Build to Cost Directions & Guidelines
Peter Wizinowich
SSC Meeting
November 3, 2008
Presentation Sequence
•
•
•
•
New Directions & Guidelines
Implications
Build to Cost Concept Review
Conclusion
2
New Directions & Guidelines
• $60M cost cap in then-year dollars
–
–
–
–
From start of system design through completion
Includes science instruments
Must include realistic contingency
Cap of $17.1M in Federal + Observatory funds ($4.7M committed)
• Reviews
– NFIRAOS cost comparison report at Nov/08 SSC meeting
• To better understand the fidelity of the SDR costing
– Internal review of build to cost concept
– Report on internal review no later than Apr/09 SSC meeting
3
Implications of New Directions & Guidelines – 1
•
Work required to reduce costs to fit in $60M cap
– NGAO estimate at SDR, plus SD phase, ~ $53M (then-year $)
– Science instrument estimate at proposal ~ $27M (then-year $)
– Need to provide a major breakthrough in science capability for $
• Need Science Advisory Team to help insure this
•
Work required on science instruments as part of NGAO project
– Cost cap requires NGAO project to integrate all costs & planning including
instruments
•
During PD phase, instrument program management will continue for
instruments, but as part of NGAO project
– Need to develop at least system designs, preferably preliminary designs,
& costs during the NGAO PD
– Need to identify funds & people for this (none in WMKO FY09 plan) &
determine impact on NGAO PD plan
4
Implications of New Directions & Guidelines – 2
•
Report/Reviews
– NFIRAOS cost comparison already planned
– Phased implementation & descopes review no longer required
•
May need something for PDR, but not for build to cost concept review
– Need success criteria, & plan to prepare, for build to cost review
5
Build to Cost Concept Review – 1
• Proposed Success Criteria
– The revised science cases & requirements continue to provide a
compelling case for building NGAO
– We have a credible technical approach to producing an NGAO
facility within the cost cap
– We have reserved contingency consistent with the level of
programmatic & technical risk
• Proposed Deliverables for the review
– A summary of the:
•
•
•
•
•
Revisions to the science cases & requirements, & the scientific impact
Major design changes
Major cost changes (cost book updated for design changes)
Major schedule changes
Contingency changes
6
Build to Cost Concept Review – 2
• Proposed Deliverables from the review
– A summary of the reviewer findings (not by the team)
– A team response to the reviewer report
– A report of the results to the SSC (not by the team)
• Proposed assumptions
– Starting point will be the SD cost estimate with the addition of the
science instruments & refined by the NFIRAOS cost comparison
• Better cost estimates will be produced for the PDR
– No phased implementation options will be provided
• Some may be for the PDR to respond to the reviewer concerns
– Major documents will only be updated for the PDR
• SCRD, SRD, FRD, SDM, SEMP
– This is an internal review. Directors will identify reviewers in
consultation with NGAO team.
– Take into account the Keck Strategic Planning 2008 results
7
Build to Cost Actions to Date
• Evaluated implications & requested some clarifications
• Build to Cost team meeting (Sept. 11/12 at UCSC)
– Reviewed/discussed core science requirements, performance cost
drivers & a range of cost savings ideas
– Made some modest cost reduction decisions
– Identified a number of potential cost savings areas that we are
currently investigating
• Identified success criteria for NFIRAOS cost comparison &
build to cost concept review
• Reworking NGAO PD phase plan
– Working with instrument program manager to incorporate NGAO
instruments
8
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
We understand the need for a build to cost cap & accept the
Director/SSC wisdom that this is what is needed to ensure NGAO’s
future
Our emphasis will be on maximizing the science return within the cost
cap
The short-term impact has been a delay in the planned NGAO
preliminary design work
To successfully prepare for the build to cost concept review we need:
– Active participation from the NGAO Science Advisory Team
– Agreement on the success criteria
– Creative & focused work from the NGAO team
9