Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

ACQUISITION

STRATEGY

Utilities Infrastructure Modernization

Page intentionally left blank

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Change Log ................................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... v

Acquisition Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 1

1. DESIRED OUTCOME AND REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION ................................................... 1

1.1. Project Description, Objective, and Scope .................................................................... 1

1.2. Mission Need ........................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. Performance Parameters Required to Obtain Desired Outcome......................... 4

2. COST AND SCHEDULE RANGE ..................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Total Project Cost (TPC) Range......................................................................................... 5

2.2. Funding Profile ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.3. Key Milestones and Events ................................................................................................. 5

3. MAJOR APPLICABLE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 6

3.1. Environmental, Regulatory and Political Sensitivities ............................................ 6

3.2. Pollution Prevention Plans ................................................................................................ 6

3.3. Security ..................................................................................................................................... 7

3.4. Technology and Research and Development .............................................................. 7

3.5. Environmental Sustainable Design ................................................................................. 7

3.6. Safety and Health ................................................................................................................... 7

3.7. Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 8

4. RISK AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 8

4.1. Risk Management .................................................................................................................. 8

4.2. Technical Alternative Analysis ......................................................................................... 9

4.3. Economic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 10

5. BUSINESS AND ACQUISITION APPROACH ........................................................................... 10

5.1. Acquisition and Contract types...................................................................................... 10

5.2 Incentives .............................................................................................................................. 11

5.3 Competition .......................................................................................................................... 11

5.4 Other Procurement Considerations ............................................................................ 11

5.5 Risk .......................................................................................................................................... 11

6 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND APPROACH ................................................................... 12

6.1 Integrated Project Team (IPT) Structure ....................................................................... 12

6.2 Approach to Earned Value ............................................................................................... 13

6.3 Interdependencies and Interfaces ............................................................................... 13

iii

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 - Total Project Cost ................................................................................................5

Table 2 - Funding Profile ($K) ............................................................................................5

Table 3 - Key Milestones .....................................................................................................6

Table 4 - LCC Analysis Present Value Results for Alternatives ...................................... 10

Table 5 - IPT Members ...................................................................................................... 12

iv

Change Log

Rev. No. Date Change Description

Pages Modified

0 Initial issue N/A

v

List of Acronyms

A-E Architect-Engineer

BLCC Building Life-Cycle Cost

CD Critical Decision

CTF Cryogenics Test facility

DOE Department of Energy

EA Environmental Assessment

EMS Environmental Management System

EOI Expression of Interest

ERL Energy Recovering Linacs

ES&H Environment, Safety and Health

FPD Federal Project Director

FY Fiscal Year

GC General Contractor

IPT Integrated Project Team

JLAB Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

JSA Jefferson Science Associates, LLC

LCC Life Cycle Cost

M&O Management and Operating

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NP Nuclear Physics

OPC Other Project Costs

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PARS Project Assessment and Reporting System

PED Project Engineering and Design

PEP Project Execution Plan

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

SRF Superconducting Radiofrequency

TBD To Be Determined

TEC Total Estimated Cost

TJNAF Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

TJSO Thomas Jefferson Site Office

TPC Total Project Cost

UIM Utilities Infrastructure Modernization

1

Acquisition Strategy

Project Title: Utilities Infrastructure Modernization

Lead Program and Project Office: Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Office of Science

Total Project Cost Range (TPC): $25.0 Million (M) - $29.9 M

Total Estimated Cost Range (TEC): $24.3 Million (M) - $29.2 M

Critical Decision (CD)-0 Mission Need Approval: The Director of Science, William F.

Brinkman, approved the CD-0 for the Utilities Infrastructure Modernization Project on

September 18, 2009. The scope is unchanged since that approval. Consistent with the

approach at CD-0, the concept included upgrades and expansion of cryogenic, electrical

power distribution, cooling water, and communication systems. This concept will address

the mission needs identified in the CD-0, which were to address the aging of existing utility

systems including the TJNAF cryogenic, power distribution, cooling water, and

communication systems. These systems are no longer adequate to support SC mission

requirements for the ongoing program as well as research development and production of

critical components for current and future projects.

