LCLS Ultrafast Science Instruments
(LUSI)
Management Overview
T. Fornek – Project Manager
August 19, 2008
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.1
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Outline
Project Management Overview
Scope & WBS Organization
Baseline Development
Funding Profile
Project Schedule
Contingency
Staffing
Procurements
Risk Management
CD-2 Requirements
Summary
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.2
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Project Philosophy
LUSI is a “Major Item of Equipment “ (MIE) Project delivering
three LCLS scientific instruments
Utilizes Integrated Project Teams and matrixed engineering
LUSI team “owns the plan”
The P3/COBRA database is the sole source of the approved LUSI
scope, cost and schedule work plan
Plan the work … Work the plan”. Emphasis on meeting
schedules/milestones
Changes to the “plan” are approved through change control
LUSI Project is integrated with the LCLS Directorate.
Transparent organizational structure and configuration
management
Matrix supporting infrastructure from LCLS Directorate
LUSI seeking industrial solutions
LUSI utilizes MOUs with BNL (Detectors) and DESY (Split and
Delay)
LUSI identifies risks up-front (continuous over the project life)
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.3
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Scope
LUSI will deliver:
Three X-ray scattering instruments
XPP - X-ray Pump Probe
CXI - Coherent X-ray Imaging
XCS - X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy
The instruments will be assembled entirely at SLAC using SLAC
technical staff
Project detailed scope is based on
Value-managed decisions
Advice from instrument teams
LUSI will provide instruments producing groundbreaking
science
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.4
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project description (1)
Near Experimental Hall
1
2
X-ray Transport
Far Experimental Hall
3
4
5
6
CXI
HEDS
Mono
AMO
SXR
Part of LCLS
Proposed
External
Funds
Beam Transport
LCLS
LUSI
HEDS
SXR
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.5
XPP
XCS
Proposed
External Funds
Offset Monochromator
Exp. Chamber
Detector
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project description (2)
CXI
WBS 1.3
X-ray transport tunnel
(200 m)
XCS
WBS 1.4
XPP
WBS 1.2
HEDS
SXR imaging
XCS Offset
Monochromator
WBS 1.5
LCLS AMO
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.6
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Purpose of this review
Baseline (CD-2) status review for:
WBS 1.1 – Project Management
WBS 1.2 – X-ray Pump Probe (XPP) instrument
WBS 1.3 – Coherent X-ray Imaging (CXI) instrument
WBS 1.4 – X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy (XCS) instrument
WBS 1.5 – Diagnostics and Common Optics
WBS 1.6 – Controls and Data Acquisition
WBS 2.0 – Other Project Costs (Spent)
Independent Cost Review per DOE O-413.3 (Part of this
review)
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.7
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI WBS Organization
WBS
Typical Instrument WBS
Coordination & Integration
1.1
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.1.01
ES&H
1.1.02
Project Management
1.1.03
Technical Support
WBS
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.8
TITLE
1.2
X-RAY PUMP PROBE (XPP)
1.2.01
XPP System Integration & Design
1.2.02
XPP X-ray Optics & Support Table
1.2.03
XPP Laser System
1.2.04
XPP Detector System (BNL)
1.2.05
XPP Sample Environment & Diffractometer
System
1.2.06
XPP Facilities
1.2.07
XPP Vacuum System
1.2.08
XPP Installation
Product-based Components
Installation
TITLE
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Integrated Project Team
DOE-HQ
H. Kung, Acquisition Executive
T.E. Kiess, Program Manager
DOE-SSO
H. Joma
DOE Federal Project Director
Instrument Team
Leaders (Advisory)
SLAC
T. Fornek
LUSI Project Manager
Deputy - TBD
Technical Configuration Control
Committee (Scope Decisions)
WBS 1.2 XPP IIT
WBS 1.3 CXI IIT
WBS 1.4 XCS IIT
D. Fritz
(Instr. Scientist)
S. Boutet
(Instr. Scientist)
A. Robert
(Instr. Scientist)
J. Langton
( Lead Eng)
P. Montanez
( Lead Eng)
E. Bong - Acting
(Lead Eng)
DOE-SSO
Support
LCLS Directorate Support
ES&H, QA, Finance, EVMS,
Procurement…
Engineering
N. Kurita - Chief Engineer
WBS 1.5
Diagnostics &
Common Optics
Y. Feng
(Lead Scientist)
WBS 1.6
Data Acquisition &
Controls
G. Haller
(Lead)
E. Ortiz
(Lead Eng )
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.9
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Typical Integrated Instrument Team
WBS 1.2 X-ray Pump Probe
Instrument Team Leaders
K. Gaffney, D. Reis,
T. Tschentscher, J. Larsson
Instrument Scientist –
Lead Engineer (CAM) -
D. Fritz
J. Langton
Eng/Design Support –
J. DeLor
J. Defever
N. van Bakel
Y. Feng
G. Haller
M. Scharfenstein
D. Marsh
DetectorsDiag./Common Optics –
Controls & DAQ –
ES&H –
QA –
Instrument Team Leaders Sign Off on Instrument Physics Requirements Document
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.10
