Project Performance & Risk Management

1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES

Project Performance & Risk Management

Aesook Byon, Deputy Project DirectorNSLS-II PAC Meeting March 29-30, 2012


Outline

• Cost, Schedule, & Project Performance • Comprehensive EAC• Risk Update• Conclusions


72%

9%

19%

Cost Baseline

TPC $ 912 MBaseline Cost (Planned work) $ 828 MContingency $ 84 M

Completed work (Feb ‘12) $597M (72% complete)Committed work-to-go $72MUncommitted work-to-go $159M

Remaining work ($231M)

Contingency ($84M):

36% of remaining work

53% of uncommitted work-to-go


Cost Baseline

$109M Contingency utilization since CD-2 approval $33M for additional labor (15% increase from CD-2 Baseline, $225M) $40M for Materials & Services (8% increase from CD-2 Baseline, $494M) $36M for scope enhancements/additions

Cost performance:12% ($73M/$597M) over baseline plan

($M)WBS CD-2 (Nov ‘07)

Dec ‘09 Baseline

Last PAC (Dec ‘10)

Current Baseline (Feb ‘12)

Change since

Dec ‘10

1.01 Project Management 52.5 56.5 59.8 63.2 3.4

1.02 R&D and Conceptual Design 60.6 60.6 60.6 60.6 0

1.03 Accelerator Systems 242.2 262.9 264.0 281.0 17.0

1.04 Experimental Facilities 72.8 70.5 69.9 71.9 2.0

1.05 Conventional Facilities 240.8 260.2 280.2 301.5 21.3

1.06 Pre-Operations 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 0

Grand Totals: 719.0 761.0 784.7 828.3 43.7


Contingency spending history (Mar ‘08 – Feb ‘12)

($K)

total (per month) w/o scope addition (per month)3/08-2/12 $109M ($2.2M) $73M ($1.5M)

FY2008 $12M ($1.5M) $5M ($0.6M) FY2009 $17M ($1.4M) $17M ($1.4M) FY2010 $33M ($2.7M) $20M ($1.7M) FY2011 $39M ($3.3M) $23M ($1.9M) FY2012 $7M ($1.4M) $7M ($1.4M)

Spending category: labor/space $33M (30%) M&S $40M (37%) scope additions $36M (33%)


Schedule Float & Critical Path

Critical Path: through Accelerator installation & commissioning • 35mm Dipole magnet production delivery girder assembly/installation

Storage Ring commissioning without ID SR integrated test with IDscope beyond KPP (“schedule contingency”)Commission SR w/o ID June ‘13 – Oct ’13 Met KPP for accelerator systemsInstall ID Nov ‘13 – Dec ’13Commission SR w/ ID Jan ’14 – Apr ’14

Early Project Completion, June 2014 (Lv 1 Milestone)• Currently projected early completion day is April 2014• Baseline Level-1 milestone date with built-in schedule float (~2 months)

– “Spent” 7 weeks schedule float over past 33 months (<3% increase)

CD-4, Start of Operations, June 2015• 14 months after the projected early completion date

6 month extra credit activity


Sectional commissioning without beam

CD-2 Baseline scheduleCurrent baselineCurrent projection (schedule EAC)

Magnet Production & Installation Schedule

Met KPP for Accelerator

Extra credit activities


Cost, Schedule & % completion

Overall project : 72% complete as of Feb ‘12 with CPI = 1.01 & SPI = 0.96

• Impressive amount of work ($238M) completed since last PAC meeting• was 46% complete at Jan 2011 and now 72% at Feb 2012 (w/

additional LOB’s & other scope additions) • We are maintaining our momentum into 2012

• Expect to complete ~90% of current baseline by January 2013


CPI = 1.01

SPI = 0.96

We are now near the shoulder


Monthly Burn Rate

Apr 2013($M

) Cum

ulat

ive ($M

) Monthly


Estimate at Completion (EAC)• General Principles

• Aggressively pursue accurate EAC information as a management tool• Estimates that are good projections (~50%<probability<~90%) but still can be

managed • Managing to the baseline. Contingency spending is not a routine solution

