Presentation on theme: "ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 1 DOE Briefing on ILC GDE Cost Estimating “Don’t ask me what it costs!” Peter H. Garbincius."— Presentation transcript:
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 1 DOE Briefing on ILC GDE Cost Estimating “Don’t ask me what it costs!” Peter H. Garbincius Fermilab ILC-GDE 1 of 3 international Cost Engineers Chairman, Design & Cost Board participants: D. Lehman, R. Staffin, A. Byon, P. Grannis, G. Crawford, B. Barish
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 2 ILC GDE RDR Cost Estimate - Outline Goals, BCD, & Complications Organization & Schedule ITER-like “VALUE” Contingency – Risk Costing Guidelines (3/06) Cost Est Instructions (5/06) Sources of Cost Est Info Basis of Estimate – Risk Compare to XFEL TDR Cost Consciousness Examples of cost/performance studies Compare to XFEL TDR Construction Timescale Estimate status – needs Experiences (PHG personal) What do we need to give to DOE?
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 3 RDR Cost Estimate anticipated at end of CY 2006 Goals: –consideration by international funding agencies –allow GDE cost/performance optimizations –the cost estimate will be for the ILC as described in the (Dec05 + updates) Baseline Configuration Document (BCD) http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bcd:bcd_home
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 4 Guidelines and Instructions: (outlined below) http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_costing_guidelines.pdf http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_Cost_Estimating_Instructions_23may06.pdf –Barry has goal of a ± 20% estimate very optimistic for this end 2006 timescale!
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 5 Complications: –international – Europe & Asia funding agencies have different formats & requirements than DOE –confidentiality - protect industrial estimates - insure independence of estimates - more difficult to study & review, intern. & extern. http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/cost-confidentiality-official-njw.pdf http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/vancouver_cost_discussion_guidelines.pdf –differing safety codes – e.g. underground egress
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 6 Baseline Configuration 500 GeV (250x250) 1 TeV (500x500)
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 7
8 ILC GDE Organization Director – Barry Barish Executive Regional Directors (Dugan + 2) Committee Gang of Three (Walker, Raubenheimer, Yokoya) Cost Engineers (2 + Peter Garbincius) Integration Physicist (Ewan Paterson) = RDR Management Team Change Control Board (Nobu Toge) Research & Development Board (Bill Willis) Design & Cost Board (9 + PHG, chairman)
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 9 RDR Schedule & Milestones August, 2005 – Snowmass => generate BCD December, 2005 – Frascati – accept BCD kick-off & preliminary instructions to groups March - Bangalore - instructions & status first cost estimates were submitted ~ early July06 July – Vancouver – preliminary cost estimate iterate and optimize cost vs. design November – Valencia – “final” RDR cost est. end 2006 – complete Reference Design Report
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 10 All cost studies are Confidential The only numbers made public by the TESLA TDR were the 8 high-level roll-ups of the (not incl. XFEL increments): Main Linac Modules1.131 B € Main Linac RF System0.587 B € Tunnel & Buildings0.547 B € Machine Infrastructure0.336 B € Damping Rings0.215 B € Auxiliary Systems0.124 B € HEP Beam Delivery System0.101 B € Injection Systems0.097 B € Total TESLA Estimate3.136 B € + 6,933 man-yrs 72% concentrate on major cost drivers
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 11 Next level of detail in backup slides
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 12 A short course in “VALUE”-speak The ITER “VALUE” or “CERN CORE” methodology is becoming used in international projects to equitably divide-up contributions among the collaborating parties, especially where countries are responsible for “in-kind” contributions, rather than providing funding to a central management team. e.g. 5 equal partners each contribute 20% of the total VALUE, independent of what it actually cost each individual party. VALUE is the least-common denominator among all parties in that it is the barest cost estimate that any of their funding agencies expect. It is anticipated that individual parties will add those appropriate items to this bare VALUE estimate in order to get a meaningful estimate for what that particular country would normally internally charge to such a project.
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 13 This prevents arguments such as, “I don’t charge for internal labor, so why should your labor be considered as part of your contribution?” If each of two countries contributes identical magnets, their VALUE contributions will be identical, even if their internal costs to produce are substantially different. Countries can contract according to their national interest, e.g. lowest internal cost or develop new industries, etc. “finance ministers”, rather than just “scientists” will call the shots
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 14 Format and Scope of European and Asian Cost Estimates Different than for U.S. DOE Cost Estimates Follow ITER “Value” & CERN “CORE” model for International Projects this ITER approach was reviewed by Dan Lehman et al. in July, 2002 Does not include: internal (institutional) labor, contingency, escalation, R&D, G&A overheads, pre-construction, and commissioning activities.
