office of science project review ncsx august 15-17, 2007 cost and schedule ron strykowsky

Strykowsky 1Office of Science Review August 15, 2007

Office of Science Project Review

NCSX

August 15-17, 2007

Cost and Schedule

Ron Strykowsky


Topics

• Cost, Schedule and Contingency Development Process

• Basis and Assumptions

• Contingency

• Cost Summary

• Schedule Summary

• Cost Profile

• Manpower


Process of Establishing a new Project EAC

• Developed Guidelines for Job Managers (realistic not best case)

• Estimates Prepared• Independent Management Review (led by head of PPPL engineering)*

• PU Estimating Workshop (May 1-4)*

• Refined Estimating packages•Reformatted for consistency•Further Estimate review for completeness and realism•Estimate uncertainty and Risk*•Formally documented basis of estimate*

• Updated overhead and labor rates• Prepared resource Loaded Schedule• Design evolution of critical scope (task forces)

• Risk brainstorming meeting*• Contingency analysis process (probabilistic approach)*

• Re-iterate Resource Loaded Schedule• June 4 PU Review*• Follow-up actions• Final Updates, Packaging, Documentation (signed WAF’s)• Statused through end of June (CPI = 1.2 and SPI = 1.03 for two months)• Office of Science Review August 15-17 *=NEW


Refined Estimating packages (table 1 of 6)

Table 1 - Work Approval FormPackage includes copy of the resource loaded schedule



Table 2 - Design



Materials and Procurements



Fabrication and Assembly



Estimate Uncertainty and Risk



Basis of estimate


Key Planning Basis and Assumptions

• ETC forward from May 1st, 2007• Cost Incurred from April 1, 2003 (MIE project inception)

• MIE project scope only. (Excludes research preparations and conceptual design)

• GPP and Infrastructure not part of MIE project. (Progress coordinated and tracked by Erik Perry)

• BA constraints (FY07= $16.77 FY08 = $15.9, FY09 = $18.56*)

• Scope unchanged from current baseline• Institutional Overhead Rates • Standard work week 8hrs/day 5 days/ week (Exception coil winding, Field

period assy (sta5 FPA#3), and Final Machine assy)

• Holidays• Contingency Allocation by fiscal year (commensurate with risk & cost

uncertainty)

• Realistic task durations (anticipate manpower shortages & priorities)

• Task durations - more detail on critical path and near term• * = assumed


fy07 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Non-Labor

31 overtime 31 1791 1918 1974 2041 2110 2182

35 PPPL Travel 35 1188 1218 1242 1273 1305 133837 stockroom 37 1613 1716 1751 1795 1840 188541 PPPL M&S 41 (on first $250k) 1276 1308 1397 1432 1468 1505

48 PPPL M&S (over $250 k) 48 no esc 1000 1025 1051 1077 1104 1131

Labor Skils Avg rates WITHOUT benefits88 plug number w/G&A 1000 88 1613 1716 1751 1795 1840 1885

B///CB PPPL Project Clerical 22.31 B///CB 47.86 51.26 52.76 54.55 56.41 58.33

EA//sb PPPL Designer 45.98 EA//SB 112.46 119.91 123.42 127.62 131.96 136.45

EA//EM PPPL Analysis engineer 71.23 EA//EM 174.23 185.76 191.21 197.71 204.43 211.38

EC//EM PPPL Comuter Engineer 58.81 EC//EM 140.70 150.67 155.09 160.36 165.82 171.45

EC//SB PPPL Computer Senior Tech 37.74 EC//SB 90.29 96.69 99.53 102.91 106.41 110.03

EC//TB PPPL Computer Tech 28.59 EC//TB 68.40 73.25 75.40 77.96 80.61 83.35

EC//SM PPPL Computer Senior Tech 52.38 EC//SM 125.31 134.19 138.12 142.82 147.67 152.69

ee//am PPPL S/C Computer Engineer 36.79 EE//AM 86.44 92.14 94.85 98.07 101.40 104.85

EE//EM PPPL Electrical engineer 69.27 EE//EM 162.75 173.49 178.58 184.65 190.93 197.42

