MREFC Process
description
Transcript of MREFC Process
MREFC Process
Mark ColesDeputy Director, Large Facility Projects
Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management
NSF
June 12, 2006
2
Topics
• MREFC process for preconstruction planning and budgeting, prioritization
• Timeline for planning
• Budget status and plans
• Budget issues surrounding the MREFC account
3
New NSF process for pre-construction planning
• “Guidelines for Planning and Managing the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account”– Outlines a formal process for planning and
developing large facilities that coordinates development of scope, budget, and NSF plans for oversight
– On NSF external web site– Attempt to implement the best features of processes
used by other agencies and still preserve NSF’s ability to respond flexibly to community needs and initiatives
4
Motivations for MREFC process
• Lack of a formal process has resulted in NSB approval of some projects whose scope was not well defined, nor fully budgeted– Resulted in descoping, cancellation, and deferral of
construction start
• Brinkman Report: “Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the NSF”– Addressed these issues– Cited need for a well-defined, rigorous pre-
construction planning process
5
NSF pre-construction planning process
Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design
Final Design
Construction
Operations
R&RA $ R&RA $ R&RA $ R&RA $MREFC $
DOE Translation:
CD 0 CD 1 CD 2 CD 3 CD 4
Approve mission need
Approve alternate selection and cost range
Approve performance baseline
Approve construction start
Approve operations start
6
Conceptual Design StageConceptual Design Stage Readiness Stage Board Approved Stage Construction
Concept development – Expend approximately 1/3 of total pre-construction planning budget
Develop construction budget based on conceptual design
Develop budget requirements for advanced planning
Estimate ops $
Preliminary design
Expend approx 1/3 of total pre-construction planning budget
Construction estimate based on prelim design
Update ops $ estimate
Final design over ~ 2 years
Expend approx 1/3 of total pre-construction planning budget
Construction-ready budget & contingency estimates
Preliminary Design
Develop site-specific preliminary design, environmental impacts
Develop enabling technology
Bottoms-up cost and contingency estimates, updated risk analysis
Develop preliminary operations cost estimate
Develop Project Management Control System
Update of Project Execution Plan
Final Design
Development of final construction-ready design and Project Execution Plan
Industrialize key technologies
Refine bottoms-up cost and contingency estimates
Finalize Risk Assessment and Mitigation, and Management Plan
Complete recruitment of key staff
Conceptual design
Formulation of science questions
Requirements definition, prioritization, and review
Identify critical enabling technologies and high risk items
Development of conceptual design
Top down parametric cost and contingency estimates
Formulate initial risk assessment
Initial proposal submission to NSF
Initial draft of Project Execution Plan
Construction per baseline
Pro
jec
t e
volu
tio
nB
ud
get
ev
olu
tio
nO
vers
igh
t ev
olu
tio
n Merit review, apply 1st and 2nd ranking criteria
MREFC Panel briefings
Forward estimates of Preliminary Design costs and schedules
Establishment of interim review schedules and competition milestones
Forecast international and interagency participation and constraints
Initial consideration of NSF risks and opportunities
Conceptual design review
NSF Director approves Internal Management Plan
Formulate/approve Project Development Plan & budget; include in NSF Facilities Plan
Preliminary design review and integrated baseline review
Evaluate ops $ projections
Evaluate forward design costs and schedules
Forecast interagency and international decision milestones
NSF approves submission to NSB
Apply 3rd ranking criteria
NSB prioritization
OMB/Congress budget negotiations based on Prelim design budget
Semi-annual reassessment of baseline and projected ops budget for projects not started construction
Finalization of interagency and international requirements
Final design review, fix baseline
Congress appropriates MREFC funds & NSB approves obligation
Periodic external review during construction
Review of project reporting
Site visit and assessment
MREFC $
Expenditure of budget and contingency per baseline
Refine ops budget
MR
EF
C P
ane
l re
co
mm
en
ds
an
d N
SF
D
ire
cto
r a
pp
rov
es a
dv
anc
e t
o R
ead
ines
s
NS
F a
pp
rove
s su
bm
issi
on
to
NS
B
Co
ng
ress
ap
pro
pri
ates
fu
nd
s
Funded by R&RA or EHR $
NSF oversight defined in Internal Management Plan, updated by development phase
Proponents development strategy defined in Project Development Plan Described by Project Execution Plan
7
Conceptual Design
Definition of science objectives and quantitative science requirements
Notional proposal that NSF can react to and encourage or discourage
Conceptual design report
System definitions
Site independent design
Top-down budget and contingency estimates
Forecasts for international partnership
Operations budget estimates
Conceptual design review by NSF
NSB approval to enter “Readiness Stage” (preliminary design)
8
Preliminary Design - aka “Readiness Stage”Project baseline defined - detailed design and planning activities that form the basis for a request to Congress for construction funds
All significant cost drivers and major risk factors understood
Site specific design
NEPA/NHPA impacts and mitigations budgeted
Partnership intentions firmly stated
