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

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

1

DOE Briefing on ILC GDE Cost Estimating

“Don’t ask me what it costs!”

Peter H. GarbinciusFermilab

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


2

ILC GDE RDR Cost Estimate - Outline

Goals, BCD, & Complications

Organization & ScheduleITER-like “VALUE”Contingency – RiskCosting Guidelines (3/06)Cost Est Instructions (5/06)Sources of Cost Est InfoBasis of Estimate – RiskCompare to XFEL TDR

Cost ConsciousnessExamples of

cost/performance studies

Compare to XFEL TDRConstruction TimescaleEstimate status – needsExperiences

(PHG personal)What do we need to give

to DOE?


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

http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bcd:bcd_home





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!





5

Complications:

– international – Europe & Asia funding agencieshave 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.pdfhttp://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/vancouver_cost_discussion_guidelines.pdf

– differing safety codes – e.g. underground egress

http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/cost-confidentiality-official-njw.pdf

http://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/vancouver_cost_discussion_guidelines.pdf


6

Baseline Configuration

500 GeV (250x250)

1 TeV (500x500)


7


8

ILC GDE Organization

• Director – Barry Barish Executive• Regional Directors (Dugan + 2) Committee• Gang of Three (Walker, Raubenheimer, Yokoya)

• Cost Engineers (2 + Peter Garbincius)

• Integration Physicist (Ewan Paterson)

= RDR Management Team• Change Control Board (Nobu Toge)

• Research & Development Board (Bill Willis)

• Design & Cost Board (9 + PHG, chairman)


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 estimateiterate and optimize cost vs. design

• November – Valencia – “final” RDR cost est.• end 2006 – complete Reference Design Report


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 0.097 B €

Total TESLA Estimate 3.136 B € + 6,933 man-yrs

72%

concentrate on major cost drivers


11

Next level of detail in backup slides


12

A short course in “VALUE”-speak The ITER “VALUE” or “CERN CORE” methodology isbecoming used in international projects to equitably divide-upcontributions among the collaborating parties, especiallywhere 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 partiesin that it is the barest cost estimate that any of their fundingagencies expect. It is anticipated that individual parties willadd those appropriate items to this bare VALUE estimate inorder to get a meaningful estimate for what that particularcountry would normally internally charge to such a project.


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


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.


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.


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


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




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


19

• Learning curve for ILC quantities P = P1Na need 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


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


21

RDR Cost Estimating Instructions & Standardshttp://www-ilcdcb.fnal.gov/RDR_Cost_Estimating_Instructions_23may06.pdf

Table of Contents0. Acknowledgements1. Introduction and Cost Consciousness2. What is included in the estimate3. Definitions of Responsibility

3.a. Design Cost Board (DCB)3.b. Area Systems leaders3.c. Technical Systems leaders3.d. Global Systems leaders

4. Work Breakdown Structure – for submitting cost estimates4.a. Definition and content4.b. Checklist: elements due by June 25, 2006 (before Vancouver)4.c. Checklist: elements due by Sept. 15, 20064.d. WBS information to be provided




22

5. Cost Estimating Instructions5.a. Project Schedule5.b. System Boundaries5.c. Graded Approach5.d. Scaling from Other Projects5.e. Learning Curves5.f. Cost Estimates (50% point and uncertainties)5.g. Include NO contingency5.h. Spares5.i. The 5 Horsemen (additional costs beyond acquisition) 5.j. Cost Sensitivities5.k. Watch out for duplication 5.l Transportation costs5.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


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


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


25

Prior Cost Estimating Studiesfor 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


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


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.


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


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


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/XFEL02plus one year inflation (2001 → 2002)


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 estslowest, average, or use a divisional model?


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


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.


