Docstoc

Director's Review Closeout Report

Document Sample
Director's Review Closeout Report Powered By Docstoc
					  Final Report


   Director’s
  CD-1 Review
        of
the APUL Project



  July 16-17, 2009
Issued July 24, 2009

                             This page intentionally left blank




                       Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                    July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 2 of 37
                                                                                                         Issued July 24, 2009


                                                     Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 5
1.0       Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7
2.0       D1 Magnets ............................................................................................................. 8
3.0       Cold Powering System .......................................................................................... 10
4.0       Cost, Schedule and Project Management.............................................................. 12
   4.1       Cost..................................................................................................................... 12
   4.2       Schedule ............................................................................................................. 13
   4.3       Project Management ........................................................................................... 14
5.0       Charge Questions .................................................................................................. 16
6.0       Appendices ............................................................................................................ 22
   Cost Estimates............................................................................................................... 23
   Charge ........................................................................................................................... 24
   Agenda .......................................................................................................................... 26
   Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments .................................................... 28
   Reviewer Assignments for Breakout Sessions ............................................................. 31
   Reviewers’ Contact Information ................................................................................... 32
   Participant List .............................................................................................................. 33
   Table of Recommendations .......................................................................................... 34




                                      Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                                   July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                                                                          Page 3 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009

                             This page intentionally left blank




                       Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                    July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 4 of 37
                                                                      Issued July 24, 2009


Executive Summary
The focus of this Director’s Review of the APUL project was to evaluate the project’s
technical design, cost estimate, schedule development and the project’s management to
determine if the project is ready for a DOE CD-1 Review. The project has done a lot of
good work to get to the state presented to this review committee; however, additional
work is needed to meet the requirements for CD-1. The review committee is confident
that with sufficient time and adequate resources that APUL can be ready for CD-1 this
fall.

Technical
The D1 Magnets and Cold Powering System designs appear to be sound. No significant
concerns were identified other than for the thermal expansion of the SC link. There is
confidence that the work can be done, but there is a concern about the adequacy of
contingency and the ability to start work on time. Additionally, there is a need to get
agreement with CERN on the technical requirements for the equipment to be delivered.

Cost
The initial rollup of the costs in the Resource Loaded Schedule (RLS) in Primavera
resulted in a total project cost (TPC) of $28.4M including a contingency of 22% overall.
The TEC estimate is $25.6M with a 25% contingency and the OPC at $2.8M with no
contingency. The contingency is low for this stage of the project, has been applied top-
down, and does not appear to support the existing risks.

Some basis of estimate (BoE) documents were available but many lacked detail and were
not easily traceable to the information in the schedule. Developing a complete set of
BoEs that have sufficient detail to explain how the estimate was developed will make it
easier to defend the estimate being presented to future review committees.

With such a low contingency and the cost estimate being so close to the $29M cap, the
project should develop a scope contingency strategy.

Schedule
The project schedule has been assembled in Primavera. The content of the schedule is
detailed in many areas and in need of more detail in others. Because the schedule was
just recently developed in Primavera and the newness of using the tool, there were many
areas identified where improvements can be made. Additional effort is needed to bring
the schedule to the level needed for CD-1.

Long lead procurements for both D1 Magnets and Cold Powering materials that are
scheduled for early 2010 are at risk of not occurring when needed because of funding and
CD approvals. The project needs to work with their DOE Program Manager on how to
accomplish these procurements.

The schedule contingency associated with the CD-4 milestone of March 2014 is small
and risky. By developing the aforementioned scope contingency strategy, this will
identify how schedule contingency can be increased and cost saved.

                         Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                      July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                                Page 5 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009


Milestones have been developed at multiple levels. The higher level milestones need to
be evaluated and discussed with the project’s DOE Program Manager and the Federal
Project Director to agree on the final set of milestones. The initial high level milestones
occur too late in the project to provide for adequate response time. Additional Level 1
and 2 milestones in FY10 and FY11 may be prudent to ensure proper communication of
progress with DOE.

Management
APUL has a project organization is in place. The organization is represented by
experienced personnel from both Fermilab and Brookhaven.