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 15 No Contingency? No! The European and Asian methods assume that all the design and estimating has been done up-front, inclusively, so there will be no add-ons due to incomplete engineering or scope changes (all homework done at this stage) and that the estimates are statistically robust so over-runs in one area will be compensated by under-runs in another.
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 16 Contingency (2) At this stage of project definition, US estimates assume that engineering and cost estimating have NOT been completed to the ultimate level of detail. In the US, contingency is added to cover: the missing level of detail, non-symmetric cost over/under-runs, and minor scope changes Internationally, use “scope contingency” RDR cost estimate will include Risk Analysis
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 17 RDR Cost Estimating Guidelines just outlined here – full version at http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_costing_guidelines.pdf http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_costing_guidelines.pdf 500 GeV (250x250) + upgrade path for 1 TeV Beam Delivery Sys. Tunnels & Beam Dumps construction = authorization → installation not incl. R&D, commissioning, operations, decommissioning – but need these estimates! construction ends for individual item when installed, before commissioning begins working model assumes a 7 year construction phase
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 18 based on a world-wide call for tender: lowest reasonable price for required quality three classes of items in cost estimate: –Site-Specific (separate estimates for each site) e.g. tunnel & regional utilities (power grid, roads) –Conventional – global capability (single world est.) e.g. copper and steel magnets –High Tech – cavities, cryomodules, RF power - cost drivers – all regions want – 3 estimates Cost Engineers must determine algorithm to combine and present these multiple estimates
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 19 Learning curve for ILC quantities P = P 1 N a need parameters or costs for different N’s Estimate & Prices – as of January 1, 2006: exchange 1 M€ = $ 1.2 M = 1.4 Oku¥ raw materials, no taxes, no escalation contingency is excluded in “value” estimate need risk analysis → prob. dist. for cost est. one common design and footprint geologic accommodations allowed need a common set of rules and codes e.g. life safety … if none available, ILC may have to define
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 20 All cost estimates must be treated as confidential within the GDE not to be publicly presented or posted on public web site GDE Executive Committee will determine publication policy for all elements of cost estimate
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 21 RDR Cost Estimating Instructions & Standards http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_Cost_Estimating_Instructions_23may06.pdf http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_Cost_Estimating_Instructions_23may06.pdf Table of Contents 0. Acknowledgements 1. Introduction and Cost Consciousness 2. What is included in the estimate 3. Definitions of Responsibility 3.a. Design Cost Board (DCB) 3.b. Area Systems leaders 3.c. Technical Systems leaders 3.d. Global Systems leaders 4. Work Breakdown Structure – for submitting cost estimates 4.a. Definition and content 4.b. Checklist: elements due by June 25, 2006 (before Vancouver) 4.c. Checklist: elements due by Sept. 15, 2006 4.d. WBS information to be provided
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 22 5. Cost Estimating Instructions 5.a. Project Schedule 5.b. System Boundaries 5.c. Graded Approach 5.d. Scaling from Other Projects 5.e. Learning Curves 5.f. Cost Estimates (50% point and uncertainties) 5.g. Include NO contingency 5.h. Spares 5.i. The 5 Horsemen (additional costs beyond acquisition) 5.j. Cost Sensitivities 5.k. Watch out for duplication 5.l Transportation costs 5.m Optimization – Construction Costs vs. Long Term Operations These RDR Cost Estimating Instructions and Standards contain lots of URL links to further details and examples
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 23 What is in the ILC Cost Estimate for Construction? Construction costs start at project approval IN estimate: construction, tooling-up industry, final engineering designs, AECM, etc., institutional labor is presented separately 500 GeV, but include difficult-to-add-later items for 1 TeV like BDS tunnel, dumps, land Not IN estimate: R&D, proof-of-principle or system test, commissioning, operations, decommissioning, or land or underground easement acquisition costs
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 24 We believe that DOE also needs to understand the Not In Estimate costs construction cost in $ (then-year) contingency estimate, in-house labor, G&A, escalation, R&D, pre-construction, commissioning, etc. continuing operating costs: manpower, electrical power, cryogens, klystrons, maintenance & repair for models where US is host or non-host
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 25 Prior Cost Estimating Studies for Cold, SC RF technology Linear Collider TESLA Technical Design Report (2001) KEK Evaluation of TESLA TDR US Evaluation of TESLA TDR (2002) USLCTOS (2004) New & Ongoing Cost Est Studies XFEL TDR Cost Estimate (July 06) TTC Studies: CM Assembly, Couplers, EP
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 26 Cost Estimates for RDR are available from: TESLA TDR (2001 – only high level roll-ups) XFEL cost estimate (July 06) – not accessible! TESLA estimates are scaled by XFEL experience current TTC studies will be too late for RDR est. KEK (in-house + consultant) – Cryomodule & RF high level, no details – available early July LCFoA Cost Estimate (just started) for RF Units Cryomodule, Klystron, RF Distribution, etc. too late for July 06 estimate => final Nov 06
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 27 JLab-Fermilab-SLAC (Funk-Stanek-Larsen) in-house cost estimate study for RF unit. → bottom-up based on US experience: JLab, SNS, FNAL, SLAC (& TTF) parallel to LCFoA cost estimate study available mid-July 06, but no industrial quantity production prices Regional 4 site-dependent cost estimates (CERN, DESY, Fermilab, Japan) for Civil Construction underground, buildings, etc.