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


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:


36

Basis of Estimate – Estimate of Risk Distribution – example

1.1.2.3 Build Framistat Category Risk Factor Weight RF*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 ?


37

XFEL: Standard cost uncertainty categoriesCategory definition lower/upper range

C1 good experience and present price for this component/sub-system are available, no cost scaling for large quantities has been applied

-10% / +10%

C2 experience and present price for similar components/sub-systems are available, no or only minor scaling to large quantities has been applied

-20% / +20%

C3 present price is available, significant (>25%) cost scaling to large quantities has been applied

-10% / +20%

C4 present price is available, price from industrial study is used which results in significant (>25%) cost reduction for production of large quantities

-10% / +20%

C5 present price not available, price from industrial study is used -10% / +20%

C6 required technology pushes state-of-the art, significant R&D still required

-10% / +50%

P1 personnel requirements well known due to present experience or with similar systems in previous large scale projects

-10% / +10%

P2 personnel requirements less certain or relatively large fraction of R&D included in this WP

-20% / +20%

Furthermore, raw material cost uncertainties (volatility of metal and currency markets) have been added where appropriate (e.g. Niobium sheets & parts)


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 %


39

http://xfel.desy.de (July 2007)

updated XFEL cost estimate now includes:

project preparationproject construction, capital investmentproject construction, personnelbeam commissioningadditional personnel cost (allowances) GmbHglobal management & support overhead GmbH

consideration of “risk funding”

→ Approaching US/DOE Cost Estimating Requirements

http://xfel.desy.de/


40

Sketch of Civil Construction Activities use 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)


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 arcst0+33 months: DR t0+47 months.: start MLt0+65 months: last sec ML & BDSt0+78 mo.: t0+6.5 yrs.: last components deliveredt0+84 mo.: t0+7 yrs.: last component installed

start commissioning each sub-systems (operating) as soon as its components are installed


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 $


43

CryoModule & Klystron Production

Models

• Bob Kephart’s first guess at rate for each of 3 equal vendors

• Ramp-up: R&D, Industrialization, Production

t0

t0

t0+7yrs

t0+7yrs

PurchaseInfrastructure

CryoModules

Klystrons

30,000 hr. avg. life


44

System July 18, 2006 - Cost Estimates received for Regionaldescription common e- e+ DR RTML ML BDS Exp Am Asia Eure- Source √e+ Source √DR √RTML √Main LinacBDS √Com, Op, ReliabControl System √ √ √ √ √ √ √Cryogenics √ √ √ * √ √ √ *Convent. Facilities √ √ √ √ √ √ √ * √ √ √ √Installation √ √ √ √ √ √ √Instrumentation √ √ √ √ √ √ √Cavities √ √ √Cryomodules √ √ √ √ √ √ √RF √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √Magnets & PS √ * √ *Dumps & Collim √ √ √ √ √Vacuum √ √ √ √ √ √Accel Phys

√ = complete, √ * = almost complete, missing something minor


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?


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


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 now have 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


48

Cost Consciousness!

initially: Snowmass 05, Frascati, BCD design was to meet the

technically challenging goals

must scrub and justify all cost estimatescosts vs. goals and reliability

beginning cost/performance optimization and tradeoff studies


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


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


51

Strategy Questions for DOE Estimate

• Lowest cost – purchase items abroad, or

• Support US industry – purchase domestic

• Will not affect VALUE contribution, but will affect cost to US DOE

• US tunnel design to meet NFPA 520 or minimal tunnel (value) which receivedsafety approval for TESLA and XFEL?

= site-dependent tunnel desigs = pay more to meet US codes


52

“Still, don’t ask me what it costs!”

