS), associated diagnostics, controls & data systems and project management. Priority – CXI and XPP to be baselined (CD-2a) in Dec. 2007.These instruments to be capable of producing science when LCLS operational. This will be LUSI’s CD-4a.3rd instrument (XCS) to be baselined at CD-2b. 3 instruments to be complete at CD-4b.




Key performance parameters –CD-4 will be staged: two partial instruments at CD-4a (Feb.’10), three complete instruments at CD-4b (Mar.’12)CD–4a:

CXI operational with detector, diagnostics, and controls & data systemsXPP operational with shared laser system, detector (1st article), diagnostics and controls & data systems

CD-4b:CXI operational with compressor, detector, particle injector and full diagnostics, and controls & data systemsXPP operational with dedicated laser, detector, off-set monochromator and full diagnostics and controls & data systems XCS operational with detector, optics, sample environment and full diagnostics and controls & data systems

Complete instrument parameter list in PPEP (5.1)

Key performance parameters –CD-4 will be staged: two partial instruments at CD-4a (Feb.’10), three complete instruments at CD-4b (Mar.’12)CD–4a:

CXI operational with detector, diagnostics, and controls & data systemsXPP operational with shared laser system, detector (1st article), diagnostics and controls & data systems

CD-4b:CXI operational with compressor, detector, particle injector and full diagnostics, and controls & data systemsXPP operational with dedicated laser, detector, off-set monochromator and full diagnostics and controls & data systems XCS operational with detector, optics, sample environment and full diagnostics and controls & data systems

Complete instrument parameter list in PPEP (5.1)



TimelineTimeline

Major events -Major events -Aug. 2005 CD-0

Feb. 2006 Detector MOU - BNL

July 2007 CD-1

Nov. 2007 Split & Delay MOU - DESY

Dec. 2007 CD-2a

Jan. 2008 Particle Inj. MOU - LLNL

July 2008 CD-3a

Nov. 2008 Split & Delay Rec’d

May 2009 XPP Detector Rec’d

Oct. 2009 CD- 2b

Nov. 2009 Particle Inj. Rec’d

Feb. 2010 CD-4a

Mar. 2010 CD-3b

Sept. 2011 XCS Detector Rec’d

Mar. 2012 CD-4b



Cost EstimateCost Estimate




Funding profile –

Obligation profile –

0.0

3,000.0

6,000.0

9,000.0

12,000.0

15,000.0

PY 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CONTINGENCY

CONTROLS

DIAGNOSTICS

XCS

CXI

XPP

PROJ. MGT

OPC



Details -Details -

Cost Estimate Cost Estimate

LUSI COST ESTIMATE $60,000.0DIRECT $30,586.0

PROJ MGT $3,264.7XPP

7,914.6CXI

6,714.6XCS

5,826.6DIAGNOSTICS 2,329.7CTRLS & DATA SYS 4,535.8

INDIRECT 8,120.0ESCALATION 3,218.8CONTINGENCY 13,175.2OPC 4,900.0

LUSI COST ESTIMATE $60,000.0DIRECT $30,586.0

PROJ MGT $3,264.7XPP

7,914.6CXI

6,714.6XCS

5,826.6DIAGNOSTICS 2,329.7CTRLS & DATA SYS 4,535.8

INDIRECT 8,120.0ESCALATION 3,218.8CONTINGENCY 13,175.2OPC 4,900.0




WBS 2.0 Other Project Costs = $4,900k

Salary/Wage & Fringe 1,224kMS&T 670kDetector R&D 1,812kIndirect Costs 1,194k

WBS 2.0 Other Project Costs = $4,900k

Salary/Wage & Fringe 1,224kMS&T 670kDetector R&D 1,812kIndirect Costs 1,194k

OPC4,900K$

MS&T

SALARY, WAGE & FRINGE

DETECTOR R&D

INDIRECT COSTS




Methodology -Costs collected at levels 3, 4 or 5 of the WBS

Labor by type in person weeks (44/yr) Calculated to FY’07$ using modified LCLS ratesBNL detector estimates provided via MOULLNL provided particle injector estimate; MOU in processPurchased materials & services entered by quantity & unit value

Excluding MOUs, quotes/catalog items represent >50% of estimate

Material burden factor (4.8%)Indirect (G&A) 20% calculated on labor & travelContingency based on risk assessment at line item levelEscalation (FY ’07 base year):

