Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project

Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Review of the

APUL Project

July 16-17, 2009Dean A. Hoffer

Director's CD-1 Review of the APUL Project

216-Jul-09

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


316-Jul-09

ChargeThis charge is for the Committee to conduct a Director’s 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 implementation of the APUL project is supported by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). The review is to assess the project’s efforts at meeting the requirements for DOE to approve CD-1. CD-1 is defined as “Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range”. 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. Approval of CD-1 by DOE officials is based on a Conceptual Design documented in Conceptual Design Report (CDR) for the project. The project scope and preliminary baseline range for the cost and schedule are to be defined at this point in the project. Some additional documents that support the CD-1 determination are a Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP), a Preliminary Project Management Plan (PMP) and the Preliminary Hazard Analysis report. The technical part of the review is an independent review of the conceptual designs for D1 magnets and cold powering systems at interaction regions at points 1 and 5. It will answer these questions: will these designs meet the requirements and specifications and are the designs sound.


416-Jul-09

Charge (continued)The cost, schedule and scope ranges are usually 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 committee is asked to review each of these items, for quality, completeness, and accuracy. 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. DOE has expressed a desire to establish the APUL budget at $27M. In this review APUL will be presenting a cost range of $27M – $29M. In evaluating this range the committee is asked to review and assess the appropriateness of the contingency applied to the current estimates and the scope contingency strategy developed by APUL. We would specifically like to hear the committee’s views on whether a $27M budget can be established without assuming undue risk, either in the technical, cost, or schedule realms. 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.


516-Jul-09

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 include codes, standards, regulations, and needed discipline (electrical, mechanical, nuclear, fire, radiation control, etc.) requirements to procure, fabricate, construct, inspect, and test the components, subsystems, and systems?

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?


616-Jul-09

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 413.3 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?


716-Jul-09

AgendaJULY 16TH 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 D1 MAGNETS – Hermitage (Industrial Center Building 2nd floor East end) 1:30 – 2:30 PM 60 D1 details M. Anerella 2:30 – 3:00 PM 30 Superconductor A. Ghosh 3:00 – 3:30 PM 30 Field Quality R. Gupta 3:30 – 4:00 PM 30 Testing J. Muratore 4:00 – 4:30 PM 30 Cryogenics K.C. Wu (presented by


816-Jul-09

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 (presented by S. Feher) 2:40 – 3:00 PM 20 Electrical Scheme & Protection S. Feher 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 (presented

by S. Feher) COST, SCHEDULE AND MANAGEMENT – Engineering Conference Room (ICB 3rd floor center area) 3:00 – 3:30 PM 30 Project Management Plan highlights (including reviews) P. Wanderer 3:30 – 4:00 PM 30 Cost and Schedule (including Key Assumptions, Value Management) Primavera and its reports should be available for detailed questions. S. Feher 4:00 – 4:20 PM 20 Risk M. Kaducak 4:20 – 4:40 PM 20 ES&H, QA, Configuration Management M. Kaducak EXECUTIVE SESSION - Hermitage 5:00 – 7:00 PM 120 Executive Session D. Hoffer


916-Jul-09

Agenda (continued)

JULY 17TH 8:00 – 9:00 AM 60 APUL Response to Committee Questions Hermitage 9:00 – 9:30 AM 30 Executive Discussion Hermitage 9:30 – 1:00 PM Subcommittee Working Session and Report Writing with Working Lunch Hermitage 1:00 – 4:00 PM Committee Dry Run Hermitage 4:00 – 5:00 PM 60 Closeout Presentations Hermitage 5:00 PM Adjourn


1016-Jul-09

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

16-Jul-09


12

Fermilab Project Management Documents

16-Jul-09

• OPMO Procedures: http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OPMO/PolProc/home.htm– FRA Earned Value Management System Description– 12.PM-001 Project WBS, OBS, RAM– 12.PM-002 Control Accounts, Work Packages, Planning

Packages– 12.PM-003 Work Authorization– 12.PM-004 Project Scheduling– 12.PM-005 Cost Estimating– 12.PM-006 Monthly Status and Reporting– 12.PM-007 Change Control– 12.PM-008 EVMS Surveillance & Maintenance


13

Two Parts to the Review

• Technical - Independent Conceptual Design Review

• Cost, Schedule and Project Management Review

16-Jul-09


14

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.

• The Conceptual Design process requires a mission need as an input. Concepts for meeting the need are explored and alternatives considered to arrive at a set of alternatives that are technically viable, affordable and sustainable.

16-Jul-09


1516-Jul-09

Cost/Schedule Review GuidanceProject Technical, Cost, and Schedule Baseline Development To Succeed in Cost / Schedule Arena

Estimate must be Complete

Scope well understood and defined Technical goal must be clear Technology to be used to meet this goal known Designate how technical systems will be acquired I.e. buy, have fabricated, self fabricated Buy parts / fabricate / assemble How will this be accomplished Self fabricate / assemble – lab or university(ies) How will person power requirements be met And paid for All tasks defined and specified in a work breakdown structure WBS dictionary Documented at lowest level of WBS and include M&S – materials and services SWF – salaries, wages, & fringes Accompanied by schedule showing appropriate durations Adders – overheads / G&A (general & administrative)

Escalated – shown both with and without escalation with funding profile based on laboratory/DOE/Federal budget/appropriation guidance

These are CD-2 Requirements.

