Post on 18-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007
Report to the LCLS Facilities Advisory Committee
LCLS Project Management
M. Reichanadter / SLAC
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007
Overview•Funding / Cost Status
–FY07 CR and funding uncertainties have impacted the project.• Overall ~2 month delay. Hold on procurements ~six weeks.• Redirect resources to evaluate reduced funding options.• DOE-BES Directed Baseline Change.
–July ‘Lehman’ Review – EIR to validate new baseline.
•Schedule Status–Technical systems making steady progress.
• Milestone performance ~OK. Dip in recent performance (CR).• Injector complete in March! Late on Injector installation.
–Construction in full swing! • Start delayed due to high subcontract bids, tunneling coordination.• Schedule is CP. Updated Co- and Beneficial milestones.• Some issues with Turner activities. Coordination, safety.
–Most of on-site Turner team have been replaced.
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007
Overview•Management Status
–Procurement performance ~OK with dedicated cell.• Consultants (Miller/Dee), COR/FCO expediter and BOA’s• ~95% of civil construction under contract. • Remaining technical procurements largely commodities
and installation contracts.
–Integration management team in place (RM Boyce)–Organization
• Injector complete. Good time to re-org.–Stronger emphasis on functions (Engr, Controls, Main & Ops, Commissioning, improved integration with Lab operations)
• Preparing for EVM Certification (Surveillance audit, LBL)
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 4
LCLS showing steady progress overall
• 46% TEC comp • 43% TPC comp
• SPI = 0.91• CPI = 0.92
• Project burn rate ~$7-8M per/mo
• Labor burn rate ~$2.5M/mo
• ~175 SLAC FTE’s
LCLS Project Performance (TEC = $315M)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
AY
K$
BCWS (TEC)
BCWP (TEC)
ACWP (TEC)
BAC
BA
OBL-S (TEC)
$249.6M
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 5
LCLS Project Performance
• Injector construction completed in March. Commissioning underway.
1.1 Project Management 14,432 80.1% 18,013
1.2 Injector 16,196 96.6% 16,760
1.3 Linac 9,783 54.6% 17,932
1.4 Undulator 23,712 62.7% 37,833
1.5 X-ray Transport 10,776 47.8% 22,531
1.6 X-ray Endstations 1,665 17.4% 9,580
1.9 Conventional Facilities 39,572 31.5% 125,535
1.X Controls 13,263 43.0% 30,865
1 LCLS Total Base Cost 129,398 46.4% 279,049
315,000
35,951
24.0%
2 LCLS Other Project Cost 13,805 24.4% 56,689
64,000
7,311
17.0%
LCLS Total Obligations = $173,402K
LCLS Total Project Cost (TPC) 143,203 42.7% 379,000
LCLS Cost/Schedule Performance - February 2007 (AYK$)
WBS
LCLS Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
Available Contingency
Total Budget at Completion
% CompleteWork
Accomplished
% Contingency on ETC
LCLS Total Other Project Costs (OPC)
Available Mgmt Reserve
% Mgmt Reserve on ETC
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 6
Cost & Schedule Performance
• CPI trend: Low-Green. Some benign (Inj / Und Spares), but there are real cost overruns. (Injector Design/Install, RF, MMF, PO Staff).
• SPI Trend: Low-Green. CR impacting SPI and CPI (recent downward trend).
LCLS Cost and Schedule Indices (TEC Only)
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
BCWP/BCWS (SPI)
BCWP/ACWP (CPI)
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 7
Contingency Performance
• Steady, consistent rise in project % complete.
• % complete trend expected to increase with CF work ramping up.
• CF contingency (FCO) versus earned-value is a modest ~7%.
• Contingency based on BAC ‘Cost to Go’.
% Contingency AvaIlable (on remaining work)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Oct-04
Dec-04
Feb-05
Apr-05
Jun-05
Aug-05
Oct-05
Dec-05
Feb-06
Apr-06
Jun-06
Aug-06
Oct-06
Dec-06
Feb-07
% Complete
Cont/ETC
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 8
LCLS Estimate at Complete
•EAC includes all remaining work, overruns, potential credits / liens and corrections for mischarges.
•EAC degraded due to funding uncertainties over the past three months.
1.1 Project Management 18,013 18,858 844
1.2 Injector 16,760 20,385 3,626
1.3 Linac 17,932 21,112 3,180
1.4 Undulator 37,833 40,209 2,376
1.5 X-ray Transport 22,531 23,714 1,183
1.6 X-ray Endstations 9,580 9,456 -124
1.9 Conventional Facilities 125,535 126,536 1,001
1.X LCLS Controls 30,865 32,658 1,792
1 LCLS Total Base Cost 279,049 292,927 13,878
LCLS Total Estimated Cost 315,000 315,000
Contingency 35,951 22,073
AYK$
Remaining Work (EAC - BCWP) 151,434
Outstanding Phase-funded Awards 82,615Outstanding Phase-funded CF Awards (Includes A/E, CM/GC and Trade Subcontracts) 65,766 9,865 15.0%
Outstanding Phase-funded Technical Awards 16,849 842 5.0%
Remaining Uncommitted Work 68,819 11,365 16.5%
Estimate at Completion ($K)
Budget at Completion ($K)
Variance ($K)
At Completion
Contingency Based on EAC
WBS
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 9
6-mo Back/Forward L3 Milestones
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 10
LCLS ScheduleLCLS Integrated Schedule
Turner Contract Schedule Approved.100% Resource/Cost Loaded (>95% using trade input)Early-occupancy” dates acceptable and folded into LCLS P3 schedule.
CP - Und Hall E.O. – install – FEL commission – Photons in FEH Total project float to CD-4; 131 working days (~6-1/2months)Working to recover recent procurement delays for upcoming shutodwn Near CP – Undulator vacuum system, Undulator testing
Schedule IssuesConstruction schedule is critical path.
Delays in civil construction (tunneling coordination, utilities, weather)Track Turner EV in LCLS PMCS, site walk validation, OAC meetings
Equipment installation schedule is critical path. (RM Boyce talk)BTH-NEH equipment installation must be well-planned
CR uncertainty required a hold procurements in Project Office. Installation reviews for FY07 shutdown and BTH-NEH installation.
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 11
Procurement planning in decent shape
Major LCLS Procurements to be Awarded (~$31.0M)
19%
3%
9%
13%22%
12%
10%
12%
Controls
Laser
Linac
UN (ANL)
XT (LLNL)
XES
CF
D-B Install
•Procurement cell (8 staff)
•Tracking APPs, FCOs, CORs, and Crit. Proc.
•LCLS-BSD-SSO meet regularly for good coordination.
•B. Miller reducing on-site presence
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 12
Technical specs continue to mature
LCLS Specs
• Open ICD’s•XTOD-LUSI•XES-LUSI•XES-CT
• Most open requirements are in photon area.
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 13
Risk registry identifies key project risks
Management 24 20 4 Contingency, Cost Control, Installation, Integration, Controls Management
Injector 13 13 0 Design, Procure, Construct phase is 100% Complete.
Linac 5 5 0Undulator 29 26 3 Undulator Motion, Vacuum Chamber, RF BPMs
X-Ray, Transport, Optics & Diagnostics
14 11 3 User Requirements, Mirror Design and Procurements
X-Ray Endstations 5 3 2 Procurement and Scope UncertaintiesConventional Facilities 30 20 10 Tunneling, Linac Legacies, Utilities, CF and
UTR Staffing, Turner Management and Legal Total 120 98 22
CommentsProject System Total Risks Identified
Risks Retired Risks Open
• The Risk Registry is now ‘owned’ by the LCLS System Managers.•Better uniformity in assessing risks across the project•Greater visibility with senior management (reviewed monthly)•Better execution of resources (FTE’s & $$$) to handle the risks.
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 14
Project Management IssuesTurner CM/GC contract
Still have open issues with Turner. Additional partnering sessions may improve relations. Stay up with FCO’s, RFI’s and trade correspondence
Directed Baseline ChangeFY07 ~$114M (peak funding year), ~$8M less than planned
Restore funding in FY2009. Key goals:Maintain civil construction, technical procurements under contract.Maintain core staff an ANL, LLNL and SLACFull Injector – BC1 commissioning plans
CD-4a ~Mar-Jun 2009 soft X-ray science in Near HallCD-4b ~Mar2010 hard X-ray science in Far HallRebaseline cover extended schedule, escalation, army costs
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 15
‘Top-down’ projection of revised baseline
LCLS Rebaseline Funding Profile (TPC = $406M, TEC = $338M, OPC = $68M)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Prior Yr FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
AY
M$ Ops
OPCTEC
FY09 fundingTEC = $30.5M XT, XE Proc + Install, Constr staff, POPre-Ops = $16.0M, BTH-NEH Commission, Physics Support, Pow er, etc.Ops = $9.0M, supports ~6-mo NEH Science, ~500 hours operations
FY10 fundingTEC = $7.4M Complete Install, Constr staff, POPre-Ops = $12.5M, XT, XE, FEH Commission, Physics Support, Pow er, etc.Ops = $13.0M, supports 6-mo NEH and FEH Operations, 1000 hours operations
FY11 fundingOps = $27.3M, Full LCLS operations
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 16
Project Management Issues
Estimate At Complete shows contingency tight.~16.5% on commitments to go.Track performance on commitments and FCO’s.Timely closing of control accounts on labor.
Hire Deputy Controls Manager ASAPRecent offer did not converge. Still interviewing.
EVM CertificationSurveillance review Feb12 with J. O’Hearn (LBNL).Scheduling OECM visit for certification in near future.
End game planningInstallation / Integration must be well-plannedRebaseline will optimize segue into operations.
Mark Reichanadter
LCLS FAC Meeting reich@slac.stanford.edu
April 16-17, 2007 17
Summary
LCLS continues to make steady progressTPC/TEC 46%/43% complete. Milestone performance is good.~All beam path civil contracts awarded or in hand. CLOC removed.Cost and schedule contingencies adequate for stage of the project.
Contingency on EAC will be managed carefully.Remaining cost risk related to schedule, labor overruns or FCO’s
Staffing in all areas is adequate (except Controls Manager).Critical path and obligation planning understood, being optimized.
Turner management and safety performance is primary concern. Project staff making plans for presenting a revised cost and schedule baseline to address reduction in FY07 funding.