# Presentation: 860861

## Proton Driver OptionsCost Comparison

**Rich Stanek**
**March 15 , 2005**

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Outline

**Goal of the Comparison**
**History of the Numbers **
**Methodology – Cost Estimating Approach**
**Results – Comparing the Estimates**
**Cost Drivers**
**Observations – Contingency & Range of Values**
**Conclusions**

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Goal of the Comparison

**Provide a **_**fair and consistent**_** cost comparison between the Linac and Synchrotron PD options**
- _Independent_ of technical or physics related issues
- _Consistent_ level of estimation and detail for each option
- Use the same labor rates, $/sf for buildings and data format/cost roll up
- Assemble a _reasonable_ level of back up documentation 	(Basis of Estimate) for both cost estimates
- Understand the “Range of Values” for the cost of a PD
- Provide the starting point/basis for the final PD cost estimate
- 	NOTE: Costs are shown in FY04 dollars and without G&A charges unless specifically noted
- 	G&A and Contingency are added at the highest level

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## History of the Numbers (Synchrotron)

**PD I Study done for a 16 GeV Proton Driver (2000)**
**PD II Study reduced the energy to 8 GeV and added a SC Linac option (2002)**
**Much of the PD II Sync cost estimate was scaled from the original PD I numbers but then adjusted to include a replacement of the existing Front End Linac ****(Director’s Charge Letter)**
**Familiarity of FNAL personnel with building synchrotron machines and how things scale, helped this estimate maintain its accuracy**
**	****The Synchrotron cost estimate has not had the same level of recent cost peer review nor working group participation as has the Linac cost estimate**
**	****(Synchrotron technical design has been reviewed) **

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## History of the Numbers (Linac)

**Linac option’s initial cost estimate relied heavily on scaling from TESLA and SNS numbers with appropriate modification for technical differences**
**As a core project team was formed, the Linac estimate was further refined and developed by forming Working Groups and performing cost exercises ****(ex. Civil Working Group => meets weekly and cryomodule cost estimate exercise => resulted in RFQ)**
**Experience based on FNAL/TESLA/SNS actuals was used where applicable**

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Cost Estimating Approach

**Take a conservative approach to estimating the costs of the PD (defendable numbers) **
**Cost estimators started out with the knowledge that an overall contingency was going to be added to the entire project cost (30% across the board)=> some subsystems added scope contingency as part of their input estimates**
**Cost estimates cover components up to and including injection into the Main Injector.  **
**Cost of the Main Injector Upgrades (ex. RF Upgrades) was not included in either cost estimate**** **
**Assumption is that as the PD project moves forward and detail designs are further developed it will go through a “Value Engineering” stage where technical/cost trade-offs will be evaluated and a true contingency and risk matrix will be adopted **

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Maintaining the Accuracy

**Each option had a primary contact**
- Synchrotron => Weiren Chou
- Linac => Bill Foster
**This allowed for a reasonable level of “checks and balances” in the comparison effort**
**Tried to use the same people to make estimates for both systems (where applicable)**

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Methodology

**Evaluate documentation that was compiled for the PD II Study => the starting point**
**Put both estimates into a common form (Excel) using common costs where possible (labor rates based on TD actual averages and BTeV values)**
**Improve the accuracy of the estimates**
- Look for holes/missing items
- Look for obvious errors in the estimates
- Look for inconsistencies between the two options
**	****=> Led to new estimates for several key components**** **
**Compare the two options (escalate old est. to 2004)**
**Perform reality checks & internal review**

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Cost Comparison - High Level

| (All costs in 2004 K$) | Synchrotron | Linac |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Project M&S* | 157,086 | 229,779 |
| Project SWF | 86,942 | 89,118 |
| Project Subtotal | 244,029 | 318,897 |
| G&A# (16.05% M&S, 30.35% Labor) | 51,599 | 63,927 |
| Project (incl. G&A) | 295,628 | 382,824 |
| Contingency (30%) | 88,688 | 114,847 |
| Total Cost | 384,316 | 497,670 |

- * Most of the initial installation work will be Davis Bacon and shows up as M&S costs
- # G&A rate will be less on large purchasing actions