End of Presentation

(backup slides below)


53

Controls - 25june06 - labor in person-years

Grand Total - Controls 0controls Controls Sys Engineeringcontrols Controls Sys Equipmentcontrols RF Phase & Timing Distribcontrols Protection Equipmentcontrols Front End Controls (Cryo=Common)controls LLRF Relay Rack Asmbly & Testcontrols LLRF Engineeringcontrols LLRF Equipment - scale e- & e+ Sources

Installation - 12july06 - treat all as M&S costs - some fraction ~ 10-20% could be institutational laborGrand Total - Installation

Instrumentation - 11july06 - labor in FTE's (is this in person-years?)Grand Total - Instrumenatation

Dumps & Collimators - 11july06 - includes movers for adjustable collimators - includes ED&I costs at 25% of item cost (except 100% for Ti disks for e+ source)Grand Total - Dumps & Collimators 277dumps 10 atmos water dumps 11dumps Undulator Photon Dump 1dumps Water Cooled Aluminum Balls 2dumps Solid Aluminum Block w/cool 8dumps Solid Copper Block w/cooling 5dumps Insertable W-Cu-W w/cooling 4dumps Insertable Copper Block w/cool 2dumps Faraday Cup 3dumps Uncooled Al, Cu, or Fe block 3dumps 100 1cm Ti disks 1dumps 30cmx30cm block with aperture 4dumps AL balls in water 14dumps Single cooled jaw w/image plate 4dumps 30cm cylinder, peripheral cooled 72dumps AL balls in water R-coll 10dumps long collim, 2 jaw, cooled 8dumps long collim, 4 jaw, cooled 32dumps short collim, 2 jaw, uncooled 15dumps short col, 2 jaw, uncooled Be 18dumps short col, 4 jaw, uncooled Be 24dumps 2cmx5cm block with aperture 8dumps PPS stopper w BTM 20dumps MPS toppper w BTM fix aperture 6dumps MPS toppper w BTM var aperture 2

roll-up_15july06.xls - PHG Totalcode description per unit # units cost labor

US $ K-hrschecks 0 0 0

totals 0 0

CFS total 7-14 US - 6-23 othersGrand Total CF&S 0cfs Civil Engineering (Americas) 0cfs Electrical 0cfs Air Treatment cfs.1 (Americas) 0cfs Piped Utilities (Americas) 0cfs Process Cooling Water (Amer.) 0cfs Handling EQ 0cfs Safety EQ 0cfs Survey & Alignment 0

CM data from Wilhelm Compilation 7-3-06Grand Total - CM 2,765cm Main Linac CryoModules cm.1 2,081cm Quad Packages cm.2 684

rf Americas - 6/26/06, standard RF unit (3 CM)scaledGrand Total RF 2,810rf production labor (person-years)rf Klystron System 683rf Modulator System 683rf RF Distribution System 683rf Infrastructure 683rf EL TR Bunch Compressor 2rf EL Undulator RF 4rf DR RF 24rf RTML standard RF 42rf RTML 40 MW S-band stations 4rf RTML 60 MW S-band SLED 2

cryo - 7july06Grand Total Cryogenics 0cryo cryo plants 0cryo cryo distribution 0


54

Vacuum - 13july, Paolo Michelato sent beam, insulating, and coupler vacuum for CM's, 14july Y Suetsugu sent e-beam BDS (mult x 2 for e- + e+)

Grand Total - Vacuum 169vacuum CMs PM-13july06 per string 169vacuum RTML pumpsvacuum RTML mainfolds for gaugesvacuum RTML L-angle valve for rough pmpvacuum RTML Gate Valvesvacuum RTML Bellows Chambervacuum RTML Vacuum Gauge incl controlvacuum RTML Vacuum Switchvacuum RTML Roughing Pumpsvacuum RTML Baking Heatersvacuum RTML Insulatorsvacuum RTML Support (2 per chamber)vacuum RTML Gasketvacuum RTML Nuts & Boltsvacuum RTML SS Pipevacuum BDS - AL pipesvacuum BDS - pumpsvacuum BDS - manifolds for gaugesvacuum BDS - L-angle valve (roughing)vacuum BDS - gate valvesvacuum BDS - bellows chambervacuum BDS - vacuum gaugevacuum BDS - vacuum switchvacuum BDS - rough pump unitvacuum BDS - crotchvacuum BDS - baking heatervacuum BDS - insulatorvacuum BDS - supports (2 per chamber)vacuum BDS - gaskestsvacuum BDS - nuts & bolts

Magnets & Power Supplies - haven't received any information

I have not updated e- Source for 17july06 input, this is 15july06 submissione- Source (specific) 17july06 - I don't understand Cryo distribution or dumps and collimators - remove from e- source, why 25 CMs? - only show things not in other areas

Grand Total - Electron Sourcee- managemente- e- specific, lasers, gun, SHB, buncher, TW PAe- magnetse- vacuum system

e+ Source (specific) 157july06 - have e+ - where does KAS go? e- Source includes estimate for driver for KASGrand Total - e+ Sourcee+ e+ management fixed 7/28e+ targete+ AMDe+ T&A housinge+ Undulatore+ Cavities SWe+ Cavities TWe+ Cavities SW HL RF Diste+ Cavities TW HL RF Diste+ Vacuum - Unulatore+ Vacuum - Trasport linese+ Vacuum - PTRAN

Ring to Main Linac (specific) 17july06 - find error in Marc Ross' summation for RTML instrumentation, use PT + DMC(LOLA)RTML Magnets QRTML, DRTML, CorrGrand Total - RTMLRTML Pulsed Kickers (not available)RTML Pulsed Bends (not available)RTML Septa (not available)RTML Magnet stands (not available)RTML PS and cables (not available)RTML 2.9 GHz HLRF

Main Linac (specific)

Grand Total - BDS 0BDS Magnets (BDS_V1.6.xls add 21july06)

Experimental Areas (specific)


55

Damping Rings (specific) - A. Wolski 14july06 - do not include CF&S (included above) (use controls) (remove cryo from RF)

Grand Total - Damping Rings (specifics)DR e- injection lineDR e- DR vacuumDR e- Magnets, PS, SupportsDR e- WigglerDR e- injection/extraction systemsDR e- RF systems (remove cryo)DR e- Diagnostics & InstrumentsDR e- Fast Feedback systemsDR e- Control systems (use controls)DR e- Beam abort systemDR e- Conventional FacilitiesDR e- extraction lineDR e+ injection lineDR e+1 DR vacuumDR e+1 Magnets, PS, SupportsDR e+1 WigglerDR e+1 injection/extraction systemsDR e+1 RF systems (remove cryo)DR e+1 Diagnostics & InstrumentsDR e_ Fast Feedback systemsDR e+1 Control systems (use controls)DR e+1 Beam abort systemDR e+1 Conventional FacilitiesDR e+2 DR vacuumDR e+2 Magnets, PS, SupportsDR e+2 WigglerDR e+2 RF systems (remove cryo)DR e+2 Diagnostics & InstrumentsDR e+2 Fast Feedback systemsDR e+2 Control systems (use controls)DR e+2 Beam abort systemDR e+2 Conventional FacilitiesDR e+ Extraction Line


56

WBS Checklist for items in the construction cost estimates requested before the Vancouver Meeting due by June 25, 2006:

– Preparing bid packages, vendor liaison costs– Developing multiple vendors– Non-recurring industrial setup and tooling– Purchase of test quantities and QC– Manufacturing and QC– Production test stands– Acceptance testing and QA– Industrial or lab space & infrastructure– Warehouse storage, shipping containers, shipping fixtures– System final assembly– Stands or mounts for final installation– Installation, tooling and fixtures– Alignment– Safety review & ES&H (beyond reviews of preliminary or conceptual

designs)– Systems integration, diagnostic equipment– Software, computing equipment, test setup DAQ hardware, etc.


57

WBS Checklist for items that are not part of the construction costestimate but for which estimates are due by September 15, 2006:

(after the Vancouver Meeting)– Engineering and design labor (pre-construction)– Consultant, architect, and other external expert labor– Design reviews– Prototyping and R&D– Reliability engineering– System integration engineering– Testing early designs and QA– System commissioning

(need estimate, but not part of construction cost)– Management, Cost & Schedule maintenance for life of

the project

This is a real cost for continued operations of the ILC. Therefore, it is not to be included in the construction cost

estimate.

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

Documents

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