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 28 These major studies were for the cost drivers: SC cavities, cryomodules, RF, and conventional facilities There are also engineering estimates for magnets, vacuum, cryogenics, controls, instrumentation, beam stops & collimators, and installation
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 29 Major Components of the Cost Estimate 4 Site Dependent Civil Construction Estimates –CERN, DESY, Japan, Fermilab (est by region) –remarkably similar in cost! Other conventional facilities estimates –power, hvac, cooling, fire protect., hoisting, safety –each estimated by single region – starting cross-checks Tech Cost Drivers: Cavities, Cryomodules, RF –Independent estimates from each of 3 regions –Based on Industrial Studies (not yet US for Cavities/CM) Other items – engineering level estimates –often based on prior purchasing experiences
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 30 Scaling TESLA Estimates → ILC TESLA 2001 – 12 cavities per CM based on industrial studies XFEL Supplement 2002 – 12 cavities/CM based on similar industrial studies XFEL TDR Estimate 2006 – 8 cavities/CM adds experience, inflation, commodities ILC (EU) = TESLA01*XFEL06/XFEL02 plus one year inflation (2001 → 2002)
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 31 What will RDR quote? Quote lowest reasonable world-market value estimate for adequate quality We worry about low-balling “VALUE”: no matter we say, it will be remembered as one, single, FINAL cost number, all notes, caveats, fine print will be ignored How to combine different estimates? 4 sites (4 estimates or range of estimates?) combine Euro, US, Japan component ests lowest, average, or use a divisional model?
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 32 Elements of the Cost Model Cost Engineers & RDR Management Team must determine how to select a value to be quoted for such items w/multiple estimates Need estimates of most probable cost per WBS element and an indication of the anticipated probability distribution for costs. Median (50%), ± σ points of this distribution (or 90%-95% point for upper limit) account for non-symmetric, high cost tail => Risk Assignment for the cost estimate
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 33 Elements of the Cost Model (2) Risk Assessment for Costs: ideally, a probability distribution for expected costs see R. Brinkmann at Snowmass 2005 and Euro XFEL TDR (July 2006) Watch out for Correlated Risks: labor costs, $ - ¥ - € exchange rates, price of materials (e.g. steel, copper), cost of energy (for RF processing), etc.
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 34 Basis of Estimate description how cost estimate was obtained for each WBS element guide used for estimating the assigned level of cost risk (contingency) in the US similar to that used for assigning the probability distribution for costs by XFEL for risk analysis example below from RSVP experiment at Brookhaven National Lab
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 35 WBS Element #___________ Element Name _____________________________ Risk Design Risk (check one of 4): (from RSVP at BNL, similar for US CMS, NCSX) Factor Weight __ Concept only 15% 1 __ Conceptual Design Phase: some drawings; many sketches 8% 1 __ Preliminary Design > 50 % complete; some analysis complete 4% 1 __ Detailed Design > 50% Done 0% 1 Technical Risk (check one of 8 and answer Yes or No to two questions): __ New design; well beyond current state-of-the art 15% 2 or 4 __ New design of new technology; advances state-of-the art 10% 2 or 4 __ New design; requires some R&D but does not advance the state-of-the-art 8% 2 or 4 __ New design; different from established designs or existing technology 6% 2 or 4 __ New design; nothing exotic 4% 2 or 4 __ Extensive modifications to an existing design 3% 2 or 4 __ Minor modifications to an existing design 2% 2 or 4 __ Existing design and off-the-shelf hardware 1% 2 or 4 Yes/No – does this element push the current state-of-art in Design? either = 2 Yes/No – does this element push the current state-of-art in Manufacturing? both = 4 Cost Risk (check one of 8 and answer Yes or No to two questions): __ Engineering judgment 15% 1 or 2 __ Top-down estimate from analogous programs 10% 1 or 2 __ In-house estimate for item with minimal experience and minimal in-house capability 8% 1 or 2 __ In-house estimate for item with minimal experience but related to existing capabilities 6% 1 or 2 __ In-house estimate based on previous similar experience 4% 1 or 2 __ Vendor quote (or industrial study) with some design sketches 3% 1 or 2 __ Vendor quote (or industrial study) with established drawings 2% 1 or 2 __ Off-the-shelf or catalog item 1% 1 or 2 Yes/No – are the material costs in doubt? either = 1 Yes/No – are the labor costs in doubt? both = 2 Schedule Risk (check one): __ Delays completion of critical path subsystem item 8% 1 __ Delays completion of non-critical path subsystem item 4% 1 __ No schedule impact on any other item 2% 1 Prepared by: _______________________ date: _________________ Comments:
