Final Report Issued 13-Oct-2010

Final Report /
Director's Review of the IARC OTE Building Project /
October 13, 2010 /

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1.0Introduction

2.0Project Preparedness

2.1Cost and Scope

2.2Schedule

2.3Management and Oversight

3.0Charge Questions

4.0Appendices

Charge

Agenda

Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments

Reviewers’ Contact Information

Participant List

Table of Recommendations

ExecutiveSummary

The focus of this Director’s Review of theAccelerator Research Center (IARC) Office Technology & Engineering (OTE) Building Project was to assess the project’s readiness to move forward with the engineering design of the building leading to a request for proposal being issued for construction of the building. Additionally, insure that appropriate project management team and project oversight is established to assure successful implementation of the project.

Much work has been done by the Project Manager to prepare for this review. The Integrated Project Team (IPT) has been identified. The review committee recommends expanding membership of the IPT to include CDF and AD stakeholders and that the IPT start meeting as soon as possible. An initial schedule was shown, but a detailed schedule that integrates all external drivers (including operation shutdowns) is needed to better understand the impact on the IARC OTE Building project schedule.

The project should proceed with awarding the contract for the Architect Engineering design work considering the LEED Certification recommendation. The Project Management Group (PMG) should be officially formed and start holding regular meetings, at which the project team should report on their progress on the review recommendations. Additionally, a Director’s Review, similar to this one, should be held in preparation for issuing the RFP for the construction contract.

1.0Introduction

A Director’s Review of the Accelerator Research Center (IARC) Office Technology & Engineering (OTE) Building Project was held on October 13, 2010. The charge included a list of topics and charge questions to be addressed as part of the review. This review also assessed the projects readiness to move forward with the engineering design of the building leading to a request for proposal to be issued for construction of the building.

The first section in this closeout presentation is generally organized by Findings, Comments and Recommendations. Findings are statements of fact that summarize noteworthy information presented during the review. The Comments are judgment statements about the facts presented during the review and are based on reviewers’ experience and expertise. The comments are to be evaluated by the project team and actions taken as deemed appropriate. Recommendations are statements of actions that should be addressed by the project team. The second section has the answers to all of the review charge questions. The last section of this presentation is the Appendices that contain the reference materials for this review. Appendix A shows the charge for this review. The review was conducted per the agenda shown in Appendix B. The review team contact information is listed in Appendix C and the reviewer writing assignments on Appendix D. Review participants are listed in Appendix E.

This closeout presentation is considered the review’s final report. The IARC OTE Building Project is to develop a response to the review recommendations and report on their progress at the Project Management Group (PMG) meetings.

2.0Project Preparedness

2.1Cost and Scope

Findings

The preliminary cost estimate detailed in the CDR for the project identified the construction estimate for the project as $14,056,123 with $2,707,807 in allowances and $1,597,932 in alternate deducts.
The project has accepted all the alternate deducts into the design scope increasing the total construction budget ~$15.6M. The design to cost that will be provided to the A&E has been set at $16M.
The project scope appears to be a straightforward building design with offices, educational and research space for supporting accelerator physics. Integration with the neighboring CDF building has been considered.

Comments

It is difficult to determine if the costs as a whole are adequate due to the project support/management tasks being funded separate and not detailed in this review. It is assumed there is enough funding in place to support the FESS/RBA infrastructure.
No costs are currently associated with risks and incorporated in the project’s contingency. This type of information would be extremely useful in determining future contingency amounts to be carried into the construction phase and what additional scope may be awarded to maximize the building investment.

Recommendations

The use of the DOE escalation rate for FY12 is not a recognized best practice. Facility and construction escalation costs have historically been significantly higher than DOE rates. It is recommended more appropriate escalation rates be used for the cost estimate.
Additional scope items need to be identified, estimated, and prioritized so in the event favorable bids are received during the construction RFP a clear plan is in place for allocating the additional funds.
Project currently plans include continuation of RBA as LEED project manager to insure the project obtains Gold certification. Project should consider assigning responsibility for LEEDs Gold certification as part of the HOK design contract. In the same manner that “design to cost” is a contract requirement, “design to LEEDs Gold” could also be a delivery requirement.