1. DESIRED OUTCOME AND REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION

1.1. Project Description, Objective, and Scope

The mission of the Office of Science’s Nuclear Physics (NP) program at the

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF or JLab) is to explore the

quark structure of matter. In pursuit of this mission, the Continuous Electron

Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) is used to conduct user driven research into

how nucleons are built from quarks and gluons, and how this structure leads to

the standard model-based picture of the nucleus.

The Utility Infrastructure Modernization (UIM) project is critical to the mission

of JLab and will include upgrades and expansion of cryogenic, electrical power

distribution, cooling water, and communication systems. Major elements of the

design are discussed below.

The key component of the cryogenic system that needs to be expanded and

better integrated is the Cryogenic Test Facility (CTF). The CTF building is

undersized for the current equipment and piping, and the current capacity is

inadequate to serve the load in the Test Lab. An expansion of the current

building will address the current overcrowding of system components and

allow for installation of additional equipment to meet the Test Lab demand. An

adequately sized building will allow installation of cryogenic equipment that

will double the cryogenic capacity with no resulting increase in energy

consumption.

2

Upgrades and expansion of the electrical power distribution system will include

replacement of primary and secondary feeders to approximately 26 substations

that are currently beginning to experience conductor failures. The system will

be expanded to ensure redundancy by increasing the site alternate power feed

from 400 Amps to 1200 Amps. This will be sufficient backup to the primary

feed to allow restart of the CHL in the event of a failure in the primary feed.

Cooling water upgrades will include replacement of up to 9 existing cooling

towers that are 20 to 40 years old. The replacement cooling towers will have

increased capacity and will be co-located to allow greater efficiency and

redundancy. This will also reduce replacement, maintenance, and energy costs.

Communication system upgrades will include replacement of 20 to 40 year old

underground communication and data cabling by providing distributed

communication huts with a new underground distribution pathway. This will

include a fiber optic backbone with approximately 630 miles of fiber optic cable

and 40 miles of building computer cable. State of the art telephone support

systems and an emergency broadcast system will also be provided.

1.2. Mission Need

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) is a Department of

Energy (DOE), Office of Science (SC) Laboratory that supports a growing

national and international community of scientific users conducting forefront

science, applying core competencies to advance science and national goals,

producing annually one third of our nation’s nuclear physics PhDs, and

enhancing math and science education for our community in support of the DOE

mission. TJNAF has a central and unique role in the field of nuclear physics, both

in the U.S. and worldwide. TJNAF’s present and future program relies on

maintaining its role as the world leader in hadronic physics and

superconducting accelerator technologies.

The TJNAF cryogenic, power distribution, cooling water, and communication

systems are experiencing failure at increasing frequencies and have insufficient

capacity to meet current and forecasted need. This project is needed to address

performance gaps in respect to providing a work environment that meets safety

goals, current code standards and operational efficiency goals.

The current utility system gaps at TJNAF jeopardize its capability to provide the

unique competencies to deliver its mission, to perform a complementary role

within the DOE laboratory system, and to attain the vision for scientific

excellence and pre-eminence in the structure of nuclear building blocks, the

underlying quark-gluon structure of the nucleus; and symmetry tests including

the weak charge of the proton to test predictions of the Standard Model. In

addition, these gaps jeopardize TJNAF’s capability to contribute to enabling

technologies and emerging fields in photon science and electron-light ion

colliders including advance radiofrequency superconductivity, 2K cryogenic

3

engineering technology, photon science, advanced high power free electron

lasers, energy recovering linacs (ERLs), and electron-light ion collisions at ultra-

high luminosity. These enabling technologies also support the ongoing research

programs and projects at TJNAF including 6 GeV, 12 GeV, and the Free Electron

Laser as well as other DOE national and international projects including SNS,

FRIB, EIC, APS, and ILC.

The cryogenic, power distribution, cooling water, and communication systems

are 20 to 40 years old. The cryogenic system has insufficient capacity and

despite significant gains over the past several years on significantly improving

the efficiency of major system components, there remains a need for overall

system efficiency optimization. Currently the cryogenic capacity is inadequate to

support the needs in the Test Lab which is the key facility for Superconducting

Radiofrequency (SRF) development and production activities. The lack of

adequate cryogenic capacity is a limiting factor on scheduling SRF activities.

