1 brookhaven science associates project performance & risk management aesook byon, deputy...

1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES

Project Performance & Risk Management

Aesook Byon, Deputy Project DirectorNSLS-II PAC Meeting February 8-9, 2011


Outline

• Cost, Schedule, & Funding Baseline• Project Performance• Risk Management • Conclusions


46%

18%

36%

Cost Baseline

TPC $ 912 MBaseline Cost (Planned work) $ 785 MContingency $ 127 M

Completed work (Dec ‘10) $359M (46% complete)

Committed work-to-go $144M

Uncommitted work-to-go $282M

Contingency = 30% of remaining work

(29% of EAC; 31% of TEC)

45% of uncommitted work-to-go

Remaining work

Planned Work


Cost Baseline

WBS CD-2 (Nov ‘07)

CD-3(Oct ‘08)

Dec ‘09 Baseline

Current Baseline (Dec ‘10)

Change Dec ‘09

1.01 Project Management 52.5 51.7 56.5 59.8 3.3

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

1.03 Accelerator Systems 242.2 248.1 262.9 264.0 1.1

1.04 Experimental Facilities 72.8 72.5 70.5 69.9 -0.7

1.05 Conventional Facilities 240.8 247.5 260.2 280.2 20.0

1.06 Pre-Operations 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 0

Grand Totals: 719.0 730.7 761.0 784.7 23.7

$23.7M Contingency utilization since Dec ‘09 $10.7M (45%): cost increase (underestimated baseline – labor, space, M&S) $13.0M (55%): scope enhancements/addition (enlarged LOB, rf cavity)


Major Procurement Performance Award Date Cost

Description Baseline Actual Estimated ActualCommissioning Aug 08 Oct 08 $830 K $301 KSite prep Nov 08 Nov 08 $657 K $501 KAPS Welding Jan 09 Feb 09 $1.7 M $1.7 MRing Building Feb 09 Feb 09 $168 M $173 M8 Unit Substation Apr 09 Apr 09 $3.0 M $3.2 MTransformers May 09 May 09 $1.1 M $0.7 MSubstation Exp Jul 09 Jul 09 $1.8 M $1.1 MChilled Water Plant May 09 Jul 09 $8.4 M $8.3 MChilled Water Piping Jun 09 Aug 09 $1.0 M $1.4 MMagnets Aug 09 Oct 09 $18 M $17.4 MLinac Feb 10 Apr 10 $8.5 M $7.9 MBooster Mar 10 May 10 $14.7 M $14.0 MLOB Oct 11 Aug 10 $40 M $34 MDamping Wiggler Oct 10 Nov 10 $7.4 M $6.0 M

Total $275M $270M (98%)

Excellent Performance


Contingency spending history (Mar ‘08 – Jan ‘11)

($K)

total (per month) w/o scope addition (per month)3/08-1/11 $67M ($3.2M) $44M ($2.1M)

2009 $30M ($2.5M) $30M ($2.5M) 2010 $23M ($2.1M) $12M ($1.0M)

Jan 2011 $1.5M ($1.5M) $1.5M ($1.5M)

Spending category: scope additions $18.5M labor/space $22.5M M&S $25.6M


Contingency Tracking To Date


FY14

CD-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4Critical Approve Approve Approve Approve Start of Approve Project

Decisions Mission Need Selection and Performance Construction CompletionAug 05 (A) Cost Range Baseline Jan 09 (A) June 15

Jul 07 (A) Jan 08 (A)

Conceptual Design Aug 05 Jul 07

Design Conventional Facilities

Storage Ring Ready forExperimental Facilities Commissioning May 13

Early Completion

Accelerator Systems Procurement, Fabrication, Installation and Test June 14

Construction& Installation Projected

Long Lead Construction Early CompletionConventional Facilities Mar 14

Commissioning Commissioning & Pre-Opsand

Pre-Ops

Legend (A) Actual Completed Planned Data Date Level 0 Milestone Schedule Contingency Critical Path

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY15FY13FY08

Sep 08

FY05 FY06 FY07

Oct 08

FY09

CD-0

Schedule


Schedule Float & Critical Path

Critical Path: through Accelerator installation & commissioning • magnet production girder assembly/installation delivery of RF cavity ID integrated test SR commissioning

