![](media/image1.png){width="2.4583333333333335in" height="1.375in"}

**Value Management**

**BTeV Document \# 3578**

**December 3, 2004**

**Rev. 01**

### 

### 

### 

### Assembled by T. Lackowski 

### **VALUE MANAGEMENT**

![](media/image2.png){width="1.1479166666666667in"
height="0.7361111111111112in"}

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Project Description and Background 3

BTeV VM Program Summary 5

Proposals

WBS 1.0 BTeV Detector 7

1,1 Vertex and Toroidal Magnets and Beam Pipe

> Acquire Vertex Magnet and Toroid Magnet iron

1.2 Pixel Detector

Pixel vs. strip as basic vertex detector concept

Deep submicron vs. military process for readout chips

P-spray vs. p-stop isolation on the sensors

Fuzzy carbon vs. Thermal Pyrolytic Graphite substrate support

LN2 cooling vs. water/glycol or any active coolant

Piezo electric actuators vs. pneumatic or hydraulic driven ones

Titanium sublimation pumps vs. liquid helium cryo pumps in vacuum system

1.3 RICH

Change in baseline photon detector for gas rich

1.4 EMCAL

Proposal to modify light monitoring pulser

Proposal to modify cell structure for mechanical support.

> 1.8 Trigger
>
> A 2-plane algorithm for the L1 pixel trigger vs. a 3-plane algorithm
>
> An L1 algorithm that does not use "exterior x hits" vs. an algorithm
> that does
>
> An L1 algorithm based on "inner" and "outer" track segments vs.
> continuous pixel-detector tracking
>
> Field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) for pattern recognition vs.
> fixed-point digital signal processors
>
> C code for L1 pixel trigger vs. hand-optimized assembly language
>
> FPGA hash sorting to reduce processing on digital signal processors
> vs. no sorting for track segments
>
> Multiple L1 trigger "highways" vs. monolithic trigger system
>
> Common hardware for L1 muon trigger vs. unique L1 muon trigger design

1.9 Data Acquisition

Pixel and non-Pixel Data Combiner designs were merged.

> Use of commodity computers and networking equipment
>
> Implemented a disk-based data staging system data storage4
>
> Rely on open source software
>
> Moved to a staged schedule with potential to reduce the size of the
> second stage equipment order based on adjustments to the bandwidth
> requirements.
>
> Use of commercial networking equipment and data \"highways\".

WBS 2.0 BTeV Interaction
Region.............................................................18

> C0 IR Lattice
>
> Use existing HTS leads in the C0 IR
>
> WBS 3.0 C0
> Outfitting...........................................................................21

Use of Pond for rejecting heat vs. Air Chiller

> Eliminate the Electronics Bridge and Replace with Bay at Stair #3

##  Value Engineering Proposal Form................................................Attachment 1 

##  **VALUE MANAGEMENT**

**PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND**

## 

**The BTeV Project**

The purpose of the BTeV Project is to design, construct, and install the
BTeV detector, interaction region, and supporting experimental
facilities needed to achieve the physics goals set out in the BTeV
Proposal Update of April 2002. Beginning in CY 1998, an effort has been
underway to carry out conceptual design activities and R&D to be able to
construct this detector. This has resulted in a detailed technical
design, described in the BTeV Detector Technical Design Report. Parallel
efforts to design and specify the components of the Interaction Region,
usually referred to as the "IR", and develop a conceptual design began
in 2000. At the same time a project was initiated to design and specify
the changes that need to be made in and around the C0 interaction region
of the collider to support the BTeV experiment. This activity is
referred to as the "C0 Outfitting' (sub)project. The implementation of
all three of these components, BTeV detector, C0 Interaction Region and
C0 Outfitting is referred to as the "BTeV Project" and is the subject of
this Value Management document.

The principal elements of the BTeV Detector sub-project are:

1.  Modification and installation of an existing analysis magnet,
    construction of two toroids (using existing steel), and construction
    of beam pipes that provide the physical infrastructure of BTeV
    experiment;

2.  Construction of a silicon pixel vertex detector to reconstruct
    primary interaction vertices and secondary decay vertices and which
    can be used in the lowest level trigger of the experiment;

3.  Construction of a Ring Imaging Cherenkov counter (RICH) to provide
    charged hadron identification;

4.  Construction of a high resolution, highly segmented electromagnetic
    calorimeter to reconstruct photons and pi^o^'s;

5.  Construction of a muon detector that can also be used in a
    stand-alone lowest level trigger;

6.  Building of a forward tracker based on straw detector technology
    that covers large angles with respect to the beam and provides
    tracking in the downstream part of the detector and improves the
    momentum measurement obtained from the pixel detector alone;

7.  Building of a forward tracker based on silicon microstrip technology
    that covers small angles with respect to the beam to provide
    tracking in the downstream part of the detector;

8.  Construction of a three level trigger system, including all hardware
    and software, which is highly efficient for a large variety of
    bottom and charm decays and achieves excellent rejection of
    light-quark events;

9.  Building of a data acquisition system and all necessary interfacing
    electronics and software to record all events containing a wide
    variety of bottom and charm decays; and

10. Installation in the C0 collision hall, alignment, integration,
    debugging, and technical commissioning (described below) for all
    components.

The principal elements of the C0 Interaction Region subproject are:

2.0 Construction of a straight section for parasitic testing of BTeV
detector components as they are completed, and installation of the C0
Interaction region to produce high luminosity, 1 to 2x10^32^/cm^2^-s,
which will enable BTeV to achieve its design sensitivity. This requires
the design of a low-beta insertion to have collisions at high luminosity
in the C0 Interaction Region, to construct the components to implement
the design, and to install and commission the components.

The principal elements of the C0 Outfitting subproject are:

3.0 Construction of the architectural finishes, mezzanine structures,
heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC), process piping systems,
and power to support the BTeV detector and upgrade of the C0 Service
Building, including architectural modification, HVAC and power to
support the Interaction Region at C0.

**VALUE MANAGEMENT**

**BTeV VM PROGRAM SUMMARY**

Value Management is organized effort directed at analyzing the functions
of systems, equipment, facilities, services, and supplies for the
purpose of achieving the essential function at the lowest life-cycle
cost consistent with required performance, quality, reliability and
safety. Value Management (VM) utilizes the total resources available to
the BTeV organization to achieve broad, top management objectives. VM is
an integral part of the overall project delivery process and is not a
separate entity. VM is a systematic and creative approach for increasing
the "return on investment" in components, systems, facilities, and other
products required for BTeV. Increased return on investment for BTeV and
DOE results with the lower cost for the acquisition of systems,
equipment, facilities, services, and supplies, while maintaining the
required level of performance. Value Management has been accomplished in
many of the BTeV Detector, C0 Interaction Region and C-0 Occupancy
sub-projects. The function of this document is to collect and record the
various Value Management efforts to date. This document will be updated
to incorporate additional Value Management proposals as they are
developed.

The Level two and Level three managers are responsible for promoting and
performing Value Management at all stages of the design. Task groups or
internal design review provide the stage for the Value Management
process. Collaboration meetings and Tech board meetings are the setting
for analysis of VM proposals. The set points that determine the required
level of approval is that which is described in the Project Management
Plan (PMP) for change control. All change control provisions are to be
strictly adhered to prior to implementing a VE proposal starting with
project baseline approval. The sub-projects studies use the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation, Value
Management, Rev. E, dated June 2003 standard Value Management
methodology, consisting of the phases:

**[Selection Phase:]{.underline}** Elements of sub-projects are
monitored and identified for VM Study.

**[Investigation and Preparation Phase:]{.underline}** Preliminary data
for document preparation and team use is gathered and coordinated with
design, planning, or relevant type of team to ensure study in not
delayed during study dates.

**[Information Phase]{.underline}:** Sub-project teams study criteria,
drawings, figures, descriptions of project work, schedules and cost
estimates to fully understand the work to be performed and the functions
to be achieved. Cost Estimates are compared to determine areas of
relative high cost to ensure that focus is on those parts of the project
that offer the most potential for cost savings.

**[Speculation Phase]{.underline}:** The Sub-project team speculated by
conducting brainstorming sessions to generate ideas for alternative
designs. All team members contributed ideas and critical analysis of the
ideas is discouraged.

**[Analysis Phase]{.underline}:** Evaluation, testing and critical
analysis of all ideas generated during speculation are performed to
determine potential for savings and possibilities for risk. Initial
costs as well as life cycle costs are considered. Ideas are ranked by
priority for development. Ideas which do not survive critical analysis
are deleted.

**[Value Management Proposal]{.underline}:** Ideas are developed into
written proposals by Level 2 or Level 3 managers. Proposal descriptions,
along with sketches, technical support documentation, and cost estimates
are prepared to support implementation of ideas. (See Value Engineering
Proposal Form: Attachment 1)

**[Value Management Presentation]{.underline}**: Proposals are presented
to the sub-project team and incorporated into the work if minor in
nature and the effects are self-contained within the sub-project.
Proposals that affect the baseline or multiple sub-projects are
presented to the Tech Board, the BTeV Collaboration or both. Change
control is enacted whenever required.

**[Implementation & Follow-up Phase:]{.underline}** Using any additional
information from the presentation a final report encompassing the study
team presentation is formulated. This report then becomes part of the
change control process and documentation.

### 

# **BTeV Project Organization, Methods of Value Management**

The BTeV project and collaboration has, from its inception, followed
best management practices. Striving to achieve the core objectives of
Value Management has always been a consistent goal of project and
subproject management. The project has followed a process during the
development of the technical components that conforms to the Value
Management process. The proposal description for the Pixel detector, WBS
1.2, demonstrates how the process has been followed for that
sub-project. Particulars of the Value Management process used in the
various sub-projects differ slightly but follows the overall process
described.

Training

Training Level 2 and / or Level 3 sub-project managers in the Value
Management process and methodologies has been accomplished by the
distribution and discussion of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Management, Budget and Evaluation, Value Management, Rev. E, dated June
2003. Additional training has occurred at collaboration and Tech. Board
meetings.

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL** **WBS:** 1.1 **DATE: Feb, 2000**

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER: Chuck Brown**

**DESCRIPTION**: Acquire Vertex Magnet and Toroid Magnet iron

**ORIGINAL DESIGN:** To purchase new high-quality magnetic iron for the
magnets

**PROPOSED DESIGN:** To reclaim high quality iron from two existing
magnets at Fermilab.

**ADVANTAGES**: Large savings in cost

**DISADVANTAGES:** Need to modify the design to adapt to the sizes of
the existing iron pieces

**JUSTIFICATION**: The large cost savings, the very high quality of the
existing magnet iron, and the relative ease with which the Vertex Magnet
and Toroid Magnet design could be modified to use the existing iron
pieces drive the decision to reuse the existing magnet iron.

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### DELETE                     |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Purchase Vertex Magnet iron    | t   | 340   | \$        | \$3    |
|                                | ons |       | 1,000/ton | 40,000 |
|                                |     |       | machined  |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Purchase Toroid magnet iron    | t   | 720   | \$        | \$7    |
|                                | ons |       | 1,000/ton | 20,000 |
|                                |     |       | machined  |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Purchase Vertex Magnet Coils   | t   | 36    | \$        | \$1    |
|                                | ons |       | 4,000/ton | 44,000 |
|                                |     |       | wound+    |        |
|                                |     |       | Insulated |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\    |
|                                |     |       |           | $1,204 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,000** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD                        |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Disassemble SM3 magnet+Coils   |     |       |           | \$2    |
|                                |     |       |           | 40,000 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Disassemble SM12 magnet and    |     |       |           | \$2    |
| modify iron pieces             |     |       |           | 20,000 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$460 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,000** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # **SAVINGS**                  |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$744 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,000** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

Approved

\_\_\_ Rejected

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSALS

**PROPOSAL** BTeV Pixel Detector Sub-Project **WBS:** 1.2

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER: Simon Kwan**

**DESCRIPTION**: Introduction and History

Value engineering has been the normal practice in developing the pixel
detector for BTeV. Examples of value engineering decisions which have
been made for the pixel detector include

1\. Pixel vs. strip as basic vertex detector concept

2\. Deep submicron vs. military process for readout chips

3\. P-spray vs. p-stop isolation on the sensors

4\. Fuzzy carbon vs. Thermal Pyrolytic Graphite substrate support

5\. LN2 cooling vs. water/glycol or any active coolant

6\. Piezo electric actuators vs. pneumatic or hydraulic driven ones

7\. Titanium sublimation pumps vs. liquid helium cryo pumps in vacuum
system

The methodology used for these decisions passes through the following
phases (taken from guidance on Value Management from the Corps of
Engineers):

1\. Information Phase

This phase was dominated by the development of the specifications for
the pixel detector. These specifications were developed by the
subproject team, using simulation studies to determine the impact on the
physics reach and goals of the experiment.

The performance specifications can be found in the BTeV Document
Database.

2\. Speculation Phase

A first pixel system design was developed and reported upon in
presentations to the full BTeV collaboration and to the wider community
of detector builders and physicists at conferences and publications. A
list of these publications is available on the web at

http://www-btev.fnal.gov/public/hep/detector/pixel/status/pixel_papers.shtml

3\. Analysis Phase

Value engineering was performed by comparing engineering solutions to
the initial design, including considerations of cost, buildability,
reliability, and effect on the physics goals of the experiment.

Those parts of the project with the longest lead times and greatest risk
received earliest attention. These included the development of sensors
and readout chips. Later, attention was focused on the support
structure, cooling, and vacuum systems for the pixel detector.

4\. Value Management Proposal

Significant changes to the initial system design were incorporated only
after extensive discussions in the regular Pixel Group meetings
(by-weekly) and Pixel Mechanical Group meetings (alternate weeks).

5\. Value Management Presentation

Tests of components to see that they met (or where they failed to meet)
specified performance included bench tests of prototypes, irradiation
tests, and beam tests.

Presentations of the results of these tests were presented at the same
meetings discussed above and reported to the collaboration and in
conferences and publications. The presentations are available in the
BTeV Document Database and among the listed publications at the web site
above.

Final acceptance of significant changes from the baseline detector
system (defined by the Preliminary Technical Design Report -- BTeV
Document BTeV-doc-32-v2, Preliminary TDR, 26 Mar 2003) are made only
after presentation to and approval by the BTeV Technical Board.

This process has been followed for the change to the substrate design
and the cooling system.

Continuing Value Engineering Management

The first five issues above have been resolved and taken through the
above value engineering management, and are now part of the pixel
detector system for BTeV, ready for base lining by the Department of
Energy.

As examples, here are representative samples of documentation of the
value engineering process for two of the above engineering issues:

1\. Fuzzy carbon vs. TPG

DESCRIPTION: Pixel station substrate design, material choice and cooling
design.

ORIGINAL DESIGN: Fuzzy carbon with embedded glassy carbon cooling tubes.

PROPOSED DESIGN: TPG substrates using conductive cooling path to LN2
cold blocks.

ADVANTAGES: Simplified mechanical and cooling design. Integration of
cooling system with cryogenic vacuum system. Utilization of materials
known to be able to be manufactured in the required quantities (reduced
technical, cost and schedule risk).

DISADVANTAGES: Major redesign of the pixel mechanical and cooling
systems, materials testing and certification and systems testing are
required. Much of this work remained to be done for the original design
so it is not a large incremental effort. The pixel power (\~3kW) is
removed at 77K rather than \~250K reducing the efficiency of the cooling
system. This has limited impact on the total cost for deployment plus
operational costs over the life of the experiment.

JUSTIFICATION: The original design featured a large number for cooling
channels containing water-based fluids inside the vacuum of the
TeVatron. These glassy carbon tubes were felt to have an unacceptable
probability of failure that could lead to a water to vacuum leak. In
addition it was not clear that the (only) vendor could deliver the
substrates within a reasonable cost and schedule. The new design uses
materials that have been mass-produced for other detector systems,
notably ATLAS, and contains no liquid to vacuum joints. It also takes
advantage of existing infrastructure within the pixel tank, required for
the vacuum system, as a sink to cool the pixels, completely eliminating
the independent cooling system required in the original design.

List of documents:

Substrate RD after Temple (doc-1356)

Advancing the discussion of support/cooling approaches (doc 1368)

Pixel detector support and cooling options worksheet (doc 1381)

A development plan for a TPG/Cold-finger Pixel Substrate (doc 1367)

Update on Pixel TPG substrate development (doc 1415)

Change to TPG substrate (doc 1708 - Presentation to Technical

Board, April 2003)

Cost Estimate:

Fuzzy carbon about \$500K

TPG substrate and post-delivery machining: \$300K

Status: Presented to PAC, Spring 2003 and approved by Technical Board
April 2003

2\. Cooling

Substrate Cooling using controlled flow of LN2 (doc 1359)

LN2 as a substrate coolant: Advantage and Disadvantage (doc 1370)

Comments on water to vacuum joints in Pixel Detector (doc 1366)

ESLI Ovalized dogleg tube panel (doc 1163)

Status: approved at the same time as TPG

The Pixel Group is committed to value engineering of their detector and
will continue to use the value engineering procedures above to resolve
the remaining issues as the final detector design is developed and
implemented.

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL** **WBS:** 1.3 **DATE: February 2004**

**LEVEL 2 MANAGERS: M. Artuso, T. Skwarnicki**

**DESCRIPTION**: Change in baseline photon detector for gas rich

**ORIGINAL DESIGN: 944 HPDs**

**PROPOSED DESIGN: 9016 MaPMTs**

**ADVANTAGES**: Lower cost of MaPMT system due to very unfavorable
exchange rate between EU and USD. In addition this system uses
conventional High Voltage system \[0.6-1 KV\] rather than 20KV. The
higher gain makes the noise requirements in the front-end electronics
easier to meet. The geometry allows the use of conventional PCBs to host
the front-end hybrids.

**DISADVANTAGES:** The higher current draw in the MaPMT bases requires
cooling.

**JUSTIFICATION**: The advantages summarized before lead us to the
implementation of a cheaper system, that reduces the hazards involved in
the design and make the requirements on the front-end electronics more
manageable.

# 

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### DELETE                     | HPD | 944   | 6629      | \$6,2  |
|                                |     |       |           | 57,776 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\    |
|                                |     |       |           | $6,257 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,776** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                          | UNIT  | QTY  | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                               |       |      | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD                       | MaPMT | 9016 | 534       | \$4,8  |
|                               |       |      |           | 14,544 |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+
|                               |       |      |           |        |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                  |       |      |           | **\    |
|                               |       |      |           | $4,814 |
|                               |       |      |           | ,544** |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+
|                               |       |      |           |        |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+
| ###                           |       |      |           |        |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+
|                               |       |      |           |        |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+
| # **SAVINGS**                 |       |      |           | **\    |
|                               |       |      |           | $1,443 |
|                               |       |      |           | ,232** |
+-------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

[X]{.underline} Approved

Rejected

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL** BTeV EMCAL Sub-Project **WBS:** 1.4 **DATE:** 11/03/2004

# 

# LEVEL 2 MANAGER: **Yuichi Kubota** 

**DESCRIPTION**: Proposal to modify light monitoring pulser

**ORIGINAL DESIGN**: Laser pulser

**PROPOSED DESIGN:** LED pulser

**ADVANTAGES**: cheaper, more stable both in pulse heights and timing,
low maintenance, long lifetime, ease of controlling pulse heights, not
coherent (coherent light in this application causes problem because it
is very sensitive to interference and lead to unstable light intensity
at crystals)

**DISADVANTAGES:** intensity tends to be lower than laser, but recent
development of high-intensity LED's, particularly in the blue region, is
sufficient to use them in our application. We will need 4 pulsers. The
wavelength cannot be shorter than 360 nm, but this is short enough for
us.

**JUSTIFICATION**:

The advantages of LED provide a possibility to build cheaper, robust,
more manageable EMCAL monitoring system. This means more precise
control/correction of the EMCAL properties. The system consists of 4
pulsers which makes a fiber distribution simpler and cheaper

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### DELETE                     |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Laser system (Nd:YLF pump      |     | 2     | 175,000   | \$3    |
| laser +                        |     |       |           | 50,000 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| tunable Ti:S laser)            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| 10 years extended service      |     | 1     | 98.000    | \$     |
|                                |     |       |           | 98,000 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$448 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,000** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD                        |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| LED                            |     | 10    | 40        | \$400  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Pulser (electronics +          |     | 4     | 10,500    | \$     |
| mechanics)                     |     |       |           | 42,000 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$42 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,400** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # **SAVINGS**                  |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$405 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,600** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

[x]{.underline} Approved

Rejected

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL** BTeV EMCAL subproject **WBS:** 1.4 **DATE:** 11/03/2004

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER: Yuichi Kubota**

**DESCRIPTION**: Proposal to modify cell structure for mechanical
support.

**ORIGINAL DESIGN:** Carbon-fiber structure with 400 μm thickness around
all sides of the crystals.

**PROPOSED DESIGN:** Al-strip structure with 300 μm thick between the
crystals for 2 sides,

but for the other 2 sides are 1/3 Al and 2/3 air because strips are much
narrower.

**ADVANTAGES**: 1) cheaper cell structure; 2) less crack thickness
between crystals -- 300 μm vs 400 μm; 3) for 2/3 length of two sides the
air between the crystals rather than any material.

**DISADVANTAGES:** Aluminum is more dense than carbon fiber -- all
together slightly more energy deposit in dead material.

**JUSTIFICATION**: The new cell structure of the mechanical support will
have less crack thickness between the crystals. The overall cost of the
project is significantly reduced.

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### DELETE                     |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                | C   | 1     | 40        | \$4    |
|                                | ell | 0,000 |           | 00,000 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$400 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,000** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD                        | e   | 1     | 79153     | \$     |
|                                | ach |       |           | 79,153 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$79 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,153** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # **SAVINGS**                  |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$320 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,847** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

[x]{.underline} Approved

Rejected

1.8 VALUE ENGINEERING OVERVIEW

Value engineering has been a normal practice in the development of the
BTeV trigger system (WBS 1.8). Many examples of WBS 1.8 value
engineering predate the practice of using detailed cost estimates to
compare original designs to proposed new designs. For these design
changes detailed physics simulations and simple cost-benefit analyses
supported the decision making process. Examples of value engineering
decisions that have been made for the trigger system include the
following:

1.  A 2-plane algorithm for the L1 pixel trigger vs. a 3-plane algorithm

2.  An L1 algorithm that does not use "exterior x hits" vs. an algorithm
    that does

3.  An L1 algorithm based on "inner" and "outer" track segments vs.
    continuous pixel-detector tracking

4.  Field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) for pattern recognition vs.
    fixed-point digital signal processors

5.  C code for L1 pixel trigger vs. hand-optimized assembly language

6.  FPGA hash sorting to reduce processing on digital signal processors
    vs. no sorting for track segments

7.  Multiple L1 trigger "highways" vs. monolithic trigger system

8.  Common hardware for L1 muon trigger vs. unique L1 muon trigger
    design

The methodology that was used to guide the decision making process was
based on the following phases:

1\. Information Phase

The information phase was dominated by the requirements for the BTeV
trigger system. These requirements were developed by the subproject team
after performing extensive simulations to explore the physics reach and
goals of the experiment. The trigger requirements document can be found
in the BTeV Document Database (#878).

2\. Speculation Phase

The speculation phase entailed a baseline design that satisfied the
requirements for the trigger system. The baseline design was presented
to the full BTeV Collaboration, presented to physicists at conferences
and in publications, and was reviewed by a technical review committee
for the Fermilab PAC.

3\. Analysis Phase

Value engineering was performed by comparing detailed results from
simulations for proposed design changes to results obtained for the
baseline design. Value engineering considerations were based on cost,
available expertise, reliability, schedule risk, and the physics goals
of the experiment.

4\. Value Management Proposal

Value management proposals were included as changes to the trigger
design only after extensive discussions of simulation results in weekly
Trigger Group meetings had taken place.

5\. Value Management Presentation

Simulation results provide the cornerstone for value management. These
results include simulations of physics states that are vital to the
experiment, trigger performance simulations, pixel noise and
inefficiency simulations, data-flow simulations and queuing studies.

Presentations of results were presented at weekly Trigger Group
meetings, BTeV Collaboration meetings, at conferences and in
publications. The presentations are available in the BTeV Document
Database. Final acceptances of design changes that deviate from the
baseline design are made only after presentation to and approval by the
BTeV Technical Board.

Our most recent change to the baseline design is presented as an example
in the following proposal:

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL:** Commodity processors and networking equipment **WBS:** 1.8

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER:** Erik Gottschalk

**DESCRIPTION:** The original design had custom hardware for two of
three major subsystems in the L1 pixel trigger. For the proposed design
we replace the custom hardware with commodity hardware. The original
design was based on Texas Instruments digital signal processors (DSPs)
to perform trigger calculations, and a custom designed switch that was
used to route data to the DSPs. In the proposed design the DSPs are
replaced with Apple G5 processors, and the custom switch is replaced
with an Infiniband switch to route data to the G5 processors. The
proposed design includes additional changes for the L1 muon trigger and
Global Level 1 (GL1) trigger to match the changes made to the L1 pixel
trigger.

**ORIGINAL DESIGN:** Custom L1 switch and custom farm processors.

**PROPOSED DESIGN:** Commercial networking switch and commodity farm
processors.

**ADVANTAGES:** Use of commodity processors and networking equipment in
the L1 trigger reduces cost, eliminates design effort for custom
hardware, and offers a programming environment that is easier and less
costly to master for software developers working on L1 trigger
algorithms and L1 control and monitoring software.

**DISADVANTAGES:** The commodity hardware requires more power than the
custom hardware, and requires additional cooling.

**JUSTIFICATION:** Reduced development cost, reduced labor resources,
and reduced schedule risk.

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### DELETE                     |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### L                          | e   | 1     | 7,302K    | \$     |
| 1 trigger with custom hardware | ach |       |           | 7,302K |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$7, |
|                                |     |       |           | 302K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD                        |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### L1 t                       | e   | 1     | 7,062K    | \$     |
| rigger with commodity hardware | ach |       |           | 7,062K |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$7, |
|                                |     |       |           | 062K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # **SAVINGS**                  |     |       |           | **\$   |
|                                |     |       |           | 240K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

[X]{.underline} Approved

Rejected

1.9 VALUE ENGINEERING OVERVIEW

**DESCRIPTION**:

In WBS 1.9, the cost savings fall mainly under the category of \"cost
avoidance\". The following design decisions were made at various stages
of development with the goal of reducing costs.

The Pixel and non-Pixel Data Combiner designs were merged, resulting in
a reduction in design labor costs. The pre-pilot Level 1 Buffer and
Timing systems are now based on work done for the TeVatron IPM and BPM
projects, respectively. This reduces the number of design cycles from
three to two for these subprojects. Changes in packaging and
implementation have reduced costs by 30% for the Level 1 Buffers. We
plan extensive use of built-in test methodologies to reduce the number
of dedicated test stands and test labor. Commodity computers and
networking equipment are used wherever possible, and purchases of these
items are delayed to maximize performance/cost. We will also rely on
open source software (operating systems and databases) where possible. A
disk-based data staging system will allow reuse of the Level 2/3
processors during off-peak operation. The crossover point in the cost of
optical storage vs. magnetic tape is occurring now, so we will base the
choice of permanent storage technology on the results of this
transition. For each software subproject, we review existing
implementations for reuse.

The following example details the change from a data network based on
custom switching modules to one based on commercial Gigabit Ethernet.
This change required a modification to the general architecture to
increase the average packet size and reduce the packet rate. At the time
the system was originally designed, the cost of Gigabit Ethernet was
comparable to the custom switch solution, but anticipated price declines
have resulted in significant savings in both material and development
costs.

The new \"highway\" architecture has some additional cost benefits not
listed here. In particular, it simplifies staging of the DAQ and Trigger
systems. Since each \"highway\" is an independent fully functional data
acquisition/trigger system, we can now measure the actual data rate
requirements in the first stage of operation and adjust the number of
components per highway when placing orders for the second stage.

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL:** Data Network **WBS:** 1.9

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER:** Votava

**DESCRIPTION:** Use of commercial networking equipment and data
\"highways\". Commercial networking is more efficient when processing
larger data packets and lower packet rates, and the \"highway\"
architecture provides a factor of 8 improvement in each of these
parameters.

**ORIGINAL DESIGN:** Custom switch, single large network.

**PROPOSED DESIGN:** Commercial networking (Gigabit Ethernet) and 8
independent datapaths.

**ADVANTAGES:** Eliminates the design cost associated with special
purpose network hardware. Simplifies design of other readout and trigger
components.