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 36 Basis of Estimate – Estimate of Risk Distribution – example 126.96.36.199 Build Framistat Category Risk Factor WeightRF*Wgt Design Risk: Conceptual Design Phase: some drawings; many sketches Design Risk 8% 1 8% Technical Risk: New design; nothing exotic No – does this element push the current state-of-art in Design? Yes – does this element push the current state-of-art in Manufacturing? Technical Design OR Manufacture Risk 4% 2 8% Cost Risk: In-house estimate for item with minimal experience but related to existing capabilities No – are the material costs in doubt? Yes – are the labor costs in doubt? Material OR Labor Cost Risk 6% 1 6% Schedule Risk: Delays completion of non-critical path subsystem item Schedule Risk 4% 1 4% Suggested Risk upper limit (sum) 26% * Prepared by: _______________________ date: _________________ Comments: * do we take this as upper limit, ½ upper limit, 1σ ?
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 37 XFEL: Standard cost uncertainty categories Categorydefinitionlower/upper range C1good experience and present price for this component/sub-system are available, no cost scaling for large quantities has been applied -10% / +10% C2experience and present price for similar components/sub-systems are available, no or only minor scaling to large quantities has been applied -20% / +20% C3present price is available, significant (>25%) cost scaling to large quantities has been applied -10% / +20% C4present price is available, price from industrial study is used which results in significant (>25%) cost reduction for production of large quantities -10% / +20% C5present price not available, price from industrial study is used -10% / +20% C6required technology pushes state-of-the art, significant R&D still required -10% / +50% P1personnel requirements well known due to present experience or with similar systems in previous large scale projects -10% / +10% P2personnel requirements less certain or relatively large fraction of R&D included in this WP -20% / +20% Furthermore, raw material cost uncertainties (volatility of metal and currency markets) have been added where appropriate (e.g. Niobium sheets & parts)
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 38 XFEL: Result of maximum risk analysis 98% probability of coming in under (7/06) 6% + 2% schedule risk (1/2 yr labor costs) triangular & log-normal -10%,+20% cost p.d.f. for each element 6 %
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 39 http://xfel.desy.dehttp://xfel.desy.de(July 2007) updated XFEL cost estimate now includes: project preparation project construction, capital investment project construction, personnel beam commissioning additional personnel cost (allowances) GmbH global management & support overhead GmbH consideration of “risk funding” → Approaching US/DOE Cost Estimating Requirements
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 40 Sketch of Civil Construction Activities use only for sizing production capacities for components (my own view < 1 man-week thought – definitely not to scale) Maybe 2 nd IR at start Length of dump lines? Could be TBM or Drill & Blast Positron Bypass Line? Drill & Blast or TBM? Shafts (many!) TBM tunnels (8 or 10)
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 41 Outline of PHG Construction Schedule Model for generating component cost estimate only a working model – technically (not funding) limited! 7 years – after funding authorization => t0 through installation of all components need to start installation of components while civil construction continues: t0+30 months: e- SRC, e+ Keep-Alive, RTML arcs t0+33 months: DRt0+47 months.: start ML t0+65 months: last sec ML & BDS t0+78 mo.: t0+6.5 yrs.: last components delivered t0+84 mo.: t0+7 yrs.: last component installed start commissioning each sub-systems (operating) as soon as its components are installed
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 42 Much too simplified & optimisitc! Assumes all funding is available at the start, nothing is delayed, everything in parallel No funding time profile Likely to need industrial infrastructure investment before project start date Infrastructure scope depends on rate not just total quantity - quicker = more $
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 43 CryoModule & Klystron Production Models Bob Kephart’s first guess at rate for each of 3 equal vendors Ramp-up: R&D, Industrialization, Production t0t0 t0t0 t 0 +7yrs Purchase Infrastructure CryoModules Klystrons 30,000 hr. avg. life
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 44
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 45 Meetings with 3 Cost Engineers at Vancouver We’d like to ask you: If you have not already sent them, when can we expect your cost estimates? Briefly run through cost estimate in WBS format What assumptions did you use? How did you get this number? What reviews and cross-checks did you perform? What was the average cost factor for Production Quantities ? Did you have any surprises in your estimate? Up or down? Are they understood? Were you lacking in specifications or requirements? Did requirements substantially increase cost or complexity? How did you optimize cost vs. performance? Is a parametric model of the cost estimate available? "That item seems expensive, did you consider alternatives?” What "sanity checks" or comparisons to costs of other projects were made?
