1 / 14

Cost Estimate

Cost Estimate. New Cost Estimate Manpower Costs (Op. SWF) Equipment Costs (Eq. M&S) Contingency Conclusions. Mike Tuts DOE Review June 6, 2000. Re-evaluating Cost Estimate. Elements of the cost estimate Manpower Technical manpower costs are those assigned to D0

kyle-jensen
Download Presentation

Cost Estimate

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

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

  4. Manpower (Op SWF) • 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 * Estimated + Including contingency

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

  6. M&S Cost Estimate • Estimate to complete through April 2000 • provided by Level 3 managers • M&S only, then year k$, incl. $70k contingency • EAC= estimate at completion, ETC = estimate to complete (based on obligations through April)

  7. Cost Variance • Variances from Nov 99 DOE review (then yr k$) • PMP 6/98 baseline for reference (*=FY95 x 1.06)

  8. Contingency Analysis • Risk based analysis (Then Yr $) • Initial subsystem & project managers estimate • $528k + $200k (management) • Cooper committee adjusted • +$715k • Project managers adjusted for management contingency • +$200k • Used $71k of this contingency to date

  9. 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 • Did not realize $1.5M of non-DOE funds originally anticipated • Cost increased by $1.5M (-$250k Plant) • Estimate $1.6M of contingency Actual: $282k

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

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

  12. Obligation Profile • Based on input from subsystem managers • No contingency included • Forward funding • $1M Stony Brook -in place • $0.8M Michigan State – in process

  13. 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)

  14. 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

More Related