Now at CD-1.

We should use as a guide for assessing a baseline “range” or appropriate contingency.


1616-Jul-09

Cost/Schedule Review Guidance (Continued)

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

This material forms basis for DOE approving a baseline, for Fermilab/Collaboration Project Management to measure performance and take appropriate corrective actions during execution and for Laboratory Management and DOE to monitor progress.


1716-Jul-09


Baseline Reviews When preparing a baseline, it can be helpful to be aware of and prepared for the types of things a Director’s Technical/Cost/Schedule/Management Review Committee or a DOE Baseline Review Committee will be looking for. The following provides some insight into such reviews. Review Committees are frequently broken up into subgroups which are then assigned to look at specific systems or subprojects within a project. To be available for reviewers one week prior to the review Conceptual &/or Technical Design Reports Design Review materials (web address was provided) Materials presented at most recent design review for system Detailed schedule for system (to be looked at during breakout sessions) Cost Estimate Details for system (will be provided at low levels of the WBS) Including WBS Dictionary and BOE – Basis of Estimate detail sheets (BOE notebooks will be available in breakout rooms) Tabbed hardcopies of review materials and presentations to be available at the review. Enough for committee, observers, and a half dozen extras


1816-Jul-09


Technical / Cost / Schedule / Management Review Guidelines (things reviewers are asked to do) Technical

Examine Design Review Materials (including TDRs & CDRs) for your system Assess level at which scope is understood and defined

Assess level that technical aspects of the system are understood, planned, designed, procured/fabricated and/or prototyped

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 that element Understanding the schedule for that element

Understanding the basis of estimate (BOE) for both M&S and effort 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


1916-Jul-09


Check that there is a detailed 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

Does each level of the WBS contain all costs from lower level WBS elements

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)?


2016-Jul-09


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?


21

Subcommittee Assignments• SC1 – D1 Magnets

– Jim Strait– Bob Kephart– Mike Harrison

• SC2 – Cold Powering System– Claus Rode– Arkadiy Klebaner – Phil Martin

• SC3 – Cost, Schedule and Project Management– Mike Lindgren– Fran Clark – Jeff Sims

Note: Underlined names are subcommittee lead.

16-Jul-09


2216-Jul-09

Reviewer Assignments

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

Bob Kephart Mike Harrison

3.0 Cold Powering System Claus Rode Arkadiy Klebaner Phil Martin

4.0 Cost, Schedule and Project Management 4.1 Cost Jeff Sims

Fran Clark 4.2 Schedule Fran Clark

Mike Lindgren 4.3 Project Management Mike Lindgren

Jeff Sims


2316-Jul-09

Reviewer Assignments (continued)

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 include codes, standards, regulations, and needed discipline (electrical, mechanical, nuclear, fire, radiation control, etc.) requirements to procure, fabricate, construct, inspect, and test the components, subsystems, and systems? 5.1.6 Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the technical specifications? Is it a reasonable design?


2416-Jul-09


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?

Arkadiy Klebaner

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 include codes, standards, regulations, and needed discipline (electrical, mechanical, nuclear, fire, radiation control, etc.) requirements to procure, fabricate, construct, inspect, and test the components, subsystems, and systems? 5.2.6 Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the technical specifications? Is it a reasonable design?


2516-Jul-09


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?

Mike Harrison

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 work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities?

5.4 Cost – Cold Powering System 5.4.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration?

Phil Martin

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 work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities?

5.5 Cost – Overall Project 5.5.1 Does an obligation profile exist and is it within funding guidance?

Jeff Sims


2616-Jul-09


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?

Jeff Sims

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?


2716-Jul-09


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?

Mike Lindgren

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 413.3 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?


2816-Jul-09

Reviewer Assignments for Breakouts

1) D1 Magnets (Hermitage) Mike Harrison

Bob Kephart Jim Strait Fran Clark* Mike Lindgren*

2) Cold Powering (IB3 Conference Room) Arkadiy Klebaner Phil Martin Claus Rode Jeff Sims* Dean Hoffer*

3) Cost, Schedule and Project Management (Engineering Conference Room)

Fran Clark Dean Hoffer Mike Lindgren Jeff Sims

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


2916-Jul-09

Reporting Structure

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

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


3016-Jul-09

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.


31

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.

16-Jul-09


3216-Jul-09

Project’s Cost & Contingency Estimate30%

15% Total0% M&S Labor Total M&S Labor Total M&S Labor Total Cost

1 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


3316-Jul-09

Reviewer Write-ups

• Write-up template is posted on Director’s Review Webpage. http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OPMO/Projects/APUL/DirRev/2009/07_16/CloseoutPresentationsDRAPUL07-17-09.docx

• Write-ups are to be sent to Terry Erickson at [email protected] prior to 12:30 PM on Friday, July 17 for the Closeout Dry Run

• A final report will be issued within 2 weeks after the closeout.


3416-Jul-09

Discussion

• Questions and Answers

Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project

Documents

Transcript of Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project