EE//SM PPPL Electrical Senior Tech 56.85 EE//SM 133.57 142.39 146.56 151.55 156.70 162.03

EE//TB PPPL Electrical Technician 31.09 EE//TB 73.05 77.87 80.15 82.88 85.69 88.61

EM//EM PPPL FO&M Engineer 63.04 EM//EM 150.82 160.79 165.50 171.13 176.95 182.96

EM//SB PPPL FO&M Senior Tech 43.68 EM//SB 104.50 111.41 114.67 118.57 122.60 126.77

EM//SM PPPL FO&M Senior Tech 51.80 EM//SM 123.92 132.11 135.98 140.60 145.38 150.33

EMT/TB PPPL Tech Shop) EMT/TB 75.15 80.11 82.46 85.26 88.16 91.16

EM2/TB PPPL Technician 2nd shift EM2/TB 82.66 88.12 90.71 93.79 96.98 100.28

EM//TB PPPL FO&M Technician 31.41 EM//TB 75.15 80.11 82.46 85.26 88.16 91.16

FC//AM PPPL P&CO am 70.13 FC//AM 150.48 161.15 165.88 171.52 177.35 183.38

R///RM2 PPPL Scientist pdg2 69.04 R///RM2 157.77 168.95 173.90 179.82 185.93 192.25

D///RM3 PPPL Scientist pdg3 97.05 D///RM3 221.77 237.49 244.46 252.77 261.36 270.25

R///RM3 PPPL Scientist pdg3 97.05 R///RM3 221.77 237.49 244.46 252.77 261.36 270.25

ORNLEM ORNL engr ORNLEM 155.72 161.76 173.41 179.31 185.40 191.71

ORNLDM ORNL designer ORNL DM 82.50 83.62 86.71 89.91 93.23 96.40

ORNLRM ornl reserach ORNLRM 229.50 235.63 244.49 250.60 256.87 263.29

SH//TB HP Techs 33.57 SH//TB 109.86 115.72 119.11 123.16 127.35 131.68

G&A Site Rate 46.0% 51.5% 51.5% 51.5% 51.5% 51.5%

MHX 25.0% 25.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%Travel 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5%

G&A 10.5% 10.5% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%

NON-labor escalation 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

labor escalation 0.0% 3.2% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%

EA burden 14.0% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5%

EE burden 9.5% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%

EM burden 11.5% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0%EC burden 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5%RM burden 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%

SH burden 52.5% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%t/c overtime burden 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0%

Labor benefit rate & vac accural 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0%

Cost Basis - Resource types and Rates

• Resource Types, labor and overhead rates

Overhead and escalation rates

Labor Skills (hourly rates)

Non-Labor Resource


Contingency - Process

• Structured process with support of consultant• Job Manager and Project Team input• Objective was to assess and analyze all areas of

uncertainty and risk that might affect the cost and schedule estimates

• Used Probabilistic Risk Analysis Techniques (Monte Carlo Analysis)

• Recommend Contingency Allowances that provide 90% confidence level that proposed baseline will not be exceeded.

• Project Manager Experience


Contingency - Components

Cost Schedule

Estimate Uncertainty $ months+

Risk $ months+

Schedule (stretch-out) $+

Schedule Mitigation (i.e. 2nd shift) $+

Project Manager Experience $

Total $ Months


Contingency – Estimate Uncertainty

• Both cost estimates and schedule durations have inherent levels of uncertainty

• Uncertainty is a direct result of degree of design maturity and the complexity of the elements involved – in effect, how much definition exists to provide a basis for the estimates

• Uncertainty levels can be described in terms of ranges around the point estimates developed by Job Managers and the Project Management team

• Used standard industry and DOE estimate classifications to describe individual job estimates

• Used determination of design maturity and complexity to equate to estimate classification

• Also solicited Job Manager opinions regarding expected range around estimates (+ or – some % of the estimate)



• Per AACEI Recommended Practice 18R-97, Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied to Engineering, Procurement, and Construction in the Process Industries

• Five classes of estimates with associated accuracy ranges, dependent on level of project development and definition and estimating techniques used

• Equated the five estimate classes to a design maturity and complexity matrix for NCSX