Labor escalated @ 4.0% / yearMaterial escalated @ 2.3% / year

Methodology -Costs collected at levels 3, 4 or 5 of the WBS

Labor by type in person weeks (44/yr) Calculated to FY’07$ using modified LCLS ratesBNL detector estimates provided via MOULLNL provided particle injector estimate; MOU in processPurchased materials & services entered by quantity & unit value

Excluding MOUs, quotes/catalog items represent >50% of estimate

Material burden factor (4.8%)Indirect (G&A) 20% calculated on labor & travelContingency based on risk assessment at line item levelEscalation (FY ’07 base year):

Labor escalated @ 4.0% / yearMaterial escalated @ 2.3% / year




Cost estimate worksheet –Cost estimate worksheet –



Risk / ContingencyRisk / Contingency

LUSI risk analysis identifies potential risks by:type - cost, schedule, technicalconsequence - marginal, significant, or criticallikelihood - unlikely, likely, or very likelyIntersection of these elements categorizes the potential risk to the project as either low, medium, or highOf 19 potential risks identified and documented in Risk Registry, 2 are categorized as High:

Delay in FY funding (CR)Staffing difficulties

Risk Registry will be evaluated monthly or when an event requires re-assessment As project becomes mature risk assessment will be more quantitative including estimates of potential costs, schedule impacts, cost of implementing mitigation strategy, and the residual risk.

LUSI risk analysis identifies potential risks by:type - cost, schedule, technicalconsequence - marginal, significant, or criticallikelihood - unlikely, likely, or very likelyIntersection of these elements categorizes the potential risk to the project as either low, medium, or highOf 19 potential risks identified and documented in Risk Registry, 2 are categorized as High:

Delay in FY funding (CR)Staffing difficulties

Risk Registry will be evaluated monthly or when an event requires re-assessment As project becomes mature risk assessment will be more quantitative including estimates of potential costs, schedule impacts, cost of implementing mitigation strategy, and the residual risk.




Risk Matrix utilized in estimate preparation–Risk Matrix utilized in estimate preparation–RISK FACTOR (x only one) X RISK WEIGHT (x only one) X

Existing design & off-the-shelf hardware 1

Minor modifications to an existing design 2

Extensive modifications to an existing design 3

New design, nothing exotic 4 Design or manufacturing 2

New design, different from established designs or existing technology 6 Design & manufacturing 4

New design, requires some R&D, but does not advance the state of the art 8

New design, devlopment of new technology that advances the state of the art 10

New design, way beyond the state of the art. 15

Off-the-shelf or catalog item 1

Vendor quote from established drawings 2

Vendor quote with some design sketches 3

In-house estimate based on previous similar experience 4 Material cost or labor rate 1

In-house estimate for item with minimal experience but related to exisiting capabilities 6 Material cost & labor rate 2

In-house estimate for item with minimal experience & minimal in-house capability 8

Top-down estimate from analogous programs 10

Engineering judgement 15

No schedule impact on any other item 2 Same for all 1

Delays completion of noncritical path subsytem item 4 Same for all 1

Delays completion of critical path subsytem item 8 Same for all 1SC

HED

ULE

TEC

HN

ICA

LC

OST




Application of Risk Matrix & contingency development–Application of Risk Matrix & contingency development–




Contingency – is developed utilizing a risk analysis at the lowest level of the WBS. An algorithm sums the technical, cost and schedule risk multiplied by the weight of the occurrence.

Contingency – is developed utilizing a risk analysis at the lowest level of the WBS. An algorithm sums the technical, cost and schedule risk multiplied by the weight of the occurrence.




