DOE Briefing on ILC GDE Cost Estimating “Don’t ask me what it costs!”

1. DOE Briefing on ILC GDE Cost Estimating“Don’t ask me what it costs!” Peter H. Garbincius Fermilab ILC-GDE 1 of 3 international Cost Engineers Chairman, Design & Cost Board participants: D. Lehman, R. Staffin, A. Byon, P. Grannis, G. Crawford, B. Barish ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

2. Goals, BCD, & Complications Organization & Schedule ITER-like “VALUE” Contingency – Risk Costing Guidelines (3/06) Cost Est Instructions (5/06) Sources of Cost Est Info Basis of Estimate – Risk Compare to XFEL TDR Cost Consciousness Examples of cost/performance studies Compare to XFEL TDR Construction Timescale Estimate status – needs Experiences (PHG personal) What do we need to give to DOE? ILC GDE RDR Cost Estimate - Outline ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

3. RDR Cost Estimateanticipated at end of CY 2006 Goals: • consideration by international funding agencies • allow GDE cost/performance optimizations • the cost estimate will be for the ILC as described in the (Dec05 + updates) Baseline Configuration Document (BCD) http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bcd:bcd_home ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

4. Guidelines and Instructions: (outlined below) http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_costing_guidelines.pdf http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_Cost_Estimating_Instructions_23may06.pdf • Barry has goal of a ± 20% estimate very optimistic for this end 2006 timescale! ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

5. Complications: • international – Europe & Asia funding agencies have different formats & requirements than DOE • confidentiality - protect industrial estimates - insure independence of estimates - more difficult to study & review, intern. & extern. http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/cost-confidentiality-official-njw.pdf http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/vancouver_cost_discussion_guidelines.pdf • differing safety codes – e.g. underground egress ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

6. 500 GeV (250x250) Baseline Configuration 1 TeV (500x500) ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

7. ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

8. Director – Barry BarishExecutive Regional Directors (Dugan + 2)Committee Gang of Three (Walker, Raubenheimer, Yokoya) Cost Engineers (2 + Peter Garbincius) Integration Physicist (Ewan Paterson) = RDR ManagementTeam Change Control Board (Nobu Toge) Research & Development Board (Bill Willis) Design & Cost Board (9 + PHG, chairman) ILC GDE Organization ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

9. RDR Schedule & Milestones • August, 2005 – Snowmass => generate BCD • December, 2005 – Frascati – accept BCD kick-off & preliminary instructions to groups • March - Bangalore - instructions & status first cost estimates were submitted ~ early July06 • July – Vancouver – preliminary cost estimate iterate and optimize cost vs. design • November – Valencia – “final” RDR cost est. • end 2006 – complete Reference Design Report ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

10. All cost studies are Confidential The only numbers made public by the TESLA TDR were the 8 high-level roll-ups of the (not incl. XFEL increments): Main Linac Modules 1.131 B € Main Linac RF System 0.587 B € Tunnel & Buildings 0.547 B € Machine Infrastructure 0.336 B € Damping Rings 0.215 B € Auxiliary Systems 0.124 B € HEP Beam Delivery System 0.101 B € Injection Systems 0.097B € Total TESLA Estimate 3.136 B € + 6,933 man-yrs 72% concentrate on major cost drivers ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

11. Next level of detail in backup slides ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

12. A short course in “VALUE”-speak The ITER “VALUE” or “CERN CORE” methodology is becoming used in international projects to equitably divide-up contributions among the collaborating parties, especially where countries are responsible for “in-kind” contributions, rather than providing funding to a central management team. e.g. 5 equal partners each contribute 20% of the total VALUE, independent of what it actually cost each individual party. VALUE is the least-common denominator among all parties in that it is the barest cost estimate that any of their funding agencies expect. It is anticipated that individual parties will add those appropriate items to this bare VALUE estimate in order to get a meaningful estimate for what that particular country would normally internally charge to such a project. ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

13. This prevents arguments such as, “I don’t charge for internal labor, so why should your labor be considered as part of your contribution?” If each of two countries contributes identical magnets, their VALUE contributions will be identical, even if their internal costs to produce are substantially different. Countries can contract according to their national interest, e.g. lowest internal cost or develop new industries, etc. “finance ministers”, rather than just “scientists” will call the shots ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

14. Format and Scope of European and Asian Cost Estimates • Different than for U.S. DOE Cost Estimates • Follow ITER “Value” & CERN “CORE” model for International Projects this ITER approach was reviewed by Dan Lehman et al. in July, 2002 • Does not include: internal (institutional) labor, contingency, escalation, R&D, G&A overheads, pre-construction, and commissioning activities. ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

15. No Contingency? No! The European and Asian methods assume that all the design and estimating has been done up-front, inclusively, so there will be no add-ons due to incomplete engineering or scope changes (all homework done at this stage) and that the estimates are statistically robust so over-runs in one area will be compensated by under-runs in another. ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

16. Contingency (2) At this stage of project definition, US estimates assume that engineering and cost estimating have NOT been completed to the ultimate level of detail. In the US, contingency is added to cover: the missing level of detail, non-symmetric cost over/under-runs, and minor scope changes Internationally, use “scope contingency” RDR cost estimate will include Risk Analysis ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

17. RDR Cost Estimating Guidelines • just outlined here – full version at http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_costing_guidelines.pdf • 500 GeV (250x250) + upgrade path for 1 TeV Beam Delivery Sys. Tunnels & Beam Dumps • construction = authorization → installation not incl. R&D, commissioning, operations, decommissioning – but need these estimates! • construction ends for individual item when installed, before commissioning begins • working model assumes a 7 year construction phase ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

18. based on a world-wide call for tender: lowest reasonable price for required quality • three classes of items in cost estimate: • Site-Specific (separate estimates for each site) e.g. tunnel & regional utilities (power grid, roads) • Conventional – global capability (single world est.) e.g. copper and steel magnets • High Tech – cavities, cryomodules, RF power - cost drivers – all regions want – 3 estimates Cost Engineers must determine algorithm to combine and present these multiple estimates ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

19. Learning curve for ILC quantities P = P1Naneed parameters or costs for different N’s • Estimate & Prices – as of January 1, 2006: exchange 1 M€ = $ 1.2 M = 1.4 Oku¥ raw materials, no taxes, no escalation • contingency is excluded in “value” estimate need risk analysis → prob. dist. for cost est. • one common design and footprint geologic accommodations allowed need a common set of rules and codes e.g. life safety … if none available, ILC may have to define ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

20. All cost estimates must be treated as confidential within the GDE not to be publicly presented or posted on public web site • GDE Executive Committee will determine publication policy for all elements of cost estimate ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

21. RDR Cost Estimating Instructions & Standardshttp://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_Cost_Estimating_Instructions_23may06.pdf Table of Contents 0. Acknowledgements 1. Introduction and Cost Consciousness 2. What is included in the estimate 3. Definitions of Responsibility 3.a. Design Cost Board (DCB) 3.b. Area Systems leaders 3.c. Technical Systems leaders 3.d. Global Systems leaders 4. Work Breakdown Structure – for submitting cost estimates 4.a. Definition and content 4.b. Checklist: elements due by June 25, 2006 (before Vancouver) 4.c. Checklist: elements due by Sept. 15, 2006 4.d. WBS information to be provided ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

22. 5. Cost Estimating Instructions 5.a. Project Schedule 5.b. System Boundaries 5.c. Graded Approach 5.d. Scaling from Other Projects 5.e. Learning Curves 5.f. Cost Estimates (50% point and uncertainties) 5.g. Include NO contingency 5.h. Spares 5.i. The 5 Horsemen (additional costs beyond acquisition) 5.j. Cost Sensitivities 5.k. Watch out for duplication 5.l Transportation costs 5.m Optimization – Construction Costs vs. Long Term Operations These RDR Cost Estimating Instructions and Standards contain lots of URL links to further details and examples ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

23. What is in the ILC Cost Estimate for Construction? • Construction costs start at project approval • IN estimate: construction, tooling-up industry, final engineering designs, AECM, etc., institutional labor is presented separately • 500 GeV, but include difficult-to-add-later items for 1 TeV like BDS tunnel, dumps, land • Not IN estimate: R&D, proof-of-principle or system test, commissioning, operations, decommissioning, or land or underground easement acquisition costs ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

24. We believe that DOE also needs to understand the Not In Estimate costs • construction cost in $ (then-year) • contingency estimate, in-house labor, G&A, escalation, R&D, pre-construction, commissioning, etc. • continuing operating costs: manpower, electrical power, cryogens, klystrons, maintenance & repair • for models where US is host or non-host ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

25. Prior Cost Estimating Studies for Cold, SC RF technology Linear Collider • TESLA Technical Design Report (2001) • KEK Evaluation of TESLA TDR • US Evaluation of TESLA TDR (2002) • USLCTOS (2004) New & Ongoing Cost Est Studies • XFEL TDR Cost Estimate (July 06) • TTC Studies: CM Assembly, Couplers, EP ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

26. Cost Estimates for RDR are available from: • TESLA TDR (2001 – only high level roll-ups) • XFEL cost estimate (July 06) – not accessible! TESLA estimates are scaled by XFEL experience • current TTC studies will be too late for RDR est. • KEK (in-house + consultant) – Cryomodule & RF high level, no details –available early July • LCFoA Cost Estimate (just started) for RF Units Cryomodule, Klystron, RF Distribution, etc. too late for July 06 estimate => final Nov 06 ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

27. JLab-Fermilab-SLAC (Funk-Stanek-Larsen) in-house cost estimate study for RF unit. → bottom-up based on US experience: JLab, SNS, FNAL, SLAC (& TTF) parallel to LCFoA cost estimate study available mid-July 06, but no industrial quantity production prices • Regional 4 site-dependent cost estimates (CERN, DESY, Fermilab, Japan) for Civil Construction underground, buildings, etc. ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

28. These major studies were for the cost drivers: SC cavities, cryomodules, RF, and conventional facilities There are also engineering estimates for magnets, vacuum, cryogenics, controls, instrumentation, beam stops & collimators, and installation ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

29. Major Components of the Cost Estimate • 4 Site Dependent Civil Construction Estimates • CERN, DESY, Japan, Fermilab (est by region) • remarkably similar in cost! • Other conventional facilities estimates • power, hvac, cooling, fire protect., hoisting, safety • each estimated by single region – starting cross-checks • Tech Cost Drivers: Cavities, Cryomodules, RF • Independent estimates from each of 3 regions • Based on Industrial Studies (not yet US for Cavities/CM) • Other items – engineering level estimates • often based on prior purchasing experiences ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

30. Scaling TESLA Estimates → ILC • TESLA 2001 – 12 cavities per CM based on industrial studies • XFEL Supplement 2002 – 12 cavities/CM based on similar industrial studies • XFEL TDR Estimate 2006 – 8 cavities/CM adds experience, inflation, commodities • ILC (EU) = TESLA01*XFEL06/XFEL02 plus one year inflation (2001 → 2002) ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

31. What will RDR quote? • Quote lowest reasonable world-market value estimate for adequate quality • We worry about low-balling “VALUE”: no matter we say, it will be remembered as one, single, FINAL cost number, all notes, caveats, fine print will be ignored • How to combine different estimates? 4 sites (4 estimates or range of estimates?) combine Euro, US, Japan component ests lowest, average, or use a divisional model? ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

32. Elements of the Cost Model • Cost Engineers & RDR Management Team must determine how to select a value to be quoted for such items w/multiple estimates • Need estimates of most probable cost per WBS element and an indication of the anticipated probability distribution for costs. • Median (50%), ± σ points of this distribution (or 90%-95% point for upper limit) account for non-symmetric, high cost tail => Risk Assignment for the cost estimate ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

33. Elements of the Cost Model (2) • Risk Assessment for Costs: ideally, a probability distribution for expected costs see R. Brinkmann at Snowmass 2005 and Euro XFEL TDR (July 2006) • Watch out for Correlated Risks: labor costs, $ - ¥ - € exchange rates, price of materials (e.g. steel, copper), cost of energy (for RF processing), etc. ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

34. Basis of Estimate • description how cost estimate was obtained for each WBS element • guide used for estimating the assigned level of cost risk (contingency) in the US • similar to that used for assigning the probability distribution for costs by XFEL for risk analysis • example below from RSVP experiment at Brookhaven National Lab ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

35. WBS Element #___________ Element Name _____________________________ Risk • Design Risk (check one of 4): (from RSVP at BNL, similar for US CMS, NCSX) Factor Weight • __ Concept only 15% 1 • __ Conceptual Design Phase: some drawings; many sketches 8% 1 • __ Preliminary Design > 50 % complete; some analysis complete 4% 1 • __ Detailed Design > 50% Done 0% 1 • Technical Risk (check one of 8 and answer Yes or No to two questions): • __ New design; well beyond current state-of-the art 15% 2 or 4 • __ New design of new technology; advances state-of-the art 10% 2 or 4 • __ New design; requires some R&D but does not advance the state-of-the-art 8% 2 or 4 • __ New design; different from established designs or existing technology 6% 2 or 4 • __ New design; nothing exotic 4% 2 or 4 • __ Extensive modifications to an existing design 3% 2 or 4 • __ Minor modifications to an existing design 2% 2 or 4 • __ Existing design and off-the-shelf hardware 1% 2 or 4 • Yes/No – does this element push the current state-of-art in Design? either = 2 • Yes/No – does this element push the current state-of-art in Manufacturing? both = 4 • Cost Risk (check one of 8 and answer Yes or No to two questions): • __ Engineering judgment 15% 1 or 2 • __ Top-down estimate from analogous programs 10% 1 or 2 • __ In-house estimate for item with minimal experience and minimal in-house capability 8% 1 or 2 • __ In-house estimate for item with minimal experience but related to existing capabilities 6% 1 or 2 • __ In-house estimate based on previous similar experience 4% 1 or 2 • __ Vendor quote (or industrial study) with some design sketches 3% 1 or 2 • __ Vendor quote (or industrial study) with established drawings 2% 1 or 2 • __ Off-the-shelf or catalog item 1% 1 or 2 • Yes/No – are the material costs in doubt? either = 1 • Yes/No – are the labor costs in doubt? both = 2 • Schedule Risk (check one): • __ Delays completion of critical path subsystem item 8% 1 • __ Delays completion of non-critical path subsystem item 4% 1 • __ No schedule impact on any other item 2% 1 • Prepared by: _______________________ date: _________________ • Comments: ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

36. Basis of Estimate – Estimate of Risk Distribution – example 1.1.2.3 Build FramistatCategoryRisk FactorWeightRF*Wgt Design Risk: Conceptual Design Phase: some drawings; many sketches Design Risk 8% 1 8% Technical Risk: New design; nothing exotic No – does this element push the current state-of-art in Design? Yes – does this element push the current state-of-art in Manufacturing? Technical Design OR Manufacture Risk 4% 2 8% Cost Risk: In-house estimate for item with minimal experience but related to existing capabilities No – are the material costs in doubt? Yes – are the labor costs in doubt? Material OR Labor Cost Risk 6% 1 6% Schedule Risk: Delays completion of non-critical path subsystem item Schedule Risk 4% 1 4% Suggested Risk upper limit (sum) 26% * Prepared by: _______________________ date: _________________ Comments: * do we take this as upper limit, ½ upper limit, 1σ ? ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

37. XFEL: Standard cost uncertainty categories Furthermore, raw material cost uncertainties (volatility of metal and currency markets) have been added where appropriate (e.g. Niobium sheets & parts) ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

38. XFEL: Result of maximum risk analysis98% probability of coming in under (7/06)6% + 2% schedule risk (1/2 yr labor costs) triangular & log-normal -10%,+20% cost p.d.f. for each element 6 % ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

39. http://xfel.desy.de (July 2007) updated XFEL cost estimate now includes: project preparation project construction, capital investment project construction, personnel beam commissioning additional personnel cost (allowances) GmbH global management & support overhead GmbH consideration of “risk funding” → Approaching US/DOE Cost Estimating Requirements ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

40. Sketch of Civil Construction Activitiesuse only for sizing production capacities for components(my own view < 1 man-week thought – definitely not to scale) Maybe 2nd IR at start Length of dump lines? Could be TBM or Drill & Blast Positron Bypass Line? Drill & Blast or TBM? Shafts (many!) TBM tunnels (8 or 10) ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

41. Outline of PHG Construction Schedule Modelfor generating component cost estimate • only a working model – technically (not funding) limited! • 7 years – after funding authorization => t0 through installation of all components • need to start installation of components while civil construction continues: t0+30 months: e- SRC, e+ Keep-Alive, RTML arcs t0+33 months: DR t0+47 months.: start ML t0+65 months: last sec ML & BDS t0+78 mo.: t0+6.5 yrs.: last components delivered t0+84 mo.: t0+7 yrs.: last component installed start commissioning each sub-systems (operating) as soon as its components are installed ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

42. Much too simplified & optimisitc! • Assumes all funding is available at the start, nothing is delayed, everything in parallel • No funding time profile • Likely to need industrial infrastructure investment before project start date • Infrastructure scope depends on rate not just total quantity - quicker = more $ ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

43. CryoModules CryoModule & Klystron Production Models Purchase Infrastructure • Bob Kephart’s first guess at rate for each of 3 equal vendors • Ramp-up: R&D, Industrialization, Production t0 t0+7yrs Klystrons 30,000 hr. avg. life t0 t0+7yrs ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

44. ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

45. Meetings with 3 Cost Engineers at Vancouver We’d like to ask you: If you have not already sent them, when can we expect your cost estimates? Briefly run through cost estimate in WBS format What assumptions did you use? How did you get this number? What reviews and cross-checks did you perform? What was the average cost factor for Production Quantities ? Did you have any surprises in your estimate? Up or down? Are they understood? Were you lacking in specifications or requirements? Did requirements substantially increase cost or complexity? How did you optimize cost vs. performance? Is a parametric model of the cost estimate available? "That item seems expensive, did you consider alternatives?” What "sanity checks" or comparisons to costs of other projects were made? ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

46. still need by September 15 • To complete the Cost Estimates including: Cost Estimates & Labor in WBS form, WBS Dictionary & Basis of Estimate • Cost Engineers will be checking for: 50%-50% point for probable cost distribution, upper and lower limit of cost estimates, correlated cost factors, like how much steel, copper, commercial labor, power, etc. • R&D, Commissioning, & Operating Costs (power, cryogens, klystrons, repair & maintenance, labor) • add NO CONTINGENCY ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

47. Experiences (PHG personal) • Getting cost estimates is a tough business • Need more people working on it in US & globally • Seems to be an afterthought to R&D activities (toys) • FARs impact on US industrial studies (6 month delay) • Technical designs & cost estimates until nowhave been driven by “requirements” and reliability, and not by cost consciousness • Confidentiality requirements • difficult to understand estimates & to collaborate • Have ~ 90% of cost ests – adequate for start need understanding, verification, scrubbing, optimization ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

48. Cost Consciousness! initially: Snowmass 05, Frascati, BCD design was to meet the technically challenging goals must scrub and justify all cost estimates costs vs. goals and reliability beginning cost/performance optimization and tradeoff studies ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

49. Some examples of cost/performance studies: 2 => 1 tunnel: cost vs. reliability (& egress) # bunches vs. # klystrons vs. Luminosity (upgradeable) 2 => 1 e+ Damping Ring – suppress electron cloud alternate DR geometries: dog-bone, centralized tunnel 20+2 => simplified 14+14 mrad BDS (physics needs?) optimize power distribution and cooling water systems reconsider a shallow tunnel consider a conventional (not polarized) e+ source vs. physics needs (save space for later installation?) single stage bunch compressor vs. Luminosity ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT

50. When RDR is complete,what do we give DOE? • we will have an international VALUE estimate, including both purchase costs & institutional labor • it will be necessary to provide translation into the DOE cost estimating metric, e.g. Basis of Estimate => contingency est., in-house labor, G&A, escalation, R&D, pre-construction, commissioning, operating costs, etc. • both for US as host and non-host ILC Cost Briefing for DOE - PHG Thurs., Aug. 3. 2006 3 PM EDT