How to value running cost and support staff efforts for IDAC in the in-kind contribution?

We are working on a proposal for IDAC according to the “valuation of computing resources” (RDO-031). The guideline of “$10K/M CPU hours and $200K/PB storage” looks reasonable to purchase such computers/storage units also in Japan. However, the guideline seems to not count, in the conversion into the number of PIs, any running cost (electricity, maintenance of air-conditioning facility etc) and support staff (more than 0.25 FTE) to keep the IDAC service online. In our rough calculation,
the total cost of electricity and facility maintenance over the survey period would come up to a level of ~1/3–2/3 the computers’ price over the survey period. We also assume that a few technical staff (~0.25FTE each) on site, in addition to a team leader, will have to be dedicated to the IDAC system. How should we include these additional costs in the proposal that are actually necessary for running the IDAC. I would appreciate your suggestion.

Thanks for the question, we are discussing the issue and will respond soon.

We have had a discussion about this, and have concluded to leave the Handbook guidance on IDAC evaluation as currently written; that is, the cost of operating an IDAC will not be included in the valuation of the contribution. The reasoning is that Rubin aims to give fair value for the use of the facility that you are offering, but views it as a partnership where both sides will have a stake. The US and Chilean communities will benefit from the extra data analysis capacity that you will offer, whereas you will benefit from having a local IDAC with Rubin data. Rubin and the CEC treat the contribution of contributed telescope time in a similar way, with the twist that for telescopes, the value of the contribution is based on operations cost, but does not include the capital investment in the facility. But in both cases, the cost and benefit of the contribution is seen to be shared between the US/Chile and the in-kind partner.

Thank you very much for your fast turnaround to answer our inquiry. We will take your suggestion in drafting the proposal. If something unclear comes up again, we will get back to you. Thank you for your assistance again.

1 Like

Note that post was edited for correction: while the CEC advises Rubin on the evaluation and valuation of In-Kind contributions, the negotiation of value is in Rubin’s hands, not the CEC’s.