doe/sc cd-1 review...project project project project project project submit approved cd or...

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

DOE/SC CD-1 Reviewof the

Integrated Engineering Research Center

(IERC) Project

Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryFebruary 7-9, 2017

Ethan Merrill

Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/


OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

2

Deliverables – Due Dates

• Closeout report (prepared in PowerPoint)

• Presented Thursday, February 9

• Instructions—slide 12

• Template—slide 14

• Final report draft (prepared in MS Word)

• Due Monday, February 13 to Casey

([email protected])

• Instructions—slide 13

mailto:[email protected]

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

3

DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA

Tuesday, February 7, 2017—Comitium (WH2SE)

8:30 a.m. DOE Executive Session E. Merrill

8:35 a.m. Program Perspective G. Brown

8:45 a.m. Federal Project Director Perspective S. Neus

8:55 a.m. Questions

9:00 a.m. Adjourn

DOE Executive Session

Project and review information is available at:

https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/organization/os/FESS/ierc/SitePages/CD-1%20IPR.aspx

Username: IERC-CD1 Password: Fermilab2017

https://fermipoint.fnal.gov/organization/os/FESS/ierc/SitePages/CD-1 IPR.aspx

OFFICE OF

SCIENCEReview Committee

Participants

4

Ethan Merrill, DOE/SC, Chairperson

Review Committee

Subcommittee 1: Technical and ES&H

*Marty Fallier, BNL

Ben Maxwell, LBNL

Bill Rainey, TJNAF

Subcommittee 2: Cost and Schedule

*Jerry Kao, DOE/ASO

Jason Budd, ANL

Subcommittee 3: Project Management

*Steve Cannella, BNL

Gary Bloom, ORNL

*Lead

Observers

Stephanie Short, DOE/SC

Gary Brown, DOE/SC

Steve Neus, DOE/FSO

Mike Fenn, DOE/PM

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

5

CD-1

Delegation Allowed

S-4 SC-1 SC-1 SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD

Approve Acquisition StrategyReviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-1

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-1

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-2

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-AD

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-AD

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-AD

Approve Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP) S-4 Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-1

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-2

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-AD

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-AD

Reviewed by SC-28

Approved by SC-AD

Appointment of the Federal Project Director (FPD) S-4 SC-1 SC-1 SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD

Approve Integrated Project Team (IPT) S-4 SC-1 SC-2 SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD

Develop a Risk Management Plan Project Project Project Project Project Project

Comply with the One-for-One Building Space Replacement Project Project Project Project Project Project

Complete a Conceptual Design Project Project Project Project Project Project

Document High Perf. & Sustainable Bldg. & Sustainable

Env. Stewardship considerationsProject Project Project Project Project Project

Conduct a Conceptual Design Review Team external to project Team external to project Team external to project Team external to project Team external to project Team external to project

Complete a Conceptual Design Report Project Project Project Project Project Project

Prepare a Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab

Develop and Implement an Integrated Safety Management

PlanSite Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab

Establish Preliminary Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab

Identify general Safeguards and Security requirements for

the recommended alternativeSite Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab

Complete National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)Strategy by issuing a determination (i.e., EIS, EA)Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab Site Office or Lab

Conduct Independent Project Review or External

Independent Review

ICE or ICR by PM

& SC-28

ICE or ICR by PM

& SC-28

ICE or ICR by APM

with SC-28SC-28

SC-28

Tailored

SC-28

Tailored

Update PDS, or other funding documents for MIE and OE

projects, and OMB 300s, if applicable.SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD

Hazard Cat. 1,2,3 Nuclear Facility--Update Safety Design

Strategy (SDS)

SBAA & FPD, w/ CNS or

CDNS concurrence, as

appropriate



appropriate



appropriate



appropriate



appropriate



appropriate

Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, conduct an

Independent Project Review (IPR)PSO PSO PSO PSO PSO PSO

Hazard Cat. 1,2,3 Nuclear Facility--Prepare a Conceptual

Safety Design Report (CSDR)SBAA via the CSVR SBAA via the CSVR SBAA via the CSVR SBAA via the CSVR SBAA via the CSVR SBAA via the CSVR

Hazard Cat. 1,2,3 Nuclear Facility--Prepare Conceptual

Safety Validation Report (CSVR)SBAA SBAA SBAA SBAA SBAA SBAA

Hazard Cat. 1,2,3 Nuclear Facility--Initiate a Code of

RecordProject Project Project Project Project Project

Submit approved CD or equivalent documents to APM SC-28 SC-28 SC-28 SC-28 SC-28 SC-28

Allow expenditure of PED, MIE OR OE funds for project

design. Project Project Project Project Project Project

Submit budget request for the remainder of TPC if CD-2 is

approved w/i 1 year of OMB submissionSC-AD SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD SC-AD

Update PARS II with monthly statusProg. Mgr. & FPD

No Earned Value (EV)

Prog. Mgr. & FPD


Prog. Mgr. & FPD


Prog. Mgr. & FPD


Prog. Mgr. & FPD


Prog. Mgr. & FPD


Continue with Monthly or Quarterly Project

Reporting/Meeting

SC-AD

Invite SC-1 and SC-28

SC-AD

Invite SC-1 and SC-28

SC-AD

Invite SC-2 and SC-28SC-AD to invite SC-28 SC-AD to invite SC-28 SC-AD to invite SC-28

Develop an Acquisition Plan if applicable

Hazard Cat. 1,2,3 Nuclear Facility--Develop a Checkout,

Testing & Commissioning Plan Project Project Project Project Project Project

PO

ST

CD

-1

CD-1--APPROVE ALTERNATIVE SELECTION AND

COST RANGE

PR

IOR

TO

CD

-1--

CO

NC

EP

TU

AL

DE

SIG

N

TOTAL PROJECT COST (TPC) $750M or more Less than $750M to $400M Less than $400M to $100M Less than $100M to $50M* Less than $50M* to $20M Less than $20M to $10M**

DECISION / REQUIREMENTS1 / APPROVAL2

Nu

cle

ar

Fa

cili

tyN

ucl

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

6

SC Organization

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

7

Charge Questions

1. Have performance requirements been appropriately and sufficiently defined for this stage of

the project?

2. Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed? Are project risks identified

and has a credible Risk Management Plan been developed?

3. Are the estimated cost and schedule ranges supporting the most likely alternatives credible and

realistic for this stage of the project? Are scope, cost, and schedule contingency amounts

adequate? Are there sufficient scope trade-offs and building attributes to be provided to the

building designers to accommodate either bids greater than the estimate or less than the

estimate?

4. Is the project being appropriately managed? Is the Integrated Project Team established and

functioning?

5. Are environment, safety and health aspects being properly addressed given the project’s

current stage of development? Are Integrated Safety Management principles being followed?

6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Project Execution Plan, and

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report) complete and ready for approval? Is the project ready

for CD-1?

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

8

Agenda

Tuesday, February 7, 2017—Comitium (WH2SE)

8:30 am DOE Full Committee Executive Session ................. E. Merrill/G. Brown/S. Neus

9:00 am Welcome and IERC Project Overview – One West (WH1W)

Welcome and Introductions ........................................................... N. Lockyer

Campus Strategy and IERC Project Overview ............................ R. Ortgiesen

Science ........................................................................................ E. Gottschalk

10:00 am Break—One West (WH1W)

10:15 am IERC Project

Project Management ............................................................... K. Sienkiewicz

Conceptual Design ............................................................ G. Van Zandbergen

Construction Management ............................................................. D. Pelletier

ESH&Q .............................................................................................. D. Mertz

11:45 am Lunch—2nd Floor Crossover

12:45 pm Reviewer Photo—1st Floor Atrium

2:15 pm Break—Outside Comitium (WH2SE)

1:00 pm Breakout Sessions

Technical and ES&H One East (WH1E)

Cost and Schedule Snake Pit (WH2NE)

Project Management Comitium (WH2SE)

4:30 pm DOE Full Committee Executive Session—Comitium (WH2SE)

5:30 pm Adjourn

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

9

Agenda (cont’d)

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

8:30 am Facility tour: Current Spaces of IERC Program (WH14 and SiDet)

10:00 am Subcommittee Breakout Sessions and Report Writing—Room Assignments Above

12:00 pm Working Lunch—2nd Floor Crossover

1:00 pm Subcommittee Breakout Sessions and Report Writing

2:30 pm Dry Run #1

4:30 pm Coordination with Laboratory/Project Team

5:45 pm Adjourn

Thursday, February 9, 2017

8:30 am DOE Full Committee Executive Session/Dry Run—Comitium (WH2SE)

11:00 am Closeout Presentation to Fermilab and IERC Management—One West (WH1W)

12:00 pm Adjourn

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

10

Report Outline/Writing

Assignments

Executive Summary/2-Page Summary Report .................................................................... Merrill*

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... Brown*

2. Technical (Charge Questions 1, 2, 6).................................................................... Fallier*/SC1

2.1 Findings

2.2 Comments

2.3 Recommendations

3. Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 3, 6).......................................................... Kao*/SC2

4. Environment, Safety, and Health (Charge Question 5, 6) ................................... Rainey*/SC1

5. Project Management (Charge Questions 2, 4, 6) .............................................. Cannella*/SC3

*Lead

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

11

Closeout Presentation

and Final Report

Procedures

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

12

Format:

Closeout Presentation

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

13

Format:

Final Report

Please Note: Recommendations are approved by the full committee and presented at the review closeout briefing.

Recommendations SHOULD NOT be changed or altered from the closeout report to the Final Report.

(Use MS Word / 12pt Font)

2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list.

2.1.1 Findings – What the project told us

Include a brief narrative description of technical, cost, schedule, management information

provided by the project. Each subcommittee will emphasize their area of responsibility.

2.1.2 Comments – What we think about what the project told us

Descriptive material assessing the findings and making observations and conclusions

based on the findings. The committee’s answer to the charge questions should be

contained within the text of the Comments Section. Do not number your comments.

2.1.3 Recommendations – What we think the project needs to do

1. Beginning with an action verb, provide a brief, concise, and clear statement with a due date.

2.

Cost and schedule subcommittee should provide attachments for approved project cost breakdown and schedule. Management

subcommittee should provide attachment for approved project organization and names of personnel.

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

14

Closeout Report on the

DOE/SC CD-1 Review of the

Integrated Engineering Research Center

(IERC) Project

Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryFebruary 7-9, 2017

Ethan Merrill

Committee Chair

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy



OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

15

2. Technical

M. Fallier, BNL / Subcommittee 1

• Findings

• Comments

• Recommendations

1. Have performance requirements been appropriately and sufficiently

defined for this stage of the project?

2. Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed? Are

project risks identified and has a credible Risk Management Plan been

developed?

6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Project

Execution Plan, and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report) complete and

ready for approval? Is the project ready for CD-1?

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

16

3. Cost and Schedule

J. Kao, DOE/ASO / Subcommittee 2

• Findings

• Comments

• Recommendations

2. Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed? Are

project risks identified and has a credible Risk Management Plan been

developed?

3. Are the estimated cost and schedule ranges supporting the most likely

alternatives credible and realistic for this stage of the project? Are scope,

cost, and schedule contingency amounts adequate? Are there sufficient

scope trade-offs and building attributes to be provided to the building

designers to accommodate either bids greater than the estimate or less than

the estimate?

6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Project

Execution Plan, and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report) complete and

ready for approval? Is the project ready for CD-1?

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

17

3. Cost and ScheduleJ. Kao, DOE/ASO / Subcommittee 2

PROJECT STATUS

Project Type MIE / Line Item / Cooperative Agreement

CD-1 Planned: Actual:




TPC Percent Complete Planned: _____% Actual: _____%

TPC Cost to Date

TPC Committed to Date

TPC

TEC

Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve) $ _____% to go

Contingency Schedule on CD-4b ______months _____%

CPI Cumulative

SPI Cumulative

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

18

4. Environment, Safety, and HealthB. Rainey, TJNAF / Subcommittee 1

5. Are environment, safety and health aspects being properly addressed

given the project’s current stage of development? Are Integrated

Safety Management principles being followed?

6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary

Project Execution Plan, and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report)

complete and ready for approval? Is the project ready for CD-1?

• Findings

• Comments

• Recommendations

OFFICE OF

SCIENCE

19

5. ManagementS. Cannella, BNL / Subcommittee 3

2. Has a credible and sufficient alternatives analysis been performed?

Are project risks identified and has a credible Risk Management Plan

been developed?

4. Is the project being appropriately managed? Is the Integrated

Project Team established and functioning?

6. Are project documents (e.g., Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary

Project Execution Plan, and Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report)

complete and ready for approval? Is the project ready for CD-1?

• Findings

• Comments

• Recommendations

doe/sc cd-1 review...project project project project project project submit approved cd or...

Documents