Wrap up: Budget / Schedule / Contingency Vivian O’Dell, U. S. CMS HL-LHC USCMS Project Manager February 2, 2016
Outline § Schedule § Costing Methodology § Cost Profiles § R&D Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 2
§ Costing methodology Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions (402) V. O'Dell, 2 February 2016 3
Costing Methodology § Basis of Estimates (BOEs) comes from a project tool we used to do resource loading § These will be refined, then loaded into the standard EVMS certified system (Primavera 6) § We assume an average of 3% escalation / year § Costed in $FY 16 § We have assessed contingency at ~ level 3 / level 4 (depending on the subsystem) using documented contingency rules § See “Cost Estimating” (FRA Procedures Project Management: 12 -PM-005) § http: //www. fnal. gov/directorate/OPMO/Pol. Proc/12. PM-005/Procedure_12. PM 005_Cost_Estimating. pdf § Note that for the Trigger scope, we have fully costed two separate options. This is due to U. S. CMS having leadership in two different proposals for the Track Trigger § Option 1: led by NSF PI: the Track Trigger is fully FPGA based and funded by NSF. The L 1 Trigger then becomes a DOE deliverable. § Option 2: led by FNAL PI: the Track Trigger uses custom ASICs + FPGAs. It is then a DOE deliverable and the NSF delivers the muon trigger and track trigger correlator Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 4
Contingency due to cost estimating L 2/L 3’s assign the Mx / Lx code corresponding to the level of advancement of their estimate. We take the midpoint in the range for all % contingencies. Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions (402) V. O'Dell, 2 February 2016 5
Contingency due to cost estimating L 2/L 3’s assign the Mx / Lx code corresponding to the level of advancement of their estimate. We take the midpoint in the range for all % contingencies. Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions (402) V. O'Dell, 2 February 2016 6
BOE’s methodology § The BOE’s are a useful tool for collecting documentation, WBS dictionary and costs by FY § A full description of how each BOE was arrived at is not documented in many of the BOE’s – but these will be addressed in breakout session talks, and documented § A lot of detailed costing information is in the CMS Technical Proposal, and the Technical Design Reports for each subsystem will contain the baseline cost / schedule for the system § Contingency due to risk is estimated separately (see talk by Lucas) Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions (402) V. O'Dell, 2 February 2016 7
BOE example Name of preparer Description of item / how costed Estimate type (Lx/Mx) and corresponding estimate uncertainty Example for 402. 03. 02 ECAL Barrel FE/optical link construction Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions (402) V. O'Dell, 2 February 2016 8
Project schedules Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 9
Project schedule – International CD 1 CD 0 CDR PDR CD 3 A CD 2 CD 3 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 NSF review steps Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup FY 19 FY 20 LS 3 Physics LS 2 Physics FY 15 FDR FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 DOE review steps V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 10
Construction Schedule (DOE) CD 0 CD 2 CD 3 A CD 1 Physics LHC Schedule Technical Work Complete: March 2026 CD-4 September 2026 Physics LS 3 CD 3 EDR LS 2 TDR Transport to CERN Outer Track Trigger Reassembly at CERN EDR TDR End. Cap Calorimeter EC Preseries PRR Test & Install Endcap Calorimeter Barrel Calorimeter (HCAL) PRR Preproduction Scintillator Dev. / prototype TDR Production FY 17 Outer Track Trigger FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup Installation and Commissioning DAQ FY 24 FY 25 V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 11
Construction Schedule (NSF) LHC Schedule Technical Work Complete: March 2026 FDR PDR CDR Physics LS 2 EDR FPIX TDR EDR TDRPre- PRR produ ction TDR FY 17 Track Trigger Production Prototyping Burnin Test Installation and Commissioning Integration and Testing L 1 T Muons PRR FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup Pixels PRR Barrel ECAL electronics R&D Transport to CERN Tracklet Development TDR ECAL Barrel Design and preproduction Prototyping and demonstrator LS 3 FY 24 FY 25 V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 12
Installation and Commissioning § Installation and Commissioning Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 13
Installation and Commissioning § By subproject: NSF (MREFC) § For ECAL Barrel, installation/commissioning is included o CERN will do the disassembly – we provide the FE cards (BE cards) and channel by channel testing (~$360 K) § For Muons, installation / commissioning is not included o End of project is all boards delivered to CERN and tested in CERN test stand § For FPIX, installation/commissioning is not included o End of project is system integration at CERN clean room § For trigger / track trigger installation / commissioning is not included o End of project is system integration at CERN Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 14