Cryogenic system operation at TJNAF accounts for over 90% of annual

electricity costs. Therefore efficiency gains in this system will significantly

contribute to a reduction in overall operating costs. Electricity energy savings

from an upgrade to the Cryogenic Test Facility (CTF), a key component in the

cryogenic system, are estimated to be 36%.

The capacity of the power distribution system is currently taxed to its limit and

will not support future projected needs. The power distribution system does not

have the necessary redundancy to maintain operation of critical systems during

partial power outages. The most critical element of this gap is the inability to

restart the Central Helium Liquefier (CHL) from the alternate power feed when

the primary feed has an outage. The CHL is the largest component in the site

cryogenic system and critical to maintaining constant cryogenic temperatures in

the accelerator cryomodules necessary to prevent degradation of accelerator

performance and costly repairs. Electric feeders are at the end of their service

life and are near failing. Insulation cracks have been observed on multiple

feeders. Recent interruption to accelerator operation due to failed components

of the electrical supply heightens this concern.

The cooling water distribution system is suffering frequent failures and has

insufficient capacity to support optimal experimental program scheduling,

computer center heat loads, and future expected growth. Over the past year

failure of the cooling water distribution system has caused several weeks of

down time for the Free Electron Laser facility. Cooling towers are well past their

efficient life cycle utilization and are requiring ever increasing amounts of

maintenance. In addition, there is an estimated energy savings from addressing

this gap of 10%. The computer center cooling and uninterruptable power

supply (UPS) capacity is insufficient to meet the Lab’s growing computing

requirements. A planned central chiller plant will be expanded to handle the

cooling load and additional UPS requirements.

4

Subsurface communications systems are outdated and unreliable. Because some

of these systems are over 40 years old replacement components are often

unavailable. Phone switch parts are difficult to locate and no additional cabling

capacity is available for telecommunications or data lines. Inadequate capacity is

impacting the ability to install communications to support staff growth and

replace degraded cables as necessary. This equipment has reached the end of its

life cycle. Consequently, instances of phone outages are impacting the efficiency

of operations. The underground copper wiring is also past its service life. In

addition, installation of an Emergency Broadcast System is necessary to meet

safety goals and improve efficiency of response.

These capabilities are essential to operation of TJNAF. Universities have

historically come to TJNAF for support because of the unique SRF production

capabilities at the Laboratory. Similarly commercial availability for SRF is

limited because of the intermittent nature and relatively small quantities of SRF

components that are needed nationally. When possible, commercial production

capability is used.

1.3. Performance Parameters Required to Obtain Desired Outcome.

The desired outcome will be obtained when the following work as outlined in

Section 1.1 above is completed in accordance with the contact drawings and

specifications, safety requirements and within the approved schedule and cost

baseline.

The Cryogenics Test Facility will be expanded and upgraded to allow

installation of cryogenic equipment that will increase the current cryogenic

capacity to meet current and projected mission needs. The electrical power

distribution system will be upgraded and modernized through replacement of

primary and secondary feeders to approximately 26 substations that are

currently beginning to experience conductor failures. The system will be

expanded to ensure redundancy by increasing the site alternate power feed to

allow restart of the CHL in the event of a failure in the primary feed. Process

cooling systems will be upgraded through replacement of up to 9 existing

cooling towers. The replacement cooling towers will have increased capacity

and will be co-located to allow greater efficiency and redundancy.

Communication system upgrades will include replacement of 20 to 40 year old

underground communication and data cabling by providing distributed

communication huts with a new underground distribution pathway. This will

include a fiber optic backbone, state of the art telephone support systems and

an emergency broadcast system will also be provided.

5

2. COST AND SCHEDULE RANGE

2.1. Total Project Cost (TPC) Range

The current TEC range is $24.3M to $29.2M, with other project costs estimated

at $0.7M. This gives an estimated TPC range of $25.0M to $29.9M. This estimate

includes design; construction; construction and project management; contract

administration; commissioning; contingency; and escalation to the mid-point of

construction at 4.0 percent per year.

