executive session director’s cd-1 follow-up review of the apul project

Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Follow-Up Review

of theAPUL Project

November 2-3, 2009Dean A. Hoffer

Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

202-Nov-2009

Agenda for Exec Session• Charge to Reviewers• Review Agenda• DOE O 413.3 Critical Decision Table• Document Requirements• Technical Design Review Guidance• Cost/Schedule Review Guidance• Reporting Structure• Reviewer Assignments• Cost / Contingency Table• Discussion


302-Nov-2009

ChargeThis charge is for the Committee to conduct a Director’s Follow-up CD-1 Review of the Accelerator Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL), which is a subproject of the Phase I upgrade of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). The project consist of two distinct subprojects, D1 magnets and cold powering systems at interaction regions at points 1 and 5. The implementation of the APUL project is supported by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). As part of this assessment the questions listed in Attachment 1 of this charge should be addressed. Additionally, constructive comments on presentation content, format, and style are also requested. A Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL project was conducted on July 16-17, 2009. That review resulted in 35 recommendations, which may need to be addressed prior to the DOE’s CD-1 Review scheduled for December 1-3, 2009. This review is to assess the actions taken to address the recommendations from the prior review and insure that the project meets the DOE requirements for CD-1. The technical scope of the review was found to be in reasonably good shape, the majority of the concerns were in the areas of cost, schedule and management. The committee is to evaluate conceptual design as part of the independent review and should concentrate on any changes to that design since the last review. Also, evaluate the project’s response to the design related recommendations from the last review.


402-Nov-2009

Charge (continued)The cost, schedule and scope range is to be based on an initial set of documentation such as the following: WBS – Work Breakdown Structure, WBS Dictionary, BOE – Basis of Estimate documentation, risk and contingency analyses, RLS – Resource Loaded Schedule, and time phased funding and cost profiles. The prior review concluded that most of this documentation was not ready for a DOE CD-1. This committee is asked to review and determine if the updated documentation is at the level of quality, completeness, and accuracy for CD-1. As part of this assessment, evaluate the actions taken to address the recommendations from the last review on cost, schedule and management. Furthermore, the committee is asked to review and assess the quality of and comment on the additional formal project management documentation required for CD-1 approval. A targeted Total Project Cost (TPC) cap of $27-29M had been established for APUL. The project is expected to present a cost range that will be at the upper end of that target. The review committee is to evaluate the cost estimate to determine if it is appropriate for the current project scope, is fully supported by the bases of estimate, and provides adequate contingency to mitigate the risks associated with that scope of work. Finally, the committee should present findings, comments, and recommendations at a closeout meeting with APUL’s, Fermilab’s and Brookhaven’s management. A written report will be provided soon after the review.


502-Nov-2009

Charge Attachment #1Technical

Are the requirements that form the basis for the design and engineering phase of the project clearly documented?

Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? Has a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) been developed that includes a clear and concise

description of the alternatives analyzed, the basis for the alternative selected, how the alternative meets the approved mission need?

Has the Project employed value management as early as possible in the project development and design process so recommendations can be included in the planning and implemented without delaying the progress of the project or causing significant rework of completed designs?

Has the Project identified specific standards which components, subsystems and systems will be procured, fabricated, constructed, inspected, and tested?

Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the technical specifications? Is it a reasonable design?

Cost Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost

range and project duration? Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound documented basis and are they

reasonable? Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the work associated with performing

Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities? Does an obligation profile exist and is it within funding guidance?


602-Nov-2009

Charge Attachment #1 (continued)Schedule

Does the Project’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) define the total scope of the project as a product-oriented family tree composed of hardware, software, services, data, facilities and other components?

Is a schedule developed and resource loaded? Are the activity durations reasonable for the assumed resources? Is the schedule duration feasible for the resources assigned to accomplish the tasks? Does the schedule contain appropriate levels of milestones, sufficient quantity of milestones for

tracking progress and do they appear to be achievable? Does the schedule include activities for design reviews, which include assessment of the designs

readiness for procuring prototypes and preproduction materials? Have the activities associated with the Preliminary Design and Final Design been appropriately

identified in the schedule? Management

Is there an appropriate management organization structure in place with the responsibilities defined and documented for the scope of work?

Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost, and schedule baseline?

Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development?

Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? Are there adequate staffing resources available or planned for this effort? Is there a funding plan available or proposed to meet the resource requirements to realize the

project? Has Risk Management been performed which includes risks assessments on each potential design

alternative as a factor in selecting which alternative is to be pursued?


702-Nov-2009

AgendaNovember 2nd EXECUTIVE SESSION – Hermitage (Industrial Center Building 2nd floor East end) 8:00 – 8:45 AM 45 Executive Session D. Hoffer PLENARY SESSION - Hermitage 8:45 – 8:55 AM 10 Welcome S. Holmes 8:55 – 10:10 AM 75 Project Overview P. Wanderer 10:10 – 10:20 AM 10 BREAK 10:20 – 11:20 AM 60 Cold Powering overview S. Feher* 11:20 – 12:20 PM 60 D1 magnets overview M. Anerella 12:30 – 1:30 PM 60 LUNCH BREAKOUT SESSIONS - Afternoon Break for All Sessions is at 3:00 PM D1 MAGNETS – Hermitage (Industrial Center Building 2nd floor East end) 1:30 – 1:50 PM 20 D1 Cost and Schedule M. Anerella 1:50 – 2:10 PM 20 D1 Bases of Estimate M. Anerella 2:10 – 2:30 PM 20 D1 Individual Cold Mass Technical Details J. Schmalzle* 2:30 – 2:50 PM 20 D1 Combined Cold Mass Technical Details S. Plate* 2:50 – 3:10 PM 20 Superconductor Wire and Cable A. Ghosh 3:10 – 3:40 PM 30 Field Quality R. Gupta 3:40 – 4:00 PM 20 Vertical Testing J. Muratore 4:00 – 4:20 PM 20 Cryogenics K.C. Wu*


802-Nov-2009

Agenda (continued)

COLD POWERING – IB3 Conference Room (IB3 2nd floor East end) 1:30 – 1:50 PM 20 Cost & Schedule S. Feher* 1:50 – 2:10 PM 20 Basis of Estimates M. Kaducak 2:10 – 2:40 PM 30 Cooling Scheme T. Peterson 2:40 – 3:00 PM 20 Electrical Scheme & Protection S. Feher (presented by Mike Lamm) 3:00 – 3:40 PM 40 SC Link Concept F. Nobrega 3:40 – 4:40 PM 60 DFX & Current Lead Concept J. Brandt 4:40 – 5:00 PM 20 Testing T. Peterson COST, SCHEDULE AND MANAGEMENT – HQ Conference Room (Industrial Center Building 2nd floor West end) 2:15 – 2:55 PM 40 Project Management Plan (including reviews) P. Wanderer 2:55 – 4:15 PM 80 Cost and Schedule. S. Feher* 4:15 – 4:35 PM 20 Risk M. Kaducak 4:35 – 4:55 PM 20 ES&H, QA, Configuration Management M. Kaducak EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 5:00 – 5:30 PM 30 Subcommittee Working Session – Same Breakout Rooms 5:00 – 7:00 PM 90 Full Committee Executive Session - Hermitage


902-Nov-2009

Agenda (continued)

20-Oct-2009

November 3rd 8:00 – 9:00 AM 60 APUL Response to Committee Questions Hermitage 9:00 – 9:30 AM 30 Executive Discussion Hermitage 9:30 – 12:30 PM Subcommittee Working Session and Report Writing with Working Lunch Hermitage 12:30 – 3:00 PM Committee Dry Run Hermitage 3:00 – 4:00 PM 60 Closeout Presentations Hermitage 4:00 PM Adjourn * Indicates presentation will be done remote (WebEx)

Additional RoomsIB3IB 1 Mezz


1002-Nov-2009

DOE O 413.3Critical

Decision Table


11

CD-1 Documentation• Acquisition Strategy• Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP)• Preliminary Project Management Plan (PMP)• Assumptions Document• Conceptual Design Report (CDR)• Baseline Range and Resource Loaded Schedule• Configuration Management Plan• Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report• Risk Management Plan and Risk Assessment• Value Management Documentation• Quality Assurance Program Documentation

02-Nov-2009


12

Two Parts to the Review

• Technical - Independent Conceptual Design Review

• Cost, Schedule and Project Management Review

02-Nov-2009


13

Technical – Conceptual Design Review

• Design Reviews are performed to determine if a product (drawings, analyses, or specifications) is correct and will perform its intended functions and meet requirements.

