Project Close-Out Planning, Critical Path, Contingency Planning and Risk Analysis

1
Project Close-Out Planning, Critical Path,
Contingency Planning and Risk Analysis

• John N. Galayda Director, LCLS Construction
• May 13, 2009

2
Project Closeout

• Plan laid out 12/2008
• Based on DOE M 413.3-1 (3-28-03)
• This manual was cancelled, 1/13/2009
• DOE N 251.75
• Project Transition/Closeout (CD-4)
• DOE G 413.3-16 (9-24-2008)

3
(No Transcript)
4
Table of Contents

1. Tailoring
2. Project Performance and Completion Criteria
3. Readiness Assessment/Operational Readiness Review
4. Commissioning Plan
5. Transition to Operations Plan
6. Quality Assurance
7. Environmental Management System Revision
8. Safeguards, Security and Safety Plan
9. Post CD-4 Approval Requirements (related to
   transition/closeout)

5
Project Performance and Completion Criteria

• Defined in the Critical Decision approvals,
  refined in
• Global Requirements Document
• Defined minimum goals for each stage of
  commissioning, prerequisite to starting next
  stage
• http//www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/lcls/PRD/1.1-001
  -r0.pdf
• LCLS Start-up Test Plan
• Defined criteria for completion of commissioning
  stages
• Injector
• Linac
• Linac-to-Undulator
• Undulator Beam Dump
• Front-End Enclosure
• Near Experiment Hall
• X-Ray Tunnel Far Experiment Hall
• Key Performance Parameters Prerequisite to the
  Approval of CD-4, Start of Operations
• http//www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/lcls/prd/1.1-002
  -r1.pdf

6
Project Performance and Completion Criteria
7
Project Performance and Completion Criteria

• For Closeout Verify Performance Criteria Have
  Been Met

7
8
Commissioning Plan

• Equipment checkout integrated with staged
  accelerator readiness sequence
• Safety readiness and technical readiness have
  been integrated
• Injector
• linac
• Linac-to-Undulator,Beam Dump, Front-End
• Near Hall
• X-Ray Tunnel, Far Experiment Hall
• Photon Beam Systems will follow this path
• Technical/scientific accelerator commissioning
  plans are also in good shape
• Conventional Facilities commissioning agent
  (contract work) results

8
9
Readiness Assessment/Operational Readiness Review

• Safety Assessment Document has been developed and
  expanded in stages, latest at
• https//www-internal.slac.stanford.edu/ad/addo/SAD
  /sadindex.html

System Lead Deliverable Date
Injector Schultz/Hislop/ Scharfenstein. Injector SAD 3/2007
Linac Schultz/Hislop/ Scharfenstein Injector/Linac SAD 12/2007
Linac-to-Undulator-to-Dump, Front-End Enclosure Schultz/Hislop/ Scharfenstein Accel Sys SAD 8/2008
Near Experiment Hall Arthur SAD extension 8/2009
X-Ray Tunnel, Far Experiment Hall Arthur SAD extension 1/2010
9
10
Readiness Assessment/Operational Readiness Review

• Not governed by the Accelerator Safety Order
  (except for radiation shielding)
• SLAC Building Inspection Office assesses building
  readiness for handover
• BIO determination will be included in the
  closeout package

System Lead Deliverable Date
CF Saenz (for LCLS) Test results, cleared punchist LTU-NEH 9/2009 FEH, Hutches 3/2010
10
11
Quality Assurance, Safeguards/Security

• Guidance to keep the QA plan current
• SLAC Quality Assurance Program-
• https//www-internal.slac.stanford.edu/oa/document
  s/assurance.pdf
• June 2008
• Governing document
• Safeguards/Security
• Existing SLAC program

12
Transition to Operations Plan

• SLAC Linac operations staffing, policies and
  procedures are mature
• Criteria for transition to operations of new
  systems were well-established
• Criteria were met at each stage as part of the
  Accelerator Readiness Review Process
• Criteria for transition-to-operations of Photon
  Beam Systems will be patterned after SLAC SOP
• XFD operations organization is in growth spurt
• Handover from Project to Directorate/XFD
  commissioning organization will be part of ARR
  for the Near Hall and subsequent SLAC instrument
  readiness reviews
• Handover deliverables will ensure safe operation
  sophistication will grow as operations and
  organization mature
• SLAC Guidelines for Operations will be amended to
  include XFD operations, and offered as part of
  Project Closeout