Task Estimate ($K) Other Project Costs (OPC) 700 Project Engineering and Design (PED) 3,100 Construction & Renovation 26,100 TPC 29,9001

Table 1 - Total Project Cost

Consistent with DOE Order 413.3A, the TPC estimate will be refined with each

CD as design and value engineering are conducted and provide additional

information. The Performance Baseline will be established at CD-2.

2.2. Funding Profile

Table 2 shows the preliminary funding profile based on the high end of the

estimated TPC range.

FY 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL

PED 3,100 3,100

Construction 4,728 7,700 13,672 26,100

TEC 7,828 7,700 13,672 29,200

OPC 700 700

Total Project Cost 700 7,828 7,700 13,672 29,900

Table 2 - Funding Profile ($K)

2.3. Key Milestones and Events

The following are the key milestones planned for this project. The schedule

shown assumes PED and subsequent funding is available in January of each

fiscal year. These milestones are preliminary. The project schedule will be

refined during preliminary design, and final milestones will be established at

CD-2.

1 The Total Project Cost shown for this project is preliminary as the project has not achieved Critical

Decision (CD)-2; Approve Performance Baseline.

6

Level Milestone Description Date

1 CD-0, Approve Mission Need 9/18/2009 (actual)

1 CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range

4th Qtr FY10

3 Award A/E Subcontract and Notice to Proceed 2nd Qtr FY11

3 Award CM Subcontract 2nd Qtr FY11

2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documentation Completed

2nd Qtr FY11

1 CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline 3rd Qtr FY11

2 Complete Design 3rd Qtr FY11

1 CD-3; Approve Start of Construction 4th Qtr FY11

2 Award Electric Distribution GC Subcontract 4th Qtr FY11

3 Start Electric Distribution Construction 4th Qtr FY11

2 Award Cooling Tower & CTF Bldg Subcontracts 2nd Qtr FY12

3 Start Cooling Tower & CTF Bldg Construction 2nd Qtr FY12

2 Award Remaining Subcontracts 2nd Qtr FY13

3 Start Remaining Construction 2nd Qtr FY13

3 Electrical Distribution Construction Beneficial Occupancy

4th Qtr FY13

3 Cooling Tower Construction Beneficial Occupancy 1st Qtr FY14

3 Remaining Construction Beneficial Occupancy 2nd Qtr FY14

2 Construction Complete 3rd Qtr FY14

1 CD-4, Project Completion 4th Qtr FY14

Table 3 - Key Milestones

3. MAJOR APPLICABLE CONDITIONS

3.1. Environmental, Regulatory and Political Sensitivities

There are no environmental, regulatory or other institutional sensitivities that

would significantly impact the UIM Project. All work done at JLab will be in

accordance with Federal, State and local guidelines. Regulatory permits for

storm water pollution prevention will be filed with the appropriate agencies

prior to the on-site construction/modification work. Safety will be integrated

into all aspects of work performed at JLab per its DOE-approved Integrated

Safety Management Program. A Preliminary Hazard Assessment has been

prepared for this project.

The environmental risk is low. The project will comply with all requirements of

the NEPA and its implementing regulations.

3.2. Pollution Prevention Plans

TJNAF has a DOE approved Environmental Management System (EMS), and

construction requirements flow down to contractors and subcontractors from

the EMS. Oversight of construction activities is conducted by the Management

and Operating (M&O) contractor, Jefferson Science Associates, LLC, to ensure

subcontractors are in compliance with these requirements. Material that can be

recycled will not be disposed of in landfills, and new materials used will be

specified to contain the maximum amounts of recycled content practical.

7

3.3. Security

The project construction areas will be isolated into controlled areas during

construction. The construction area will be fenced and restricted to authorized

personnel only with appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

requirements enforced for entry in accordance with DOE and OSHA

requirements. Access to the construction areas will be monitored by JLab

security, the General Contractor and the UIM Project Management Team.

After construction is complete access to these facilities will be controlled in

accordance with JLab access control policies and procedures. These include

training requirements and proximity card access control. Security requirements

for this project will be coordinated with JLab’s Security Officer and the DOE

Thomas Jefferson Site Office (TJSO).