• APUL’s technical scope was found to be in reasonably good shape during the July 16-17, 2009. The committee is to evaluate conceptual design as part of the independent review and should concentrate on any changes to that design since the last review.

02-Nov-2009


1402-Nov-2009

Cost/Schedule Review Guidance

Reviewable Estimate must “roll-up” from the lowest level to the total and reviewers must be able to drill down from the top to the lowest level

Credible Basis of estimate must be specified Catalog prices Similar work, where cost is documented Engineering estimates WAG – wild ass guess


1502-Nov-2009

Cost/Schedule Review Guidance (Continued)

Cost Choose >~5 top level WBS elements from your system

Drill down to successively lower levels of the WBS; while at each step Understanding the scope of the element Understanding the schedule for that element Understanding the basis of estimate (BOE) for both M&S and Labor for that element Choose a few elements next lowest level of the WBS And repeat this procedure until you get to the bottom level. I.e., the lowest level of the WBS

Choose >~5 items in the system for which you have personal experience Interact with the responsible managers to determine if the Estimate is complete, documented, reviewable, and credible


1602-Nov-2009


Check that there is a BOE for all work elements in your system Check whether the estimate for your system “rolls-up” from the lowest level WBS element to the total for your system

Assess the “bottoms up” contingency that the WBS level managers would assign their components. Assess the “top down” contingency analysis assignments by the Project Manager Schedule Is there a detailed schedule, including a critical path, for completing the project? Are milestones appropriate in number and type identified so that the project teams, Fermilab management, and DOE can effectively track and manage progress? Based on past experience, can the proposed schedules be met? Are appropriate schedule contingencies provided? Is there a “resource loaded schedule” and plan for providing the needed resources (M&S and technical support staff and physicists)?


1702-Nov-2009


Funding Have techniques such as forward funding by collaborators and phased funding of large contracts been appropriately incorporated into the planning? Does the anticipated funding profile support the resource requirements?

Management Is an appropriate / adequate project organizational structure in place and staffed (or are plans in place) to do the job. Has the appropriate project management documentation been prepared. Is it of a quality adequate for this stage of the project? Are appropriate / adequate management systems (Cost and Schedule Control System / Earned Value Reporting, Critical Path Management, Risk Management, etc.) in place or planned for use during project execution?


18

Subcommittee AssignmentsSC1 – D1 Magnets• Jim Kerby• Bob Kephart• John Tompkins SC2 – Cold Powering System• Gary McIntyre• Jay Theilacker• Joe Tuozzolo SC3 – Cost, Schedule and Project Management• Jeff Sims• Fran Clark • Suzanne Saxer Note: Underlined names are subcommittee lead.

02-Nov-2009


1902-Nov-2009

Reviewer Assignments

Executive Summary Dean Hoffer 1.0 Introduction Dean Hoffer 2.0 D1 Magnets Jim Kerby

Bob Kephart John Tompkins

3.0 Cold Powering System Gary McIntyre Jay Theilacker Joe Tuozzolo

4.0 Cost, Schedule and Project Management 4.1 Cost Suzanne Saxer

Fran Clark 4.2 Schedule Fran Clark

Suzanne Saxer 4.3 Project Management Jeff Sims

Fran Clark Suzanne Saxer


2002-Nov-2009

Reviewer Assignments (continued)

5.0 Charge Questions 5.1 Technical – D1 Magnets

5.1.1 Are the requirements that form the basis for the design and engineering phase of the project clearly documented?

Bob Kephart

5.1.2 Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 5.1.3 Has a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) been developed that includes a clear and concise description of the alternatives analyzed, the basis for the alternative selected, how the alternative meets the approved mission need? 5.1.4 Has the Project employed value management as early as possible in the project development and design process so recommendations can be included in the planning and implemented without delaying the progress of the project or causing significant rework of completed designs? 5.1.5 Has the Project identified specific standards which components, subsystems and systems will be procured, fabricated, constructed, inspected, and tested? 5.1.6 Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the technical specifications? Is it a reasonable design?