Basis for Estimate Ranges

Design Complexity

Design Maturity Low Medium High

Low -15% +25% -20% +40% -30% +60%

Medium -10% +15% -15% +25% -20% +40%

High -5% +10% -10% +15% -15% +25%

Estimate Uncertainty Matrix



Estimate Uncertainty Matrix by WBS ETC and Estimate Range

WBS Description ETC Frozen HL ML & HM MM,LL,HH MH & LM LHAssumed Estimate Accuracy Range -5 to +10% -10 to +15% -15 to +25% -20 to +40% -30 to +60%

12 Vacuum Vessel 156 -252 40813 Conventional Coils 3,460 -32 337 1,111 2,04414 Modular Coils 6,241 -116 501 3,901 1,95515 Structures 1,262 1,26216 Coil Services 862 86217 Cryostat & Base Support Structure 785 325 253 20718 Field Period Assembly 10,105 5,727 515 1,548 2,31519 Stellarator Core Mgmt & Integr 1,620 1,6202 Auxiliary Systems 240 172 683 Diagnostics 717 454 2634 Electrical Power Systems 2,425 -104 1,445 1,0845 I&C Systems 1,136 69 640 205 2226 Facility Systems 1,379 151 1,2287 Test Cell Prep & Machine Assy 7,952 -249 617 7,5848 Project Oversight & Support 12,508 174 9,176 2,562 597

50,849 -580 14,696 10,751 10,326 12,744 2,912

Design Maturity/Complexity



• Established estimate range for each job using the Estimate Uncertainty Matrix

• Also had Job Managers describe expected accuracy (as + and – % of base estimate) - as a check on Matrix

• Used Monte Carlo Analysis to determine overall project cost probability profile - both approaches yielded similar results (adopted standard approach as conservative. ~1-2% higher than job mgrs)

• Each job estimate was treated as an independent variable– Triangular Distributions– Base Estimate as Most Likely Value– Low End of Range as Minimum Value– High End of Range as 80% confidence level*

Cost Estimate Uncertainty

Result = $8,036k* 20% chance that cost could be even higher than uncertainty matrix



Schedule Duration Uncertainty• Established estimate range only for Critical and Near

Critical Path activities using same approach as for cost• Used Monte Carlo Analysis to determine overall project

schedule probability profile• Each critical path activity treated as independent variable

– Triangular Distributions– Base Estimate as Most Likely Value– Low End of Range as Minimum Value– High End of Range as 90% confidence level (higher

than for costs since schedule workarounds may be possible)

• Did not add schedule cont. for some activities (those that could be worked on second shift) – BUT added cost allowance for shift supervision, support and shift differential costs (schedule mitigation cost)

Result = 7.9 months


Contingency – Risk

Risk Assessment and Analysis

• Identified risks– Job Manager and Project Team Input and Brainstorming

• Assessed Risks– Likelihood of Occurrence– Cost and Schedule Impact Ranges

• Ranked risks to focus management attention and mitigation actions (Risk mitigation actions included in baseline estimates)

• Used Monte Carlo Analysis model to assess probable residual impacts (after mitigation) on cost and schedule baseline

• Process will continue – identification of additional risks and management of identified risks.

Result = $1,282k and 3.8 months


Contingency – Cost of Schedule Contingency

Risk Assessment and Analysis

• Cost impact of schedule contingency– Oversight/management cost = $202k/mo.

• Cost impact of schedule mitigation by use of second shift – During field period assembly for add’l supervision,

metrology, support crews = $64k/mo.