There are no additional laws, agreements, or other factors to significantly

influence this project.

3.4. Technology and Research and Development

There are no technology, engineering, or research and development equipment

issues that have been identified that could adversely affect this project.

3.5. Environmental Sustainable Design

Decisions regarding the planning, acquisition, siting, design, building, operating,

and maintaining the proposed new improvements will be based on the DOE

Guiding Principles of High Performance and Sustainable Buildings. New

equipment and systems will be selected to maximize energy efficiency and

“green” building technologies.

3.6. Safety and Health

ES&H issues of the proposed construction are typical of standard industry

construction. ES&H integration will occur at all levels of design and

construction.

The proposed project will be performed under the M&O’s Integrated Safety

Management System encompassing the Federal Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1926, Subpart C, to

ensure protection of workers, the public, and the environment. Integrated

Safety Management will be implemented into management and work process

planning at all levels.

After construction is complete these facilities and improvements will be

managed under the JLab Environment, Safety and Health policies and

procedures as set forth in the JLab ES&H Manual and current Integrated Safety

Management policies and procedures as set forth in the JLab Integrated Safety

Management System Program documentation.

8

3.7. Funding

The funding range is supported by a project estimate that includes contingency.

The estimate was prepared by an estimator working for the architect retained to

assist in the conceptual design report preparation. The estimator retained by

the architect specializes in construction cost planning and worked closely with

the architects and engineers. The estimate is based on information provided by

the architect and engineers. The basis of the estimate is a combination of

vendor quotes, use of historical cost data and data obtained from RS Means and

was verified against projects of a similar nature. The actual project cost is

expected to be within the estimated cost range.

The estimate is based on receipt of funding as shown in Section 2.2, Table 2

(Funding Profile).

4. RISK AND ALTERNATIVES

4.1. Risk Management

The project risk management plan will address risks for the entire scope and life

cycle of the project, including both internal and external influences. Risk

analysis processes, conclusions and strategies will be completed during the

preparation of the Conceptual Design Report.

One overarching risk factor that has been identified for this project is the risk

associated with the funding profile constraints. This risk drives the planned

acquisition approach as discussed briefly in Section 5.5. The other major risks

identified at this point include the following.

The construction bids that are received are much higher than the

estimated cost due to market conditions and/or inadequate competition.

Escalation of labor costs and material prices is higher than estimated.

Excessive project changes result in increased cost and schedule.

The construction activities are not performed safely resulting in injury

or death of a worker.

The predominant consequence of these risks is a potential for cost and schedule

increases. In order to manage these risks, the following mitigation activities will

be taken by the project.

Implement the approved business and acquisition approach as described

in Section 5 to reduce the likelihood of unexpected high construction

bids.

Monitor and trend all deviations against the Performance Management

Baseline once established, quantify any cost impact of the residual risk,

9

and include in the project cost estimate. Utilize a Project Baseline

Change Control Board to review and disposition proposed change

orders.

Stress the importance of safe work practices, and monitor contractor

performance to ensure safe work practices are followed.

A preliminary Risk Management Plan with Risk Registry will be prepared prior

to CD-1. Risk identification and analysis will be continued throughout the

planning and execution processes. Each of the identified risks will be monitored

to ensure they have been satisfactorily addressed, eliminated or managed. The

project team will work to ensure all necessary resources are available to

implement identified mitigation strategies

4.2. Technical Alternative Analysis

Jefferson Lab is need of modernized laboratory infrastructure to support the

growth and continued operations at the lab. Two alternatives are available for

obtaining the required infrastructure improvements; Expand CTF & Modernize

Site Utilities (Alternative #1); or constructing new CTF, Aluminum Elect, and

Decentralize Computer Center Cooling (alternative #2). For the basis of this

analysis the ‘do nothing” approach (Alternative #3) was not considered viable

because of safety concerns and because this would have serious impacts on the

ability of the Lab to fulfill its mission. Although Alternative 2 would provide the

improvements needed, it is not the most life cycle cost effective approach. The

advantages and disadvantages for each of the three alternatives were

considered and described below.