2102-Nov-2009


5.2 Technical – Cold Powering System 5.2.1 Are the requirements that form the basis for the design and engineering phase of the project clearly documented?

Joe Tuozzolo

5.2.2 Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements? 5.2.3 Has a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) been developed that includes a clear and concise description of the alternatives analyzed, the basis for the alternative selected, how the alternative meets the approved mission need? 5.2.4 Has the Project employed value management as early as possible in the project development and design process so recommendations can be included in the planning and implemented without delaying the progress of the project or causing significant rework of completed designs? 5.2.5 Has the Project identified specific standards which components, subsystems and systems will be procured, fabricated, constructed, inspected, and tested? 5.2.6 Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the technical specifications? Is it a reasonable design?


2202-Nov-2009

Reviewer Assignments (continued)5.3 Cost - D1 Magnets

5.3.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

John Tompkins

5.3.2 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound documented basis and are they reasonable?

5.3.3 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the D1 Magnets work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities?

5.4 Cost – Cold Powering System5.4.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

Jay Theilacker

5.4.2 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound documented basis and are they reasonable?

5.4.3 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the Cold Power System work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities?

5.5 Cost – Overall Project5.5.1 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for all work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities?

Suzanne Saxer

5.5.2 Does an obligation profile exist and is it within funding guidance?


2302-Nov-2009


5.6 Schedule 5.6.1 Does the Project’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) define the total scope of the project as a product-oriented family tree composed of hardware, software, services, data, facilities and other components?

Fran Clark

5.6.2 Is a schedule developed and resource loaded? 5.6.3 Are the activity durations reasonable for the assumed resources? 5.6.4 Is the schedule duration feasible for the resources assigned to accomplish the tasks? 5.6.5 Does the schedule contain appropriate levels of milestones, sufficient quantity of milestones for tracking progress and do they appear to be achievable? 5.6.6 Does the schedule include activities for design reviews, which include assessment of the designs readiness for procuring prototypes and preproduction materials? 5.6.7 Have the activities associated with the Preliminary Design and Final Design been appropriately identified in the schedule?


2402-Nov-2009

Reviewer Assignments (continued) 20-Oct-2009

5.7 Project Management 5.7.1 Is there an appropriate management organization structure in place with the responsibilities defined and documented for the scope of work?

Jeff Sims

5.7.2 Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost, and schedule baseline? 5.7.3 Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development? 5.7.4 Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for Approval of CD-1? 5.7.5 Are there adequate staffing resources available or planned for this effort? 5.7.6 Is there a funding plan available or proposed to meet the resource requirements to realize the project? 5.7.7 Has Risk Management been performed which includes risks assessments on each potential design alternative as a factor in selecting which alternative is to be pursued?

Note underlined names are the primary writer.


2502-Nov-2009

Reviewer Assignments for Breakouts 1) D1 Magnets (Hermitage - Industrial Center Building 2nd floor East end) Bob Kephart

Jim Kerby John Tompkins Fran Clark* Dean Hoffer*

2) Cold Powering (IB3 Conference Room - IB3 2nd floor East end) Gary McIntyre Jay Theilacker Joe Tuozzolo Jeff Sims* Suzanne Saxer*

3) Cost, Schedule and Project Management (HQ Conference Room - Industrial Center Building 2nd floor West end)

Fran Clark Dean Hoffer Suzanne Saxer Jeff Sims

* Attend technical breakouts for cost and schedule presentation at beginning of sessions.


2602-Nov-2009

Reporting Structure

• Review findings, comments, and recommendations should be presented in writing at a closeout with the APUL’s, Fermilab’s, and Broohaven’s management.

