# Presentation: 773628

## CFAC Review

**CFAC Review**

**Marty Fallier**
**NSLS-II**  **Conventional Facilities**
**CFAC Cost Review**
**May 9, 2007**

## Outline

- Recap of CDR Cost Estimate
- Cost Estimate Methods
- Construction Cost Escalation
- Parametric Comparisons
- Estimate Summary
- Planning for Title –I /CD-2 estimate
- Changes since CDR

## CDR Cost Estimate Sources

**Note: WBS for CF is now 1.5**

## CDR Estimate Sources

- Engineering Estimates (WBS 1.6.1, .2, .4, .5, .6 & 1.6.3.1, .8)
- Prepared by BNL based on level of effort, engineering judgment, vendor quotes or parametric comparisons
- Include staff labor hours, FTE’s, BNL resource labor (ie. PE) and material & travel expenses
- Labor rates applied by labor categories in cost database
- Burden and escalation applied in cost database

## CDR Estimate Sources cont’d

- LIRO/HDR  (WBS 1.6.3.2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .9)
- LIRO/HDR are the A/E team preparing conceptual design for NSLS II CF
- LIRO and VJ Associates prepared the estimates
- LIRO is an Architectural/Civil /CM firm with extensive NY/LI estimating, construction and CM experience
- Uses Timberline with RS Means unit costs and local adjustments
- VJ is an estimating firm with extensive experience in the NY/LI construction market
- They provided very accurate re-estimating support for the CFN Re-bid
- Use their own Database built on experience in the NY/LI area
- General Construction estimates are prepared by LIRO
- MEP estimates are prepared by VJ

## CDR Estimate Sources cont’d

- Giffels CHW Study (WBS 1.6.3.7)
- Chilled water alternatives evaluation prepared by Giffels Engineers inc.
- Designed CHW Storage Upgrade to CCWF
- Prepared CDR for CCWF Plant Expansion in 2001
- Updated labor and material costs to current rates
- Includes detailed qty take-offs for planned expansion of CCWF
- Includes CHW piping costs to NSLS II site
- Cost Sharing w/BNL
- Costs for CCWF expansion split with BNL
- 2 Chillers for NSLS II; 1 Chiller for BNL; 1 spare bay for BNL

## CDR Estimate Methods

- Major construction items - WBS 1.6.3
- Estimates primarily based on material quantity take-offs from the conceptual drawings
- Some systems that are not yet detailed are based on system cost/SF (mainly in MEP estimates)
- Estimators used their own cost estimate systems developed to reflect cost of construction in the NY/LI area (this is their livelihood)
- Reflects recent price experience on critical commodities like concrete, steel, copper etc.
- Base cost is subcontractor cost plus GC OH&P
- 15% General Conditions is added to account for bonds, insurance, supervision, safety, mobilization, site maintenance etc.

## CDR Estimate Methods cont’d

- Major construction items - WBS 1.6.3
- Estimates primarily based on material quantity take-offs from the conceptual drawings
- Some systems that are not yet detailed are based on system cost/SF (mainly in MEP estimates)
- Estimators used their own cost database developed to reflect cost of construction in the NY/LI area (this is their livelihood)
- Reflects recent price experience on critical commodities like concrete, steel, copper etc.
- Base cost is subcontractor cost plus GC OH&P
- 15% General Conditions is added to account for bonds, insurance, supervision, safety, mobilization, site maintenance etc.

## CDR Construction Escalation

- The majority of construction costs are labor, not material
- While some material prices have been volatile, labor prices have been steady in most markets, including NY/LI
- While there was a sharp increase in construction costs in 2005, the market has adjusted in 2006
- ENR NY construction cost increase for 06 is 3.6%
- ENR NY building cost increase for 2006 is 4.0%
- ENR NY labor cost increase for 2006 is 3.1%
- ENR NY material cost increase for 2006 is 6.9%
- So despite material cost increase of 6.9% actual construction /building cost is much closer to the labor cost increase

## CDR Construction Escalation cont’d

- Looking ahead – NY vs LI markets
- NY has a number of large projects in the _planning stage _in addition to the Freedom Tower project just getting underway
- Projects in planning stage historically have several years before all approvals and financing are in place, if they happen at all.
- By contrast, LI has one major project (development of the Nassau Coliseum area) in _planning stage_ and this is likely to go to a commercial developer.
- In sum, NY City _may_ have a tight market but LI will likely be competitive (downward price pressure).
- Major LI Contractor using 5% for construction escalation
- Given local ENR data (~3.7%) and local contractor practice, escalation of 5% is prudent at this time.

## CDR Construction Cost Comparison

**Costs include building construction and related sitework and utilities.**

**1 - ****Based on cost at completion, not bid cost**

**NSLS II in upper range of data except compared to CFN due to substantial difference in CFN building type**

## CDR Construction Cost Comparison

**Costs escalated to FY06 $**

- Costs include sitework and utilities

## CDR Conventional FacilitiesTotal Estimated Cost ($ x 1000)

**CDR Conventional Facilities****Total Estimated Cost ($ x 1000)**

| WBS Description |  
Direct $ |  |  | Total Burdened & Escalated | Bottoms up Contingency |  | Total with Contingency |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | FTEs | Labor  | Material  |  | % | $ Value |  |
| 1.06 Conventional Facilities | 56.8 | $8,177 | $158,762 | $200,135 | 30.8% | $61,699 | $261,834 |
| 1.06.01 Conventional Facilities Management | 45.4 | $6,131 | $488 | $8,493 | 9.0% | $764 | $9,257 |
| 1.06.02 Conventional Facilities Engineering & Design | 9.7 | $1,830 | $14,780 | $18,254 | 29.9% | $5,454 | $23,707 |
| 1.06.03 Conventional Facilities Construction | 0.0 | $0 | $140,594 | $169,554 | 32.6% | $55,237 | $224,791 |
| 1.06.04 Integrated Controls and Communications | 1.7 | $216 | $400 | $767 | 21.0% | $161 | $928 |
| 1.06.05 Standard Equipment | 0.0 | $0 | $1,600 | $1,969 | 2.0% | $39 | $2,008 |
| 1.06.06 Conventional Facilities Commissioning | 0.0 | $0 | $900 | $1,099 | 4.0% | $44 | $1,143 |