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LCLS Directorate Support
Business Services – C. Lowe (mgr), W. Sisson (Finance), F.
Fernandez, (Project Controls), D. Pindroh, (Procurement)
Michael Scharfenstein, ES&H Representative
Darren Marsh, QA Representative
Helen O’Donnell, Office Management
Siony Matni, Administrative and Finance
Mechanical Engineering
Niels van Bakel – Detectors
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.11
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Baseline Development Process
Define initial schedule and budget assumptions
Initial scope assumptions, WBS, WBS dictionary
Responsibility assignment and organization
Generate the schedule baseline estimate
Finalize the Milestone Hierarchy and Dictionary, schedule activities, links, etc.
Load resources
Generate the resource loaded schedule
Compare to funding profile
Iterate until scope, schedule, costs match yearly funding, stakeholder
requirements and good management practice
Major driver is early science for the instruments
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.12
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Cost Baseline
Base Cost (BCWS)
$42.13 M
Contingency
$12.97 M
TEC
$55.10 M
OPC
$4.90 M
TPC
$60.00 M
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.13
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Project Funding Profile
LUSI Funding Profile (AYM$)
Prior
Yrs
MIE
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
Total
0.50
6.00
15.00
15.00
13.50
5.10
55.10
OPC
3.40
1.50
Total
3.40
2.00
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.14
4.90
6.00
15.00
15.00
13.50
5.10
60.00
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
BA Plan & Obligation Profile
Assumed BA Profile
08
Q1
08
Q2
08
Q3
08
Q4
09
Q1
09
Q2
09
Q3
09
Q4
10
Q1
10
Q2
10
Q3
10
Q4
11
Q1
11
Q2
11
Q3
11
Q4
12
Q1
12
Q2
12
Q3
12
Q4
.5M
6.5
M
6.5
M
6.5
M
8.0
M
9.5
M
21.
5M
21.
5M
40.
5M
40.
5M
40.
5M
40.
5M
50.
5M
50.
5M
50.
5M
50.
5M
55.
1M
55.
1M
55.
1M
55.
1M
$57,000,000
Contingency
$54,000,000
1.6 - Controls
$51,000,000
1.5 - DCO
1.4 - XCS
$48,000,000
1.3 - CXI
1.2 - XPP
$45,000,000
1.1 - Program Mgmt
$42,000,000
Funding
$39,000,000
$36,000,000
$33,000,000
$30,000,000
$27,000,000
$24,000,000
$21,000,000
$18,000,000
•LUSI is fundinglimited in Q1,Q2 of
FY09.
$15,000,000
$12,000,000
$9,000,000
$6,000,000
$3,000,000
$07
FY
-Q
4
08
FY
-Q
1
08
FY
-Q
2
08
FY
-Q
3
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.15
08
FY
-Q
4
09
FY
-Q
1
09
FY
-Q
2
09
FY
-Q
3
09
FY
-Q
4
10
FY
-Q
1
10
FY
-Q
2
10
FY
-Q
3
10
FY
-Q
4
11
FY
-Q
1
11
FY
-Q
2
11
FY
-Q
3
11
FY
-Q
4
12
FY
-Q
1
12
FY
-Q
2
12
FY
-Q
3
12
FY
-Q
4
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Resource Loaded Schedule
The LUSI resource-loaded schedule comprises ~3,900 tasks.
64 Control Accounts
LUSI uses Primavera (P3) as its scheduling tool with COBRA as
the cost processor.
SLAC has successfully delivered with P3/COBRA (PEP-II,
GLAST, SPEAR-III, LCLS).
Significant supporting documentation for LUSI base costs. .
A WBS Dictionary defines the scope of work at the lowest WBS
level (typically Level 4/5).
Contingency is assessed at the lowest WBS.
Design Maturity & Judgment Factor (risk-based)
Work schedule, commitments and resource profiles are
derived from the resource-loaded schedule.
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.16
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Critical Decision Milestones
CD-0 - Mission Need - Approved Aug 2005
CD-1 - Alternative Selection and Cost Range – App’d Sep 2007
CD-2 - Approve Performance Baseline - planned Oct 2008
Utilize Phased CD-3 and CD-4 Milestones
CD-3 - Approve Start of Construction
CD-3A – XPP - scheduled Jul 2009
CD-3B – CXI - scheduled Apr 2010
CD-3C – XCS - scheduled Oct 2010
These are baseline dates.
Funding profile prevents
combining CD-3s – We
are trying to obtain
earlier funding
CD-4 - Approve Start of Operations
CD-4A – XPP - scheduled Dec 2010
CD-4B – CXI - scheduled Sep 2011
CD-4C – XCS - scheduled Aug 2012
Early science begins with
separate CD-4A, CD-4B
Baseline assumes long lead procurement approval for XPP and
CXI received by November, 2008
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.17
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Key Cost/Schedule Assumptions
Schedule
Six month Continuing Resolution in FY 2009
Staffing can be secured to meet schedule requirements
LCLS milestone dates for LUSI tie-ins are met
Cost
Six month continuing resolution in FY 2009
Three month continuing resolution in succeeding years
Escalation rates used are 2.3% non-labor and 4% labor.
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.18
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Project Summary Schedule
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
=Level 1 & 2 DOE
CD-1 Approval
Sep 2007
CD-2 Review
Aug 2008
=Level 3 Project Ready
Design
(Components not part of CD-4a)
Procure / Fab / Assy / Install
XPP
Ready for CD-3a
Feb 2009
Ready for CD-4a
Jul 2010
Design
Procure / Fab / Assy / Install
(Comp. not part of CD-4b)
CXI
Ready for CD-3b
Oct 2009
Design
Ready for CD-4b
Apr 2011
Procure / Fab / Assy / Install
