1. August 2 and 3, 2010 Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency Jay Elias

2. 2 References: –KOSMOS Management document –KOSMOS Project Plan & Budget Narrative –KOSMOS Risks document –KOSMOS WBS –KOSMOS Schedule

3. 3 Outline Review current budget status Discuss construction budget, schedule and related items

4. 4 Current Status OSU design contract started Dec. 1, 2009 NOAO had 3 main budget components –Initial preparatory phase (Aug until Dec. 1, 2009) –Design phase science activities (non-ReSTAR) –Design phase ReSTAR effort

5. 5 Current Status OSU will have largely spent funds by end of this month (Aug), as planned ($241K) –Final invoice after completion of design review

6. 6 Current Status NOAO expenditures recorded through June 30: –Initial preparatory phase spent $40K –Design phase science activities spent $4K out of $31K budget –Design phase ReSTAR effort spent $46K of $145K budget –Expenditures in July/Aug will be substantial (but not $100K)

7. 7 Current Status Why did NOAO over-estimate expenditures? –Science effort low because project scientist position became vacant, individuals “helping out” generally did not charge –Over-estimated required commitment for project management generally –Guess is that final expenditures will be somewhat over 50% of budget This experience is folded into estimates that follow

8. 8 KOSMOS Construction Budget & Schedule Process: –OSU built up a master plan based on remaining design effort and experience with OSMOS I&T –NOAO did a more detailed estimate (given lack of experience with OSMOS) and verified schedule was consistent with OSU plan –Both effectively a bottom-up estimate starting at level 2 or 3 of WBS Won’t discuss details unless requested, see references

9. 9 KOSMOS Construction Budget & Schedule Process: –OSU contingency estimated for major procurement categories and for manpower at relevant parts of schedule (hence, both budget and schedule contingency) –NOAO used “risk factor” approach (cf. ALMA, TMT, etc.) at the task level, roll up into pool. Associated schedule contingency consistent with OSU plan

10. 10 Budget Summary InstitutionOSUNOAO (ReStar) NOAO (Base) Baseline Payroll$208,966$591,167$51,445 Non-Payroll$281,307$234,094$2,520 Baseline F&A$124,932 Contingency $73,100$129,611$7,144 Contingency F&A $9,584 Sub-Total $697,889 $954,872$61,109 Total$1,015,980 Cont./Baseline13.4%15.6%

11. 11 Contingency Rolled up at the institutional level –Easier to manage than if done at project level –Overall just under 15% of baseline costs – plausible given nature of project –We expect to spend it – properly estimated, that’s what it’s for

12. 12 Budget Summary by WBS Some remarks: –Because of granular budgeting at OSU (and standard university policies for faculty salaries), OSU costs concentrated in a few elements –Some WBS elements are more separate than others – e.g., 6 & 10 linked

13. 13 Budget Summary by WBS WBSOSUNOAOTotal 1: Project Management$53,162$118,125$171,287 2: Science Team Activities$43,079$53,965$97,044 3: Systems Engineering$0$57,972.$57,972 4: Optics$271,559$1,646$273,205 5: Spectrograph Mechanical$104,363$95,888$200,251 6: Spectrograph Controls and Telemetry $61,604$0$61,604 7: Facility Modifications$0$6,173 8: Detector System$0$259,030 9: Top-Level Software$0$127,425 10: Integration and Test$75,340$90,965$166,305 11: Shipping$6,100$0$6,100 12: Documentation and Training $0$39,838 13: Slit Mask Fabrication$0$18,200 Contingency$82,685$146,755$220,300 Total$697,889$1,015,980$1,713,869 Table 5.2 –Project Cost by WBS Element

14. 14 Total Cost Including construction phase budget and anticipated expenditures for design phase, total instrument cost will be just under $2.1M

15. 15 Schedule Detailed schedule available on-line (on-wall) –Most major tasks flow independently into I&T phase –Mechanical design and fab is the main exception –Interaction between spectrograph control software and top-level software

16. 16 Schedule Schedule looked at NOAO labor loading –Mechanical fabrication and software efforts near 100% but not over for a few months Need to coordinate with ODI –Other tasks under 100% loading for people involved OSU schedule is built up using available staff at 100% when needed

17. 17 Mechanical Design & Fab Example of flow of work for enclosure –Instrument electronics box drawings available early and needed early; fabrication occurs Sept/Oct –Main enclosure drawings need redesign but enclosure not needed until end of March ‘11 (misc parts needed later); design and fab phased accordingly

18. 18 Flow of I&T through Acceptance Note arrival of enclosure end of March, optics end of May

19. 19 Significant Risks Risk IDRisk NameProbabilitySeveritySummary DescriptionMitigations and Reductions 3.1ICD StatusModerate ICDs not complete at design review ICDs almost entirely between sub-systems with existing designs; critical software ICDs most nearly complete 4.1Optics Performance-1 Moderate Melt variance will affect UV performance Measurement of melt indices; re-optimization of design 4.2Optics Performance-2 Moderate Coating performance may reduce throughput Iteration with vendors; production of test or witness samples 4.3Optics Cost/Schedule HighLowCamera design more complex than OSMOS Only 1 asphere; aspheres moderate 4.4ADC vignetting HighLowMayall ADC undersizedWork near zenith or at parallactic angle for full MOS field 5.1Instrument Flexure HighLowInstrument flexure complicates night-time calibration Purchase stiffer focus stages; undo some OSMOS light- weighting to produce stiffer overall structure; examine 7.1Calibration Field HighLowRotator/Guider Calibration field undersized Day-time use of "white spot", night sky lines; flexure reduction 9.1Software complexity Moderate Software interactions among multiple sub- systems from both NOAO & OSU Ensure critical ICDs fully developed; nearly all software exists already 13.1MOS mask production LowHighMOS mask software provided by 3rd parties Not on critical path for commissioning; assessment point in Jan.

20. 20 Lesser Risks Project management Cost and schedule Missing official NOAO project scientist Performance modeling Detector and controller systems Integration and test Documentation and training