Alternate 1 – Expand CTF & Modernize Site Utilities Alternate 2 – New CTF, Aluminum Elect, Decentralize Computer Center Cooling

Alternate 3 - Status Quo (Continue operations of the existing systems under

current conditions and procedures)

Alternative 1 – Expand CTF & Modernize Site Utilities: This is the

recommended alternative. This is the most cost effective solution to providing

JLab with upgraded utilities

Alternative 2 – New CTF, Aluminum Elect, Decentralize Computer Center

Cooling: This alternative is not recommended. A new CTF will be constructed

in lieu up upgrading the existing. Aluminum conductors will be used to replace

the existing in lieu of copper. This option has a higher life cycle cost without

providing any additional benefit.

Alternative 3 – Do Nothing: This alternative is not recommended. The utilities

are at the end of their life cycle and would need to be replaced under emergency

conditions. The additional capacity made available through the Computer

Center cooling would not be available

10

The above clearly shows that the best alternative to fulfill the mission of JLab is

to pursue alternative 1 – Expand CTF & Modernize Site Utilities.

4.3. Economic Analysis

An economic analysis was performed to evaluate the life cycle costs (LCC) of

Alternative #1 and Alternative #2 described above. For the purpose of this

evaluation the following cash flow data was considered: capital investment

costs, repair costs, energy consumption costs and costs associated with

productivity loss and opportunity loss. Building Life-Cycle Cost (BLCC) software

(specifically BLCC5) from the National Institute of Standards and Technology

was used for this life cycle cost analysis. The evaluation results for the

alternatives are summarized in the following Table.

Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3

Total Life Cycle Cost $53,618,000 $58,371,000 $75,945,000

Table 4 - LCC Analysis Present Value Results for Alternatives

Alternative #1 has the lowest life cycle cost when compared against alternative #2 and alternative #3.

The evaluation shows that there is significant saving to be gained from pursuing

alternative #1. The $29.9 million investment for construction and renovation

will result in cost and productivity savings over the 50 year evaluation period.

The return on investment is estimated to be 3.93% and the simple payback is

expected to be 15 years.

5. BUSINESS AND ACQUISITION APPROACH

5.1. Acquisition and Contract Types

Acquisition for this project will be performed by JLab. JLab’s standard procurement practice is to use firm fixed-price purchase orders and subcontracts for supplies, equipment and services, and to make awards through competitive solicitations. Drawings and commercial specifications will be sufficiently detailed to allow prospective small business design and construction firms to effectively participate in most UIM procurements. This practice was employed during the design and construction of prior projects at JLab and has proven to be very effective for the projects as well as for small business vendors.

As appropriate, critical procurements will be evaluated according to pre-defined criteria for ranking prospective vendors competing for an award. An evaluation plan will include a technical review of each proposal as well as a review of business and cost factors (e.g., past performance, management, and environment, health and safety factors).

11

5.2 Incentives

All major construction subcontracts for work at the Laboratory site will include

penalty provisions for environment, health and safety factors. Other

performance incentives are not planned. A performance measure has been

established in the JLab PEMP for the Department’s M&O Contract with (DE-

AC05-06OR623177) to reinforce cost and schedule performance expectations.

The A-E subcontract will include a ‘Design-to-Cost’ clause which holds the A-E

responsible for redesign should the construction bids be higher that estimated.

5.3 Competition

The cost reduction benefits of competition will be promoted and maintained

throughout all phases of the project. JLab will issue firm fixed price competitive

solicitations. Sourcing will also be enhanced through use of JLab’s Vendor Portal

system (an extensive web-based vendor database accessible by JLab staff) and

major solicitation(s) will be communicated via posting on JLab’s web-based

Solicitation Bulletin Board.

5.4 Other Procurement Considerations

TJSO and JLab are committed to conduct work in accordance with the highest

regard for safety and the environment. Accordingly, all work at the JLab site will

require completion of JLab safety training as well as the vendor’s assurance that

safety will not be compromised in the interest of cost or schedule.

JLab will advance procurement opportunities for DOE’s Small Business Program

and Affirmative Procurement Program to the maximum extent practicable in

accordance with JLab’s approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Procurement requirements will include status reporting requirements, the

extent of which will be determined by the scope and value of the procurement.