## Conventional Facilities Construction Total Estimated Cost ($ x 1000)

**Conventional Facilities Construction**** Total Estimated Cost ($ x 1000)**

| WBS Description |  
Direct $ |  |  | Total
Burdened
&
Escalated | Bottoms up
Contingency |  | Total with
Contingency |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | FTEs | Labor  | Material  |  | % | $ Value |  |
| 1.06.03 Conventional Facilities Construction | 0.0 | $0 | $140,594 | $169,554 | 32.6% | $55,237 | $224,791 |
| 1.06.03.01 CF Construction Management | 0.0 | $0 | $4,830 | $5,570 | 29.0% | $1,615 | $7,185 |
| 1.06.03.02 Improvements to Land | 0.0 | $0 | $7,416 | $8,759 | 31.0% | $2,715 | $11,474 |
| 1.06.03.03 Central Lab Office Building | 0.0 | $0 | $17,516 | $21,916 | 26.0% | $5,698 | $27,614 |
| 1.06.03.04 Ring Building | 0.0 | $0 | $80,246 | $96,023 | 37.0% | $35,529 | $131,552 |
| 1.06.03.05 Lab Office Building | 0.0 | $0 | $3,296 | $4,138 | 22.0% | $910 | $5,048 |
| 1.06.03.06 Mechanical Utilities | 0.0 | $0 | $7,729 | $9,345 | 25.0% | $2,336 | $11,681 |
| 1.06.03.07 Chilled Water | 0.0 | $0 | $7,711 | $9,371 | 28.0% | $2,624 | $11,994 |
| 1.06.03.08 LN2 and GN2 Distribution System | 0.0 | $0 | $1,100 | $1,460 | 21.0% | $307 | $1,767 |
| 1.06.03.09 Electrical Utilities | 0.0 | $0 | $10,750 | $12,973 | 27.0% | $3,503 | $16,475 |

**Note: WBS for CF is now 1.5**

## CDR Cost Estimate Summary

- Largest Cost areas for CF (WBS 1.6.3) have relatively detailed estimates for conceptual design.
- Significant value engineering has already taken place and is identified in the add/deduct alternate estimates
- Estimates used recognized methods, rates are updated frequently and include adjustment for local conditions or unique work
- Escalation of 5% balances recognition of material cost volatility with relatively stable labor rates
- Exceeds ENR of 3.7 – 4.0 %
- Matches the value used by local contractor 5%
- Comparison with other construction indicates estimate is on par or slightly conservative

## Changes to Estimate Since CDR

**With Burden & Escalation CF Total is   ~$ 220M**

**Direct FY06$**

## Changes since CDR Cost Estimate

- 1.5.3.3 BLOC – $6.5M direct FY06$ decrease
- Added cost for Compact Booster – detailed take-off
- Deleted CLOB and replaced with Operations Center – SF estimate
- 1.5.3.4 Ring Bldg - $1.0M direct FY06$ decrease
- Revised shield wall cost by reducing HD concrete  - unit cost/cu. yd.
- Added 60 ratchet wall shield doors – vendor quote unit cost
- 1.5.3.5 Lab Office Bldgs - $15.6M direct FY06 increase
- Increased # and size of LOB’s – SF estimate

## Contingency & Scope Contingency

- Contingency Estimates will be based on next update of Risk Analysis
- CDR Calculated was 31% but applied Mgt. allowance of 35%
- Current Mgt allowance is ~40%
- Scope contingency is primarily limited to LOB’s and Ratchet Wall Doors – all other scope is essential to operation
- 3 LOB’s @ $6.3M direct ea. = $18.9M ($31.5 TPC)
- _60 ratchet Wall Doors @ $40k direct ea. = $2.4 M ($4.0 TPC)_
- Total Scope Contingency  = $21.3 M ($35.5 TPC)

## Estimate Changes Needed for CD-2

- Must capture modest changes to scope dependent level of effort activities
- Need to increase design costs (1.5.2) and CM costs (1.5.3.1) to reflect increased scope for Booster and LOB’s
- BLOC (1.5.3.3) reflects estimate for Compact Booster
- Need to differentiate Booster, Linac and Ops Ctr costs
- LINAC costs are currently in Ring Bldg (1.5.3.4) and need to be moved into BLOC
- For LOB’s (1.5.3.5) - Should resolve what level of development of lab/office program will be in base scope
- Could be full build-out of space or just shelled space for future beamline programs

## Estimate Changes Needed for CD-2 cont’d

- Need fully developed take-off & vendor quote based estimate
- Updated escalation analysis based on local factors and trend analysis
- Updated and more detailed risk analysis with Monte Carlo simulation for contingency development
- Application of value management and alternatives cost analysis (Value Engineering Report) and incorporation of selected alternatives
- Time phased estimate based resource loaded schedule with escalation to at-year $.