Result = $355k

Result = $2,347


Contingency – Project Manager’s Increment

Additional contingency added to attain 27% cost contingency based upon;

• Recent Experience with WX-7• Recent NCSX experience• Undefined risk• “Unknown unknowns”• Adopt schedule contingency of 11 months


Contingency – Results

Cost Schedule

Estimate Uncertainty $8,036 (16%) 7.8+

Risk $1,282 (3%) 3.8+

Schedule (stretch-out) $2,347 (5%) -+

Schedule Mitigation (i.e. 2nd shift) $ 355 (1%) -+

Project Manager Experience $1,711

Proposed Baseline Contingency = $ 13,731 (27%) 11 Months


Contingency – Results

Allocated by WBS

WBS ETC Uncertainty ScheduleSched Mitig Risk

Management Increment ("unknown unknowns") Total

12 Vacuum Vessel 156 30 10 6 46 29%

13 Conventional Coils 3,462 527 175 100 802 23%

14 Modular Coils 6,247 1,002 406 200 1,608 26%

15 Structures 1,262 173 8 26 207 16%

16 Coil Services 861 67 225 42 333 39%

17 Cryostat & Base Support Structure 784 112 5 17 133 17%

18 Field Period Assembly 10,104 1,645 355 127 303 2,431 24%

19 Stellarator Core Mgmt & Integr 1,620 127 179 10 45 362 22%

2 Auxiliary Systems 241 34 2 5 41 17%

3 Diagnostics 717 84 5 13 101 14%

4 Electrical Power Systems 2,425 182 53 33 268 11%

5 I&C Systems 1,136 156 7 23 186 16%

6 Facility Systems 1,379 372 9 54 435 32%

7 Test Cell Prep & Machine Assy 7,951 2,375 162 361 2,897 36%

8 Project Oversight & Support 12,509 1,150 2,168 79 483 3,880 31%

Total 50,854 8,036 2,347 355 1,282 1,711 13,731 27%


• Based on deliverables and/or tasks provided by the job managers• Varied from resource loaded schedules to deliverables and resource

estimate only

• Established tasks, internal milestones (PDR’s, FDR’s, contract awards)

• Task durations based on realistic resource loadings, crew sizes, #

shifts

• Logically linked

• Non-critical path tasks scheduled with BA constraints with free

float to critical path

• Schedule iterated based on• Ongoing design evolutions causing estimates to vary

• Contingency quantification exercises

• Resource leveling exercises (techs, key engrs)

Scheduling - Process


Results – Preliminary Cost

NCSX Project Budget vs EAC Comparison

WBS

Baseline (ECP-31 DOE Directed re-

baseline April 2005)

Project Cost to date

(4/1/03 thru 4/30/07)

Proposed ETC

Current EAC (June 2007) Increase

12 Vacuum Vessel $9,531 $9,753 $156 $9,909 $378 4%13 Conventional Coils $4,790 $3,224 $3,460 $6,685 $1,895 40%14 Modular Coils $28,091 $34,200 $6,241 $40,441 $12,349 44%15 Structures $1,413 $340 $1,262 $1,602 $189 13%16 Coil Services $1,140 $3 $862 $865 -$275 -24%17 Cryostat & Base Support Structure $1,361 $431 $785 $1,216 -$145 -11%18 Field Period Assembly $5,430 $3,469 $10,105 $13,574 $8,144 150%19 Stellarator Core Mgmt & Integr $2,752 $2,128 $1,620 $3,748 $996 36%

1 Stellarator Core $54,508 $53,549 $24,491 $78,040 $23,531 43%

2 Auxiliary Systems $783 $348 $240 $588 -$195 -25%

3 Diagnostics $1,143 $954 $717 $1,672 $528 46%

4 Electrical Power Systems $3,301 $720 $2,425 $3,145 -$157 -5%

5 I&C Systems $2,050 $33 $1,136 $1,169 -$881 -43%

6 Facility Systems $691 $24 $1,379 $1,403 $712 103%

7 Test Cell Prep & Machine Assy $4,413 $963 $7,952 $8,915 $4,501 102%81 Project Management and Oversight $4,509 $3,372 $4,342 $7,714 $3,206 71%82 Project Engineering $4,885 $5,250 $5,948 $11,198 $6,314 129%84 Project Physics $470 $470 $0 $470 $0 0%85 Integrated Systems Testing $1,189 $0 $765 $765 -$424 -36%

8 Project Oversight & Support $11,052 $9,092 $11,055 $20,147 $9,095 82%

Allocations $1,577 $1,420 $1,454 $2,874 $1,296 82%Subtotal $79,521 $67,103 $50,849 $117,952 $38,431 48%

Contingency $12,804 $13,731 $13,73125% 27%

DCMA $75 $75 $75TOTAL $92,401 $67,178 $64,580 $131,758 $39,358 43%

Planned Finish = Feb-09 Jan-11 23 mo. IncreaseCD-4 = Jul-09 Dec-11 29 mo. IncreaseSchedule Contingency = 5 mo. 11 mo.