12
13
Project Closeout Report

• Target date 10/2010
• Technical, scope, cost and schedule baseline
  accomplishments
• Financial closeout, including a final cost report
• Deactivation, decontamination and decommissioning
  planning (if required)
• Closeout approvals
• Permits, licenses, and/or environmental
  documentation
• Contract closeout status
• Adjustments to obligations and costs
• Photographic documentation
• Baseline change control log

14
Critical Path

• Detection of X-Rays in Far Hall after
  January-March 2010 shutdown for K-10 substation
  replacement
• Accelerator, Undulator-to-AMO maintenance only
• Completion/testing of Personnel Protection for
  XRT and FEH.

15
(No Transcript)
16
Level 2 Milestones
17

• SXR instrument
• LCLS Project has no obligation to
  install/integrate SXR hardware after 3/2010

18
Project Contingency

• Major scope additions since last review
• SXR Instrument installation/integration 1.5M
• Adds scientific capability to LCLS in 2010
• Leverages a 5M hardware contribution by
  consortium
• 3 instruments (AMO, XPP, SXR) by end of 2010
• Far Hall Hutch 6 and Mezzanine 800K
• Adds workspace to Far Experiment Hall
• Completes originally envisioned count of hutches
• Mezzanine installation would be disruptive later
  in operation
• Building 28 office area increase 2.15M
• Additional technical/safety oversight of work
• Refined basis of estimate (A/E design)
• Expansion to area previously envisioned for SSRL
• Permits co-location of XFD personnel (albeit far
  from LCLS)

19
Estimate at Complete

• LCLS EAC for TEC 345.0M
• Remaining Work (ETC) 29.4M
• Remaining Contingency 7.0M
• Contingency (Cost to Go) 23.9
• Contingency (Comm to Go) 27.5
• Adding scope to optimize science. Reserve
  adequate contingency to address remaining risks
  to project.
• LCLS EAC for OPC 62.0M
• Remaining Work (ETC) 16.7M
• Remaining Mgmt Reserve 6.0M
• Mgmt Reserve (Cost to Go) 36.0
• Increasing Mgmt Reserve due to lower than
  anticipated commissioning costs, so far

20
Bottoms-up Contingency Assessment

• Assessment is a bottoms-up, risk-based estimate
  of potential need by each CAM
• Historically conservative

21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Top-Down Contingency Assessment

• Correct cost-to-go for Pending BCRs
• 800K in allowances
• Assume all schedule variances are real
• Remaining work, assuming all schedule variances
  will be realized as cost 32M
• Remaining contingency 8M
• Contingency allocation, top down 11 avg
• 20 to civil construction not yet awarded
• 5 to civil construction already contracted
• 5 to SLAC effort-to-go
• 10 on other MS not yet awarded
• 4.5M unassigned contingency

24
Contingency Wish List

• Technical

25
Alternative for Office Space

• Tilt-up building
• Fast construction
• LEEDS Gold
• 18,500GSF
• More convenient access to LCLS Halls
• Proposals under evaluation
• Will wait for award of hutches and April (maybe
  May) actuals to decide

26
Other Project Costs

• Allocated 2M for ramp-up of x-ray commissioning
  effort in 2009 not fully committed
• 6M cumulative management reserve
• Wish list
• 1.77M reserve in 2009
• Commit 1M soon
• 2010
• must reserve 2M
• for risk mitigation
• 3M to go

27
Risk Assessment

• Happily, many technical risks to the project may
  be retired
• Civil construction generic risks are pretty
  invariant right up to the end of the project.
• While less cost-to-go means less schedule risk,
  the approach of CD-4 milestone means schedule
  risk becomes more significant

28
Risk Assessment (contd)

• Major risk is civil construction claims
• appropriate accrual was put in baseline TEC
• Major schedule risk is civil construction
  schedule
• As noted in Risk Registry

29
End of Presentation
29