• 2011 Annual comprehensive assessment conducted over Sep – Dec ’11• Review of all activities through project completion date, especially labor estimate • Bottom line: EAC was $24.4M over BAC (~$13M for Accelerator Systems)

$13.4M M&S$7.7M TEC labor (~31 FTE-year)$3.3M OPC labor (~13 FTE-year)• Risk was $30M, including $12.2M for additional labor

$17.8M M&S$5.5M TEC labor (~22 FTE-year)$6.7M OPC labor (~27 FTE-year)

44 FTEEAC

$24.4M

Risk$30.0M 49 FTE

93Total FTEs


Comprehensive EAC (Dec 2011)WBS Description ($K) WBS Description ($K)1.1 Project management labor, space and utilities 1,954 1.3.7 DW raw material cost increase 2,266

1.3.1 Design room equipment 216 1.3.7 CPMU R&D 200

1.3.2 Accelerator Physics additional Computers 131 1.3.7 IVU overrun due to material price increase 630

1.3.3.2 Cost increase for booster main power supply 200 1.3.7 ID measurement & installation labor corr 135

1.3.3.2 Booster rf cavities 430 1.3.8 Vacc fac. Clean. Set-up cost overrun 230

1.3.3.3 Transport line installation M&S and labor 430 1.4.1 management budget increase 566

1.3.3.4 Injector survey missing M&S and labor 340 1.4.5 XPD Laue Monochromater cost increase 416

1.3.3.4 Additional labor for injector process water sys. 146 1.4.5 HXN optics package contract award 80

1.3.3.5 Injector installation labor short fall 106 1.4.5 Phasing magnet for EPU's for CSX 100

1.3.4.2 Magnet schedule mitigations 1,554 1.4.5 LOB std. lab equipment pack (3x) 226

1.3.4.2 Labor for magnet schedule mitigation 1,970 1.4.5 Under estimated labor for beamline 1,050

1.3.4.2 Magnet 2nd source contracts 850 1.5.2 AE Support for LOB 4 & 5 240

1.3.4.2 Magnet cooling water manifords 328 1.5.3.2 Ring Building construction field changes 1,400

1.3.4.3 Under-run in vacuum chamber contracts -1,511 1.5.3.2 Resolution of ESH issues from BOREs 120

1.3.4.4 Power supply system labor and M&S overrun 1,433 1.5.3.6 Additional furnatures for larger LOBs (1&3) 400

1.3.4.5 Increase in optical monitoring 172 1.5.3.6 LOB construction Field Changes 210

1.3.4.7 Frontend cost saving -181 1.5.3.6 LOB construction safety incentive 158

1.3.4.8 Additional labor and M&S for SR Survey 951 1.5.4 Wireless communication repeaters 900

1.3.4.8 SR utility labor and contract overruns 787 1.5.4 Network infrastructure for LOB 4& 5 300

1.3.4.9 Additional labor for girder installation 342 1.6.2 Additional manpower for accelerator pre-ops 2,073

1.3.6 PPS interlock materials and labor 830 1.6.3 Additional manpower for beamline pre-ops 1,242

EAC Total $24.4M ~ $4M PCRs approved since then


Staffing

• Increase in staffing for accelerator, beamline engineering, construction management (oversight, ESH, QA) and project support (procurement, HR, project control)

• Sufficient staffing allocated for all activities through FY12• Accelerator Systems increased from 554 at CD-2 to 717 FTE now (>29% increase) • 35% increase (90 FTE) for remaining years captured in EAC and Risks• Continue to evaluate details in commissioning & pre-ops

Total Cumulative FTEs: CD-2 Baseline 1,188 today 1,467 (>23% increase)

Allocated in EAC + Risk~35% increase


Risk Update

Risk Rating Aug 2008

Apr 2009

Jan 2010

Oct 2010

Jun 2011

Mar 2012

High 6 6 3 4 3 2Medium 7 9 9 8 5 4Low 33 30 29 26 22 15Retired 2 9 12 20 29

Recent Updates (ratings or $ estimates reduced)• SR magnet production• Insertion Device production• Beamline enclosures & controls system• Construction safety• To be retired soon: Changes in requirements for conventional facilities

