Proton Driver Options Cost Comparison

1. Proton Driver OptionsCost Comparison Rich Stanek March 15 , 2005

2. Outline • Goal of the Comparison • History of the Numbers • Methodology – Cost Estimating Approach • Results – Comparing the Estimates • Cost Drivers • Observations – Contingency & Range of Values • Conclusions Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

3. Goal of the Comparison • Provide a fair and consistent cost comparison between the Linac and Synchrotron PD options • Independent of technical or physics related issues • Consistent level of estimation and detail for each option • Use the same labor rates, $/sf for buildings and data format/cost roll up • Assemble a reasonable level of back up documentation (Basis of Estimate) for both cost estimates • Understand the “Range of Values” for the cost of a PD • Provide the starting point/basis for the final PD cost estimate NOTE: Costs are shown in FY04 dollars and without G&A charges unless specifically noted G&A and Contingency are added at the highest level Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

4. History of the Numbers (Synchrotron) • PD I Study done for a 16 GeV Proton Driver (2000) • PD II Study reduced the energy to 8 GeV and added a SC Linac option (2002) • Much of the PD II Sync cost estimate was scaled from the original PD I numbers but then adjusted to include a replacement of the existing Front End Linac (Director’s Charge Letter) • Familiarity of FNAL personnel with building synchrotron machines and how things scale, helped this estimate maintain its accuracy The Synchrotron cost estimate has not had the same level of recent cost peer review nor working group participation as has the Linac cost estimate (Synchrotron technical design has been reviewed) Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

5. History of the Numbers (Linac) • Linac option’s initial cost estimate relied heavily on scaling from TESLA and SNS numbers with appropriate modification for technical differences • As a core project team was formed, the Linac estimate was further refined and developed by forming Working Groups and performing cost exercises (ex. Civil Working Group => meets weekly and cryomodule cost estimate exercise => resulted in RFQ) • Experience based on FNAL/TESLA/SNS actuals was used where applicable Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

6. Cost Estimating Approach • Take a conservative approach to estimating the costs of the PD (defendable numbers) • Cost estimators started out with the knowledge that an overall contingency was going to be added to the entire project cost (30% across the board)=> some subsystems added scope contingency as part of their input estimates • Cost estimates cover components up to and including injection into the Main Injector. • Cost of the Main Injector Upgrades (ex. RF Upgrades) was not included in either cost estimate • Assumption is that as the PD project moves forward and detail designs are further developed it will go through a “Value Engineering” stage where technical/cost trade-offs will be evaluated and a true contingency and risk matrix will be adopted Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

7. Maintaining the Accuracy • Each option had a primary contact • Synchrotron => Weiren Chou • Linac => Bill Foster • This allowed for a reasonable level of “checks and balances” in the comparison effort • Tried to use the same people to make estimates for both systems (where applicable) Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

8. Methodology • Evaluate documentation that was compiled for the PD II Study => the starting point • Put both estimates into a common form (Excel) using common costs where possible (labor rates based on TD actual averages and BTeV values) • Improve the accuracy of the estimates • Look for holes/missing items • Look for obvious errors in the estimates • Look for inconsistencies between the two options => Led to new estimates for several key components • Compare the two options (escalate old est. to 2004) • Perform reality checks & internal review Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

9. Cost Comparison - High Level * Most of the initial installation work will be Davis Bacon and shows up as M&S costs # G&A rate will be less on large purchasing actions Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

10. Comparing the Estimates • Civil Construction • Both use the same format of estimation (FESS std.) • Linac is an all new estimate => based on new location • Includes more detail in terms of exact routing/requirements • Synchrotron is a mixture of new/old estimates • Old estimates (2002) were escalated to 2004 $ (using DOE Guidelines) • Use the same $/sf for new/similar buildings • Both use construction techniques very familiar to FNAL • Site choices made to allow ease of accelerator ops and future growth • Linac option has had external consultant look at feeder req. • Sync placement is in close proximity to existing infrastructure • Has both positive and negative implications • Should make it easier to tap into existing utilities • May have more of an impact on current operations Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

11. Comparing the Estimates (cont’d) • Linac/Front End Improvements • Both only have high level estimates • Based on TESLA, SNS, FNAL Linac Upgrade or vendor communication • Magnets (Main Synchrotron and all transport lines) • Both Based on FNAL/TD estimates (using std. methodology which has been accurate in the past) => use current steel and conductor prices • Sync => R&D of rapid cycling, large aperture magnets not included • Both assume existing MTF (conventional) is fully operational • Utilities • Linac => new estimate based on conceptual design + FNAL experience • Sync => scaled from MI actuals/modified using FNAL experience • Power Supplies & RF Equipment • Both based on FNAL experience, purchase orders and vendor quotes • Linac/Klystrons => uses costs from recent TESLA purchase orders Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

12. Comparing the Estimates (cont’d) • Cryomodules (Linac) • Based on vendor RFQ (~55% of M&S est.) and TESLA/SNS experience • Assembly estimates use TESLA & LHC Project actuals • Assumes CM assembly infrastructure in place (synergy with SMTF/ILC) • Modulators & Pulse Transformers (Linac) • Based on actuals for equipment supplied by FNAL to TESLA (TTF) • Modified to take into account quantity/price reduction • Instrumentation & Controls • Sync estimated down to individual components • Linac contains estimates at a high level (beginning to get more detail) • Infrastructure & Integration • Often neglected when estimating individual subsystems • Both used equal estimates (high level) where applicable • Most of the initial installation will be Davis-Bacon work Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

13. Comparing the Estimates (cont’d) • R&D Costs • Linac cost estimate assumes that the infrastructure to test cavities and build cryomodules will be in place either at FNAL or at other collaborating Labs (ex. LANL/ANL for spoke cavities) at the start of the Project => synergy with SMTF and ILC R&D project • Therefore the cost to set up these facilities is not included • Linac effort will continue to take advantage of ongoing work at SNS, TESLA TTF and other SCRF facilities • Synchrotron assumes the R&D to develop rapid cycling, wide aperture magnets and power supplies will be completed before the start of the Project => Therefore the cost to perform this work is not included Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

14. PD Option Cost Comparison Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

15. Cost Drivers • Synchrotron K$ • Civil Construction 64,710 (26.5%) • Magnet System 40,841 (16.7%) • Linac Improvements 34,564 (14.2%) • Power Supply Network 30,921 ( 12.7%) • Linac • Cryomodules 101,608 (31.9%) • Civil Construction 81,168 (25.5%) • Cryogenic System 28,589 ( 9.0%) • RF Klystrons & Distribution 25,171 ( 8.2%) Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

16. Synchrotron Cost Drivers Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

17. Linac Cost Drivers Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

18. Ratio of SWF/M&S * Includes contracted EDIA for Civil Engineering & Design Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

19. Reality Checks • Main Injector Project vs. Linac PD Estimate • $230M => escalated to 2004 ~ $273M PD = $319M • Project Management => 5.8% PD = 7.8% • Civil/Total Costs = 44.8% PD = 25.4% • Technical Sys./Total Costs = 49.4% PD = 67% • SWF/M&S Costs = 22.6% PD = 38.8% • SNS (estimate) • SNS Linac cost ~$550-600M (1.5 MW power) Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

20. Observations • There is a difference in the level of recent detail & attention given to the two PD options and the approach taken when estimating. However, both options were initially given an across the board 30% contingency (for consistency reasons) • This way of estimating contingency for the overall project is somewhat arbitrary and does not reflect either the technical risk of the individual components nor the conservatism of the estimates • The actual contingency analysis will do just that • Look at another methodology which focuses on a Range of Values for the cost of each option => reflects the confidence/uncertainty of the estimate Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

21. Synchrotron Cost Estimate Analysis Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

22. Linac Cost Estimate Analysis Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

23. Range of Values Linac Sync Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review

24. Conclusions • A fair and consistent cost comparison was performed between the two Proton Driver Options (Synchrotron & SC Linac) • A Basis of Estimate was established for both cost estimates that draws on relevant experience with similar equipment both at FNAL and other Labs • This cost estimate will be a solid starting point for additional cost and schedule work that will be performed as the PD project moves forward • Range of Values for the cost estimate of a Proton Driver to be built at FNAL is approximately $400M to $500M (including contingency and G&A) Rich Stanek - Proton Driver Director's Review