The schedule of receiving CD-1 in the 4th Qtr FY09 and CD-2/3a in the 1st Qtr FY10, as
noted in the PMP, is unrealistic and should be revised. A project plan assuming a
realistic CD-2/3a should be developed which maintains the final delivery dates to CERN.

Additional Project Controls support will be needed to develop the project schedule to the
level needed to meet the CD requirements. Furthermore, Project Controls support is
needed to execute Cobra as part of developing a credible cost estimate. In addition to the
Project Controls support, the Subsystem Managers will need to dedicate additional time
to update their sections of the schedule.

Currently the review committee believes the project is not ready for CD-1. The
replanning suggested elsewhere in this document needs to be completed. Following this,
the CD-1 documentation needs to be improved such that it is adequate to pass an IPR
later this year.




                          Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                       July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 6 of 37
                                                                      Issued July 24, 2009


1.0    Introduction
A Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project was held on July 16-17, 2009. The
charge included a list of topics to be addressed as part of the review. The assessment of
the Review Committee is documented in the body of this Closeout Report.

Each section in the report is generally organized by Findings, Comments and
Recommendations. Findings are statements of fact that summarize noteworthy
information presented during the review. The Comments are judgment statements about
the facts presented during the review and are based on reviewers’ experience and
expertise. The comments are to be evaluated by the project team and actions taken as
deemed appropriate. Recommendations are statements of actions that should be
addressed by the project team. Progress on the recommendations is to be reported on
during future APUL Working Group Meetings (WGMs). A response to
recommendation(s) is expected and actions taken will be reported on during future
reviews.

Reference materials for this review are contained in the Appendices. APUL’s cost
estimate presented at the review is shown in Appendix A. The Charge for this review is
shown in Appendix B. The review was conducted per the agenda shown in Appendix C.
The Reviewer’s assignments are noted in Appendix D and E, and their contact
information is listed in Appendix F. The Review Participants are listed in Appendix G.
Appendix H is a table that contains all the recommendations included in the body of this
report.




                         Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                      July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                                Page 7 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009


2.0       D1 Magnets
Findings
    The APUL project intends to build 5 beam separation dipoles for inclusion in the
      Phase I LHC luminosity upgrade project. The design is based on the existing
      RHIC DX dipoles which have demonstrated over a ten year period the ability to
      provide the required field strength and aperture. The documentation provided
      included a conceptual design report, cost and schedule estimates and other project
      management documents. CERN and APUL team have collaborated to establish
      the current parameters contained in the CDR.

Comments
   The committee believes that the APUL magnet design will achieve the
    requirements stated in the CDR. The magnet team has previously demonstrated
    that they are fully qualified to execute this project.

         Current schedule assumptions made by project management for CD-2/3a approval
          and associated funding do not seem credible.

         The magnet production schedule seemed credible provided the materials (SC,
          yoke steel, etc) are available when needed. To ensure deliveries to CERN by the
          required dates, the project needs a mechanism to start construction of the first
          magnet as soon as possible.

         The Basis of Estimate documentation is at a high level, stating that costs were
          scaled from the BNL DX experience. This is probably insufficient for CD-1. In
          the presentations the review committee was given information that suggests that
          substantially more BOE information exists than is currently captured in the BOE
          documents.

         The details of the cost estimate were not presented in a way that allowed the
          committee to judge the accuracy of the estimate. However the committee was
          provided with several “sanity check” arguments that suggest the estimates are
          reasonable.

         The OHEP Director has stated that the APUL DOE project will be “capped” with
          a “not to exceed price” of $ 29 M. This cap was adjusted up from $27M only
          within the last few days before this review. The project scope as currently
          envisioned leads to an estimated contingency of 21% for the magnet systems sub-
          project of the TPC which may prove insufficient.

         Some superconductor specifications are more stringent than required for the
          magnets performance specification. It is possible that some cost savings could be
          achieved by relaxing the critical current requirements.

         The committee notes that the nominal field strength and field quality requirements
          have not been specified by CERN.
                            Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                         July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 8 of 37
                                                                      Issued July 24, 2009


      The APUL components will form part of a larger system in the LHC. Only CERN
       possesses the necessary knowledge to fully understand the system issues and how
       they impact the performance requirements of the APUL components.

      The proximity of the cold masses in the common cryostat together with the large
       magnet bore and nearby iron leads to a complicated magnetic interaction between
       the ends that must be simulated.

      The committee believes that the project is close but not yet ready for a formal
       DOE CD-1 review. Overall cost, the plan for scope contingency, and the
       schedule/milestones are the principle weaknesses of the present documentation
       and plan. The APUL management should seek advice on how best to present the
       information to the CD-1 review committee.

Recommendations
   1. Work with the agency to develop a plan for acquiring critical long-lead-time
      materials such as superconductor, steel, etc early enough in the project such that
      the magnet delivery schedule to CERN can be met.

   2. Develop a plan that starts the construction of a prototype magnet before CD-3a.
      This prototype if successful could be the spare with resultant cost savings for the
      project.

   3. Examine the strategy for choosing milestones. The current choices will not alert
      management of problems until it is too late to respond effectively. The project
      needs high level milestones that APUL and OHEP management can use to gauge
      progress well before 2011.

   4. Develop a formal requirements document signed off by the APUL management,
      US collaborating institutions and CERN. This document is important to insure
      that the parties have similar expectations.

   5. DOE and CERN management need to establish a common understanding on
      available DOE resources for APUL and thus the scope of the project that can be
      supported.

   6. Work with CERN to perform a Failure Mode and Effects analysis to insure
      pressure vessels, support members, electrical insulation, etc. are adequate. CERN
      should sign-off on this and other such system related requirements.

   7. Simulate magnetic field effects and forces for the combined D1 assembly
      including both end-to-end forces on coils and field harmonics.




                         Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                      July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                                Page 9 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009


3.0       Cold Powering System
Findings
    In general no requirement document was available to use as a reference.

         The CDR has an implementation plan, which the review committee was told that
          CERN has concurred with.

         Two SC Link conceptual designs were presented: Rectangular and Circular Bus.

               Options for bus splices were also presented.

         Power lead preliminary design was presented.

         First DFX box and a prototype SC link are planned to be tested at Fermilab in
          Oct-2011 and delivery in Aug-2012 for the prototype string test at CERN.

Comments
   The preliminary technical design is well developed.

               The cooling scheme is well developed. Heat load analysis is reasonable.

               DFX box linear design fits the space constraints and is well suited for
                fabrication.

               Power lead preliminary design is reasonable.

               The conceptual design for the SC Link thermal expansion has not started.

               Tolerances, interferences, installation and integration of the SC link at CERN
                concern reviewers.

               The round bus bar design which was chosen as the baseline is an appropriate
                choice. The round cross section eliminates need for intermediate splices.

                   o The splice design needs considerable additional conceptual design
                     effort and prototyping.

         The costs are reasonable, except for the SC link design effort.

               The 30% contingency is appropriate.

         The schedule is very tight but has the appropriate elements.

               Costs and obligations are not appropriately segregated.

               Considerable additional cleanup work will be required in order to meet EVMS
                requirements.

                              Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                           July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 10 of 37
                                                                      Issued July 24, 2009


Recommendations
   8. Develop a performance requirements document that specifies operating and
      transient parameters and failure modes, constraints and safety requirements.

   9. Develop a conceptual design for the SC Link thermal expansion.

   10. Develop an integration plan for the system installation at CERN and consider
       possible preassembly at Fermilab.

   11. Perform full scale 10 cycles test of remove and installation of a 13 kA power lead
       de-mountable solder joint mock-up prior to CD-2.

   12. Add or move to Level 2 Milestones:

         A. DFX Design Complete

         B. Power Lead Design Complete

         C. SC Link Design Complete

         D. DFX Contract Awarded

         E.   DFX 1st Article Construction Complete

         F.   DFX box and prototype SC link test at Fermilab

         G. Final DFX Construction Complete




                         Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                      July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                               Page 11 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009


4.0       Cost, Schedule and Project Management

4.1       Cost
Findings
    The initial rollup of the costs resulted in a total project cost (TPC) of $28.4M
      including a contingency of 22% overall. The TEC estimate is $25.6M with a 25%
      contingency and the OPC at $2.8M with no contingency.

         Some basis of estimate (BoE) documents were available but many are lacking in
          detail and not easily traceable to the information in the schedule.

         The committee presented assumptions for escalation and indirects. Calculation of
          escalation from base estimates was not clear.

Comments
   The review committee feels contingency is too low for this stage of the project.
    Projects at this stage have typically cost plus scope contingency of 35%. With
    the current scope of work, the contingency does not appear to support the existing
    project risks.

         Developing a more complete set of detailed BoEs that explain how the estimate
          was established will make it easier to defend the estimate being presented to
          future review committees.

Recommendations
   13. Complete BoE documents that defend all M&S and Labor estimates for each
       activity. Ensure that BoE costs are traceable between the BoE, Primavera and
       COBRA for drill down exercises at the CD-1 IPR.

      14. Clearly identify the method used to escalate base estimate costs within COBRA.

      15. Recalculate the bottoms up cost estimate with adequate contingency on TEC and
          OPC. Once this is complete, evaluate the TPC and identify scope contingency
          needed to generate a cost range consistent with the DOE funding profile guidance.

      16. Verify that the APUL cost estimating and scheduling methods are in accordance
          with the FRA EVM system description.

      17. Expected value of project risks should be compared to total project contingency
          prior to CD-1 to ensure initial contingency estimate is reasonable.




                           Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                        July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 12 of 37
                                                                          Issued July 24, 2009


4.2       Schedule
Findings
    Longer task durations for the first magnet assembly show a learning curve.
      Durations are reduced as the crew becomes more familiar with the process.

         Scheduling instructions were given to Control Account Managers (CAMs), as
          stated in the Key Assumptions document.

Comments
   Consider paralleling work in magnet fabrication.

         There are no Level 1 and Level 2 milestones in the near term.

Recommendations
   18. Complete the transfer of MS Project schedule information into Primavera as soon
       as possible.

      19. Seek out experienced project controls staff and oversight to review and scrub the
          schedule.

      20. Use step milestone function or other techniques in Primavera to optimize
          schedule.

      21. Remove tasks labeled as “float” and use locked milestones.

      22. Leave LOE tasks off of the critical path analysis.

      23. Add Levels1 and 2 milestones earlier in schedule. Review milestones with the
          Federal Project Director (FPD).

      24. Review all milestones for their effectiveness in managing the project.

      25. Once schedule is completely integrated into Primavera: close open-ended tasks;
          level resources; determine actual schedule float available, determine actual critical
          path.

      26. Scrub schedule to conform to FRA EVM system description requirements.

      27. A one-page “cartoon” schedule should be developed for presentation at the IPR
          that shows the start/finish dates of WBS Level 2, high-level milestones (Levels 1
          and 2), and the critical path.

      28. Update WBS dictionary to ensure descriptions are complete and match the WBS.
          Update the Milestone dictionary descriptions to include completion criteria.




                            Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                         July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                                    Page 13 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009


4.3       Project Management
Findings
    The project has strong leadership from both Fermilab and BNL. The Project
      manager, deputy project manager, and project engineer, have extensive
      experience working on similar projects in the past.

         There are formal documents in place at an appropriate, but not yet complete level,
          outlining the management plans for the project.

         A risk registry was presented to the review committee.

Comments
   The team is a good one, but to meet the requirements for getting DOE approvals
    in the near future, adding some additional experienced project controls staff might
    help a lot.

         The risk registry should be expanded to include risks such as those related to labor
          resource availability at Brookhaven.

         A one page schedule summary with L1 and L2 Milestones, critical path and
          critical decisions identified would help reviewers quickly understand the project
          schedule.

         Consider developing resource, budget authority and budget outlay profiles for the
          IPR.

         Written agreements on requirements from CERN would help solidify design
          requirements. The CDR should be a controlled and signed document.

         Re-evaluate the change control levels shown in the PMP. For a $29M project the
          level of complexity in change control should not be more complicated than shown
          in the PEP.

Recommendations
   29. Continue to complete the project management documents needed for a project of
       this size.

      30. Review the most recent 413.3A guidance documents to ensure the PEP, AS, and
          CDR comply.

      31. Prepare for the DOE CD-1 review by making a cost and schedule range rather
          than a point cost/schedule.

      32. Options for generating scope contingency and associated cost impacts should be
          considered, understood, and addressed.


                            Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                         July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 14 of 37
                                                                  Issued July 24, 2009


33. The schedule risk at BNL and Fermilab of not getting the needed personnel on the
    optimal timescale because of competing priorities should be addressed in the risk
    assessments.

34. An MOU should be prepared between Fermilab and Brookhaven.

35. The APUL management should seek advice on how best to present information to
    the CD-1 review committee.




                     Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                  July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                           Page 15 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009


5.0      Charge Questions
5.1 Technical – D1Magnets

         5.1.1 Are the requirements that form the basis for the design and engineering phase
               of the project clearly documented?

         Some of the requirements are documented in the CDR but there is not a
         requirements document with CERN and the APUL management with sign offs.
         Some requirements are still in flux. For example it seems the planned operating
         temperature was shifted from 4.5 K to 1.9 K shortly before the review and the
         precise operating field has not been established.

         5.1.2 Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements?

         In the absence of a formal requirements document the review committee cannot
         fully answer this question. That said, the Conceptual Design Document represents
         a sound and conservative design based on straightforward modifications of the
         RHIC DX dipoles that appear to be consistent with LHC Phase I upgrade needs.

         5.1.3 Has a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) been developed that includes a clear
               and concise description of the alternatives analyzed, the basis for the
               alternative selected, how the alternative meets the approved mission need

         There is a CDR, but it does not contain a discussion of alternative magnet designs
         considered. The review committee did not find this elsewhere in the documentation.
         Nevertheless the choice to base the design on the successful RHIC DX magnets seems
         both sound and cost effective. The committee is unaware of any other existing alternative
         magnet designs that would meet the requirements.

         5.1.4 Has the Project employed value management as early as possible in the
               project development and design process so recommendations can be included
               in the planning and implemented without delaying the progress of the project
               or causing significant rework of completed designs?

         The principle approach to value management has been to adopt a basic magnet
         design similar to the DX magnets built for RHIC. This substantially reduces the
         design, development, and tooling costs. The committee agrees with this approach.
         Other value management steps have included more cost effective choice for collar
         material and the reuse of the existing LHC cryostat design.

         5.1.5 Has the Project identified specific standards which include codes, standards,
               regulations, and needed discipline (electrical, mechanical, nuclear, fire,
               radiation control, etc.) requirements to procure, fabricate, construct, inspect,
               and test the components, subsystems, and systems?

         The project is following the codes, standards, and regulations used for the prior
         contribution by the U.S. LHC Project. Adoption of these standards substantially reduces
         the effort that otherwise would be needed for a new system of standards.

                            Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                         July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 16 of 37
                                                                     Issued July 24, 2009

   5.1.6 Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the technical
         specifications? Is it a reasonable design?

   Yes

5.2 Technical – Cold Powering System

   5.2.1 Are the requirements that form the basis for the design and engineering phase
         of the project clearly documented?

   No, in general no requirement document was available to use as a reference.

   5.2.2 Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements?

   Due to the lack of a requirements document, the reviewers were unable to
   compare the design to performance requirements. However, the reviewers believe
   that the preliminary technical design is reasonable.

   5.2.3 Has a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) been developed that includes a clear
         and concise description of the alternatives analyzed, the basis for the
         alternative selected, how the alternative meets the approved mission need?

   Yes, the CDR includes analysis of alternative designs.

   5.2.4 Has the Project employed value management as early as possible in the project
         development and design process so recommendations can be included in the
         planning and implemented without delaying the progress of the project or
         causing significant rework of completed designs?

   Yes, the project has included value engineering for DFX, SC link and power leads
   design.

   5.2.5 Has the Project identified specific standards which include codes, standards,
         regulations, and needed discipline (electrical, mechanical, nuclear, fire,
         radiation control, etc.) requirements to procure, fabricate, construct, inspect,
         and test the components, subsystems, and systems?

   Yes, some of the relevant codes and standards were identified. Safety interface document
   needs to be finalized and signed off.

   5.2.6 Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the technical
         specifications? Is it a reasonable design?

   Yes, the conceptual design can be built assuming the successful conceptual thermal
   expansion design of the SC link.




                      Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                   July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                               Page 17 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009


    5.3 Cost – D1 Magnets

         5.3.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately
               justify the stated cost range and project duration?

         The schedule projected is very optimistic in its expectations for CD-2/3a
         approval. It is likely that FY10 funding will be substantially later and smaller than
         envisioned. There is 2 months explicit schedule float for the magnet delivery at
         CERN but there are several places in which there is built-in schedule contingency.
         Examples include the fact that the last magnet is effectively a spare, that some
         parallel assembly is possible if one does not wait for completion of prototype
         tests. SC wire delivery is on the critical path. It is recommended that the project
         explore use of the DOE SC wire inventory or laboratory special process spares as
         a way of procuring the conductor sooner. Similarly one should try to acquire the
         collars ASAP.

         5.3.2 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound
               documented basis and are they reasonable?

         The costs estimates are largely based on the RHIC DX procurements and as such
         appear to have a sound basis. However, the committee was not presented with
         information in sufficient detail nor in a form that allowed a detailed evaluation of
         the cost estimate and its basis.

         5.3.3 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the work associated
               with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management
               activities?

         The committee was not presented with information in sufficient detail nor in a
         form that allowed an evaluation of the cost estimates for these activities.

    5.4 Cost – Cold Powering System

         5.4.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately
               justify the stated cost range and project duration?

         Consistent with CD-1 phase, the cost estimate is not fully developed. Costs are based on
         similar equipment, and the estimates appear reasonable, but are not based on a detailed
         bottom-up cost estimate. The project duration estimates appear aggressive.

         5.4.2 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound
               documented basis and are they reasonable?

         No and Yes, respectively. See above.




                            Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                         July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 18 of 37
                                                                       Issued July 24, 2009

   5.4.3 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the work associated
         with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management
         activities?

   Cost and work estimate for DFX and Power leads appear realistic. Reviewers believe
   that estimates for SC link are inadequate. The review committee believes that the design
   effort will be at least a factor of 3 higher.

5.5 Cost – Overall Project

   5.5.1 Does an obligation profile exist and is it within funding guidance?

   Yes, an obligation profile was provided for FY10 through 14 totaling $23,391,102.28
   which is the sum of TEC and OPC. Significant additional effort is required to validate
   both the Primavera cost profile and obligation profile. It can’t be determined at this time
   if the profile fits within the funding guidance.

5.6 Schedule

   5.6.1 Does the Project’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) define the total scope of
         the project as a product-oriented family tree composed of hardware, software,
         services, data, facilities and other components?

   Yes, the WBS appears to completely address the project scope.

   5.6.2 Is a schedule developed and resource loaded?

   As outlined in the schedule section above the resource loaded schedule needs further
   efforts to make it complete.

   5.6.3 Are the activity durations reasonable for the assumed resources?

   Yes, except for the SC link design.

   5.6.4 Is the schedule duration feasible for the resources assigned to accomplish the
         tasks?

   Yes, the resource usage as presented appears to be feasible, except for the SC link design.

   5.6.5 Does the schedule contain appropriate levels of milestones, sufficient quantity
         of milestones for tracking progress and do they appear to be achievable?

   No, the committee recommends adding more L1 and L2 Milestones.

   5.6.6 Does the schedule include activities for design reviews, which include
         assessment of the designs readiness for procuring prototypes and
         preproduction materials?

   No



                       Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                    July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                                  Page 19 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009

         5.6.7 Have the activities associated with the Preliminary Design and Final Design
               been appropriately identified in the schedule?

         Yes

    5.7 Project Management

         5.7.1 Is there an appropriate management organization structure in place with the
               responsibilities defined and documented for the scope of work?

         Yes. The management structure is complicated by having the project manager and site
         office separate from the host lab, but the project manager is familiar and comfortable at
         the host lab, and roles, responsibilities and authority are understood by the project
         participants.

         5.7.2 Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design
               skills, and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost, and
               schedule baseline?

         Overall yes; however, in the project controls area expertise is lacking. The two major
         deliverables started with different project planning tools, but they can be integrated into
         one baseline. There is considerable work remaining to move to Primavera and produce a
         complete and credible RLS.

         5.7.3 Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient
               given the projects current stage of development?

         Yes, there is a NEPA exclusion. There should be no non-resolvable ES&H issues.

         5.7.4 Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3A in order and ready for
               Approval of CD-1?

         The documentation is there, and can be made ready in time for a CD-1 review in
         2009.

         5.7.5 Are there adequate staffing resources available or planned for this effort?

         Yes, the project management staffing seems to be sufficient. Some temporary
         assistance from experienced schedulers would greatly benefit the project.

         5.7.6 Is there a funding plan available or proposed to meet the resource
               requirements to realize the project?

         The project showed point cost or schedule values rather than a range. Since the
         overall contingency is not overly large, the project will need to identify technical
         scope reduction to provide a cost range, and possibly to generate additional
         contingency.




                             Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                          July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 20 of 37
                                                                  Issued July 24, 2009

5.7.7 Has Risk Management been performed which includes risks assessments on
      each potential design alternative as a factor in selecting which alternative is to
      be pursued?

Yes. The project team is very experienced, and has looked at a variety of options,
and is aware of the risks associated with them. There are still some areas, for
example BNL labor, where risk assessment and schedule impacts have not been
completed.




                   Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                            Page 21 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009


    6.0Appendices
Cost Estimates

Charge

Agenda

Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments

Reviewer Assignments for Breakout Sessions

Reviewers’ Contact Information

Participant List

Table of Recommendations




                        Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                     July 16 - 17, 2009
Page 22 of 37
                                                                                                                                                                                             Issued July 24, 2009



                                                                                              Appendix A
                                                                                       Cost Estimates
                                    APUL’s Cost Estimate for the Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                                                                          July 16-17, 2009
30%                                                                                                                     APUL's Cost Estimate AY $
15%                                                                 Estimated Cost (with indirects)                           Contingency Estimate                           Contingency %        Total
 0% WBS                           Items                            M&S         Labor           Total                      M&S        Labor        Total                     M&S Labor Total       Cost
      1         Project Management                             $     301,225.0    $    2,897,102.0   $    3,198,327.0   $    90,367.5   $    434,565.3    $    524,932.8    30%   15%   16%   $    3,723,259.8
          1.1    Conceptual Design Management                                                        $              -                                     $             -    0%   0%    0%    $              -
          1.2    Final Design and Construction Management      $     301,225.0    $    2,897,102.0   $    3,198,327.0   $    90,367.5   $    434,565.3 $       524,932.8    30%   15%   16%   $    3,723,259.8
      2         Beam Separation Dipole Magnets                 $    6,166,564.0   $    4,607,320.0   $   10,773,884.0   $ 1,849,969.2   $    691,098.0    $   2,541,067.2   30%   15%   24%   $   13,314,951.2
          2.1    D1 Magnet and Magnet Tooling                  $    5,734,586.0   $     382,783.0    $    6,117,369.0   $ 1,720,375.8   $     57,417.5 $      1,777,793.3   30%   15%   29%   $    7,895,162.3
          2.2    D1 Collaring Test                             $              -   $      57,553.0    $      57,553.0    $           -   $       8,633.0 $         8,633.0    0%   15%   15%   $      66,186.0
          2.3    D1 Subassemblies                              $              -   $     213,540.0    $     213,540.0    $           -   $     32,031.0 $        32,031.0     0%   15%   15%   $     245,571.0
TEC       2.4    D1 Magnet Assemblies                          $     431,978.0    $    3,953,444.0   $    4,385,422.0   $   129,593.4   $    593,016.6 $       722,610.0    30%   15%   16%   $    5,108,032.0
      3         Cold Powering System                           $    3,831,514.0   $    2,778,804.0   $    6,610,318.0   $ 1,149,454.2   $    833,641.2    $   1,983,095.4   30%   30%   30%   $    8,593,413.4
          3.1    Distribution Feedbox for the IR (DFX)         $    2,122,650.0   $    1,294,109.0   $    3,416,759.0   $   636,795.0   $    388,232.7 $      1,025,027.7   30%   30%   30%   $    4,441,786.7
          3.2    Current Leads                                 $     746,771.0    $     217,304.0    $     964,075.0    $   224,031.3   $     65,191.2 $       289,222.5    30%   30%   30%   $    1,253,297.5
          3.3    Superconducting Link                          $     864,396.0    $     643,442.0    $    1,507,838.0   $   259,318.8   $    193,032.6 $       452,351.4    30%   30%   30%   $    1,960,189.4
          3.4    DFX, Lead, and Link test                      $      97,697.0    $     623,949.0    $     721,646.0    $    29,309.1   $    187,184.7 $       216,493.8    30%   30%   30%   $     938,139.8
                                                  Total TEC:   $   10,299,303.0   $   10,283,226.0   $   20,582,529.0   $ 3,089,790.9   $   1,959,304.5   $   5,049,095.4   30%   19%   25%   $   25,631,624.4


