MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition

1. MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition W. Molzon NSF RSVP Review Panel January 20, 2003

2. MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan • Background to the committee’s existence • Committee members • Charge to the committee • Mode of operation • Primary recommendation on means of procurement • Recommendations on implementing the plan • Other recommendations • Beginning of the contracting part of the procurement W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

3. Background to the Panel’s Existence • Committee constituted based on agreement among NSF, BNL, MECO and RSVP Principal Investigator made in December 2000 • Four point outline of magnet procurement strategy • Complete a conceptual design study for the magnet system – done under contract with a group at MIT-PSFC • Appoint and operate a Magnet Design Management Group with a superconducting magnet professional as chair, a member from MECO for physics requirements and a member from BNL for site-specific operational requirements – done with Brad Smith (Bill Hassenzahl), Bill Molzon, and Mike Iarocci filling these roles • Appoint Magnet Acquisition Panel to recommend means of procurement to the RSVP PI who will act as the SSO • If commercial procurement is pursued, choose vendor through competitive bidding, with RSVP PI as the SSO • December 2000 agreement specified makeup of MAP, jointly appointed by MECO Spokesperson and BNL ALDHENP • MDMG, 3-4 outside experts, MECO PM, 1 each BNL and MECO management, 1 contracting professional W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

4. MECO MAP Membership • External consultants – jointly appointed by W. Molzon and T. Kirk • Gene Fisk (FNAL) – committee chair • Paul Brindza (TJNAL) • Jim Welch (SLAC) • Paul Reardon (private consultant) • MECO MDMG • Brad Smith • Bill Molzon • Mike Iarocci • MECO Project Manager • Mike Hebert • MECO Management – appointed by W. Molzon • Ed Hungerford • BNL Management – appointed by T. Kirk • Derek Lowenstein  Phil Pile (changed due to schedule conflict) • Contracting Expert – appointed by T. Kirk on recommendation of M-F. Healey • John Small  Mary-Faith Healey (changed due to reassignment) W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

5. Charge to the Panel • Provide a recommendation as to which of two general strategies to follow. Note that there is no significance to the order in which the strategies are listed. • To pursue a procurement-by-parts strategy in which BNL will assume responsibility for the engineering design and integration, issue contracts for the major magnet components and do the assembly in-house. • Proceed  to an RFP for procurement of the magnet system from private industry (on a fixed cost basis) by the build-to-specification strategy. Adopting this strategy does not preclude the project from rejecting any and all responses to the RFP and returning to strategy a. • Having made a recommendation on the general strategy, provide advice on implementing that plan. • Provide any other advice that the MAP believes would benefit the MECO Project to facilitate the procurement of the MECO solenoid system in a way that will optimize tradeoffs in cost, schedule and technical risk. W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

6. Mode of Operation of the Panel • Web site was established with all background information, CDR, earlier reviews, etc. • Panel met over a two day period to hear presentations. • Panel members were assigned to draft sections of the recommendations in response to charges 2,3 • Panel members communicated mostly by email to discuss and finalize recommendations • Recommendations were collated and edited by Brad Smith and Gene Fisk • Final draft was distributed and approved by full committee W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

7. Recommendation on Primary Charge “It is the recommendation of the Magnet Acquisition Panel (MAP) that the MECO project work together with the MECO collaboration, BNL and the NSF to develop a draft RFP by May 31, 2003, for the acquisition of the magnet system on a fixed price basis in accordance with a fully developed performance Specification and Statement of Work, a completed preliminary design, and an independent cost estimate by a competent organization.” Qualifications to the recommendation: • “This recommendation is based on the committee's expectation that Vendor comments on the draft RFP will enable a determination as to whether a fixed-price proposal against a performance specification can be obtained from one or more competent Vendors at an affordable price and within an acceptable schedule.” • “If there is inadequate response from industry in a fixed-price, performance-specified RFP, the MECO Project and the MAP committee will need to understand more fully alternatives such as cost plus fixed- or incentive-fee industrial scenarios and a scenario in which Brookhaven National Laboratory or another not-for-profit organization acts as the final designer and integrator, with components procured from industry and/or manufactured in-house.” W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

8. Considerations on Making the Recommendation Although the implications of all alternative plans have not been fully explored (and information presented to the panel indicated it would take significant time to do that), “ït is the recommendation of the MAP that MECO proceeds, as soon as possible, with a plan that could produce an acceptable magnet system at an affordable cost, the first step being to prepare for issuing a Request for Proposals that would ascertain industrial interest in this procurement as soon as possible. At the same time BNL is encouraged to explore ways in which it can participate in ensuring that an industrial procurement results in a cost effective and technically acceptable magnet system. This would most likely involve the joint participation of MECO/MIT/SMD personnel in reviews of the CDR, cost and schedule and in magnet system design and studies beyond the existing CDR, as well as the active participation of BNL CAD to ensure the proper inclusion of all facilities-interface and safety requirements in the magnet specification.” W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