• Section for each “Level 2” WBS plus Cost, Schedule, Management sections.


2702-Nov-2009

Findings, Comments, and Recommendations

• Findings

• Comments

• Recommendations

• Findings are statements of fact that summarize noteworthy information presented during the review.

• Comments are judgment statements about the facts presented during the review. The reviewers' comments are based on their experiences and expertise.

• The comments are to be evaluated by the project team and actions taken as deemed appropriate.

• Recommendations are statements of actions that should be addressed by the project team.

• A response to the recommendation is expected and that the actions taken would be reported on during future reviews.


28

Examples of Findings, Comments, and Recommendations

Finding– A plan for the MI upgrades was presented. The major elements of

this plan consist of an upgrade of a MI quad power supply, which is nearly complete, and the addition of two more RF stations. The cavities to be installed currently exist as spares so there is no design and prototyping required.

Comment– The project has decided to build the DCCT in-house. The

committee supports this effort since the technology and design of this device is well developed and well known.

Recommendation– Work with Fermilab management to acquire resources needed to

complete the accelerator and beamline modifications.

02-Nov-2009


2902-Nov-2009

Old Project’s Cost & Contingency Estimate from July Review

30%15% Total

0% M&S Labor Total M&S Labor Total M&S Labor Total Cost1 Project Management 301,225.0$ 2,897,102.0$ 3,198,327.0$ 90,367.5$ 434,565.3$ 524,932.8$ 30% 15% 16% 3,723,259.8$

1.1 Conceptual Design Management -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

1.2 Final Design and Construction Management 301,225.0$ 2,897,102.0$ 3,198,327.0$ 90,367.5$ 434,565.3$ 524,932.8$ 30% 15% 16% 3,723,259.8$

2 Beam Separation Dipole Magnets 6,166,564.0$ 4,607,320.0$ 10,773,884.0$ 1,849,969.2$ 691,098.0$ 2,541,067.2$ 30% 15% 24% 13,314,951.2$

2.1 D1 Magnet and Magnet Tooling 5,734,586.0$ 382,783.0$ 6,117,369.0$ 1,720,375.8$ 57,417.5$ 1,777,793.3$ 30% 15% 29% 7,895,162.3$

2.2 D1 Collaring Test -$ 57,553.0$ 57,553.0$ -$ 8,633.0$ 8,633.0$ 0% 15% 15% 66,186.0$

2.3 D1 Subassemblies -$ 213,540.0$ 213,540.0$ -$ 32,031.0$ 32,031.0$ 0% 15% 15% 245,571.0$

2.4 D1 Magnet Assemblies 431,978.0$ 3,953,444.0$ 4,385,422.0$ 129,593.4$ 593,016.6$ 722,610.0$ 30% 15% 16% 5,108,032.0$

3 Cold Powering System 3,831,514.0$ 2,778,804.0$ 6,610,318.0$ 1,149,454.2$ 833,641.2$ 1,983,095.4$ 30% 30% 30% 8,593,413.4$

3.1 Distribution Feedbox for the IR (DFX) 2,122,650.0$ 1,294,109.0$ 3,416,759.0$ 636,795.0$ 388,232.7$ 1,025,027.7$ 30% 30% 30% 4,441,786.7$

3.2 Current Leads 746,771.0$ 217,304.0$ 964,075.0$ 224,031.3$ 65,191.2$ 289,222.5$ 30% 30% 30% 1,253,297.5$

3.3 Superconducting Link 864,396.0$ 643,442.0$ 1,507,838.0$ 259,318.8$ 193,032.6$ 452,351.4$ 30% 30% 30% 1,960,189.4$

3.4 DFX, Lead, and Link test 97,697.0$ 623,949.0$ 721,646.0$ 29,309.1$ 187,184.7$ 216,493.8$ 30% 30% 30% 938,139.8$

Total TEC: 10,299,303.0$ 10,283,226.0$ 20,582,529.0$ 3,089,790.9$ 1,959,304.5$ 5,049,095.4$ 30% 19% 25% 25,631,624.4$

1 Project Management 53,658.0$ 610,856.0$ 664,514.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 664,514.0$

1.1 Conceptual Design Management 53,658.0$ 610,856.0$ 664,514.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 664,514.0$

1.2 Final Design and Construction Management -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

2 Beam Separation Dipole Magnets 222,333.0$ 1,298,749.0$ 1,521,082.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 1,521,082.0$

2.1 D1 Magnet and Magnet Tooling 222,333.0$ 1,298,749.0$ 1,521,082.0$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 1,521,082.0$

2.2 D1 Collaring Test -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

2.3 D1 Subassemblies -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

2.4 D1 Magnet Assemblies -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

3 Cold Powering System 60,429.0$ 562,548.0$ 622,977.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 622,977.0$

3.1 Distribution Feedbox for the IR (DFX) -$ 225,081.0$ 225,081.0$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 225,081.0$

3.2 Current Leads -$ 169,668.0$ 169,668.0$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 169,668.0$

3.3 Superconducting Link 60,429.0$ 167,799.0$ 228,228.0$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 228,228.0$

3.4 DFX, Lead, and Link test -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

Total OPC: 336,420.0$ 2,472,153.0$ 2,808,573.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% 2,808,573.0$

TPC: 10,635,723.0$ 12,755,379.0$ 23,391,102.0$ 3,089,790.9$ 1,959,304.5$ 5,049,095.4$ 29% 15% 22% 28,440,197.4$

TEC

OPC

Items

APUL's Cost Estimate AY $

WBSEstimated Cost (with indirects) Contingency %Contingency Estimate


30

New Project’s Cost & Contingency Estimate

02-Nov-2009

30%15% Total

0% M&S Labor Total M&S Labor Total M&S Labor Total Cost1 Project Management 349,307.0$ 2,106,304.9$ 2,455,611.9$ 112,129.5$ 648,755.8$ 760,885.3$ 32% 31% 31% 3,216,497.2$

1.1 Conceptual Design Management -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

1.2 Final Design and Construction Management 349,307.0$ 2,106,304.9$ 2,455,611.9$ 112,129.5$ 648,755.8$ 760,885.3$ 32% 31% 31% 3,216,497.2$

2 Beam Separation Dipole Magnets 4,161,389.2$ 3,125,053.7$ 7,286,442.8$ 1,368,580.3$ 800,339.2$ 2,168,919.5$ 33% 26% 30% 9,455,362.3$

2.1 D1 Magnet Conceptual Design / Engineering -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

2.2 D1 Magnet Tooling 193,912.0$ 139,444.3$ 333,356.3$ 77,564.8$ 15,737.1$ 93,301.9$ 40% 11% 28% 426,658.2$

2.3 D1 Magnet Prototype -$ 454,952.4$ 454,952.4$ -$ 68,242.9$ 68,242.9$ 0% 15% 15% 523,195.3$

2.4 D1 Magnet Production 3,631,164.2$ 2,277,168.8$ 5,908,333.0$ 1,160,396.6$ 644,834.4$ 1,805,231.1$ 32% 28% 31% 7,713,564.0$

2.5 D1 Magnet Testing 336,313.0$ 253,488.1$ 589,801.1$ 130,618.9$ 71,524.8$ 202,143.7$ 39% 28% 34% 791,944.8$

3 Cold Powering System 2,974,291.8$ 1,240,789.3$ 4,215,081.1$ 950,809.7$ 362,718.1$ 1,313,527.7$ 32% 29% 31% 5,528,608.8$

3.1 Distribution Feedbox for the IR (DFX) 1,768,594.5$ 582,629.6$ 2,351,224.1$ 530,578.4$ 149,512.3$ 680,090.7$ 30% 26% 29% 3,031,314.7$