XCS
Ready for CD-3c
Feb 2010
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.19
Ready for CD-4c
Mar 2012
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Schedule Contingency
Float
XPP – 75 working days to CD-4A
CXI – 95 working days to CD-4B
XCS – 80 working days to CD-4C (No funding constraints - 182 days)
Critical Path
XPP
Diffractometer design, fabrication & installation
CXI
1 micron K-B mirror system
XCS
Delayed design effort due to funding
Diagnostic and common optics components delayed procurements
Component assembly and installation
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.20
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project Contingency
“Bottoms-up” contingency estimate $11.3M on $39.22M ETC
Available contingency in proposed baseline is $12.8
Contingency is managed at the project level
Annual comprehensive ETC and contingency update
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.21
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Staffing (FTE)
35
30
25
20
Planned Staff
Current Staff
15
10
5
0
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
Plan for staffing ramp-up
1. AMO & other LCLS Engineers available to LUSI in September (~5 FTE)
2. Seeking Deputy Project Manager
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.22
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Control Account Managers
WBS
Control Account Mgr
Cntrl
Accts
Work
Pkgs
Budget
1.1 PM
T. Fornek (Acting)
6
12
$5.5M
1.2 XPP
J. Langton (WO Detect)
10
44
$4.5M
1.3 CXI
P. Montanez
11
45
$9.5M
1.4 XCS
E. Bong (WO Detect)
12
41
$5.7M
1.5 D&CO
E. Ortiz
10
39
$6.4M
1.6 Cntrls &
DAQ
G. Haller
20
289
$7.2M
1.2.3 + 1.4.3
Detectors
N. Van Bakel
8
9
$3.5M
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.23
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Procurement Planning
LUSI employs established SLAC procurement procedures
LUSI uses the LCLS procurement cell
Weekly LCLS/LUSI procurement status meeting with David
Pindroh, LCLS Procurement
LUSI Advanced Procurement Plans exist
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.24
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Procurements
$7 M
$6 M
$5 M
$4 M
$3 M
$2 M
$1 M
FY09 Q1&Q2
FY 10
FY 11
Yearly Procurements ($M)
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.25
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Long Lead & Major Procurements
Long Lead Procurements
XPP Diffractometer/Detector Mover Components
$ 730K
CXI 1.0 Micron KB Mirror System
$ 970K
Other Major Procurements
CXI 0.1 Micron KB Mirror System
$ 970K
XCS Diffractometer System
$ 517K
XCS Detector Mover
$ 689K
Large Offset Monochromator
$1,160K
XPP Ti-Sapphire Power Amplifier
$ 245K
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.26
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI MOUs
Brookhaven National Laboratory – Detector Systems for XPP
and XCS Instruments
ETC - $1.1M
XPP Detector System:
Estimated Delivery – January, 2010
Cost to date $1.8M (OPC)
XCS Detector System:
Estimated Delivery – September, 2011
Estimated Cost – $1.8M
DESY
Split and Delay System
Long-Term Loan arrangement
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.27
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Risk Management
LUSI Follows the LCLS Risk Management Plan and uses the
LCLS Risk Registry
LCLS Project Management Document 1.1-002
Risk is considered in cost contingency
Risk identification, assessment and mitigation
First risk registry update meeting July 31, 2008
Major Risks
Annual funding - Continuing Resolutions
Foreign procurements – Dollar fluctuation, sole source
Loss and/or availability of critical personnel
CXI mirror delivery, performance
XCS Monochromator performance
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.28
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
DOE 413.3A CD2 Requirements
Established Perfomance Baseline
Completed – Includes Key Performance Parameters
Updated Project Execution Plan
Ready for signature pending CD-2 Comments
ANSI/EIA-748-A-1998 Compliant EVMS
SLAC EVMS certified
Independent Project Review/Cost Review
EIR lines of inquiry will be addressed by this CD-2 Review
The Quality Assurance Program must fully address all
applicable Quality Assurance Criteria as defined in 10 CFR 830
Subpart A and DOE O 414.1C.
SLAC Document PM-391-000-01-R0 released in July ’07.
Consistent with DOE Order 414.1C and the SLAC Office of
Assurance “Quality Implemention Procedure Requirements
“SLAC-I-770-0A17S-001-R000”
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.29
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
DOE 413.3A CD2 Requirements
Prepare a Preliminary Design
Completed
Conduct a Preliminary Design Review
Completed for XPP, CXI and XCS
Hazards Analysis Report
Completed (PM-391-001-34 R0)
Update the Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment
Report.
CD-1 report still valid
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.30
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
EIR Lines of Inquiry
EIR ELEMENT
COMMENT
1. Work Breakdown Structure
PM-391-000-96 (Structure)

