TMT Instrument Procurement

1
TMT Instrument Procurement

• David Crampton
• Gary Sanders
• Doug Simons
• Keith Taylor
• Nov 17, 2004

2
TMT DDP Schedule

• Major milestones
• 2006 Apr CoDR
• 2006 Aug Cost review
• 2007 Oct PDR
• 2013 July First light (partial)

3
TMT Commissioning Schedule
(ISG forecast)

• 2014 II Commission AO
• 2015 Jan AO first light
• 2009 June CDR for WFOS
• 2014 II Commission WFOS

4
Instrument Procurement Proposal

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

• Proposal is based on Gemini Aspen Process
• Ask for proposals to provide capabilities to meet
  scientific goals
• Plan to fund two competitive design studies at
  concept stage
• Provides opportunities for leveraging funds
• Ultimately aim to fund one fixed-price instrument
  contract
• Full cost contracts, not significantly subsidized
  by partners
• Keck plans to follow similar process (Chaffee)
• (including opening procurement to world)
• Works best for true conceptual design phase
• TMT isnt there yet funding and detailed
  observatory concept still TBD
• Current situation is more similar to the two
  feasibility studies that Gemini has underway
• These studies became collaborations either before
  or after competition

5
Instrument Procurement Proposal

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

• ESO also funds competing conceptual design
  studies
• Differences between Gemini and ESO
• ESO pays hardware but institutes provide manpower
• Guaranteed time number of nights FTE/2 (or lt
  60)
• TMT differences from Gemini Aspen
• - less incentive project may not materialize
• dont (yet) have carrot of full cost contract
• gt may not be able to leverage as much funding

6
For TMT Pre-concept studies followed by true
conceptual design studies

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

• Pre-concept phase (12 months)
• Goals
• Development of state-of-the-art concepts that
  meet SRD
• Realistic concepts, supported by scientific and
  technical studies
• To better determine feasibility of meeting SRD
• Iterate on requirements with SAC
• Assemble teams
• Forge collaborations and partnerships
  (world-class teams)
• Produce good (within 25) cost and schedule
  estimates
• Identify and retire risks
• Announcement of opportunity (AO) for expressions
  of interest (LOI)
• Plan to fund two competitive design studies for
  each first light instrument for TBD (100K?)
  amounts
• Request proposals (RFPs) to provide capabilities
  to meet scientific goals
• Review proposals, iterate on specs, prepare new
  RFPs for true conceptual designs

7
For TMT Pre-concept studies followed by true
conceptual design studies

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

• Concept phase (18 months)
• GOALS
• Completed Conceptual Design studies of
  first-light instruments
• Development of state-of-the-art fully developed
  concepts that meet SRD
• Forge collaborations and partnerships
  (world-class teams)
• Fund two competing conceptual design studies for
  each instrument
• 300K goal, expect to leverage funds
• Produce fixed cost and schedule proposals (30
  cost contingency)
• Project management to be a strong component of
  proposals
• Announcement of opportunity (AO) for expressions
  of interest (LOI)
• Plan to fund two competitive design studies for
  TBD amounts
• Request proposals (RFPs) for Conceptual Design
  Studies
• Goal is to have fixed price quotes from two
  competing studies
• Review proposals, negotiate awards, prepare
  contracts for completed instrument

8
Criteria for concept awards

• 1. Science. The adequacy of the proposed
  analysis of the instruments science case.
• Modeling. The adequacy of the proposed use of
  modeling for evaluating different design concepts
• Key and High Risk Components. The adequacy of
  the proposed methods of identifying key or high
  risk components and determining their
  feasibility.
• Systems Engineering. The adequacy of the
  proposed method of system engineering.
• Project Plan. Whether the proposed development
  schedule and task list for the design study is
  realistic and complete.
• Management Systems. Whether the proposed systems
  for tracking costs and labor will be adequate.
• Budget. Whether the budget for the design study
  is realistic given the scope the work.
• Experience, Resources and Facilities. The extent
  of the teams experience with designing and
  building astronomical instruments, personnel
  available to support the team, and the
  facilities available to the team.
• Team Structure The balance of TMT partner
  shares in the overall instrument program.
• Cost

