From: Ronald L. Strykowsky
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004
11:48 AM
To: 'Hutch Neilson'; Phil Heitzenroeder; Larry L. Sutton;
Michael E. Viola
Cc: Bob Simmons
Subject: RE: New Port
Configuration
Hutch,
I suggest we add the following to this ECP or a separate one to cover this near
term work that will affect our CPI/SPI.
1)
Vessel Weld Joint R&D increase$ ? (Mike
Viola)
2) VV
prototype inspection plan & report $43k (Mike
Viola)
3)
MCWF inspection plan and evaluation report $36k
(Heitzenroeder)
4) MC
test stand $84k (Gettelfinger)
5)
forecast increases in the prototype contracts. Recommend no change at this time
BUT redistribute $200k we included in ECP4 to cover JP Pattern potential
increase. At this time JPP has not come forward with a revised forecast but
Major Tool and EIO have .(see the attached analysis and current cost status of
our vendors.
Phil,Mike,Larry, see the attached cost summary for all of these
contracts. Larry, I got this data from budsys so let me know if your records
don't match...Ron
Bob,
We are adopting a
new baseline machine configuration featuring a substantially modified
arrangement of ports relative to the current baseline. I believe the plan is
to move to this new configuration expeditiously. There is a substantial cost
impact: the current SWAG is $400k but it will need to be analyzed more fully
via the ECP process. Wayne and others will need to weigh in when they
get back, but I think they will probably agree we should go ahead now with an
ECP to implement this change. A first draft is attached; please take it from
there.
Questions:
- Are there are other related changes we should bundle
with the port reconfiguration?
- Not knowing for sure what’s been placed under
configuration control at this time, I don’t know for sure to what extent the
technical baseline is affected. I do know the cost is affected. I believe
the GRD is not affected.
Hutch