Major project procurements will require general management,

schedule/labor/cost, exception, performance, financial and technical status

reports which are consistent with this type of procurement. The type

(technical/cost/schedule) and frequency of progress information and the

follow-up required will depend upon such factors as the complexity of the

procurement and its significance within the project. This progress information

will be augmented as needed with on-site vendor visits.

5.5 Risk

The approach presented in section 5.1 for acquisition is considered to have the

least risk. The primary factor driving this acquisition approach is the

constraints of the funding profile. Phasing of the work and award of multiple

12

subcontracts will most effectively mitigate risk of project cost and schedule

overruns.

6 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND APPROACH

6.1 Integrated Project Team (IPT) Structure

Table 6 shows the members of the Integrated Project Team (IPT), with core

members denoted by an asterisk. The IPT is organized and led by the Federal

Project Director, and consists of members from both DOE and the M&O.

NAME POSITION AFFILIATION PHONE

Richard Korynta*

DOE TJSO Federal Project Director

DOE - TJSO 757-269-7145

Rusty Sprouse* JLab Project Director JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7589

TBD* JLab Project Manger JSA-TJNAF 757-269-xxxx

Scott Mallette DOE TJSO Acting Site Manager (Observer)

DOE - TJSO 757-269-7142

Wayne Skinner DOE TJSO Contracting Officer DOE - TJSO 757-269-7143

Mark Waite JLab Subcontracting Officer JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7532

Bob May JLab Environmental Health and Safety Rep

JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7632

Edward Conley JLab Environmental Specialist JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7308

Claus Rode JLab Project Management Office

JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7511

Mike Dallas JLab Chief Operating Officer (Observer)

JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7538

Carroll Jones JLab Engineering Support – Mechanical

JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7672

Paul Powers JLab Engineering Support – Electrical

JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7258

Dana Arenius Cryogenics Support JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7276

Brian Hess Communications/Data Support JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7572

Walt Akers Data Center Support JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7669

David Kausch JLab Engineering Support - Fire Protection and Plumbing

JSA-TJNAF 757-269-7674

Core Members are shown with an *

Table 5 - IPT Members

13

The membership, roles, and responsibilities of the IPT are defined in the IPT

Charter. The Project Execution Plan will serve as the primary management tool

for the FPD in executing the project.

The FPD will work closely with the program manager for this project to assure

that the project execution is consistent with program goals and objectives, and

to ensure the Acquisition Executive and appropriate DOE Headquarters

personnel are apprised of the project status.

6.2 Approach to Earned Value

The TJSO UIM Federal Project Director (FPD) will monitor the project

performance against the technical, cost and schedule baselines through regular

project reviews, and in-depth reviews as needed. ES&H and quality assurance

performance will also be monitored by conducting periodic field observations,

using subject matter experts as necessary. The FPD will measure and evaluate

progress against the project goals and milestones, budgets, and schedule, and

give advance warning of trends, deviations and other problems to facilitate

timely corrective actions that will minimize impacts on cost, schedule and

quality.

The UIM FPD will provide quarterly reports on the UIM project to the

Acquisition Executive and monthly updates to the Project Assessment and

Reporting System (PARS). In addition, the IPT core members will hold routine

progress conference calls with the program manager. JLab will provide formal

monthly reports to the FPD.

The WBS will be described in the preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP). The

generation of a resource-loaded schedule will be completed by CD-2.

The Change Control process will be documented in the preliminary PEP as a part

of CD-1. Control levels for the project baseline elements will be defined in a

hierarchical manner that provides change control authority at the appropriate

level.

6.3 Interdependencies and Interfaces

The primary acquisition interdependencies/interfaces for this project will be

between JLab and its subcontractors. These will be managed by the UIM JLab

Project Manager through contract terms and conditions that include defining

appropriate interface relationships and performance requirements, project

delivery expectations, and use of subcontractor reporting systems.

Planning for this project is being closely coordinated with the JLab Project

Management and Integration group to ensure that this project does not interfere

14

with ongoing operations at the Lab nor does it interfere with work associated

with the 12GeV or TEDF project schedules.