Installation and Commissioning § By subproject (DOE) § For HCAL Barrel, installation/commissioning is included o About $650 k to install scintillators / electronics (4 FTEs) § For Endcap Calorimeter there is no installation / commissioning o End of project is delivery of components (i. e. Casettes) to CERN § For Outer Tracker, installation / commissioning is not included o Reassambly at CERN (rods / mechanical structure) in clean room § For DAQ, installation / commissioning is not included o End of project is delivery of hardware (storage manager / networking) § We note we have not been consistent here. We will consistently not include I&C § This will become part of the operations program Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 15
Schedule and schedule drivers § Schedule drivers § We must be ready for LS 3: That is the hard limit on our schedule § Project schedule drivers (NSF) o ECAL FE cards must be ready by LS 3+6 mos. o FPIX: ROC / parts to make modules / mechanics § Project schedule drivers (DOE) o EC: preseries (requires FE ASIC + sensor order) – FE ASIC is being followed closely, led by French but with US collaborators. Sensor order takes at lease 6 mos to deliver o Outer Tracker: ASICs / module assembly / sensors starts in FY 18: implies CD 3 a to purchase sensors. Low power GBT (CERN) – (have schedule contingency / float for this) – More details on ASICs in breakout session Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 16
Key R&D questions (DOE) Key R&D questions are those needed for the TDRs Endcap Calorimeter o Technology for key services as integrated into the final detector: digital readout and DC/DC conversion o Materials (including glues, baseplates for FH, etc) o PCBs for modules o Material detail and operation mode (WLS fiber or Si. PM-on-tile) for backing calorimeter § Barrel HCAL o Developing rad-hard scintillator/WLS (material) § Outer Tracker o Ma. PSa chip testing / PS module assembly procedures o Mechanical structure / thermal coupling Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 17
Key R&D questions (NSF) Key R&D questions are those needed for the TDRs ECAL o Specs for VFE – defines our downstream electronics – Specs by end of this year, demonstrator for VFE/FE, specs for BE before TDR – Our L 2 manager is watching this carefully § Track Trigger (L 1 track finder) o Demonstrators for tracklet / AM approach end of this year o Decision in 2017 (ahead of TDR) o This will define our DOE / NSF scope split § FPIX o Mechanics / thermal / geometry / installation volume (needed for TDR) o ROC (RD 53 / PSI) o Sensor R&D / irradiation § Muons (? ) Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 18
FTEs Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 19
From the NSF PEP: Staffing for construction Overall totals for the construction project. Largest single staffing need is in FPIX – peak of 3. 85 engineers, 9. 75 techs These people will need to be hired at Cornell / Nebraska (? ), ramp up similar to Phase 1 upgrades. For the R&D, PM needs are modest, but we will need additional engineering at Cornell for mechanical / electrical designs and to form the project office. For other projects, the R&D personnel are identified and on board. Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 20
From the NSF PEP: Staffing for construction Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 21
DOE FTE profiles For the DOE project, FTE profiles driven by technicians for module / cassette assembly R&D engineering on board: limited only by R&D funding Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 22
DOE FTE profiles For the DOE project, FTE profiles driven by technicians for module / cassette assembly R&D engineering on board: limited only by R&D funding Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 23
Funding / FTE profiles Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 24
Funding Profile § Note that for 2016 / 2017 money is assumed to be redirected from the Operations Program for the DOE scope of the upgrades § NSF is proposal driven – they don’t give us a profile Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 25
Cost profiles Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 26
NSF construction profile: Option 1) Tracklet TEC: $75. 2 M (includes 41% cost uncertainty contingency + 9% risk contingency) Guidance $75 M Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 27
NSF construction profile: Option 2) L 1 T TEC: $74. 6 M (Includes 40% cost uncertainty contingency + 9% risk contingency) (Guidance $75 M) Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 28
DOE construction profile: Option 1) AM+FPGA TEC: $140. 1 M 36% contingency (guidance $132. 5 M) (must add ~$8 -9 M for risk!) Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 29
DOE construction profile: Option 2) L 1 T TEC: $132. 4 M 36. 5% contingency (guidance $132. 5 M) (must add ~$8 -9 M for risk!) Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 30