Near Critical Path: about 1~2 months off of critical path• Booster installation and commissioning• Installation of Linac to Booster transfer line• SR RF - cryogenics system, installation & commissioning

Early Project Completion, June 2014 (Lv 1 Milestone)• Baseline Level-1 milestone date with built-in schedule float (~3 months)• Projected early completion day is March 2014

– Lost 3 weeks schedule float over past 17 months

CD-4, Start of Operations, June 2015• 15 months after the projected early completion date


Maintaining Up-To-Date Schedule

• Project is in full speed and making excellent progress• Maintaining optimized plan requires constant update of the plan• Nature of updates: Ensure plan reflects what we are executing

• Incorporate actual contract schedules • Detail out activities as far out in time as possible • Update resource load of activities for accurate time-phasing and profiling• Define detailed activities in short duration (1-2 months) for EV

• Critical path, schedule float, and resource & spending profiles continuously updated and analyzed so that this “living schedule” can • Produce meaningful earned value and performance indicator• Give a clear look-ahead • Be a tool to analyze schedule risks/impacts and formulate mitigation plan • Provide accurate information for resource leveling


• Full funding $141M provided in FY10• FY11 budget request included $153M as planned

Project Funding


Cost, Funding & Obligation


FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Completed/Scheduled Work ($M) 47 78 158 245 152 51 24

• Sufficient carry-over funds from prior year at the beginning of FY11• $4M of OPC and $55M of TEC (uncosted but part of these are obligated)

• Under Continuing Resolution, expect no impact until August 2011 • If a year-long CR, we might have to adjust profiles for phased funded major contracts

prior FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TOTALR&D 23.0 10.0 2.0 0.8 35.8OPC 24.8 24.8PED 32.7 27.3 60.0Construction 0.0 216.0 139.0 151.6 151.4 46.9 26.3 731.2Pre-Ops 0.0 0.7 7.7 24.4 22.4 5.0 60.2Total Project 80.5 253.3 141.0 153.1 159.1 71.3 48.7 5.0 912.0

FY11 is the peak spending & activity year

NSLS-II Project Funding Profile ($M)

FY11 Continuing Resolution

14 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATESMiddle of a steep slope with a significant burn rate (~$20M/month)

CPI = 1.02

SPI = 0.98


Monthly Burn Rate

75% complete by end of year 2011


Staffing

Total Cumulative FTEs: CD-2 Baseline 1,188 today 1,412 (~19% increase)

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

• Sufficient staffing alloated for all activities through FY12. • Now carefully evaluating details in pre-ops & transition phases.


Staffing


Risk Update

Risk Rating Aug 2008

Apr 2009

Jan 2010

Oct 2010

Feb 2011

High 6 6 3 4 6

Medium 7 9 9 8 4

Low 33 30 29 28 20

Retired 2 9 12 20

Promoted (L to H/M) 4 4 1 7

Demoted (H/M to L) 4 6 2 9

New 1 1 1 1


Summary of Risks

Subtotal $65.3M reported at last PAC meeting(comparison: excluding new labor risks, total now is ~$41M)

Risks risk ratingoverall rating

estimated retire dateID# WBS Description cost ($K) cost schedule technical

ESH-01 1.1.2 Construction Safety $3,000 M M n/a M Jun-14PMG-02 1.1.3 additional labor $6,700 H n/a n/a H Jun-15PMG-03 1.1.3 additional space charge $1,500 M n/a n/a M Oct-12ASD-01 1.3.1 unexpected difficulties with dynamic aperture $1,000 L L L L Oct-13ASD-02 1.3.3.1 Linac turn key procurement $250 L L L L Apr-11ASD-03 1.3.3.2 Booster turn key procurement $500 L M L M Aug-11ASD-04 1.3.4.2 SR magnet production $5,000 M H M H Aug-11ASD-05 1.3.4.3 SR vacuum chamber production $500 L L L L Jun-11ASD-07 1.3.4.6 SR RF cavity production $2,000 M M M H Oct-13ASD-09 1.3.7 Insertion device production $3,000 M L L M Nov-12ASD-10 1.3.4.5 BPM electronics $1,000 L L L L Dec-12ASD-11 1.3.4.9 SR installation - underestimated labor $3,000 M L L M Dec-12

