1. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Cost Estimate  New Cost Estimate u Manpower Costs (Op. SWF) u Equipment Costs (Eq. M&S) u Contingency  Conclusions Mike Tuts DOE Review June 6, 2000

2. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Re-evaluating Cost Estimate  Elements of the cost estimate u Manpower s Technical manpower costs are those assigned to D0 s We estimate contingency of ~50% on our estimates for FY00-01 u Equipment s Accepted the prior year costs (<FY00) in lab books s Concentrated on bottoms up estimate to complete u Contingency s Based on present experience, assigned larger than “normal” contingencies to assure fiscal success

3. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Manpower  Track actual manpower by effort reporting at WBS level 2 (data available from 1/98) u by type, eg MT, ME, ET, EE u by subsystem  Extract manpower profiles from MS Project u Based on schedule as of end 99 u Have observed that effort reported manpower larger than from schedule u Schedule delays => greatly underestimated in the outyears relative to baseline  Use effort reported manpower to estimate Operating SWF costs

4. DoE Review June 6, 2000  Effort reported Fermilab FTE by type  Converted to then yr k$ using average salaries (Op SWF)  Change request submitted & approved by Lab 3/20/00 Manpower (Op SWF) Labor (then yr k$) FY97FY98FY99FY00FY01Total Baseline4,2774,2952,9551,064012,541 Reported/Est.--3,9684,5985,640*654*19,087 Present Op SWF4,2773,9684,5988,000 + 1,300 + 22,093 * Estimated + Including contingency

5. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Equipment (M&S) Cost Estimate  Performed new bottoms-up cost estimate to complete in Feb-March 2000 u Provided by subsystem managers u Clear we would exceed the baseline cost s Recall “uncomfortably” low contingency at last review  Change request to Lab u Include FY99 and before as in lab books s Accept Lab figures for 92-93 (+$479k) u Review of ETC by John Cooper + 20 reviewers! March 15,16,21 s Reduce cost by $130k, raise contingency by $675k s D0 response to further raise contingency by $200k for management contingency based on recent experience to further assure success  Change request approved by Lab and submitted to DOE u Approved by DOE on 4/24/00

6. DoE Review June 6, 2000 M&S Cost Estimate  Estimate to complete through April 2000 u provided by Level 3 managers u M&S only, then year k$, incl. $70k contingency u EAC= estimate at completion, ETC = estimate to complete (based on obligations through April) WBSSystemEACETC% obligated 1.1.1Silicon Tracker7,85758493 1.1.2Fiber Tracker7,77420397 1.1.3Central Preshower2381096 1.1.4Forward Preshower5241098 1.1.5Tracking Electronics3,70438190 1.2.1Cal Electronics4,34816196 1.2.2Intercryostat Detector3095782 1.3.1Cosmic Ray Scintillator1,2230100 1.3.2Central Moun9523197 1.3.3Forward Muon Trigger2,13317492 1.3.4Forward Muon Tracking1,41112691 1.3.5Muon Electronics3,7798998 1.4.1Framework1,8590100 1.4.2Lum Monitor136696 1.4.3L1 Trigger1,50333378 1.4.4L2 Trigger2,04739981 1.4.5L3 Trigger1,04922678 1.5.1Online74631558 3.1.1Solenoid/beam pipe/shield4,8860100 TOTAL46,4793,10593

7. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Cost Variance  Variances from Nov 99 DOE review (then yr k$)  PMP 6/98 baseline for reference (*=FY95 x 1.06) WBSPMP 6/98* 11/994/00Diff 4/00-11/99 Reason 1.1.15,2497,5337,857324Lower yields, installation 1.1.27,8207,1407,774634More fiber & waveguide, shop charges 1.1.3376238 0 1.1.446651152413Clear waveguide fab 1.1.52,4263,5293,704175Si & Fiber readout: design cycles, parts TOT16,33818,95120,0981,147 WBSPMP 6/98* 11/994/00Diff 4/00-11/99 Reason 1.116,33818,95120,0981,147See below 1.24,618 4,65739Spares, power supplies 1.39,0409,3589,498140Mechanical supports, Gas syst 1.45,6366,595 0 1.564172274624Software licenses 3.15,1684,9754,886-89Savings TOT41,44145,21946,4791,260

8. DoE Review June 6, 2000  Risk based analysis (Then Yr $) u Initial subsystem & project managers estimate s $528k + $200k (management) u Cooper committee adjusted s +$715k u Project managers adjusted for management contingency s +$200k  Used $71k of this contingency to date Contingency Analysis WBSUnobligated (end April) Est. Conting % of unobligated Issues 1.11,18891977See below 1.22189744Spares, power supplies 1.34207518Mech supports, Gas syst 1.49649710 1.53156822 Other--387--Install/safety/… TOT3,1051,64353 WBSUnobligated (end April) Est Cont % of unobligated Issues 1.1.158446179Readout elec., F & 90 o 1.1.2203353174Flex circuits, waveguides,… 1.1.31000 1.1.410550Waveguides, connectors 1.1.538110026Fiber cards

9. DoE Review June 6, 2000 M&S Cost Change Request  Based on prior obligations, new ETC, contingency analysis, and review (Then Yr $) – as of March 2000  Change request (1-032400-01) approved by DOE on 4/24/00 u Did not realize $1.5M of non-DOE funds originally anticipated u Cost increased by $1.5M (-$250k Plant) u Estimate $1.6M of contingency CategoryBaselineMarch 00 Cost Est. Cost increase Contingency EQ. M&S 38,66540,1761,5111,643 EQ. SWF 86818,676-5 G&A7,9588,579621 TEC55,30457,4312,127 Plant5,1684,918-250 Non- DOE 3,2871,824-- TOT63,75964,173-- Actual: $282k

10. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Contingency use  Contingency now held by Lab (Deputy Director) & DOE Project manager  Have implemented change control to request contingency u Total $71k to date u Near future: s Silicon ~$100k –Shop charges, mechanical infrastructure, installation s Muon trigger ~$50k –Additional cards, engineering

11. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Funding Summary  Based on Lab spreadsheet u In Then Yr k$, and FY95 k$ u Includes all contingency in FY2001 u Includes: all approved changes (M&S, Op SWF, G&A)

12. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Obligation Profile  Based on input from subsystem managers u No contingency included  Forward funding u $1M Stony Brook -in place u $0.8M Michigan State – in process

13. DoE Review June 6, 2000 FY00 Funding  Given profile, do we have sufficient obligation authority this FY to move ahead?  Obligated the present (FY00) budget amount $2.8M  Conclude that we may need $0.5-1M in additional forward funding (have prospects)  We can defer some of the obligations (~$300k) NeedsThen Yr (K$) Comments Cost profile May-Sept 2,698From managers profile estimate Contingency??500Guessing based on present rate TOTAL3,198 Obligation AuthorityThen Yr (K$) Comments Lab0All $2.8M now obligated Lab (other)215PO closings, paybacks, MOU closing Forward Funds1,800MSU, Stony Brook Non-DOE385May not get all this FY TOTAL2,400

14. DoE Review June 6, 2000 Conclusions  Costs and contingency recently reviewed  Change to TEC implemented through DOE change control  Contingency use monitored & controlled more closely  Will need additional forward funding this FY (~$500k-$1M)  We believe that the funding (with contingency) is adequate to complete the project