How NSF will manage the project is described in an Internal Management Plan, approved by NSF Director
Preliminary Design and Final Design activities defined by proponents in Project Development Plan – budget, schedule, deliverables
Projects failing to progress against objectives of PDP fall out of Readiness Stage
Projects emerge following successful Preliminary Design Review by NSF
9
Final Design – aka Board Approved Stage – aka “the Queue”MREFC panel proposes a prioritization to NSF Director
Director consults with OMB, and brings a project forward for NSB consideration only if construction appropriation is likely within period budget estimates are valid
Director recommends project to NSB with prioritization
NSB reviews NSF external review results, PEP and IMP
NSB annually reprioritizes approved projects in NSF budget request to Congress
Project proceeds with final pre-construction planning activities during period prior to Congressional appropriation and construction start
10
Construction StageConstruction proceeds according to PEP
Periodic external review by NSF
Construction scope includes commissioning activities
Considerable latitude in defining scope of construction activity during pre-construction, but must adhere to that definition during construction period
11
Example timeline
Fall 2006 PDR Winter NSF assessment
March or May 2007 NSB approval Summer submission of FY09 budget
Fall OMB negotiations Feb 2008 submission to Congress
Spring 2008 appropriations hearings Oct ’08 (or later) FY09 appropriation NSF approval to obligate MREFC funds Construction begins in FY09
2006
2007
2008
2008 or 09
Calendar year
12
Readiness Stage – Preliminary Design
• Entrance and exit from Readiness Stage controlled by MREFC Panel– NSF Deputy Director (chair) + AD’s and Office Heads– Ensures uniformly high standards are applied – Reviews competition for NSF resources and recommends to NSF
Director a relative prioritization for projects entering and exiting
• NSF Director – reviews/approves MREFC Panel recommendations– Approves Internal Management Plan (how NSF will provide oversight,
how NSF will fund this activity)– Recommends projects to NSB for construction funding, with priority
• NSB– Annually reprioritizes the queue of projects awaiting construction
funding
13
Projects in construction
• Atacama Large Millimeter Array MPS• EarthScope GEO• IceCube OPP-MPS• Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel GEO• South Pole Station Modification OPP
14
Projects approved by NSB for construction but not appropriated by Congress
• NEON (BIO) - FY07 start request
• ARRV (GEO) - FY07 “ “
• OOI (GEO) - FY07 “ “
• Advanced LIGO (MPS) - FY08 ““
The “Queue”
15
Projects in Readiness Stage
• Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (MPS)– possible FY09 start – PDR planned for October 2006
16
Ongoing MREFC Projects
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Million $
Ongoing Projects
17
Ongoing + NSB Approved MREFC Projects
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Million $
NSFApproved Projects
Ongoing Projects
New start profiles are NSF’s best understanding at this point, but could change
18
Ongoing + NSB Approved + Readiness Stage
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Million $
ATST
NSFApproved Projects
Ongoing Projects
Possible scenario for ATST – pre-PDR estimates
19
Considerations in starting a new project
• Some attempt for balance across NSF in range of disciplines supported by MREFC– Competition from Computer Science,
Engineering, Earth Science, as well as Physics and Astronomy for future projects.
Example projects that may progress to Readiness Stage:
GENI CISECLEANER ENGEarthScope InSAR GEOGEOS GEOPetascale Cyber Infrastructure for Geoscience GEOERL Phase II/XFEL MPSDUSEL MPSEVLA Phase II MPSLSST MPSSquare Kilometer Array MPSThirty Meter Telescope MPS
20
Other considerations
• Desire to close out queue in FY07 budget request – no long-term queue residents– Likelihood of near-term funding will be a
consideration in proposing future projects for construction funding
• “Appetite control” – Enforced by high standards and a rigorous
process of pre-construction planning – Competition with base program activities
21
Pre-construction funding• Why not an agency-wide account for advanced
preconstruction planning and development?– Pre and post construction annual outlays are about equal.
NSF capability to support pre-construction and post-construction are linked.
• Preconstruction planning ranges from 5-25% of total construction cost.
• Annual operating costs + science utilization are 10-25% of total construction cost.
– Avoid “politicizing” the facility selection process• Preserve objectivity of selection and prioritization process,
based on expert assessment and peer review.• Preserve “off-ramps” for projects in advanced planning that
should not be built.
Size of base program is the limiting factor in new facility construction
22
Backup materials
23
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016ALMA 29.81 50.70 49.30 45.14 47.89 47.07 37.37 20.98EarthScope 29.81 43.24 44.80 46.40 27.40HIAPER 13.00 12.54IceCube 25.75 38.36 48.10 46.25 28.65 22.38 11.33 0.95LHC 9.69NEES 13.48 8.05SPSM 12.69 21.03 16.86 9.13DOJ Judgment 3.00Terascale 44.83 10.05SODV 6.08 53.09 42.88Ongoing Projects 179.03 183.96 165.14 190.88 158.95 69.45 48.70 21.93ALMA Increment 17.38 55.00 36.38 21.78 21.44 3.00NEON 12.00 18.00 41.00 58.00 79.00 79.00 61.00OOI 13.50 48.00 77.00 78.00 53.00 40.00ARRV 56.00 42.00AdvLIGO 28.48 42.81 46.31 36.25 22.90 7.60ATST 65.42 28.58 28.54 20.22 12.95 10.32 7.44 1.53Total 179.03 183.96 165.14 190.88 257.83 260.93 311.31 254.60 218.23 165.12 81.55 10.32 7.44 1.53