1

ILC Internal Cost Review

Major Points from External Reviewers

T. Elioff, J. Marx, V. Soergel, M. Yoshioka, and A. Yamamoto, (C. Wyss, absent)

To be presented at Close-out, Dec. 16, 2006

2

Charge for External Reviewers• The role to the external reviewers:

– identify areas where the cost estimates appear weak or where the justification is considered insufficient for scrutiny during future formal cost reviews by funding agencies;

– identify costs which appear inconsistent with other projects they have been involved with (where applicable);

– critically review the standards of cost estimation;– advise the Director and Cost Engineers of possible measures

to improve both the accuracy and validity of the estimates.– assess the industrial production models assumed and t

he anticipated cost gains for large quantity production of the high technology items, e.g. cavities, cryomodules, RF couplers, klystrons, modulators, etc. (added by PHG)

3

• First of all,

The external reviewers have been very much impressed with the presentations given in the reviews, and recognize tremendous efforts made by the teams to establish the the first stage cost estimates.

4

Major Comments: 1• We consider that the methodology taken for the cost

estimate is an appropriate basis:– This approach segregates cost into contactable costs and in

stitutional manpower estimates. • The estimates do not include factors such as escalati

on, contingency, taxes, etc. – These can be added later on a regional or national basis dep

ending on the work packages for which a region or nation is eventually responsible.

• We endorse the approach of – choosing the lowest of the credible regional estimates for ea

ch major technical subsystem to compile the overall cost estimate.

5

Major Comments: 2

• The current estimate is reasonable and appropriate as a first stage:– It will serve as a solid foundation for future estimates

of the cost as part of the TRD process and will help to guide future decisions.

• However, the reason of the discrepancies between regional estimates should be well understood: – Further effort for well defined common specifications s

hall be provided for further consistent cost-estimates.

6

Major Comments: 3

• There are many additional steps to be taken in coming years that will refine the estimate resulting in a much more improved estimate. – It is very important to see the result of bids for SC

RF cavities for DESY XFEL which will serve to validate or modify the cost estimates for the ILC, and

– The greatest importance is the upcoming technical design that will provide a much sounder and detailed technical basis for the cost estimate.

7

Major Comments: 4

• Further R&Ds should be very crucial to better input for future cost estimate in particular area of superconducting RF (SCRF) cavities and cryomodule, and also control etc.

8

Major Comments: 5

• Conventional facilities represent the single highest cost area. – We note that the overall consistency betwe

en the three regional estimates lends significant credibility to the estimate. The regional estimates are within 10 % of each other.

– Choice of the lowest regional estimate is justified.

9

Major Comments: 6

• The international character of the project is emphasized:– This should also be applied for the R&D works. – The estimate will be used to evaluate the value of the wor

k packages that the various regions will be responsible for, and

– The work packages can be mixed between regions to balance the risk.

• This project is scoped for a 500 GeV collider upgradeable to 1 TeV.– Clustering the injector makes extension of ILC to 1 TeV sig

nificantly more feasible with minimal interruption in operations.

10

Other suggestions: 1

• To make presentations and documentations clear: – More discussions of benchmarking and sanity checks,

and more highlighting of unit costs that might be related to previous experience, projects,

– Capital cost for tooling and mass production with learning curve can be separately, and clearly reported,

– Develop a list of possible items for cost reduction with approximate level of possible cost reduction, and supporting R&D and/or value engineering needed to realize if the saving are realistic.

11

Other Suggestions, 2

• It is advised that: – Safety System should be included as a subj

ect for the cost estimate. It should be critically well investigated from the initial stage of such challenging and huge system such as ILC.

• Reliability(such as MTBF) in various components and subsystems should be well balanced for the cost estimate to be consistent.

12

Summary• The cost estimate is reasonable and appropriate as a first st

age, and serve a solid foundation for future estimate towards the ILC project to be funded.

• We endorse the approach taken in this cost estimate. However,

• The reasons of some discrepancy in three regions should be well understood,

• Further effort for well defined common specifications should be made for more consistent cost estimates, and further R&Ds should be made to establish the mass production technology in particular area of superconducting cavities.

• The external reviewers express their sincere thanks for the hard work made for this review and presentations, and hospitalities given to us.