AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting P. Pile 18 November 2004 AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting, 18 Nov 2004 Useful Links: RSVP Project : C-AD AGS Project:

AGS RSVP Weekly MeetingP. Pile18 November 2004

AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting, 18 Nov 2004

Useful Links:

• RSVP Project: http://rsvp.bnl.gov

• C-AD AGS Project: Office http://server.c-ad.bnl.gov/esfd/RSVP/RSVP_AGS_WBS.htm

Agenda:

• AGS Review close-out, probable outcome from AGS review, meco magnet review actions, next significant events, ACCESS data base status (P. Pile)

• How we get from here to there - fully loaded Project schedules (A. Pendzick/D. Phillips)


AGS WBS Review, 4-5 Nov 2004

RSVP AGS Review Committee:

R. Larsen, S. Ecklund, J. Seeman, A. Marchionni, E. Metral, G. McMichael, R. Pasquinelli

Slides to follow are from close-out (R. Larsen)

Close-out slides are archived on web:http://server.c-ad.bnl.gov/esfd/RSVP/November2004/rsvp-presentations.htm


General Comments

• The Committee was pleased to see the level of work represented by the presentations, which were clear and well integrated.

• Most detailed planning & cost work accomplished since July 2004.

• Some aspects of content need further development.


Implementation Plan & Resource Loaded Schedules

• The implementation plan for Booster, AGS and Switchyard was well detailed.

• The plans for experimental beams and Beam Development have questions concerning the experimental interfaces and schedule.

• Some resource analysis was shown, but resource loaded schedules are not yet developed.


Non-RSVP Elements

• These elements appear to have been identified and excluded appropriately.

• Manpower support for operations requires integration with the existing RHIC matrix, which will be augmented with levels of manpower appropriate to the incremental RSVP levels.


Technical, Schedule & Cost Risks

• The bulk of the Booster, AGS and Switchyard upgrades are low technical risk.

• Achieving higher levels of intensity and cleaner extinction between pulses through additional RF magnets are critical to the experiments; these have been modeled but not been demonstrated and are higher technical risk.

• Changes in the experiments may pose additional technical risks beyond the control of the AGS team.


Schedule Risk• The risks were discussed during various presentations. • The schedule risks for the bulk of AGS upgrades appears to be

mostly in ramping up to needed manpower levels and finding appropriate people for temporary work, esp. engineers.

• The start date of 2006 appears aggressive considering the unknowns of total project cost and funding.

• The Beam Development schedule is a draft and will be reexamined to attempt to reduce duration from five to three years.

• The overall schedule integrated with the experiments needs to be developed.

• The delivery of critical experimental components poses risks beyond the control of the AGS Upgrade team.


Cost Risk• Cost risks were not presented as a separate analysis by

the team, but in subsequent presentations.• The contingency levels of most estimates averaged less

than 25% which indicates high confidence factor.• This is appropriate for most parts of the AGS complex

since the upgrade includes few technical uncertainties.• Uncertainties of experiments can pose serious risk:

– KOPIO production angle, pit size– MECO production solenoid, target etc.

• Overall cost growth in estimates is causing serious concern within the funding agency.


Cost Growth• The cost estimate has grown since January 2004 by

$30M to a final total of $84M of which $32M is attributed to Beam Development.

• The latter is in reality Pre-Ops as opposed to construction and did not change since January.

• Therefore the construction segment appears to have more than doubled.

• Reasons: – Magnet/PS/controls upgrades to reduce risk to RHIC– ES&H requirements for caps over high-activation areas– Growth in experimental beams costs– Addition of Project Office


Operations Plan, Resource-Loaded Schedule, Conflicts

• The plan was presented along with an incremental total manpower analysis.

• The resources were averaged and not leveled in detail.

• Conflicts with RHIC requirements have to be worked out in detail.

• Concerns about difficulties of finding skilled people & matrix management.

• Potential impacts on costs and schedules.


Management Plans

• Integration, Communication major factors• There is recent precedent at BNL for similar

management issues, e.g. SNS and ATLAS.• Lines of authority appear well understood though

inherently complicated by dual lines of authority up the chain.

• Standing management meetings either exist already or will be set up alongside the current RHIC management structure.

• Operations will be well integrated with RHIC through liaisons, daily & weekly meetings.


Explore Reductions in Scope, etc.• This was attempted throughout the meeting:

– Delete one of the experiments: Unacceptable. Experiments have been sold as a package.

– Defer AGS upgrades: Bad strategy poses high risk to RHIC and would miss existing low activation “window of opportunity” in AGS.

– Reduce or eliminate Beam Development program: Possible cost reduction of ~14M$ without much compromise to program, if any, appears feasible. Team will investigate.

– Additional cost reductions should be sought through “scrubbing” technical component design and costs, labor costs, system design improvements in both AGS and experiments.


Conclusion• The Committee is very pleased that a large effort

over the past four months has shown impressive progress and dividends in the planning process.

• We look forward to seeing continued progress in planning and development, and ultimate success in securing full funding and staffing.

• Thanks to all the presenters for their diligent efforts in helping meet our Charge.

• Keep up the good work!


Recommendations

• Continue refining estimates with Lehman-like documentation (resource loaded & leveled schedules, cost books etc.) for future review.

• Schedule future cost scrubbing reviews of both AGS and experimental programs.

• Continue aggressive cost-reduction plan, such as design improvements to replacement components, reducing/eliminating Beam Development program, beam operations manpower levels etc

• Continue identifying, mitigating technical, schedule and cost risks.