Results – Cost Profile

• Contingency scheduled consistent with risks and uncertainties• Plan consistent with Funding

FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011BCWS = $5,942 $14,314 $18,132 $19,073 $15,925 $14,391 $15,068 $12,581 $2,602

Contingency = $144 $2,205 $3,492 $4,450 $3,440

EAC = $5,942 $14,314 $18,132 $19,073 $16,069 $16,596 $18,560 $17,031 $6,042

Funding (BA) $16,771 $15,900 $18,560

Planned Finish = 1/31/11CD-4= 12/31/11

Schedule Contingency = 11.0


Results – Preliminary Schedule (Summary)

NCSX Critical Path Summary ScheduleFY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J

CDR

CD-1MC/VV PDR CD-2 EIR CD-3 Start of Fab

Modular Coil FDR

VACUUM VESSELTitle I & II Design

Vessel AwardVessel Fab

MODULAR COILSTitle I & II MCWF

Twisted Racetrack Fabrication

Title II MC Winding Type CType C Type AType B

Modular Coil Interface Design and procurement

Winding Component FabricationMCWF Manufacturing Development

Fabricate Prototype Type "C" Award Winding Form Contract

Fab Winding Forms

Modular Coil WIndingWind

FIELD PERIOD ASSEMBLYStage 1: Attach Cooling,Diag, Insulation

Stage 2: Pre-Assemble Mod Coils

Stage 3: MC Installation

Stage 5: Assemble 1st Period

Stage 5: Assemble 2nd Period

Stage 5: Assemble 3rd Period

MACHINE ASSEMBLY Install Supports and Lower PF Coils

Install,align, connect Field Period AssembliesLegend: Pump DownCompleted Task Connect to Ancilliary SystemsCritical Paths Install Cryostat & PTP

Off critical path Startup Testing and E-Beam MappingCurrent Baseline CD-4

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12ONDJ F MAMJ J ASONDJ FMA MJ J ASONDJ F MAMJ J ASON DJFMAMJ JAS O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J

Total Float 11 mo.


Results – MilestonesMilestone Level Proposed Baseline

1 MC Interface FDR (excl C-C) 2 Nov-072 Deliver TF Coils for FPA #1 assy (4) 2 Dec-073 Shims required for 1st MCHP Assy. (Sta. 2) available 2 Jan-084 PF Coil PDR 2 Mar-085 FDR Base Support Structure 2 May-086 Complete 1st MCHP Assy. (Sta. 2) 2 Sep-087 Award PF Coils Contract 2 Sep-088 Award Coil Support Structure 2 Oct-089 Complete VPI of 18th Mod. Coil 2 Oct-08

10 Complete Modular Coil Fabrication 2 Feb-0911 Station 6 Assy Specifrication& Drawings Complete 2 Mar-0912 Complete 1st MC-VV Assy. (Sta. 3) 2 Apr-0913 Power Systems PDR 2 Jun-0914 Complete Base Support Structure Assembly 2 Jul-0915 Complete 2nd MC-VV Assy. (Sta. 3) 2 Sep-0916 Complete 1st Field Period Assy. (Sta. 5) 2 Nov-0917 Complete 3rd MC-VV Assy. (Sta. 3) 2 Dec-0918 Complete Fab. TF/MCWF Coil Structures Hardware 2 Dec-0919 Power Systems C-Site Cabling FDR 2 Feb-1020 Complete 2nd Field Period Assy. (Sta. 5) 2 May-1021 Install 3rd Field Period on Assy. Sleds (Sta. 6) 2 Jul-1022 Move FPA's & Spacers together & check fitup 2 Oct-1023 E-Beam Mapping Apparatus Assembled and Ready for Installation 2 Dec-1024 Complete Cryo Systems Pre-Ops Tests 2 Feb-1125 Pump Down of Vacuum Vessel 2 Mar-1126 Complete Central Safety & Interlock System Pre-Ops Tests 2 May-1127 Begin Cryostat Installation 2 Jul-1128 Complete Power System Pre-Ops Tests 2 Aug-1129 Complete Operational Readiness Assessment 2 Sep-1130 Begin Start-Up Testing 2 Oct-1131 Cooldown of machine 2 Nov-11