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Comparing the Estimates

**Civil Construction **
- Both use the same format of estimation (FESS std.)
- Linac is an all new estimate => based on new location
- Includes more detail in terms of exact routing/requirements
- Synchrotron is a mixture of new/old estimates
- Old estimates (2002) were escalated to 2004 $ (using DOE Guidelines)
- Use the same $/sf for new/similar buildings
- Both use construction techniques _very familiar_ to FNAL
- Site choices made to allow ease of accelerator ops and future growth
- Linac option has had external consultant look at feeder req.
- Sync placement is in close proximity to existing infrastructure
- Has both positive and negative implications
- Should make it easier to tap into existing utilities
- May have more of an impact on current operations

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Comparing the Estimates (cont’d)

**Linac/Front End Improvements**
- Both only have high level estimates
- Based on TESLA, SNS, FNAL Linac Upgrade or vendor communication
**Magnets (Main Synchrotron and all transport lines)**
- Both Based on FNAL/TD estimates (using std. methodology which has been accurate in the past) => use current steel and conductor prices
- Sync => R&D of rapid cycling, large aperture magnets not included
- Both assume existing MTF (conventional) is fully operational
**Utilities**
- Linac => new estimate based on conceptual design + FNAL experience
- Sync => scaled from MI actuals/modified using FNAL experience
**Power Supplies & RF Equipment**
- Both based on FNAL experience, purchase orders and vendor quotes
- Linac/Klystrons => uses costs from recent TESLA purchase orders

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Comparing the Estimates (cont’d)

**Cryomodules (Linac)**
- Based on vendor RFQ (~55% of M&S est.) and TESLA/SNS experience
- Assembly estimates use TESLA & LHC Project actuals
- Assumes CM assembly infrastructure in place (synergy with SMTF/ILC)
**Modulators & Pulse Transformers (Linac)**
- Based on actuals for equipment supplied by FNAL to TESLA (TTF)
- Modified to take into account quantity/price reduction
**Instrumentation & Controls**
- Sync estimated down to individual components
- Linac contains estimates at a high level (beginning to get more detail)
**Infrastructure & Integration**
- Often neglected when estimating individual subsystems
- Both used equal estimates (high level) where applicable
- Most of the initial installation will be Davis-Bacon work

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Comparing the Estimates (cont’d)

**R&D Costs**
- Linac cost estimate assumes that the infrastructure to test cavities and build cryomodules will be in place either at FNAL or at other collaborating Labs (ex. LANL/ANL for spoke cavities) at the start of the Project => synergy with SMTF and ILC R&D project
-  Therefore the cost to set up these facilities is not included
- Linac effort will continue to take advantage of ongoing work at SNS, TESLA TTF and other SCRF facilities
- Synchrotron assumes the R&D to develop rapid cycling, wide aperture magnets and power supplies will be completed before the start of the Project
- => Therefore the cost to perform this work is not included

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## PD Option Cost Comparison

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Cost Drivers

**Synchrotron****	****	****	****	****  K$**
- Civil Construction			64,710 (26.5%)
- Magnet System				40,841 (16.7%)
- Linac Improvements			34,564 (14.2%)
- Power Supply Network			30,921 ( 12.7%)
**Linac**
- Cryomodules			          101,608 (31.9%)
- Civil Construction			81,168 (25.5%)
- Cryogenic System			28,589 (  9.0%)
- RF Klystrons & Distribution		25,171 (  8.2%)

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Synchrotron Cost Drivers

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Linac Cost Drivers

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Ratio of SWF/M&S

|  | Synchrotron | Linac |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Proton Driver Project | 55% | 39% |
| Civil Construction* | 35% | 35% |
| Technical Systems (avg.) | 48% | 29% |
| Linac Improvements | 28% | 73% |
| Magnets / Cryomodules | 96% | 17% |
| Power Supplies / Cryogenics | 11% | 25% |
| RF Klystrons & Dist. / Modulators | 16% | 21% |
| Utilities | 17% | 39% |
| Infrastructure & Integration | 1462% | 948% |