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 46 still need by September 15 To complete the Cost Estimates including: Cost Estimates & Labor in WBS form, WBS Dictionary & Basis of Estimate Cost Engineers will be checking for: 50%-50% point for probable cost distribution, upper and lower limit of cost estimates, correlated cost factors, like how much steel, copper, commercial labor, power, etc. R&D, Commissioning, & Operating Costs (power, cryogens, klystrons, repair & maintenance, labor) add NO CONTINGENCY
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 47 Experiences (PHG personal) Getting cost estimates is a tough business –Need more people working on it in US & globally –Seems to be an afterthought to R&D activities (toys) –FARs impact on US industrial studies (6 month delay) Technical designs & cost estimates until now have been driven by “requirements” and reliability, and not by cost consciousness Confidentiality requirements –difficult to understand estimates & to collaborate Have ~ 90% of cost ests – adequate for start need understanding, verification, scrubbing, optimization
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 48 Cost Consciousness! initially: Snowmass 05, Frascati, BCD design was to meet the technically challenging goals must scrub and justify all cost estimates costs vs. goals and reliability beginning cost/performance optimization and tradeoff studies
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 49 Some examples of cost/performance studies: 2 => 1 tunnel: cost vs. reliability (& egress) # bunches vs. # klystrons vs. Luminosity (upgradeable) 2 => 1 e+ Damping Ring – suppress electron cloud alternate DR geometries: dog-bone, centralized tunnel 20+2 => simplified 14+14 mrad BDS (physics needs?) optimize power distribution and cooling water systems reconsider a shallow tunnel consider a conventional (not polarized) e+ source vs. physics needs (save space for later installation?) single stage bunch compressor vs. Luminosity
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 50 When RDR is complete, what do we give DOE? we will have an international VALUE estimate, including both purchase costs & institutional labor it will be necessary to provide translation into the DOE cost estimating metric, e.g. Basis of Estimate => contingency est., in-house labor, G&A, escalation, R&D, pre-construction, commissioning, operating costs, etc. both for US as host and non-host
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 51 Strategy Questions for DOE Estimate Lowest cost – purchase items abroad, or Support US industry – purchase domestic Will not affect VALUE contribution, but will affect cost to US DOE US tunnel design to meet NFPA 520 or minimal tunnel (value) which received safety approval for TESLA and XFEL? = site-dependent tunnel desigs = pay more to meet US codes
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 52 “ Still, don’t ask me what it costs!” End of Presentation (backup slides below)
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 53
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 54
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 55
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 56 WBS Checklist for items in the construction cost estimates requested before the Vancouver Meeting due by June 25, 2006: –Preparing bid packages, vendor liaison costs –Developing multiple vendors –Non-recurring industrial setup and tooling –Purchase of test quantities and QC –Manufacturing and QC –Production test stands –Acceptance testing and QA –Industrial or lab space & infrastructure –Warehouse storage, shipping containers, shipping fixtures –System final assembly –Stands or mounts for final installation –Installation, tooling and fixtures –Alignment –Safety review & ES&H (beyond reviews of preliminary or conceptual designs) –Systems integration, diagnostic equipment –Software, computing equipment, test setup DAQ hardware, etc.
ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT 57 WBS Checklist for items that are not part of the construction cost estimate but for which estimates are due by September 15, 2006: ( after the Vancouver Meeting) –Engineering and design labor (pre-construction) –Consultant, architect, and other external expert labor –Design reviews –Prototyping and R&D –Reliability engineering –System integration engineering –Testing early designs and QA –System commissioning (need estimate, but not part of construction cost) –Management, Cost & Schedule maintenance for life of the project This is a real cost for continued operations of the ILC. Therefore, it is not to be included in the construction cost estimate.