XFD-01

1.4.5.1 IXS $2,400 M M M H Oct-121.4.5.2 HXN $3,100 M M M H Oct-121.4.5.3 CHX $2,000 M L M M Oct-121.4.5.4 CSX $2,400 M M M H Oct-121.4.5.5 SRX $2,300 M L L M Oct-121.4.5.6 XPD $2,000 M L M M Oct-12

CFD-01 1.5.2 Changes in requirements for conventional facilities $1,000 L L L L Jun-14CFD-03 1.5.3 Field changes for conventional construction $4,000 H L L H Apr-12CFD-05 1.5.3 Interface of 2 general contractors on ring bldg site $500 L L n/a L Jun-12OPS-01 1.6 Under estimated pre-ops labor $10,000 H L L H Jun-14

subtotal $57,150


Risk UpdateRecently Retired Risks • Storage Ring power supply design• Accelerator controls system procurement• Rate changes (foreign exchange, labor, raw materials)• Unplanned environmental impact at construction site

Risks with Reduced Ratings• Changes in requirements for conventional facilities• Storage Ring vacuum chamber production• Linac turn key procurement• Booster turn key procurement

New Risks or Risks with Higher Ratings• Storage Ring magnet production schedule• Additional labor for maintaining schedule• Interface of two general contractors on Ring Building

site• Underestimated installation & pre-ops labor

• LOB contract• DOE Approval Delays• R&D for beamline design

• BPM electronics• Directed funding profile change• Unexpected ESH related design

issues


Cost Baseline, Contingency, and Risks

($M)

WBS Title

Current Baseline Dec 10

EAC + Risks

1.1 Project Management 59.8 12.81.3 Accelerator Systems 264 20.71.4 Experimental Facilities 69.9 17.01.5 Conventional Facilities 280.2 9.7

TEC Contingency 117.3TEC Total 791.2 60.2

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

OPC Contingency 10.0OPC Total 120.8 10.0

TPC 912.0 70.2

Burdened & Escalated

Planned work $785M

Completed work $359M

Committed work-to-go $144M

Uncommitted work-to-go $282M

EAC ($13M) + Risks ($57M) $70M25% of Uncommitted Work-to-go $71MAvailable Contingency $127M


Summary in Numbers last PAC this meetingCost Baseline $758M $785M project completed $150M 20% $359M 46%cost contingency $154M 25% $127M 30%schedule contingency 16 months 31% 15 months 41%SV/SPI -$6.9M 0.96 -$6.6M 0.98CV/CPI +$5.7M 1.04 +$6.8M 1.02Procurement vs contract management effort 75%-25% 50%-50%

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Procurement requests processed

150 500 1,000 1,100 $2M $8M $200M $100M

Approved PCR 0 30 53 84 24 so far

Staff on-board 210 FTE 260 FTE (24% increase)


Lessons Learned

• Key elements to successful execution to date• Front-loaded funding profile provided • Favorable economic environment• Early recognition of needs for risk mitigations and having means to

implement them – staffing, magnet, laboratory & DOE support• Strong project team in all areas • Prompt management decisions & actions

• Challenges coming with executing technically driven schedule • No place to hide when there are problems or glitches• Need to balance “giving enough room” for people to do their job vs “needing

up to date info” to make decisions• Better have fully matured project management tools in place in order to

support rapid analysis and decisions


Overall Performance

• On Schedule and On Budget• Excellent technical, cost & schedule performance to date• Sound cost baseline with healthy remaining contingency• Schedule contingency maintained • Continue to execute technically limited schedule (since June 2009) • Negative schedule variances in specific areas: well understood and actively

managed• Risks and EAC well understood, tracked and managed

• A number of major risks (technical, cost & schedule) retired or reduced ratings

• 2011 is a crucial year with many challenges and much excitement ahead

1 brookhaven science associates project performance & risk management aesook byon, deputy...

Documents