Interface of 2 contractors on Ring Building site


Summary of Risks - Mar 2012Risks risk rating

overall rating

estimated retire dateID# WBS Description cost

($K)cost schedule technical

ESH-01 1.1.2 Construction Safety $1,000 L M n/a L Jun-14PMG-02 1.1.3 additional labor $1,000 L n/a n/a L Jun-13PMG-03 1.1.3 additional space charge $3,000 M n/a n/a M Jun-13ASD-01 1.3.1 unexpected difficulties with dynamic aperture $200 L L L L Oct-13ASD-02 1.3.3.1 Linac turn key procurement $250 L L L L Apr-12ASD-03 1.3.3.2 Booster turn key procurement $500 L M L L Aug-12ASD-04 1.3.4.2 SR magnet production $500 L M L L Aug-12ASD-05 1.3.4.3 SR vacuum chamber production $0 n/a L L L Apr-12ASD-07 1.3.4.6 SR RF cavity production $1,000 L M M M Oct-13ASD-09 1.3.7 Insertion device production $500 L M L L Nov-12ASD-10 1.3.4.5 BPM electronics $200 L L L L Dec-12ASD-11 1.3.4.9 SR installation - underestimated labor $500 L M L L Dec-12

XFD-01 1.4.5

Enclosures, Utilities, Std Cmpnts, PPS & EPS $920 L L L L Jun-12Optics $700 L M M M Sep-12Endstations $3,800 M M M H Sep-12Controls $180 L L L L Jun-12Labor $4,500 M L L M Oct-12

CFD-01 1.5.2 Changes in requirements for conventional facilities $200 L L L L Jun-12CFD-03 1.5.3 Field changes for conventional construction $2,000 M L L M Dec-12CFD-05 1.5.3 Interface of 2 general contractors on ring bldg site $200 L L n/a L Apr-12OPS-01 1.6 Under estimated pre-ops labor $6,685 H L L H Jun-13

subtotal $27,835


Risk & Contingency History

Ring Building contract

Enlarged LOBs & 500 mA capability

Risk was 66% of contingency

Risk is 33% of contingency

LOB 4&5 shells


Contingency Tracking To Date

Now ~36%

Jan 2013> 90%


Cost Baseline, Contingency, and Risks($M)

WBS Title

Current Baseline Feb '12

EAC + Risks

1.1 Project Management 63.2 9.01.3 Accelerator Systems 281.0 11.61.4 Experimental Facilities 71.9 12.31.5 Conventional Facilities 301.5 5.4

TEC Contingency 73.6TEC Total 791.2 38.3

1.2 R&D and Conpt Design 60.61.6 Pre-Operations 50.2 10.0

OPC Contingency 10.0OPC Total 120.8 10.0

TPC 912.0 48.3

Burdened & Escalated Planned work $828M

Completed work $597M

Committed work-to-go $72M

Uncommitted work-to-go $159M

EAC ($20M) + Risks ($28M) $48M

25% of Uncommitted Work-to-go $40MAvailable Contingency $84M


• Pre-ops activities start to ramp up in 2012• Expect to need large fraction of $10M OPC contingency to cover additional labor

resource needed for integrated testing in FY12, FY13 and FY14• We requested to DOE to pull-forward most of $5M OPC from FY15 to FY14• Significant risk for delay in project completion date without pull-forward of FY15 funding

Project Funding


Overall Performance

• On Schedule and On Budget wrt Baseline • Excellent technical, cost & schedule performance to date• Maintaining sound cost baseline with healthy remaining contingency

• Aggressively driven internal schedule• Continue to execute technically limited schedule since June 2009• Negative schedule variances in specific areas: well understood and actively

managed• Lost fair amount of built-in schedule float for accelerator installation and

beamline component procurement• Risks and EAC well understood, tracked and managed

• A number of major risks (technical, cost & schedule) continue to retire or reduce ratings

• We are in the final home stretch of peak activity period with much excitement ahead

Documents

Project Performance & Risk Management