3.2 Current Leads 625,030.3$ 65,123.8$ 690,154.1$ 218,760.6$ 21,260.8$ 240,021.4$ 35% 33% 35% 930,175.5$

3.3 Superconducting Link 545,412.1$ 424,022.2$ 969,434.3$ 190,894.2$ 141,240.8$ 332,135.0$ 35% 33% 34% 1,301,569.3$


Total TEC: 7,484,988.0$ 6,472,147.9$ 13,957,135.8$ 2,431,519.5$ 1,811,813.1$ 4,243,332.5$ 32% 28% 30% 18,200,468.4$

1 Project Management 211,648.0$ 1,400,745.1$ 1,612,393.1$ 63,494.4$ 420,223.5$ 483,717.9$ 30% 30% 30% 2,096,111.1$

1.1 Conceptual Design Management 94,487.0$ 490,505.7$ 584,992.7$ 28,346.1$ 147,151.7$ 175,497.8$ 30% 30% 30% 760,490.5$

1.2 Final Design and Construction Management 117,161.0$ 910,239.5$ 1,027,400.5$ 35,148.3$ 273,071.8$ 308,220.1$ 30% 30% 30% 1,335,620.6$

2 Beam Separation Dipole Magnets 1,322,977.2$ 1,948,025.5$ 3,271,002.8$ 344,561.5$ 593,820.6$ 938,382.2$ 26% 30% 29% 4,209,384.9$

2.1 D1 Magnet Conceptual Design / Engineering -$ 911,662.8$ 911,662.8$ -$ 364,665.1$ 364,665.1$ 0% 40% 40% 1,276,327.9$

2.2 D1 Magnet Tooling 168,856.0$ 302,267.6$ 471,123.6$ 67,542.4$ 93,471.1$ 161,013.5$ 40% 31% 34% 632,137.1$

2.3 D1 Magnet Prototype 1,154,121.2$ 709,796.1$ 1,863,917.3$ 277,019.1$ 132,039.5$ 409,058.7$ 24% 19% 22% 2,272,976.0$

2.4 D1 Magnet Production -$ 24,299.1$ 24,299.1$ -$ 3,644.9$ 3,644.9$ 0% 15% 15% 27,943.9$

2.5 D1 Magnet Testing -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0% 0% 0% -$

3 Cold Powering System 862,523.5$ 2,260,055.2$ 3,122,578.7$ 264,473.1$ 654,630.7$ 919,103.8$ 31% 29% 29% 4,041,682.4$

3.1 Distribution Feedbox for the IR (DFX) 488,199.6$ 821,485.0$ 1,309,684.6$ 146,459.9$ 222,437.1$ 368,897.0$ 30% 27% 28% 1,678,581.6$

3.2 Current Leads 167,007.2$ 409,726.3$ 576,733.5$ 57,974.5$ 129,647.5$ 187,622.0$ 35% 32% 33% 764,355.5$

3.3 Superconducting Link 176,542.6$ 537,741.1$ 714,283.7$ 50,806.5$ 175,748.7$ 226,555.2$ 29% 33% 32% 940,838.8$


Total TEC: 2,397,148.7$ 5,608,825.8$ 8,005,974.5$ 672,529.0$ 1,668,674.9$ 2,341,203.9$ 28% 30% 29% 10,347,178.4$

TPC: 9,882,136.7$ 12,080,973.7$ 21,963,110.4$ 3,104,048.4$ 3,480,488.0$ 6,584,536.4$ 31% 29% 30% 28,547,646.7$

TEC

OPC

Items

APUL's Cost Estimate AY $K

WBSEstimated Cost (with indirects) Contingency %Contingency Estimate


3102-Nov-2009

Reviewer Write-ups• Write-up template is posted on Director’s Review

Webpage. http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OPMO/Projects/APUL/DirRev/2009/11__02/review.htm

• Write-ups are to be sent to Terry Erickson at [email protected] prior to 11:30 AM on Tuesday, November 3 for the Closeout Dry Run

• A final report will be issued within 1 week after the closeout.


3202-Nov-2009

Discussion

• Questions and Answers

executive session director’s cd-1 follow-up review of the apul project

Documents

independent review

apul project2agenda

apul project9agenda

apul project3charge

apul project7agenda

apul project1302

apul project1802

apul project4charge