- * Includes contracted EDIA for Civil Engineering & Design

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Reality Checks

**Main Injector Project vs. Linac PD Estimate**
- $230M => escalated to 2004 ~ $273M	PD = $319M
- Project Management => 5.8%   		PD = 7.8%
- Civil/Total Costs = 44.8%   			PD = 25.4%
- Technical Sys./Total Costs = 49.4%  		PD = 67%
- SWF/M&S Costs = 22.6%			PD = 38.8%
**SNS (**_**estimate**_**)**
- SNS Linac cost ~$550-600M  (1.5 MW power)

| Cost of Power ($.04/KWH@8,000hrs/yr) | Synchrotron | Linac |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Power Estimate (MW) | 14.0 | 6.5 |
| Electrical Cost/yr (M$) | 4.2 | 1.9 |
| 5 Year Electrical Cost (M$) | 20.8 | 9.6 |

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Observations

**There is a difference in the level of recent detail & attention given to the two PD options and the approach taken when estimating.  However, both options were initially given an across the board 30% contingency (for consistency reasons)**
**This way of estimating contingency for the overall project is somewhat arbitrary and does not reflect either the technical risk of the individual components nor the conservatism of the estimates**
- The actual contingency analysis will do just that
**Look at another methodology which focuses on a Range of Values for the cost of each option              => reflects the confidence/uncertainty of the estimate**

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Synchrotron Cost Estimate Analysis

|  | Cost
M$ | % Down | % 
Up | Comments |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Project Management | 25 | 10 | 10 | Conservative estimate |
| Civil Construct | 64.7 | 5 | 40 | Interaction with existing structures |
| Linac Front End | 34.6 | 0 | 40 | Scaling from LU/replace entire FE |
| Magnet System | 40.8 | 0 | 40 | Possible R&D of LA/RC magnets |
| Utilities | 12.8 | 0 | 30 | Scaled from MI and Linac Upgrade |
| Power Supplies | 30.9 | 0 | 30 | Well understood technical issues |
| Klystrons & RF Dist | 5.4 | 0 | 30 | Well understood technical issues |
| Inst. & Controls | 6.1 | 0 | 25 | Detailed estimate exists/understood |
| Transfer Lines | 17.0 | 15 | 30 | Scope may be overestimated |
| Absorbers & Misc. | 1.3 | 20 | 30 | Possible decrease in # of absorbers |
| I&I | 5.4 | 0 | 50 | Usually underestimated |

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Linac Cost Estimate Analysis

|  | Cost
M$ | % 
Down | % 
Up | Comments |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Project Management | 25 | 10 | 10 | Conservative estimate |
| Civil Construct | 81.2 | 5 | 25 | Greenfield site for majority of const |
| Front End  | 8.1 | 10 | 25 | Some equipment (RFQ) has known price -> existing at other Labs |
| Cryomodules | 101.6 | 15 | 30 | Believe SNS & TESLA numbers |
| Utilities | 6.7 | 10 | 25 | Estimate includes 20% scope cont. |
| Cryogenic System | 28.6 | 10 | 30 | Possible load reduction/reuse equip. |
| Klystrons/Modulators | 39.9 | 5 | 25 | Prototype & vendor estimate exists |
| Inst & Controls | 11.0 | 5 | 40 | Needs more details  |
| 8 GeV Transfer Line | 8.8 | 0 | 35 | Interaction w/ existing MI enclosure |
| Absorbers & Misc. | 1.1 | 20 | 30 | Reduced scope - injection absorber |
| I&I | 6.9 | 0 | 50 | Usually underestimated |

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Range of Values

|  | Base Estimate
(no G&A 
& no Cont) | Range Down | Range Up | Lower Cost  (with G&A) | Higher Cost (with G&A) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sync | 244,029 | 8,545 | 82,940 | 285,267 | 395,776 |
| Linac | 318,897 | 28,905 | 86,795 | 348,147 | 487,049 |

**Linac**

**Sync**

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005

## Conclusions

**A fair and consistent cost comparison was performed between the two Proton Driver Options (Synchrotron & SC Linac)**
**A Basis of Estimate was established for both cost estimates that draws on relevant experience with similar equipment both at FNAL and other Labs**
**This cost estimate will be a solid starting point for additional cost and schedule work that will be performed as the PD project moves forward**
**Range of Values for the cost estimate of a Proton Driver to be built at FNAL is approximately $400M to $500M (including contingency and G&A)**

- Rich Stanek  - Proton Driver Director's Review

- March 15-17, 2005