9. Technical Risk Considerations • Superconducting cable operating margins – use of SSC cable with conservative operation reduces technical, cost and schedule risk. • Coil winding and coil-to-coil joints – overall risk is low for this design • Vapor cooled current leads – consider use of more robust design • Quench analysis – deemed not a problem, probably not a cost effective alternative to replacing helium in event of PS quench. • Mechanical stresses in various solenoids • Nuclear radiation shielding • Mechanical construction/suspension of cold masses • Radiation environment, heat load and heat leak • Magnet current, power supplies and field quality • Cryostat, vacuum, alignment • Acceptance tests Overall conclusion – very positive on commercial procurement W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

10. Conclusions Concerning Overall Technical Risk “The MECO MAP is favorably impressed by the CDR design of the MECO SC magnet systems. We can, of course, want more, but the realities of project funding dictate an appreciation of progress to date in a cost effective investment of funds. The existing MECO CDR is an excellent design blueprint for how to build the MECO SC magnet system that meets all the requirements with low risk.The CDR is an excellent basis for the Technical Specification of a fixed price performance contract. This is only possible if the design is sufficiently low risk to guarantee a first time success. Although the MECO MAP has suggested some small areas for investigation around the edges of the design that may result in slight improvements (or possibly just different choices), the MECO MAP finds no areas where the risks associated with the design choices made in the CDR have not been minimized.The MAP assesses that the MECO CDR will present an attractive business opportunity for a typical world-class SC magnet builder. Although large procurements have commercial risk, the present CDR does not add technical risk and therefore the MECO project is advised to proceed with a commercial procurement of the MECO magnet system.” W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

11. Cost and Cost Risk • Endorses additional cost scrubbing and independent cost estimate • Recommends graded contingency analysis • Recommends comparing labor rates used to comprehensive database • Notes that the use of surplus SSC cable and the detailed structural analysis reduces cost risk • Endorses developing a magnetic verification plan • Endorses incorporating interface specifications W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

12. System Optimization and Integration • The MAP encourages greater efforts by BNL in support of MECO, not only in safety but also in optimization and integration • The MAP discusses the role of the construction bidder / contractor in optimization of the magnets at various stages, both during the vendor selection and once the contract is let. • The MAP emphasizes the need for formal integration and interface documentation. • The MAP points out the need for BNL personnel to become knowledgeable about the design and proficient in the operation of the magnet system. W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

13. Knowledge Base Required by the Vendor • The MAP delineates the knowledge base required of the Vendor, e.g. quench analysis, structural analysis, etc. • The MAP lists a number of companies that either in the past or currently have most, if not all, of the competencies required, and indicates that skills that are lacking can be obtained through subcontract or teaming arrangements. • The MAP indicates how responses to the draft RFP and the final RFP will allow the project toevaluate the knowledge base of prospective vendors. W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

14. Schedule • The MAP agrees with the assessment of the MECO Magnet System Conceptual Design Study Final Review that the 41 month engineering design, construction, installation and acceptance tests is credible. • The MAP notes that for MECO to be ready to sign the contract for this 41 month effort when money may become available requires an aggressive schedule to develop the full, formal RFP. This requires issuing at least a draft RFP several months before formal project start. • The MAP notes the steps currently being taken by MECO to develop the RFP. W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

15. Recommendations on Implementation of the Plan • Update field specification, iron frame and coil designs • Specify magnet interfaces • Complete industrial studies • Obtain an independent cost estimate for magnet final design, fabrication and installation • Finalize the magnet technical specification and SOW • Initiate the procurement agency • Draft a magnet acquisition plan • Draft the RFP • Complete program reviews • Obtain vendor comments on the draft RFP • Obtain Government authorization to issue the RFP Brad Smith will discuss plans and schedules for items in yellow W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

16. Other Recommendations • Secure a commitment from the DOE for an additional quantity of surplus SSC cable if it is found to be needed during final design or construction. • Consider obtaining a guest appointment at BNL for Brad Smith; this appointment my facilitate interactions with the Lab on both the technical and procurement aspects of his job. W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan

17. Start of Contracting Part of Procurement Plan • December 2000 agreement identified BNL Procurement and Property Management Division to aid in magnet procurement by writing and managing the procurement subcontract, with funded provided to BNL by subcontract from UCI. • Magnet procurement is the critical path in MECO Project. • We are trying to minimize potential delays due to unanticipated difficulties. • W. Molzon recently wrote to Mary-Faith Healey (head of BNL-PPMD) requesting that BNL-PPMD develop a proposal for the procurement plan (including a schedule) and assign a contracting official to work with us. The letter identified some required aspects of the plan that may require special attention: • Non-BNL employee in the role of SSO; • Non-BNL employee as COTR, with sole technical responsibility for magnets (subject to PMP); • Means of resolving potential conflicts between BNL institutional and MECO Project considerations during the procurement; • Resolving potential conflicts between DOE-BSA and NSF-NYU contract requirements; • Minimizing probability of Project delays due to need for parallel contract approvals; • Promptly identifying and assigning contracting official, and arranging for support; • Identifying total cost to the Project of procurement services; • Obtaining written approval of plan by cognizant officials of DOE and BSA. • M.-F. Healy reports that work on procurement proposal may begin at BNL in 1-2 months and that two new contract managers are currently being recruited. W. Molzon, UCI MECO MAP and Magnet Acquisition Plan