2.2Schedule

Findings

The schedule information presented during the review included the following high level milestones
Engineering Start November 2010
Construction Start November 2011
Construction CompleteMay 2013
Project CompleteSeptember 2013
Several of the detailed construction milestones were shown as TBD and await final design work. A detailed project schedule was not presented.
OTE building construction is shown as twenty months. It is not obvious how this duration incorporates timing of possible accelerator operations and shutdowns.
The State of Illinois Grant has a term of 24 months.

Comments

Without final design work completed and additional A&E involvement, a detailed construction project schedule is not possible.
As of now, the construction schedule and project complete milestone exceeds the 24 month limit on the State Grant. It was commented that getting an extension is possible. Once the final construction schedule is generated, the extension should be requested, if it is required.
The construction schedule could be influenced by the accelerator operations schedule (and vice versa), assuming the Tevatron Run is extended and the construction activity affects CDF or accelerator stability. Interactions with ongoing CDF activity could negatively affect the construction cost and schedule. This activity must be well coordinated.

Recommendations

Create an integrated overall IARC schedule which includes accelerator operation decision points, scheduled shutdowns, the utility upgrade project, and the OTE design and construction schedules.
Review the OTE project schedule to assure that adequate time is included for performing reviews, addressing recommendations and obtaining signoff/approval of final procurement documents.
The impact of vibration due to construction on accelerator operations has not been clearly understood. The committee recommends pre-drilling a prototype casing foundation to measure the impact on operations.
Management and Oversight

Findings

There is an Integrated Project Team (IPT) defined. Most of the positions in it are staffed. The Project Coordinator position is not yet filled. The membership of the PMG has been identified and the charge developed.

Comments

The project team needs to begin to meet and function as an IPT.
The project management has done a good job reaching out to get information from impacted groups at the lab. To ensure that the specifications and boundary conditions for the building contractor are well understood, there needs to be more formal involvement from CDF and AD.

Recommendations

There should be CDF and AD people on the IPT.
Retain the Project Managers control over change to a reasonable level, and make the PMG function as the change control board for larger changes. This eliminates the separate change control board and removes the need to check with the PMG for changes that require broader consideration.
Project management should convene a working group or mini-review where operations experts can work with the FESS to ensure the proposed building construction steps fit the schedule and minimally impact operations, e.g. CDF, TD, Road D, fire response, etc.
There should be a review prior to submitting an RFP for the construction contract to ensure that the cost, schedule and interface conditions are well understood.

3.0Charge Questions

3.1Does the Project Plan for the OTE exist and is it adequate for the management of the project?

The Project Plan exists. As yet, it does not have signoff/approval. The overall outline of the Project Plan seems appropriate. The committee was not able to review the Project Plan in any detail.

3.2Is a Project management team in place and adequate?

The project has identified most of the critical personnel in the IPT and project management group. There is still a need to identify a construction coordinator. Domain experts from CDF and AD should be added.

3.3The OTE project team envisions engaging a new large Architectural and Engineering firm to provide detailed Engineering Design of the OTE building. Is a plan in place to insure continuity from the RBA provided CDR to the engineered building design and construction? Is the project ready to proceed to is issue a purchase order for the engineering design work?

Yes, the CDR and associated documentation is at the appropriate level of detail to issue to an A&E firm to begin final design activities. It is unclear if the plan is appropriate to proceed further into construction as much of this is based on the final design, schedule and coordination issues (e.g. accelerator shut downs at CDF).

FESS’s use of RBA in a staff augmentation role is appropriate to ensure continuity with design decisions made early in the project are not lost when the A&E firm takes the lead. This is especially important due to the large number of stakeholders and communication channels that exist internal to the project and external as part of the separate Industrial Areas Site Upgrades project efforts.

3.4Is there a cost estimate for the OTE construction and is it sound for this stage of design? Is there an adequate plan for verification of this estimate?