**DISADVANTAGES:** Some decrease in data routing/balancing capability
(not significant).

**JUSTIFICATION:** Reduced development cost and schedule.

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### DELETE                     |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### custom switch modules      | e   | 32    | 8K        | \$256K |
|                                | ach |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$   |
|                                |     |       |           | 256K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD                        |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### Gigabit Ethernet switches  | e   | 48    | 600       | \$29K  |
|                                | ach |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\    |
|                                |     |       |           | $29K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # SAVINGS                      |     |       |           | **\$   |
|                                |     |       |           | 227K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

[X]{.underline} Approved

Rejected

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL** C0 IR Lattice **WBS:** 2.0 **DATE: 7/27/04**

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER: Mike Church**

**DESCRIPTION**: Proposal to modify the C0 IR lattice insertion. Full
documentation is in btev-doc-3230.

**ORIGINAL DESIGN: Original design produced a first parasitic beam-beam
crossing separation of 3.5 beam 's. It utilized 2 types of X2 spools
(right and left).**

**PROPOSED DESIGN: The proposed design produces a first parasitic
beam-beam crossing separation of 6.5 beam 's. It utilizes 1 type of X2
spool. Magnetic elements are rearranged slightly.**

**ADVANTAGES**: 1) Larger beam-beam separation produces a more
dynamically stable lattice. 2) Reduced number of spool types reduces the
number of required spare spools by 1. 3) Rearrangement of magnetic
devices reduces the total cost of non-magnetic cryogenic devices.

**DISADVANTAGES: None**

**JUSTIFICATION**: The more dynamically stable lattice will yield
improved luminosity lifetimes in the Tevatron, increasing BTeV
integrated luminosity. The overall project cost is reduced.

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET (includes Project and Spares costs; includes M&S and Labor; includes G&A)

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (K\$)     | (K\$)  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| HTS leads                      | p   | 14    | 150       | 2100   |
|                                | air |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| corrector packages             | e   | 20    | 75        | 1500   |
|                                | ach |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| spool assemblies               | e   | 15    | 359       | 5385   |
|                                | ach |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| nonmagnetic cryogenic elements | e   | 9     | variable  | 1267   |
|                                | ach |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$10 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,252** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (K\$)     | (K\$)  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| HTS leads                      | p   | 13    | 150       | 1950   |
|                                | air |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| corrector packages             | e   | 18    | 75        | 1350   |
|                                | ach |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| spool assemblies               | e   | 14    | 359       | 5026   |
|                                | ach |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| nonmagnetic cryogenic elements | e   | 7     | variable  | 1196   |
|                                | ach |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$9  |
|                                |     |       |           | ,522** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # SAVINGS                      |     |       |           | **\$   |
|                                |     |       |           | 739K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS: The proposal is fully documented in btev-doc-3276 and
btev-doc-3230. It has been reviewed and approved up to and including the
FNAL Directorate in accordance with the BTeV Project Change Control
procedures outlined in the BTeV PMP. Cost and schedule details have been
fully incorporated into the C0 IR WBS. Technical details have been fully
incorporated into the C0 IR TDR.**

Pending Review

[x]{.underline} Approved

\_ Rejected

**VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL**

**PROPOSAL** Use existing HTS leads in the C0 IR **WBS:** 2.0 **DATE:
8/21/04**

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER:** Mike Church

**DESCRIPTION**: There are 7 HTS lead pairs in the FNAL/TD Special
Process Spares pool. These were previously tested at 6 kA. We have
recently successfully tested one of these pairs at 10 kA, therefore we
deem them suitable for use in the C0 IR.

**ORIGINAL DESIGN:** 13 new 10 kA HTS lead pairs would be purchased from
a vendor.

**PROPOSED DESIGN:** 6 new 10 kA HTS lead pairs will be purchased from a
vendor. 7 existing lead pairs will be purchased from the FNAL/TD Special
Process Spares pool at a reduced price and operated at 10 kA.

**ADVANTAGES**: Reduced cost. Additional float in the schedule

**DISADVANTAGES:** None

**JUSTIFICATION**: An existing 6 kA lead pair was successfully tested at
10 kA under controlled conditions equivalent to Tevatron operating
conditions. Also a 6 kA lead pair previously installed in an H-spool
underwent limited tests at 9.6 kA successfully. On the basis of these
tests we are confident that the lead pairs previously tested at 6 kA can
be operated successfully at 10 kA. This will reduce overall project cost
and increase the schedule float for this item.

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET (includes Project and Spares costs; includes M&S and Labor; includes G&A)

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (K\$)     | (K\$)  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| new HTS leads                  | p   | 13    | 150       | 1950   |
|                                | air |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$1, |
|                                |     |       |           | 950K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (K\$)     | (K\$)  |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| new HTS leads                  | p   | 6     | 150       | 900    |
|                                | air |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| existing HTS leads             | p   | 7     | 104       | 728    |
|                                | air |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | **\$1, |
|                                |     |       |           | 628K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # SAVINGS                      |     |       |           | **\$   |
|                                |     |       |           | 322K** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS: Tests of existing HTS leads has been documented in an
internal TD note. The new cost and schedule details have been fully
incorporated into the C0 IR WBS. The review process is complete at the
L2 Manager level.**

Pending Review

[x]{.underline} Approved Via L2 Manager

Rejected

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL** **WBS:** [3.0]{.underline} **DATE:**[Oct 8 to 10 2003*(See
Note 1*]{.underline}*)*

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER:** [T.Lackowski]{.underline}

**DESCRIPTION**: [Use of Pond for rejecting heat vs. Air
Chiller]{.underline}

**ORIGINAL DESIGN:** [Air-cooled Chiller]{.underline}

# **PROPOSED DESIGN**: [Use Pond Water/ICW]{.underline}

**ADVANTAGES**: [Lab Use in other areas / Typically good life cycle cost
based on past project but typically high first cost. *(note
3)*]{.underline}

**DISADVANTAGES:** [Will require additional space for strainers, heat
exchangers and pumps, and high first cost]{.underline}

**JUSTIFICATION**: [N/A: *Note 1 (Initial cost during Oct 10 2003
included items that were eventually deleted or removed from WBS scope,
such as LCW, ECW and various back up equipment)*]{.underline}

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### Convert Air sy             | 1   | LOT   | \$702,062 | \$7    |
| stem rejection to water cooled |     |       |           | 02,062 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$702 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,062** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD ICW sys                | 1   | LOT   | \$870,306 | \$8    |
| tem for chiller & Free Cooling |     |       |           | 70,306 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| & convert heat rejection to    |     |       |           |        |
| water cooled                   |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$870 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,306** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # SAVINGS (1^st^ cost on       |     |       |           | **\    |
| ly --[see note 3]{.underline}) |     |       |           | $(168, |
|                                |     |       |           | 244**) |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

Note 3 (During the development of this ICW option, it became apparent
that the space will be a major issue for the pond/ICW option. Because of
this, we did not continue pursuing the life cycle cost, or any other
related item, beyond the cost estimate)

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

Approved

[**X**]{.underline} Rejected

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL** **WBS:** 3.0

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER:** Lackowski

**DESCRIPTION**: Eliminate the Electronics Bridge and Replace with Bay
at Stair #3

**ORIGINAL DESIGN:** The original design erected a two-story space
spanning across the high bay directly over the rolling door leading to
the Collision Hall. The space was a long inflexible space. The
Electronics Bridge restrained the crane travel.

**PROPOSED DESIGN:** The proposed design takes advantage of the footings
installed in the original construction and constructs a 25' x 25' bay
off the northeast corner of the building. One story, and three story
bays were examined (425 net sf per floor additional space 625sf minus
the 200sf originally planned to construct stair. )

**ADVANTAGES**: The construction of the Electronics Bridge required
difficult and specialized construction. By adding the space in a
standard 25' x 25' bay allows for flexibility for rack and tech space
layout. The three-story space allows for expansion of the number of
racks without exceeding 8kw per rack and thus not requiring specialized
cooling. The proposed required stair and the existing foundations
provide economies of design. Cable lengths have been studied with a very
slight increase in total length of cable.

**DISADVANTAGES:** A three-story bay provides a minor amount of space
that is at this time not programmed. The cost for the three-story bay is
slightly above the original base cost but is extremely cost effective
and provides a modest amount of space for expansion. A one or two story
bay would be extremely difficult to expand at a later date, thus pushing
towards a three-story solution.

**JUSTIFICATION**: The proposed space is flexible, of standard
construction providing value to the government.

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### DELETE                     |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Electronic bridge              | Lot | 1     | \$110,234 | \$1    |
|                                |     |       |           | 10,234 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$110 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,234** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD                        |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| Three Story Proposal           | 1   | Lot   | \$135,074 | \$1    |
|                                |     |       |           | 35,074 |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           | *      |
|                                |     |       |           | *\$135 |
|                                |     |       |           | ,074** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # **SAVINGS**                  |     |       |           | **     |
|                                |     |       |           | (\$24, |
|                                |     |       |           | 840)** |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

[X]{.underline} Approved

Rejected

![](media/image3.png){width="5.995833333333334in"
height="4.7444444444444445in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="7.326388888888889in"}

![](media/image5.png){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="6.613888888888889in"}

Attachment 1

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL

**PROPOSAL** **WBS:** **DATE:**

**LEVEL 2 MANAGER:**

**DESCRIPTION**:

**ORIGINAL DESIGN:**

**PROPOSED DESIGN:**

**ADVANTAGES**:

**DISADVANTAGES:**

**JUSTIFICATION**:

# COST ESTIMATING WORKSHEET

## ORIGINAL DESIGN

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### DELETE                     |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

## PROPOSED CHANGE

+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ITEM                           | U   | QTY   | UNIT COST | TOTAL  |
|                                | NIT |       | (\$)      | (\$)   |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ### ADD                        |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| **SUBTOTAL**                   |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| ###                            |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
|                                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+
| # TOTAL SAVINGS                |     |       |           |        |
+--------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+--------+

**PROPOSAL STATUS:**

Pending Review

Approved

Rejected