1. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 1 Project Management W. J. Foyt Project Scope Timeline Cost Estimate Risk/Contingency Staffing Project Controls Procurement CD-1 Documentation Issues Summary Project Scope Timeline Cost Estimate Risk/Contingency Staffing Project Controls Procurement CD-1 Documentation Issues Summary

2. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 2 Project Scope Work breakdown structure – WBS 1.1Project Management WBS 1.2X-ray Pump/Probe (XPP) WBS 1.3Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI) WBS 1.4X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS) WBS 1.5Diagnostics WBS 1.6Controls & Data Systems WBS 2.0Other Project Costs Work breakdown structure – WBS 1.1Project Management WBS 1.2X-ray Pump/Probe (XPP) WBS 1.3Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI) WBS 1.4X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS) WBS 1.5Diagnostics WBS 1.6Controls & Data Systems WBS 2.0Other Project Costs

3. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 3 Project Scope Scope definition – LUSI project consists of three x-ray instruments (XPP, CXI and XCS), associated diagnostics, controls & data systems and project management. Priority – CXI and XPP to be baselined (CD-2a) in Dec. 2007. These instruments to be capable of producing science when LCLS operational. This will be LUSI’s CD-4a. 3 rd instrument (XCS) to be baselined at CD-2b. 3 instruments to be complete at CD-4b. Scope definition – LUSI project consists of three x-ray instruments (XPP, CXI and XCS), associated diagnostics, controls & data systems and project management. Priority – CXI and XPP to be baselined (CD-2a) in Dec. 2007. These instruments to be capable of producing science when LCLS operational. This will be LUSI’s CD-4a. 3 rd instrument (XCS) to be baselined at CD-2b. 3 instruments to be complete at CD-4b.

4. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 4 Project Scope Key performance parameters – CD-4 will be staged: two partial instruments at CD-4a (Feb.’10), three complete instruments at CD-4b (Mar.’12) CD–4a: CXI operational with detector, diagnostics, and controls & data systems XPP operational with shared laser system, detector (1 st article), diagnostics and controls & data systems CD-4b: CXI operational with compressor, detector, particle injector and full diagnostics, and controls & data systems XPP operational with dedicated laser, detector, off-set monochromator and full diagnostics and controls & data systems XCS operational with detector, optics, sample environment and full diagnostics and controls & data systems Complete instrument parameter list in PPEP (5.1) Key performance parameters – CD-4 will be staged: two partial instruments at CD-4a (Feb.’10), three complete instruments at CD-4b (Mar.’12) CD–4a: CXI operational with detector, diagnostics, and controls & data systems XPP operational with shared laser system, detector (1 st article), diagnostics and controls & data systems CD-4b: CXI operational with compressor, detector, particle injector and full diagnostics, and controls & data systems XPP operational with dedicated laser, detector, off-set monochromator and full diagnostics and controls & data systems XCS operational with detector, optics, sample environment and full diagnostics and controls & data systems Complete instrument parameter list in PPEP (5.1)

5. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 5 Timeline Major events - Aug. 2005CD-0 Feb. 2006Detector MOU - BNL July 2007CD-1 Nov. 2007Split & Delay MOU - DESY Dec. 2007CD-2a Jan. 2008Particle Inj. MOU - LLNL July 2008CD-3a Nov. 2008Split & Delay Rec’d May 2009XPP Detector Rec’d Oct. 2009CD- 2b Nov. 2009Particle Inj. Rec’d Feb. 2010CD-4a Mar. 2010CD-3b Sept. 2011XCS Detector Rec’d Mar. 2012CD-4b

6. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 6 Cost Estimate

7. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 7 Cost Estimate Funding profile – Obligation profile –

8. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 8 Details - Cost Estimate LUSI COST ESTIMATE $60,000.0 DIRECT $30,586.0 PROJ MGT $3,264.7 XPP 7,914.6 CXI 6,714.6 XCS 5,826.6 DIAGNOSTICS 2,329.7 CTRLS & DATA SYS 4,535.8 INDIRECT 8,120.0 ESCALATION 3,218.8 CONTINGENCY 13,175.2 OPC 4,900.0 LUSI COST ESTIMATE $60,000.0 DIRECT $30,586.0 PROJ MGT $3,264.7 XPP 7,914.6 CXI 6,714.6 XCS 5,826.6 DIAGNOSTICS 2,329.7 CTRLS & DATA SYS 4,535.8 INDIRECT 8,120.0 ESCALATION 3,218.8 CONTINGENCY 13,175.2 OPC 4,900.0

9. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 9 Cost Estimate WBS 2.0 Other Project Costs = $4,900k Salary/Wage & Fringe 1,224k MS&T 670k Detector R&D 1,812k Indirect Costs 1,194k WBS 2.0 Other Project Costs = $4,900k Salary/Wage & Fringe 1,224k MS&T 670k Detector R&D 1,812k Indirect Costs 1,194k

10. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 10 Cost Estimate Methodology - Costs collected at levels 3, 4 or 5 of the WBS Labor by type in person weeks (44/yr) Calculated to FY’07$ using modified LCLS rates BNL detector estimates provided via MOU LLNL provided particle injector estimate; MOU in process Purchased materials & services entered by quantity & unit value Excluding MOUs, quotes/catalog items represent >50% of estimate Material burden factor (4.8%) Indirect (G&A) 20% calculated on labor & travel Contingency based on risk assessment at line item level Escalation (FY ’07 base year): Labor escalated @ 4.0% / year Material escalated @ 2.3% / year Methodology - Costs collected at levels 3, 4 or 5 of the WBS Labor by type in person weeks (44/yr) Calculated to FY’07$ using modified LCLS rates BNL detector estimates provided via MOU LLNL provided particle injector estimate; MOU in process Purchased materials & services entered by quantity & unit value Excluding MOUs, quotes/catalog items represent >50% of estimate Material burden factor (4.8%) Indirect (G&A) 20% calculated on labor & travel Contingency based on risk assessment at line item level Escalation (FY ’07 base year): Labor escalated @ 4.0% / year Material escalated @ 2.3% / year

11. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 11 Cost Estimate Cost estimate worksheet –

12. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 12 Risk / Contingency LUSI risk analysis identifies potential risks by: type - cost, schedule, technical consequence - marginal, significant, or critical likelihood - unlikely, likely, or very likely Intersection of these elements categorizes the potential risk to the project as either low, medium, or high Of 19 potential risks identified and documented in Risk Registry, 2 are categorized as High: Delay in FY funding (CR) Staffing difficulties Risk Registry will be evaluated monthly or when an event requires re-assessment As project becomes mature risk assessment will be more quantitative including estimates of potential costs, schedule impacts, cost of implementing mitigation strategy, and the residual risk. LUSI risk analysis identifies potential risks by: type - cost, schedule, technical consequence - marginal, significant, or critical likelihood - unlikely, likely, or very likely Intersection of these elements categorizes the potential risk to the project as either low, medium, or high Of 19 potential risks identified and documented in Risk Registry, 2 are categorized as High: Delay in FY funding (CR) Staffing difficulties Risk Registry will be evaluated monthly or when an event requires re-assessment As project becomes mature risk assessment will be more quantitative including estimates of potential costs, schedule impacts, cost of implementing mitigation strategy, and the residual risk.

13. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 13 Risk / Contingency Risk Matrix utilized in estimate preparation–

14. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 14 Risk / Contingency Application of Risk Matrix & contingency development –

15. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 15 Risk / Contingency Contingency – is developed utilizing a risk analysis at the lowest level of the WBS. An algorithm sums the technical, cost and schedule risk multiplied by the weight of the occurrence.

16. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 16 Risk / Contingency Project contingency –

17. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 17 Staffing

18. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 18 Project Controls LUSI utilizes existing LCLS EVMS, policies, procedures and project controls staff On-site EVMS training for Project staff planned 1 st two instruments to be baselined in Dec.’07 Earned Value (EV) reporting begins in FY 08. BNL (Detectors) and LLNL (Injector) will report EV against approved baseline schedules LUSI utilizes existing LCLS EVMS, policies, procedures and project controls staff On-site EVMS training for Project staff planned 1 st two instruments to be baselined in Dec.’07 Earned Value (EV) reporting begins in FY 08. BNL (Detectors) and LLNL (Injector) will report EV against approved baseline schedules

19. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 19 Project Controls Managing the Baseline – Prior to presenting a Baseline Change Request (BCR) to the Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB), the request will be reviewed by LUSI management. This review will include: Background leading to the request Extent of the problem Proposed solution Other solutions considered Stakeholders review (System Managers, QA, ES&H, RM Coordinator) Impact of the BCR Will there be a technical impact What resources are affected Will this require a draw on contingency What milestones, if any, are impacted Integrated Schedule Analysis Impact of not approving this BCR Affected drawings, parts or requirements LUSI BCR process detailed in PPEP (6.0) Managing the Baseline – Prior to presenting a Baseline Change Request (BCR) to the Baseline Change Control Board (BCCB), the request will be reviewed by LUSI management. This review will include: Background leading to the request Extent of the problem Proposed solution Other solutions considered Stakeholders review (System Managers, QA, ES&H, RM Coordinator) Impact of the BCR Will there be a technical impact What resources are affected Will this require a draw on contingency What milestones, if any, are impacted Integrated Schedule Analysis Impact of not approving this BCR Affected drawings, parts or requirements LUSI BCR process detailed in PPEP (6.0)

20. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 20 Procurement LUSI is utilizing LCLS procurement cell Advanced Procurement Plans (APP) being developed for all procurements on the critical path or with an order value >25k$ APP provides rolling 6 month window of planned procurement activity LUSI administration will monitor all phases of procurement LUSI is utilizing LCLS procurement cell Advanced Procurement Plans (APP) being developed for all procurements on the critical path or with an order value >25k$ APP provides rolling 6 month window of planned procurement activity LUSI administration will monitor all phases of procurement

21. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 21 CD -1 Documentation Documentation required for CD-1 approval – (documentation prepared for Jan. review updated to reflect action item) Documentation required for CD-1 approval – (documentation prepared for Jan. review updated to reflect action item) Conceptual Design Reportpublished July 2007 Design Review Reportissued July 2007 Acquisition Strategydraft released June 2007 Prel. Project Execution Plandraft released June 2007 Risk Management Plan/Assessmentissued June 2007 Prel. Security Vulnerability Assessmentissued Dec. 2006 Prel. Hazard Analysis Reportissued July 2007 Quality Assurance Program – LUSI Quality Implementing Procedure issued June 2007 Value Management Planissued May 2007

22. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 22 Issues A Continuing Resolution (CR) in FY ‘08 would impact schedule. With minimal carry forward and a projected burn rate of ~460k$/mo, LUSI could manage the 1 st qtr of FY ’08 by withholding the balance of FY ’07 and delaying FY ’08 detector funding. Maintaining the detector schedule through 1 st qtr would require an additional 650k$ in FY 07. Potential CRs in the out years should be manageable without significant impact to the project schedule due to the funding profile. A Continuing Resolution (CR) in FY ‘08 would impact schedule. With minimal carry forward and a projected burn rate of ~460k$/mo, LUSI could manage the 1 st qtr of FY ’08 by withholding the balance of FY ’07 and delaying FY ’08 detector funding. Maintaining the detector schedule through 1 st qtr would require an additional 650k$ in FY 07. Potential CRs in the out years should be manageable without significant impact to the project schedule due to the funding profile.

23. W.J. Foyt wfoyt@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review July 23, 2007 Project Management 23 Summary Input from internal and external reviews have proven invaluable. Action item from Jan. 2007 review was resolved on schedule and plan is being worked to meet or exceed requirement. All recommendations from Jan. 2007 review have been responded to. LUSI staff has sharpened its plan and is prepared to deliver world class instruments on time and within budget. Input from internal and external reviews have proven invaluable. Action item from Jan. 2007 review was resolved on schedule and plan is being worked to meet or exceed requirement. All recommendations from Jan. 2007 review have been responded to. LUSI staff has sharpened its plan and is prepared to deliver world class instruments on time and within budget.