Project contingency –Project contingency –



StaffingStaffing

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

PE

RS

ON

YE

AR

S

07 08 09 10 11 12FISCAL YEAR

LUSI PROJECT STAFFING

Technical Support Staff

Software Development

Engrg/Design/Drafting

Scientific

Management

Other Project Costs



Project ControlsProject Controls

LUSI utilizes existing LCLS EVMS, policies, procedures and project controls staff On-site EVMS training for Project staff planned1st two instruments to be baselined in Dec.’07Earned Value (EV) reporting begins in FY 08.BNL (Detectors) and LLNL (Injector) will report EV against approved baseline schedules

LUSI utilizes existing LCLS EVMS, policies, procedures and project controls staff On-site EVMS training for Project staff planned1st two instruments to be baselined in Dec.’07Earned Value (EV) reporting begins in FY 08.BNL (Detectors) and LLNL (Injector) will report EV against approved baseline schedules



Project ControlsProject Controls

Managing the Baseline –Prior to presenting a Baseline Change Request (BCR) to the Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB), the request will be reviewed by LUSI management. This review will include:

Background leading to the requestExtent of the problemProposed solutionOther solutions consideredStakeholders review (System Managers, QA, ES&H, RM Coordinator)Impact of the BCR

Will there be a technical impactWhat resources are affectedWill this require a draw on contingencyWhat milestones, if any, are impactedIntegrated Schedule Analysis

Impact of not approving this BCRAffected drawings, parts or requirements

LUSI BCR process detailed in PPEP (6.0)

Managing the Baseline –Prior to presenting a Baseline Change Request (BCR) to the Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB), the request will be reviewed by LUSI management. This review will include:

Background leading to the requestExtent of the problemProposed solutionOther solutions consideredStakeholders review (System Managers, QA, ES&H, RM Coordinator)Impact of the BCR

Will there be a technical impactWhat resources are affectedWill this require a draw on contingencyWhat milestones, if any, are impactedIntegrated Schedule Analysis

Impact of not approving this BCRAffected drawings, parts or requirements

LUSI BCR process detailed in PPEP (6.0)



ProcurementProcurement

LUSI is utilizing LCLS procurement cellAdvanced Procurement Plans (APP) being developed for all procurements on the critical path or with an order value >25k$ APP provides rolling 6 month window of planned procurement activityLUSI administration will monitor all phases of procurement

LUSI is utilizing LCLS procurement cellAdvanced Procurement Plans (APP) being developed for all procurements on the critical path or with an order value >25k$ APP provides rolling 6 month window of planned procurement activityLUSI administration will monitor all phases of procurement



CD -1 DocumentationCD -1 Documentation

Documentation required for CD-1 approval –(documentation prepared for Jan. review updated to reflect action item)

Documentation required for CD-1 approval –(documentation prepared for Jan. review updated to reflect action item)

Conceptual Design Report published July 2007

Design Review Report issued July 2007

Acquisition Strategy draft released June 2007

Prel. Project Execution Plan draft released June 2007

Risk Management Plan/Assessment issued June 2007

Prel. Security Vulnerability Assessment issued Dec. 2006

Prel. Hazard Analysis Report issued July 2007

Quality Assurance Program – LUSI Quality Implementing Procedure issued June 2007

Value Management Plan issued May 2007



IssuesIssues

A Continuing Resolution (CR) in FY ‘08 would impact schedule. With minimal carry forward and a projected burn rate of ~460k$/mo, LUSI could manage the 1st qtr of FY ’08 by withholding the balance of FY ’07 and delaying FY ’08 detector funding. Maintaining the detector schedule through 1st qtr would require an additional 650k$ in FY 07.Potential CRs in the out years should be manageable without significant impact to the project schedule due to the funding profile.

A Continuing Resolution (CR) in FY ‘08 would impact schedule. With minimal carry forward and a projected burn rate of ~460k$/mo, LUSI could manage the 1st qtr of FY ’08 by withholding the balance of FY ’07 and delaying FY ’08 detector funding. Maintaining the detector schedule through 1st qtr would require an additional 650k$ in FY 07.Potential CRs in the out years should be manageable without significant impact to the project schedule due to the funding profile.



SummarySummary

Input from internal and external reviews have proven invaluable.Action item from Jan. 2007 review was resolved on schedule and plan is being worked to meet or exceed requirement.All recommendations from Jan. 2007 review have been responded to.LUSI staff has sharpened its plan and is prepared to deliver world class instruments on time and within budget.

Input from internal and external reviews have proven invaluable.Action item from Jan. 2007 review was resolved on schedule and plan is being worked to meet or exceed requirement.All recommendations from Jan. 2007 review have been responded to.LUSI staff has sharpened its plan and is prepared to deliver world class instruments on time and within budget.

Documents

W.J. Foyt [email protected] LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 1 Project Management W. J. Foyt Project Scope Timeline Cost Estimate