9
DDP Timeline
Pre-concept Phase
Concept Design Phase
Project PDR
Project CoDR
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Award feasibility study contracts
Studies complete Assess results Iterate reqments
Award conceptual design contracts
Contracts complete Assess results Prepare to
issue fixed price contracts
Fix requirements Issue LOI requests Prepare RFPs
Issue RFPs for concept design studies
Construction phase begins
Issue first fixed price instrument contracts
Observatory parameters decided Preliminary ICDs
complete (including AO ICDs)
10
Special DDP Timeline for WFOS
Concept Design Phase
Project PDR
Project CoDR
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Award conceptual design contracts to UCSC and
Caltech
Mid-term reviews of WFOS designs
Contracts complete Assess results Prepare to
issue fixed price contracts
Fix requirements Establish expert panel
Amend contracts to include ICDs
Construction phase begins
Issue first fixed price instrument contracts
Observatory parameters decided Preliminary ICDs
complete
11
Guidance during DDP

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

• Project staff Expert Panel
• Project staff
• Two instrumentalists with management experience
• Responsible for all contractual aspects
• Expert panels
• One for each instrument
• Nominally 3 members
• Forefront instrument developers
  scientists/users
• Include external (to partners) members if
  possible
• At least one SAC member
• Work closely with project and instrument teams

12
Construction Phase (2008-13)

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

• Handled completely by project
• Award contracts for completed instrument
• Contracts will be design and build to cost
• Follow standard project mgmt process (reviews,
  milestones, reports)
• Include 10 nights (3M) as guaranteed time
• Insert possibility for re-negotiation at CDR if
  costs/performance prove impossible?
• Include IT and initial commissioning

13
WFOS Construction Phase Timeline
Construction phase begins Jan 2008
First Light
First Light (partial)
2007
2008
2010
2013
2014
2012
2011
2009
2015
Install WFOS and NFIRAOS
WFOS PDR
First WFOS science
WFOS CDR
WFOS contract awarded
Commission WFOS and NFIRAOS
First Light LGS AO
14
IRIS Construction Phase Timeline
Construction phase begins Jan 2008
First Light
First light for AO system
First Light LGS AO
First Light (partial)
2008
2009
2011
2014
2015
2013
2012
2010
2016
Install NFIRAOS
IRIS first LGS light
IRIS CDR
IRIS PDR
IRIS first light
IRIS contract awarded
Install IRIS
15
MIRES Construction Phase Timeline
Construction phase begins Jan 2008
First Light
First Light (partial)
2007
2008
2010
2013
2014
2012
2011
2009
2015
Install MIRES
MIRES PDR
First MIRES science
MIRES CDR
MIRES contract awarded
Commission WFOS, MIRES and first AO system
First Light LGS AO
16
Instrument Procurement

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

• TMT version of Gemini Aspen Process
• Pros
• tied to science capabilities (Aspen SAC SRD
  DSC)
• encourages collaborations
• leverages funds
• Cons
• more complex than assigning instruments to
  partner teams
• cost of managing process
• cost of funding two studies (may not always
  occur)

17
Proposal for DP Instrumentation Program
18
Milestone summary for DP Instrumentation Program
19
Whats to be done?

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

• SAC
• Nominate expert panel members
• 2004 Dec 21 Completed SRD and DSC (at least for
  first light instruments)
• 2005 Dec SRD refined
• Iterated based on pre-concept studies
• in preparation for concept phase
• Project
• ASAP Hire 2 instrumentalists/managers
• 2004 Dec 21 issue AOs for LOI
• 2005 Jan 6 issue RFPs for pre-concept designs
• 2005 Mar Assess proposals (assisted by expert
  panels)
• 2005 Apr 1 Award contracts, monitor progress
• 2005 Dec 21 Evaluate contract results
• 2006 Apr 1 initiate process for concept phase

20
RFP example

• Ultimate Goal Delivery of competitive
  instruments on-time and on-budget

21
RFP example II

22
RFP example III

23
RFP example - OCDD

24
RFP example - FPRD

25
RFP example - Science case