Yes, a bottoms-up cost estimate was developed at the Preliminary level that is appropriate for this stage in the design. A separate A&E firm will develop their own cost estimate as part of the scope of work for completing the final design. Prior to start of final design, the selected A&E firm is required to “buy in” with the current design estimate and if applicable identify areas of the estimate that are in question/disagreement.

3.5Is there a project schedule that is appropriately structured with milestones to monitor progress and is the schedule duration appropriate for this stage of the project?

During the presentation some high level milestones were presented although some of the detailed dates were still TBD. It was commented that a project schedule exists which incorporates the utility upgrade work and the present form of the OTE design and construction schedule. However, this schedule file was not fully presented during the review. The actual building construction time of twenty months seems adequate. At this point, the committee cannot comment of the accuracy of the detailed schedule but overall the timing within the high level schedule looks adequate.

3.6Is there a plan in place for technical and financial reporting to the state?

The project has developed a method for developing and delivering reports to the state in the formats required. This is an added layer of reporting required from the construction contractor and the project plans to include this requirement when issuing the construction contract.

3.7Have the risks associated with the OTE building construction (technical, financial, and schedule) and operations been identified? Is there a reasonable plan to mitigate these risks?

Wetland and soil condition issues are being addressed by FESS adequately.

The financial risks are being addressed by limiting the scope of work and add-ons that will fit the allocated budget as well as the bid price.

The schedule impact risks are being addressed separately.

We agree that the other eight risks, that have been identified, are low level risks which include unknown existing conditions and wetland issues.

3.8Is a scheme in place for contingency management that will deliver a “finished” building with the “most bricks and mortar” with State funds ($ 20 M) + DOE provided “backstop” funds ($ 2 M)?

“Budget” is currently defined as the $16M construction budget. The project has identified scope contingency of minus 20% and addition of 10% based on the initial construction budget of $14M. The scope contingency will be integrated into the construction contract as add or deduct options.

The project has not fully developed the additional scope items to maximize bricks and mortar based on the current construction budget in the event of a favorable bid environment. This should be completed as design progresses.

3.9Is there a plan for change control and contingency management?

There is a plan for change control using a Change Control Board (CCB) and there was scope contingency identified if the overall cost is too high. The membership of the CCB should be reviewed to assure that accelerator and CDF experiment concerns and constraints and are adequately represented. The possible application and timing of contingency usage needs better definition and a more detailed scope adjustment plan, particularly if the cost comes in low due to favorable market conditions or when risks are retired.

3.10Have the CDF and accelerator operations issues associated with both the construction of OTE building been identified? Are the technical requirements understood? Are there plans to mitigate these risks?

Some operations issues have been identified, but probably not all. The technical requirements, such as allowable ground vibrations, are probably not quantitatively understood either by the project or by AD and the experiment.

It is recommended that FESS meet with CDF Operations experts to review each utility that will be upgraded to understand the impact of the upgrades on CDF data taking. The impact on existing ES&H procedures will need to be reviewed as well. In addition CDF and AD personnel should be included in the weekly scheduling meetings in order for the operations groups to appropriately prepare for any interruptions.

3.11Have issues related to the eventual D&D of the CDF experiment and refurbishment of the CDF assembly building been included in planning the OTE construction?

Issues of overhead clearance on the west side have been addressed but there are still some issues associated with truck traffic patterns and the west walkway.

3.12Are plans for managing ES&H and QC/QA for the OTE construction in place and adequate?

The presence and participation of the ES&H Coordinator will be sufficient to provide ES&H oversight and advice throughout the project duration.

The GPP model assures that the construction coordinator must be present at the construction site to not only monitor the construction, but also to verify the quality and specifications of construction materials arriving and used for the IARC project.

3.13Is the laboratory’s plan for project over sight via a Project Management group meeting monthly adequate. Is the proposed membership appropriate and complete?

The OTE Project Management Group is a development of the original OTE Working Group. This PMG method has been successfully utilized by Fermi on previous projects. The team should begin regularly scheduled monthly meetings soon.

4.0Appendices

Charge

Agenda

Report Outline and Reviewer Writer Assignments

Reviewers Contact Information

Participant List

Table of Recommendations

Appendix A

Charge