Conclusions on construction project § The NSF construction project is well matched to NSF universities interests § The overall contingency at this stage (Conceptual Design) has been estimated at 49 -50% § This is a very healthy level at this stage in the project, and we have confidence we can deliver the proposed project at this cost § We also have some scope options, if necessary (i. e. removing disks from the FPIX) § The DOE construction project is over budget by ~10 -15% § This is with an estimated overall contingency of ~37% § Contingency on cost estimate is lower mainly because project management is “Level of Effort” (i. e. 10% cost uncertainty) and forms nearly 20% of the project § We will need to add ~9% contingency for risk events giving an overall contingency number of 46% § Depending on the Track Trigger selection – we may have to descope some other activities or develop additional international partners § We are chewing on this and will have an answer before CD-1 § (reminder, we do not yet have CD-0) Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 31
R&D/OPC Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 32
DOE R&D Totals AM+FPGA 402. 00 402. 01 402. 02. 04 402. 02. 05. 03 402. 04 402. 06 402. 07 Totals Project Office Tracker Outer Track Trigger (AM) Barrel Calorimeter Endcap Calorimeter Trigger DAQ L 1 T 402. 00 402. 01 402. 02. 04 402. 03 402. 04 402. 06 402. 07 Totals Project Office Tracker Outer Tracker Barrel Calorimeter Endcap Calorimeter Trigger DAQ R&D = FY 16+FY 17 OPC = FY 18+FY 19 Total w/Contingency Base DOE Cont DOE R&D OPC 140. 09 20. 55 65. 88 102. 78 18. 75 46. 31 37. 31 1. 80 19. 57 8. 11 0. 07 4. 74 13. 67 1. 10 7. 54 51. 25 14. 64 14. 14 36. 43 9. 88 9. 42 14. 82 4. 76 4. 71 4. 03 0. 71 5. 42 2. 11 5. 16 3. 65 1. 52 0. 36 0. 89 41. 20 28. 85 12. 35 2. 76 3. 71 5. 55 1. 75 3. 75 1. 47 1. 80 0. 28 0. 18 0. 00 0. 44 0. 00 Total w/Contingency Base DOE Cont DOE R&D 7. 92 0. 07 4. 03 OPC 132. 36 20. 55 51. 24 97. 67 18. 75 36. 43 34. 69 1. 80 14. 82 12. 92 1. 10 5. 42 51. 24 36. 43 14. 82 4. 03 5. 42 5. 16 3. 65 1. 52 0. 36 0. 89 41. 20 28. 85 12. 35 2. 76 3. 71 12. 45 1. 75 8. 53 1. 47 3. 93 0. 28 0. 70 1. 81 Total needs: ~ 8 M in R&D, ~$13 M OPC Reminder: OPC = $14 M (FY 18) + $2 M (FY 19) Real crunch: FY 16 / FY 17. Committing $3 M in FY 16, $5 M in FY 17? Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 33
NSF R&D Totals 402. 00 402. 01 402. 02. 03 402. 03. 03 402. 05 402. 03 402. 05 Tracklet Totals Project Office Tracker FPIX ROC Track Trigger Barrel Calorimeter Muon Systems L 1 T 402. 00 402. 01 402. 02. 03 402. 05 402. 06 Totals Project Office Tracker FPIX ROC Barrel Calorimeter ECAL Barrel Muon Systems Trigger R&D = FY 16 -FY 20 Total w/Contingency Base NSF Cont NSF R&D 70. 64 5. 29 47. 36 50. 21 4. 88 32. 19 20. 44 0. 41 15. 17 13. 74 1. 38 9. 32 39. 72 26. 97 12. 75 7. 10 2. 29 1. 53 0. 77 1. 76 7. 65 5. 22 2. 43 2. 23 9. 78 8. 21 7. 19 5. 95 2. 59 2. 26 2. 15 0. 89 Total w/Contingency Base NSF Cont NSF R&D 70. 09 5. 29 39. 72 49. 93 4. 88 26. 97 20. 16 0. 41 12. 75 13. 41 1. 38 7. 10 39. 72 26. 97 12. 75 7. 10 2. 29 9. 78 8. 21 7. 09 1. 53 7. 19 5. 95 4. 94 0. 77 2. 59 2. 26 2. 15 1. 76 2. 15 0. 89 1. 89 Total needs: ~$13. 5 M Total funding we expect: ~ $11. 7 M Note: FPIX ROC Preproduction run ($1. 76 M): 2018/2019 -- ROC design choice and U. S. role under discussion now Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 34
Backup Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 35
A note about costing methodologies § CERN costs everything in what they call “CORE” costs § It is in CHF, so we are exposed to exchange rate vagaries § CORE cost include M&S for the construction project only § CORE cost does not include labor, R&D, contingency, overheads, or project management costs § CORE cost does include overall technical coordination and system integration engineering via the “Upgrade Common Fund” § Countries participating in CMS pledge in CORE cost currency § Typically countries try to pledge a fraction of CORE costs roughly according to their fraction of CMS authors § U. S. funding agencies care about total costs § Including R&D, labor, project management, system integration, contingency, overheads, etc. § In order to translate project $$ to CORE CHF, we have to have some preliminary plans of how we are engaging with the overall upgrade plan § This is typically a rather iterative process as international CMS and U. S. CMS define their projects and priorities § What we are presenting today is the culmination of several iterations, but likely not the final iteration Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 36
BOE’s methodology § The BOE’s are a useful tool for collecting documentation, WBS dictionary and costs by FY § A full description of how each BOE was arrived at is not documented in many of the BOE’s – but these will be addressed in breakout session talks, and documented § A lot of detailed costing information is in the CMS Technical Proposal, and the Technical Design Reports for each subsystem will contain the baseline cost / schedule for the system § Contingency due to risk is estimated separately (more details in the management breakout) Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 37
BOE example Name of preparer Description of item / how costed Estimate type (Lx/Mx) and corresponding estimate uncertainty Example for 402. 03. 02 ECAL Barrel FE/optical link construction Director's Review - U. S. CMS Contributions Wrapup V. O'Dell, 3 February 2016 38
Скачать презентацию Wrap up Budget Schedule Contingency Vivian
ffc84cdce983cb61fd828e32659a65de.ppt