A. Cryogenics Prof. John Eck, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, 1967. Extensive experience with and knowledge of cryogenic techniques. Familiar with commercially available cryogenic equipment and practices. Extensive involvement in the design of a large vacuum scattering chamber for ORNL's Holifield Heavy Ion Accelerator. B. Electronics C. Extensive experience with on line laboratory dedicated computer systems and with data taking and data analysis and software development. Performs hardware maintenance on computer systems. Familiar with microprocessor control and configuring and installing of laboratory instrumentation. Beam optics and transport - Prof. S. Hagmann, Ph.D., Koln, 1977. Expert in collision dynamics of highly charged ion-atomic systems, high resolution spectroscopy, and electron spectrometer technology. Familiar with technology for the production of high accelerator particle beams. Extensive experience with design and installation of beam optics. IV. Operating management Prof. Pat Richard, Ph.D., Florida State, 1964. Principal investigator of DOE operating contract since 1975, Director of Macdonald Laboratory since 1982, in charge of total operation of the laboratory and research program; supervised installation of a new ion source/pulsed beam bunching system and data acquisition computer system. Managed and supervised technical staff, student helpers, machine and electronics shops, secretarial staff and financial operation of DOE contract and the laboratory. Directed own research projects, built and operated several pieces of apparatus Including x-ray and Auger spectrometers, scattering chambers, magnetic systems and position sensitive detectors. Extensive experience using accelerator laboratories at other installations in the U.S. and Germany. 21. What is the degree of reliability of the current $5.1 million cost estimate? 22. Answer: The DOE is very confident that the current estimate of $5,100,000 is the final estimate for the Kansas State University Ion Collision Physics Facility. The Department has conducted a detailed review of the latest plans for the project and all previous problems associated with the estimate have been resolved. Please detail the reasons for all cost overruns. Answer: A number of items account for the increase in TEC. By far the most compelling reason is that the design effort at the University has significantly progressed since the project was initially proposed. This effort revealed the following: 23. A. Several project related costs were assumed to be funded from operating costs. B. Equipment quotes from suppliers in several instances were greater than originally estimated. C. A larger cryogenic system was determined to be required. Kansas State University assumed in the original proposal that operating funds would be provided to defray costs associated with research personnel time involved in the construction of the facility. In addition, it was assumed that a computer necessary for the data acquisition at the facility would be provided at a later date. Based on our review and discussions with the University, we requested that this facility be viewed as a stand alone budget item. The University agrees with this budget approach and the estimate has been revised accordingly. Insofar as the equipment item is concerned, the latest estimate reflects firm quotes for which we previously only had estimates. At this point, firm quotes are available for all systems to be procured from outside sources. The last item accounting for the increase is the cryogenic system. A study by Kansas State of similar systems in other laboratories convinced them that the first cryogenic system proposed would result in a marginal operation. The new plan calls for incorporation of a larger refrigerator easily capable of handling expected heat loads. The electronic system is also upgraded in order to match the data acquisition system based on the computer that was not in the original plan. What are the anticipated facility operating costs? Answer: The anticipated increase in annual operating costs due to this Project is estimated to be $600,000 (FY 1985 dollars). Since this new construction is an improvement to the existing facility currently operated at an annual cost of $605,000, the overall annual operating cost is projected to be $1,205,000 per year. Columbia University National Center for Chemical Research (Project 84-ER-115) 24. What are the reasons the project has a cost overrun of $8.0 million during Its first year? Answer: The cost estimate for the project has been increased from the or iginal amount due to a number of unforeseen conditions. These include the need to provide a new foundation for the Havemeyer lecture hall, inadequate cooling capacity in the central plant requiring provision of a new chiller and cooling tower as part of the Havemeyer Addition, asbestos removal, correcting structural steel deficiencies in Havemeyer Hall, and installation of sprinklers to comply with a forthcoming city requirement. 25. Who in DOE is responsible for this project, and who at Columbia University is responsible for the project? Vice President for Facilities Management 26. What management methods are being employed to assure there are no further overruns? Answer: The DOE has a number of procedures which are followed for all projects administered by the Department. These formal procedures along with frequent contact and working with the university should assure that no further overruns occur. These procedures include: An approved Conceptual Design Report with cost and schedule is reviewed prior to budget consideration. A validation review and approval by Headquarters and field personnel Is required prior to budget consideration. An approved Project Plan, Project Management Plan, and detailed cost estimate is required prior to project initiation. Approval by DOE of preliminary designs is required before initiation of detailed design. Approval by DOE of final design is required prior to the initiation of construction. Either quarterly or semiannual reviews of technical details, cost and schedule, and environmental aspects of the project are conducted by DOE. 27. Please present the names of the design and construction firms involved. Answer: The requested information is as follows: Davis, Brody Associates 100 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 Robert Silman Associates, P.C. 88 University Place New York, NY 10003 R. G. Vanderweil Engineers, Inc. 38 Chauncy Street Boston, MA 02111-2362 Amis Construction and Consulting Services New York, NY Brian Smith, A.I.A., R. I.D.A. Centerguard Associates 115 Bloomfield Avenue Caldwell, NJ 07006 P.J. Science Construction Company 24 W. 40th Street New York, NY 10018 28. What type of contracts have been negotiated for this project? Answer: DOE, Chicago Operations Office, has executed a grant with Columbia Catholic University of America Vitreous State Laboratory (Project 84-ER-114) Answer: Title I is slightly behind schedule with the drawings to be issued on March 11, 1985. The drawings will then be forwarded to Chicago Operations Office for review. The critical date is April 1, 1985, since that is the start of Phase I construction which includes site demolition, site utilities, site grading, building excavation, footings, foundation walls, waterproofing, and backfill. A meeting between the project team and the District of Columbia was held January 22, 1985. The District will require approximately three weeks from the time they receive the drawings until the excavation permit is issued. Several long lead procurement items will be released in the near future. Those include the chillers, ice tanks, exhaust fans, boiler, and probably the precast concrete panels for the curtain wall. The reason for bidding 30. the precast concrete panels so early is that the project needs to get on the waiting line for these panels. Although the attachment details will not be available, the bidders will be asked to provide a ceiling price quota based on the most current information. A future change order may be required to revise the attachment points. Although this is not going to guarantee us the best price to begin with, at least the panels will be delivered when needed which will avoid delay in project completion. The Phase II package designs will be completed in mid-April 1985, and the bidding process initiated in May 1985. A milestone schedule and spending plan will be included with the first quarterly report. There will be a total of between 25-30 bid packages issued with the bulk (15-20) in Phase 11. Who in DOE is responsible for this project and how often does that person visit the project site? Answer: The requested information is as follows: Headquarters Dr. Lewis E. Temple, Jr. Acting Director, Construction, Environment and Safety Division Office of Energy Research Field Robert C. Selby, Director Project Management and Engineering Division Site visits are made quarterly. 31. What is the schedule for the project? Answer: The schedule for the project is as follows: 32. The February 7, 1985 "Holifield Tables" indicate that the IRB Fiscal Year 1986 request for the Energy Research Analysis program totalled $3.95 million for operating expenses. According to these Tables, the Department's FY 1986 submission to OMB totalled $3.90 million. What are the specific differences between these two budgets? Answer: The difference between the FY 1986 IRB Request of $3,950,000 for Energy Research Analysis and the submission to OMB for $3,900,000 was due to the Department's method of rounding down to the nearest tenth of a million. |