1. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.1 LCLS Ultrafast Science Instruments (LUSI) T. Fornek – Project Manager August 19, 2008 Management Overview

2. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.2 Outline Project Management Overview Scope & WBS Organization Baseline Development Funding Profile Project Schedule Contingency Staffing Procurements Risk Management CD-2 Requirements Summary

3. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.3 LUSI Project Philosophy LUSI is a “Major Item of Equipment “ (MIE) Project delivering three LCLS scientific instruments Utilizes Integrated Project Teams and matrixed engineering LUSI team “owns the plan” The P3/COBRA database is the sole source of the approved LUSI scope, cost and schedule work plan Plan the work … Work the plan”. Emphasis on meeting schedules/milestones Changes to the “plan” are approved through change control LUSI Project is integrated with the LCLS Directorate. Transparent organizational structure and configuration management Matrix supporting infrastructure from LCLS Directorate LUSI seeking industrial solutions LUSI utilizes MOUs with BNL (Detectors) and DESY (Split and Delay) LUSI identifies risks up-front (continuous over the project life)

4. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.4 LUSI Scope LUSI will deliver: Three X-ray scattering instruments XPP - X-ray Pump Probe CXI - Coherent X-ray Imaging XCS - X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy The instruments will be assembled entirely at SLAC using SLAC technical staff Project detailed scope is based on Value-managed decisions Advice from instrument teams LUSI will provide instruments producing groundbreaking science

5. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.5 6 1 2 3 4 5 LCLS LUSI HEDS Offset Monochromator Exp. Chamber Detector Beam Transport Near Experimental Hall Far Experimental Hall XPP XCSCXI AMO HEDS Part of LCLS Proposed External Funds SXR Proposed External Funds Project description (1) Mono X-ray Transport SXR

6. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.6 Project description (2) XPP WBS 1.2 LCLS AMO XCS Offset Monochromator WBS 1.5 X-ray transport tunnel (200 m) XCS WBS 1.4 HEDS CXI WBS 1.3 SXR imaging

7. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.7 Purpose of this review Baseline (CD-2) status review for: WBS 1.1 – Project Management WBS 1.2 – X-ray Pump Probe (XPP) instrument WBS 1.3 – Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI) instrument WBS 1.4 – X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS) instrument WBS 1.5 – Diagnostics and Common Optics WBS 1.6 – Controls and Data Acquisition WBS 2.0 – Other Project Costs (Spent) Independent Cost Review per DOE O-413.3 (Part of this review)

8. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.8 LUSI WBS Organization WBSTITLE 1.1PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1.01ES&H 1.1.02Project Management 1.1.03Technical Support WBSTITLE 1.2X-RAY PUMP PROBE (XPP) 1.2.01XPP System Integration & Design 1.2.02XPP X-ray Optics & Support Table 1.2.03XPP Laser System 1.2.04XPP Detector System (BNL) 1.2.05 XPP Sample Environment & Diffractometer System 1.2.06XPP Facilities 1.2.07XPP Vacuum System 1.2.08XPP Installation Product-based Components Coordination & Integration Installation Typical Instrument WBS

9. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.9 DOE-HQ H. Kung, Acquisition Executive T.E. Kiess, Program Manager DOE-SSO H. Joma DOE Federal Project Director SLAC T. Fornek LUSI Project Manager Deputy - TBD WBS 1.2 XPP IIT D. Fritz (Instr. Scientist) J. Langton ( Lead Eng) WBS 1.3 CXI IIT S. Boutet (Instr. Scientist) P. Montanez ( Lead Eng) WBS 1.4 XCS IIT A. Robert (Instr. Scientist) E. Bong - Acting (Lead Eng) WBS 1.5 Diagnostics & Common Optics Y. Feng (Lead Scientist) E. Ortiz (Lead Eng ) Instrument Team Leaders (Advisory) DOE-SSO Support WBS 1.6 Data Acquisition & Controls G. Haller (Lead) LCLS Directorate Support ES&H, QA, Finance, EVMS, Procurement… Engineering N. Kurita - Chief Engineer Technical Configuration Control Committee (Scope Decisions) LUSI Integrated Project Team

10. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.10 Typical Integrated Instrument Team WBS 1.2 X-ray Pump Probe Instrument Scientist – D. Fritz Lead Engineer (CAM) - J. Langton Eng/Design Support –J. DeLor J. Defever Detectors-N. van Bakel Diag./Common Optics – Y. Feng Controls & DAQ – G. Haller ES&H – M. Scharfenstein QA – D. Marsh Instrument Team Leaders Sign Off on Instrument Physics Requirements Document Instrument Team Leaders K. Gaffney, D. Reis, T. Tschentscher, J. Larsson

11. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.11 LCLS Directorate Support Business Services – C. Lowe (mgr), W. Sisson (Finance), F. Fernandez, (Project Controls), D. Pindroh, (Procurement) Michael Scharfenstein, ES&H Representative Darren Marsh, QA Representative Helen O’Donnell, Office Management Siony Matni, Administrative and Finance Mechanical Engineering Niels van Bakel – Detectors

12. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.12 Baseline Development Process Define initial schedule and budget assumptions Initial scope assumptions, WBS, WBS dictionary Responsibility assignment and organization Generate the schedule baseline estimate Finalize the Milestone Hierarchy and Dictionary, schedule activities, links, etc. Load resources Generate the resource loaded schedule Compare to funding profile Iterate until scope, schedule, costs match yearly funding, stakeholder requirements and good management practice Major driver is early science for the instruments

13. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.13 LUSI Cost Baseline Base Cost (BCWS)$42.13 M Contingency$12.97 M TEC$55.10 M OPC$4.90 M TPC$60.00 M

14. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.14 LUSI Project Funding Profile LUSI Funding Profile (AYM$) Prior Yrs FY07FY08FY09FY10FY11FY12Total MIE 0.506.0015.00 13.505.1055.10 OPC 3.401.50 4.90 Total 3.402.006.0015.00 13.505.1060.00

15. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.15 BA Plan & Obligation Profile Assumed BA Profile 08 Q1 08 Q2 08 Q3 08 Q4 09 Q1 09 Q2 09 Q3 09 Q4 10 Q1 10 Q2 10 Q3 10 Q4 11 Q1 11 Q2 11 Q3 11 Q4 12 Q1 12 Q2 12 Q3 12 Q4.5M6.5 M 8.0 M 9.5 M 21. 5M 40. 5M 50. 5M 55. 1M LUSI is funding- limited in Q1,Q2 of FY09.

16. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.16 LUSI Resource Loaded Schedule The LUSI resource-loaded schedule comprises ~3,900 tasks. 64 Control Accounts LUSI uses Primavera (P3) as its scheduling tool with COBRA as the cost processor. SLAC has successfully delivered with P3/COBRA (PEP-II, GLAST, SPEAR-III, LCLS). Significant supporting documentation for LUSI base costs.. A WBS Dictionary defines the scope of work at the lowest WBS level (typically Level 4/5). Contingency is assessed at the lowest WBS. Design Maturity & Judgment Factor (risk-based) Work schedule, commitments and resource profiles are derived from the resource-loaded schedule.

17. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.17 Critical Decision Milestones CD-0 - Mission Need - Approved Aug 2005 CD-1 - Alternative Selection and Cost Range – App’d Sep 2007 CD-2 - Approve Performance Baseline - planned Oct 2008 Utilize Phased CD-3 and CD-4 Milestones CD-3 - Approve Start of Construction CD-3A – XPP - scheduled Jul 2009 CD-3B – CXI - scheduled Apr 2010 CD-3C – XCS - scheduled Oct 2010 CD-4 - Approve Start of Operations CD-4A – XPP - scheduled Dec 2010 CD-4B – CXI - scheduled Sep 2011 CD-4C – XCS - scheduled Aug 2012 Baseline assumes long lead procurement approval for XPP and CXI received by November, 2008 These are baseline dates. Funding profile prevents combining CD-3s – We are trying to obtain earlier funding Early science begins with separate CD-4A, CD-4B

18. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.18 Key Cost/Schedule Assumptions Schedule Six month Continuing Resolution in FY 2009 Staffing can be secured to meet schedule requirements LCLS milestone dates for LUSI tie-ins are met Cost Six month continuing resolution in FY 2009 Three month continuing resolution in succeeding years Escalation rates used are 2.3% non-labor and 4% labor.

19. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.19 LUSI Project Summary Schedule

20. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.20 Schedule Contingency Float XPP – 75 working days to CD-4A CXI – 95 working days to CD-4B XCS – 80 working days to CD-4C (No funding constraints - 182 days) Critical Path XPP Diffractometer design, fabrication & installation CXI 1 micron K-B mirror system XCS Delayed design effort due to funding Diagnostic and common optics components delayed procurements Component assembly and installation

21. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.21 Project Contingency “Bottoms-up” contingency estimate $11.3M on $39.22M ETC Available contingency in proposed baseline is $12.8 Contingency is managed at the project level Annual comprehensive ETC and contingency update

22. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.22 Staffing (FTE) Plan for staffing ramp-up 1.AMO & other LCLS Engineers available to LUSI in September (~5 FTE) 2.Seeking Deputy Project Manager

23. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.23 Control Account Managers WBSControl Account MgrCntrl Accts Work Pkgs Budget 1.1 PMT. Fornek (Acting)612$5.5M 1.2 XPPJ. Langton (WO Detect)1044$4.5M 1.3 CXIP. Montanez1145$9.5M 1.4 XCSE. Bong (WO Detect)1241$5.7M 1.5 D&COE. Ortiz1039$6.4M 1.6 Cntrls & DAQ G. Haller20289$7.2M 1.2.3 + 1.4.3 Detectors N. Van Bakel89$3.5M

24. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.24 LUSI Procurement Planning LUSI employs established SLAC procurement procedures LUSI uses the LCLS procurement cell Weekly LCLS/LUSI procurement status meeting with David Pindroh, LCLS Procurement LUSI Advanced Procurement Plans exist

25. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.25 Procurements

26. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.26 Long Lead & Major Procurements Long Lead Procurements XPP Diffractometer/Detector Mover Components $ 730K CXI 1.0 Micron KB Mirror System $ 970K Other Major Procurements CXI 0.1 Micron KB Mirror System $ 970K XCS Diffractometer System $ 517K XCS Detector Mover $ 689K Large Offset Monochromator $1,160K XPP Ti-Sapphire Power Amplifier $ 245K

27. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.27 LUSI MOUs Brookhaven National Laboratory – Detector Systems for XPP and XCS Instruments ETC - $1.1M XPP Detector System: Estimated Delivery – January, 2010 Cost to date $1.8M (OPC) XCS Detector System: Estimated Delivery – September, 2011 Estimated Cost – $1.8M DESY Split and Delay System Long-Term Loan arrangement

28. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.28 Risk Management LUSI Follows the LCLS Risk Management Plan and uses the LCLS Risk Registry LCLS Project Management Document 1.1-002 Risk is considered in cost contingency Risk identification, assessment and mitigation First risk registry update meeting July 31, 2008 Major Risks Annual funding - Continuing Resolutions Foreign procurements – Dollar fluctuation, sole source Loss and/or availability of critical personnel CXI mirror delivery, performance XCS Monochromator performance

29. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.29 DOE 413.3A CD2 Requirements Established Perfomance Baseline Completed – Includes Key Performance Parameters Updated Project Execution Plan Ready for signature pending CD-2 Comments ANSI/EIA-748-A-1998 Compliant EVMS SLAC EVMS certified Independent Project Review/Cost Review EIR lines of inquiry will be addressed by this CD-2 Review The Quality Assurance Program must fully address all applicable Quality Assurance Criteria as defined in 10 CFR 830 Subpart A and DOE O 414.1C. SLAC Document PM-391-000-01-R0 released in July ’07. Consistent with DOE Order 414.1C and the SLAC Office of Assurance “Quality Implemention Procedure Requirements “SLAC-I-770-0A17S-001-R000”

30. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.30 DOE 413.3A CD2 Requirements Prepare a Preliminary Design Completed Conduct a Preliminary Design Review Completed for XPP, CXI and XCS Hazards Analysis Report Completed (PM-391-001-34 R0) Update the Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment Report. CD-1 report still valid

31. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.31 EIR Lines of Inquiry EIR ELEMENTCOMMENTCD2 Ready 1. Work Breakdown StructurePM-391-000-96 (Structure) 2. Project Cost & Res Loaded SchedThis presentation & Project Controls/EVMS presentation 3. Key Proj Cost & Sched AssumpThis presentation 4. Critical PathProject Controls/EVMS presentation 5. Risk ManagementThis presentation and Management breakout 6. Funding ProfileThis presentation 7. Project Controls/EVMSProject Controls/EVMS presentation 8. Basis of DesignEngineering presentation 9. Design ReviewEngineering presentation 10. System Functions & ReqsEngineering presentation 11. SustainabilityNot applicable 12. Hazards AnalysisPM-391-001-01 13. Value Management/EngineeringLUSI Value Management Plan (Doc No. PM-391-000-02) 14. Start-up Test PlanSP-391-001-15, -16, -17 (XPP, CXI, XCS) 15. Project Execution PlanDraft ready for signature pending CD-2 review changes 16. Acquisition StrategyApproved September, 2007 17. Integrated Project TeamThis presentation & the PEP

32. Tom Fornek tomf@slac.stanford.edu LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008 Management Overview p.32 In Conclusion Project Cost, Schedule and Scope Baselines are in Place and Fit the Funding Profile Integrated Project Team is in Place Risks are Identified and Steps Have Been Taken to Reduce Risk Where Possible Contingency is Reasonable LUSI is ready for CD-2