August 2 and 3, 2010 Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency Jay Elias.

August 2 and 3, 2010

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

Institution OSU NOAO (ReStar)

NOAO (Base)

BaselinePayroll $208,966 $591,167 $51,445Non-Payroll $281,307 $234,094 $2,520Baseline F&A $124,932ContingencyContingency $73,100 $129,611 $7,144Contingency F&A

$9,584

Sub-Total$697,889

$954,872 $61,109Total $1,015,980Cont./Baseline 13.4% 15.6%

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

Budget Summary by WBSWBS OSU NOAO Total1: Project Management $53,162 $118,125 $171,287

2: Science Team Activities $43,079 $53,965 $97,044

3: Systems Engineering $0 $57,972. $57,972

4: Optics $271,559 $1,646 $273,2055: Spectrograph Mechanical $104,363 $95,888 $200,251

6: Spectrograph Controls and Telemetry

$61,604 $0 $61,604

7: Facility Modifications $0 $6,173 $6,173

8: Detector System $0 $259,030 $259,0309: Top-Level Software $0 $127,425 $127,425

10: Integration and Test $75,340 $90,965 $166,305

11: Shipping $6,100 $0 $6,10012: Documentation and Training

$0 $39,838 $39,838

13: Slit Mask Fabrication $0 $18,200 $18,200

Contingency $82,685 $146,755 $220,300Total $697,889 $1,015,980 $1,713,869

Table 5.2 –Project Cost by WBS Element

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 RisksRisk ID Risk Name Probability Severity Summary Description Mitigations and Reductions

3.1 ICD Status Moderate Moderate ICDs not complete at design review

ICDs almost entirely between sub-systems with existing designs; critical software ICDs most nearly complete

4.1 Optics Performance-1

Moderate Moderate Melt variance will affect UV performance

Measurement of melt indices; re-optimization of design

4.2 Optics Performance-2

Moderate Moderate Coating performance may reduce throughput

Iteration with vendors; production of test or witness samples

4.3 Optics Cost/Schedule

High Low Camera design more complex than OSMOS

Only 1 asphere; aspheres moderate

4.4 ADC vignetting

High Low Mayall ADC undersized Work near zenith or at parallactic angle for full MOS field

5.1 Instrument Flexure

High Low Instrument flexure complicates night-time calibration

Purchase stiffer focus stages; undo some OSMOS light-weighting to produce stiffer overall structure; examine

7.1 Calibration Field

High Low Rotator/Guider Calibration field undersized

Day-time use of "white spot", night sky lines; flexure reduction

9.1 Software complexity

Moderate Moderate Software interactions among multiple sub-systems from both NOAO & OSU

Ensure critical ICDs fully developed; nearly all software exists already

13.1 MOS mask production

Low High MOS mask software provided by 3rd parties

Not on critical path for commissioning; assessment point in Jan.

20

Lesser Risks

Project managementCost and scheduleMissing official NOAO project scientistPerformance modelingDetector and controller systemsIntegration and testDocumentation and training