32 Complete CD-4 Milestone (First Plasma and Completion of MIE Project) 1 Dec-11


Results – Prelim. Resource Loaded Schedule


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55 PPPL Designers

PPPL Analyst Engrs

PPPL Computing Engrs

PPPL FO&M Engrs

PPPL Electrical Engrs

PPPL Techs (SM/SB/TB)

ORNL Engr/Designers

Poly. (PPPL Techs(SM/SB/TB))

PPPL Designers 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1.9 1.5 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 - - - - 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - -

PPPL Analyst Engrs 5 8 7 5 8 8 6.9 8.4 8.2 9 10 8 9 7 7 8 6 7 7 6 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 6 6 4 5 5 5 6 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 - -

PPPL Computing Engrs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 - - 1 - - - - -

PPPL FO&M Engrs 2 1 3 3 4 4 6.0 6.1 3.0 5 8 4 7 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 7 6 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 8 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 - -

PPPL Electrical Engrs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -

PPPL Techs (SM/SB/TB) 19 27 26 21 33 26 32 28.2 22.9 32 28 30 28 28 19 30 29 27 24 18 17 15 17 14 18 23 30 32 32 32 28 30 31 28 23 24 29 16 14 22 20 38 38 29 23 19 21 17 24 21 17 3 - -

ORNL Engr/Designers 8 11 12 9 6 9 5 5 7 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 4 3 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APIL MAYJUNFY0

7

JULFY0

7

AUGFY0

7

SEPFY0

7

OCTFY0

8

NOVFY0

8

DECFY0

8

JANFY0

8

FEBFY0

8

MARFY0

8

APRFY0

8

MAYFY0

8

JUNFY0

8

JULFY0

8

AUGFY0

8

SEPFY0

8

OCTFY0

9

NOVFY0

9

DECFY0

9

JANFY0

9

FEBFY0

9

MARFY0

9

APRFY0

9

MAYFY0

9

JUNFY0

9

JULFY0

9

AUGFY0

9

SEPFY0

9

OCTFY1

0

NOVFY1

0

DECFY1

0

JANFY1

0

FEBFY1

0

MARFY1

0

APRFY1

0

MAYFY1

0

JUNFY1

0

JULFY1

0

AUGFY1

0

SEPFY1

0

OCTFY1

1

NOVFY1

1

DECFY1

1

JANFY1

1

FEBFY1

1

MARFY1

1

ACTUAL

FPA Sta 5 #3

FPA Sta 5 #1

FPA Sta 5 #2

Winding

FPA Sta 2 #2

FPA Sta 3 #1 #2 #3

FPA Station 2 #1

MC Design

FPA Station 1

FPA Sta 2 #3

FINAL MACHINE ASSEMBLY

Anciliary Systems design/fab

Results – Manpower

• Manpower requirements being satisfied• Future needs achievable


SUMMARY

• Project has followed a disciplined path for updating its cost and

schedule estimates highlighted by;• Formal & consistent basis of estimate

• Independent reviews by PPPL engineering and PU

• Focus on center of the error bars (realistic) estimates from job managers

• Project has followed a methodical process for quantifying cost

as well as schedule contingency.• Probabilistic contingency methodology for cost and schedule estimate uncertainty

• Probabilistic contingency methodology for quantifying cost and schedule risk

• Initiated a formal risk registry that will be integrated into our work planning process

• Project has produced a proposed baseline cost estimate

backed-up by a resource loaded schedule and detailed estimate

basis.

office of science project review ncsx august 15-17, 2007 cost and schedule ron strykowsky

Documents

pu review

monthsoffice of science

cost basis resource

pu estimating workshop

overhead rates overhead

documented basis of

labor ratesprepared

project team inputobjective