2. Project Cost & Res Loaded Sched
This presentation & Project Controls/EVMS presentation

3. Key Proj Cost & Sched Assump
This presentation

4. Critical Path
Project Controls/EVMS presentation

5. Risk Management
This presentation and Management breakout

6. Funding Profile
This presentation

7. Project Controls/EVMS
Project Controls/EVMS presentation

8. Basis of Design
Engineering presentation

9. Design Review
Engineering presentation

10. System Functions & Reqs
Engineering presentation

11. Sustainability
Not applicable

12. Hazards Analysis
PM-391-001-01

13. Value Management/Engineering
LUSI Value Management Plan (Doc No. PM-391-000-02)

14. Start-up Test Plan
SP-391-001-15, -16, -17 (XPP, CXI, XCS)

15. Project Execution Plan
Draft ready for signature pending CD-2 review changes

16. Acquisition Strategy
Approved September, 2007

17. Integrated Project Team
This presentation & the PEP

LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.31
CD2 Ready
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
In Conclusion
Project Cost, Schedule and Scope Baselines are in Place
and Fit the Funding Profile
Integrated Project Team is in Place
Risks are Identified and Steps Have Been Taken to Reduce
Risk Where Possible
Contingency is Reasonable
LUSI is ready for CD-2
LUSI DOE Review August 19, 2008
Management Overview
p.32
Tom Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu