Project Performance & Risk Management

1. Project Performance & Risk Management Aesook Byon, Deputy Project Director NSLS-II PAC Meeting February 8-9, 2011

2. Outline • Cost, Schedule, & Funding Baseline • Project Performance • Risk Management • Conclusions

3. Cost Baseline TPC $ 912 M Baseline Cost (Planned work)$ 785 M Contingency $ 127 M • Completed work (Dec ‘10) $359M (46% complete) • Committed work-to-go $144M • Uncommitted work-to-go $282M • Contingency = 30% of remaining work • (29% of EAC; 31% of TEC) • 45% of uncommitted work-to-go Remaining work Planned Work

4. Cost Baseline • $23.7M Contingency utilization since Dec ‘09 • $10.7M (45%): cost increase (underestimated baseline – labor, space, M&S) • $13.0M (55%): scope enhancements/addition (enlarged LOB, rf cavity)

5. Major Procurement Performance Award Date Cost Description Baseline Actual Estimated Actual Commissioning Aug 08 Oct 08 $830 K $301 K Site prep Nov 08 Nov 08 $657 K $501 K APS Welding Jan 09 Feb 09 $1.7 M $1.7 M Ring Building Feb 09 Feb 09 $168 M $173 M 8 Unit SubstationApr 09 Apr 09 $3.0 M $3.2 M Transformers May 09 May 09 $1.1 M $0.7 M Substation Exp Jul 09 Jul 09 $1.8 M $1.1 M Chilled Water Plant May 09 Jul 09 $8.4 M $8.3 M Chilled Water Piping Jun 09 Aug 09 $1.0 M $1.4 M Magnets Aug 09 Oct 09 $18 M $17.4 M Linac Feb 10 Apr 10 $8.5 M $7.9 M Booster Mar 10 May 10 $14.7 M $14.0 M LOB Oct 11 Aug 10 $40 M $34 M Damping Wiggler Oct 10 Nov 10 $7.4 M $6.0 M Total $275M $270M (98%) Excellent Performance

6. Contingency spending history (Mar ‘08 – Jan ‘11) ($K) total (per month) w/o scope addition (per month) 3/08-1/11 $67M ($3.2M)$44M ($2.1M) 2009 $30M ($2.5M)$30M ($2.5M) 2010 $23M ($2.1M)$12M ($1.0M) Jan 2011 $1.5M ($1.5M)$1.5M ($1.5M) Spending category: scope additions $18.5M labor/space $22.5M M&S $25.6M

7. Contingency Tracking To Date

8. Schedule

9. Schedule Float & Critical Path Critical Path: through Accelerator installation & commissioning • magnet production  girder assembly/installation  delivery of RF cavity  ID integrated test  SR commissioning Near Critical Path: about 1~2 months off of critical path • Booster installation and commissioning • Installation of Linac to Booster transfer line • SR RF - cryogenics system, installation & commissioning Early Project Completion, June 2014 (Lv 1 Milestone) • Baseline Level-1 milestone date with built-in schedule float (~3 months) • Projected early completion day is March 2014 • Lost 3 weeks schedule float over past 17 months CD-4, Start of Operations, June 2015 • 15 months after the projected early completion date

10. Maintaining Up-To-Date Schedule • Project is in full speed and making excellent progress • Maintaining optimized plan requires constant update of the plan • Nature of updates: Ensure plan reflects what we are executing • Incorporate actual contract schedules • Detail out activities as far out in time as possible • Update resource load of activities for accurate time-phasing and profiling • Define detailed activities in short duration (1-2 months) for EV • Critical path, schedule float, and resource & spending profiles continuously updated and analyzed so that this “living schedule” can • Produce meaningful earned value and performance indicator • Give a clear look-ahead • Be a tool to analyze schedule risks/impacts and formulate mitigation plan • Provide accurate information for resource leveling

11. Full funding $141M provided in FY10 FY11 budget request included $153M as planned Project Funding

12. Cost, Funding & Obligation

13. FY11 Continuing Resolution FY11 is the peak spending & activity year NSLS-II Project Funding Profile ($M) • Sufficient carry-over funds from prior year at the beginning of FY11 • $4M of OPC and $55M of TEC (uncosted but part of these are obligated) • Under Continuing Resolution, expect no impact until August 2011 • If a year-long CR, we might have to adjust profiles for phased funded major contracts

14. CPI = 1.02 SPI = 0.98 Middle of a steep slope with a significant burn rate (~$20M/month)

15. Monthly Burn Rate 75% complete by end of year 2011

16. Staffing Total Cumulative FTEs: CD-2 Baseline 1,188 today 1,412 (~19% increase) • Increase in staffing for accelerator, beamline engineering, construction management (oversight, ESH, QA) and project support (procurement, HR, project control) • Sufficient staffing alloated for all activities through FY12. • Now carefully evaluating details in pre-ops & transition phases. 139 Staff at 9/08 139 Staff at 9/08 80 Staff at 9/07 80 Staff at 9/07 20 Staff at 9/06 20 Staff at 9/06

17. Staffing 139 Staff at 9/08 139 Staff at 9/08 80 Staff at 9/07 80 Staff at 9/07 20 Staff at 9/06 20 Staff at 9/06

18. Risk Update

19. Summary of Risks Subtotal $65.3M reported at last PAC meeting (comparison: excluding new labor risks, total now is ~$41M)

20. Risk Update • Recently Retired Risks • Storage Ring power supply design • Accelerator controls system procurement • Rate changes (foreign exchange, labor, raw materials) • Unplanned environmental impact at construction site • Risks with Reduced Ratings • Changes in requirements for conventional facilities • Storage Ring vacuum chamber production • Linac turn key procurement • Booster turn key procurement • New Risks or Risks with Higher Ratings • Storage Ring magnet production schedule • Additional labor for maintaining schedule • Interface of two general contractors on Ring Building site • Underestimated installation & pre-ops labor • LOB contract • DOE Approval Delays • R&D for beamline design • BPM electronics • Directed funding profile change • Unexpected ESH related design issues

21. Cost Baseline, Contingency, and Risks Burdened & Escalated Planned work $785M Completed work $359M Committed work-to-go $144M Uncommitted work-to-go $282M EAC ($13M) + Risks ($57M) $70M 25% of Uncommitted Work-to-go $71M Available Contingency $127M

22. Summary in Numbers Staff on-board 210 FTE 260 FTE (24% increase)

23. Lessons Learned Key elements to successful execution to date Front-loaded funding profile provided Favorable economic environment Early recognition of needs for risk mitigations and having means to implement them – staffing, magnet, laboratory & DOE support Strong project team in all areas Prompt management decisions & actions Challenges coming with executing technically driven schedule No place to hide when there are problems or glitches Need to balance “giving enough room” for people to do their job vs “needing up to date info” to make decisions Better have fully matured project management tools in place in order to support rapid analysis and decisions

24. Overall Performance On Schedule and On Budget Excellent technical, cost & schedule performance to date Sound cost baseline with healthy remaining contingency Schedule contingency maintained Continue to execute technically limited schedule (since June 2009) Negative schedule variances in specific areas: well understood and actively managed Risks and EAC well understood, tracked and managed A number of major risks (technical, cost & schedule) retired or reduced ratings 2011 is a crucial year with many challenges and much excitement ahead