Probable Guidance we’ll get from Willis/Kotcher


Preliminary Guidance – our plan(subject to change – we have not yet received guidance from

Willis/Kotcher as result of 4-5 Nov AGS Review)

• Continue cost scrubbing and schedule development

• Highest priority to AGS/BOOSTER WBS 1.4.1– Cost scrubbing, what can we postpone until operations phase? etc…– Schedule – in particular a plan to get the AGS/BOOSTER in shape for high intensity

beam development --- by beginning of 3rd year of construction?– Beam development plan that fits within constant effort RHIC budget scenario with 2

beams – i.e. figure on 80 hrs/week and 15 weeks/year• Case 1: Beam development during entire 5 year construction period• Case 2: Beam development beginning 3rd year of construction

• The construction plan should be developed consistent with no beam development in first two years of the project (Case 2 above)

– D-line decommissioned– C-Line available beginning of 3rd year for tests– there’s a risk (small) that we may have to revert back to the original plan (Case 1).


Update on MECO Magnet Issues

• Still no formal guidance as result of the 10-11 Oct MECO Magnet Review

• A plan to implement some of the panel recommendations is, however, being developed.


--DRAFT--


--DRAFT--

RSVP FY05 Supplemental Request: MECO Magnet


Milestone Date Status, Comments

Discussion of Baseline Expectations, Timeline with Experiments

September 13 Held

MECO Magnet Review Sun-Tue, Oct 10-12 Held

AGS Review Thu-Fri, Nov 4-5 Held

Internal discussion of resource-loaded schedules (RLS) for all projects

Thu, Dec 10? Includes PO, NSF PM, ALD + experiments. Anticipate one full day. Date TBF.

Simulations & Backgrounds Review Tue-Thu, Jan 11-13 Set, reviewers assembled, held at NYU

Initial review of RLS for all projects Tue-Thu, Jan 18-20 Reviewed by LOG. Dates TBF.

Reviews of other sub-projects Weeks of Jan 24 – Feb 21 Series of LOG-based reviews of RSVP sub-systems

Draft versions of PMP, PEP, Conceptual Design Report completed

Mon, Feb 14

Operations Review Week of Mar 7

Project startup pre-review Week of Mar 15 Comprehensive preparatory review of full project, proposal

Project startup review Week of Apr 18 Final project startup review, iteration of above. NSF review.

Finalize documentation for May submission to NSF

Week of Apr 25

Product submitted to NSF/NSB Mon, May 2

next significant events

•AGS/Booster cost and schedule ~complete•Case1 and Case2 beam development plans ~complete•DRAFT Resource Loaded Schedule available•Experiment WBS’s work-in-progress

Roadmap to Resource Loaded Schedule understood, some cost scrubbing


RSVP AGS Cost – Status as of 11/18/04last revision 11/12/2004 V22

Management Admin Eng'r Physicist Design Tech C-AD Total DTS ShopsWBS

AGS/Booster 1.4.1 11.78 3.74 12.25 23.91 51.68 2.78 6.16

Switchyard 1.4.2 2.36 0.35 0.88 10.69 14.28 2.98 1.28

K0PI0 1.4.3 5.24 3.47 2.01 11.03 21.75 5.56 0.46

MECO 1.4.4 7.74 4.95 2.55 14.62 29.87 8.41 1.86

AGS Project Office 1.4.5 5.00 1.25 6.25

Total 5.00 1.25 27.12 12.52 17.70 60.25 123.83 19.73 9.76

# does not include FTE's for beam development

Materials C-AD Labor DTS/Shops Sub-Total Contingency TotalWBS

AGS/Booster 1.4.1 9,271,076$ 7,526,955$ 1,657,914$ 18,455,945$ 3,607,767$ 22,063,712$

Switchyard 1.4.2 1,564,618$ 1,962,259$ 647,597$ 4,174,474$ 821,660$ 4,996,133$

K0PI0 1.4.3 4,508,504$ 3,321,810$ 823,878$ 8,654,192$ 2,062,117$ 10,716,309$

MECO 1.4.4 3,583,557$ 4,595,444$ 1,477,120$ 9,656,120$ 2,257,612$ 11,913,732$

AGS Project Office 1.4.5 62,864$ 1,632,464$ 1,695,328$ 339,066$ 2,034,394$

TOTAL 18,990,618$ 19,038,932$ 4,606,509$ 42,636,058$ 9,088,221$ 51,724,280$

Beam Development* 14,305,738$ 12,164,390$ 26,470,128$ 5,623,715$ 32,093,843$

RSVP AGS WBS Total 33,296,356$ 31,203,322$ 4,606,509$ 69,106,187$ 14,711,936$ 83,818,123$

* includes Personnel, M&S, DTS and Power Costs, assumes Jan 04 plan, FY06-FY10 running with RHIC and 1 year contingency with 10 weeks running outside RHIC

What's Missing from thisAGS and Booster Collimators -- evaluating if this is possible

RSVP AGS Infrastructure Labor FTE's # (without Contingency or beam development personnel)

RSVP AGS Infrastructure Cost Summary (fully burdened)


• Darlene has information from the latest spreadsheets (V22) in entered into the ACCESS data base

• Changes to your WBS spreadsheets should go directly to Darlene – finish your WBS Dictionaries! Enter on same spreadsheet as costs– Send revised (available cost scrubbing) estimates by 7 Dec, in time

for the 9 Dec “Internal Discussions”– Highlight changes for easy recognition and summarize changes

(with date) on the “Change” spreadsheet

• Darlene will then send spreadsheets to me and a new version will be published


Next Meeting• 2 Dec 2004

• Agenda

– Update on AGS/BOOSTER WBS 1.4.1 cost scrubbing (Brown)

– Update on beam development plan (Leif)– Status of resource loaded schedules (Pendzick)

Documents

AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting P. Pile 18 November 2004 AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting, 18 Nov 2004 Useful Links: RSVP Project : C-AD AGS Project: