Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency

1. Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency Jay Elias

2. References: • KOSMOS Management document • KOSMOS Project Plan & Budget Narrative • KOSMOS Risks document • KOSMOS WBS • KOSMOS Schedule

3. Outline • Review current budget status • Discuss construction budget, schedule and related items

4. Current Status • OSU design contract started Dec. 1, 2009 • NOAO had 3 main budget components • Initial preparatory phase (Aug until Dec. 1, 2009) • Design phase science activities (non-ReSTAR) • Design phase ReSTAR effort

5. Current Status • OSU will have largely spent funds by end of this month (Aug), as planned ($241K) • Final invoice after completion of design review

6. Current Status • NOAO expenditures recorded through June 30: • Initial preparatory phase spent $40K • Design phase science activities spent $4K out of $31K budget • Design phase ReSTAR effort spent $46K of $145K budget • Expenditures in July/Aug will be substantial (but not $100K)

7. Current Status • Why did NOAO over-estimate expenditures? • Science effort low because project scientist position became vacant, individuals “helping out” generally did not charge • Over-estimated required commitment for project management generally • Guess is that final expenditures will be somewhat over 50% of budget • This experience is folded into estimates that follow

8. KOSMOS Construction Budget & Schedule • Process: • OSU built up a master plan based on remaining design effort and experience with OSMOS I&T • NOAO did a more detailed estimate (given lack of experience with OSMOS) and verified schedule was consistent with OSU plan • Both effectively a bottom-up estimate starting at level 2 or 3 of WBS • Won’t discuss details unless requested, see references

9. KOSMOS Construction Budget & Schedule • Process: • OSU contingency estimated for major procurement categories and for manpower at relevant parts of schedule (hence, both budget and schedule contingency) • NOAO used “risk factor” approach (cf. ALMA, TMT, etc.) at the task level, roll up into pool. Associated schedule contingency consistent with OSU plan

10. Budget Summary

11. Contingency • Rolled up at the institutional level • Easier to manage than if done at project level • Overall just under 15% of baseline costs – plausible given nature of project • We expect to spend it – properly estimated, that’s what it’s for

12. Budget Summary by WBS • Some remarks: • Because of granular budgeting at OSU (and standard university policies for faculty salaries), OSU costs concentrated in a few elements • Some WBS elements are more separate than others – e.g., 6 & 10 linked

13. Table 5.2 –Project Cost by WBS Element Budget Summary by WBS

14. Total Cost • Including construction phase budget and anticipated expenditures for design phase, total instrument cost will be just under $2.1M

15. Schedule • Detailed schedule available on-line (on-wall) • Most major tasks flow independently into I&T phase • Mechanical design and fab is the main exception • Interaction between spectrograph control software and top-level software

16. Schedule • Schedule looked at NOAO labor loading • Mechanical fabrication and software efforts near 100% but not over for a few months • Need to coordinate with ODI • Other tasks under 100% loading for people involved • OSU schedule is built up using available staff at 100% when needed

17. Mechanical Design & Fab • Example of flow of work for enclosure • Instrument electronics box drawings available early and needed early; fabrication occurs Sept/Oct • Main enclosure drawings need redesign but enclosure not needed until end of March ‘11 (misc parts needed later); design and fab phased accordingly

18. Flow of I&T through Acceptance Note arrival of enclosure end of March, optics end of May

19. Significant Risks

20. Lesser Risks Project management Cost and schedule Missing official NOAO project scientist Performance modeling Detector and controller systems Integration and test Documentation and training