      1         Project Management                             $      53,658.0    $     610,856.0    $     664,514.0    $           -   $             -   $             -    0%   0%    0%    $     664,514.0
          1.1    Conceptual Design Management                  $      53,658.0    $     610,856.0    $     664,514.0    $           -   $             - $               -    0%   0%    0%    $     664,514.0
          1.2    Final Design and Construction Management                                            $              -   $           -   $             - $               -    0%   0%    0%    $              -
      2         Beam Separation Dipole Magnets                 $     222,333.0    $    1,298,749.0   $    1,521,082.0   $           -   $             -   $             -    0%   0%    0%    $    1,521,082.0
          2.1    D1 Magnet and Magnet Tooling                  $     222,333.0    $    1,298,749.0   $    1,521,082.0                                     $             -    0%   0%    0%    $    1,521,082.0
          2.2    D1 Collaring Test                             $              - $                -   $              -                                     $             -    0%   0%    0%    $              -
          2.3    D1 Subassemblies                              $              - $                -   $              -                                     $             -    0%   0%    0%    $              -
OP
          2.4    D1 Magnet Assemblies                          $              - $                -   $              -                                     $             -    0%   0%    0%    $              -
C
      3         Cold Powering System                           $      60,429.0    $     562,548.0    $     622,977.0    $           -   $             -   $             -    0%   0%    0%    $     622,977.0
          3.1    Distribution Feedbox for the IR (DFX)         $              -   $     225,081.0    $     225,081.0                                      $             -    0%   0%    0%    $     225,081.0
          3.2    Current Leads                                 $              -   $     169,668.0    $     169,668.0                                      $             -    0%   0%    0%    $     169,668.0
          3.3    Superconducting Link                          $      60,429.0    $     167,799.0    $     228,228.0                                      $             -    0%   0%    0%    $     228,228.0
          3.4    DFX, Lead, and Link test                      $              - $                -   $              -                                     $             -    0%   0%    0%    $              -
                                                  Total OPC:   $     336,420.0    $    2,472,153.0   $    2,808,573.0   $           -   $             -   $             -    0%   0%    0%    $    2,808,573.0



                                                      TPC:     $ 10,635,723.0     $ 12,755,379.0     $ 23,391,102.0     $ 3,089,790.9   $ 1,959,304.5     $ 5,049,095.4     29%   15%   22%   $ 28,440,197.4




                                                                      Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                                                                   July 16 - 17, 2009
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 23 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009

                                          Appendix B
                                          Charge
                for the Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                   July16-17, 2009

This charge is for the Committee to conduct a Director’s CD-1 Review of the Accelerator
Project for Upgrade of the LHC (APUL), which is a subproject of the Phase I upgrade of
the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Organization for Nuclear Research
(CERN). The implementation of the APUL project is supported by Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). The
review is to assess the project’s efforts at meeting the requirements for DOE to approve
CD-1. CD-1 is defined as “Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range”. As part of
this assessment the questions listed in Attachment 1 of this charge should be addressed.
Additionally, constructive comments on presentation content, format, and style are also
requested.
Approval of CD-1 by DOE officials is based on a Conceptual Design documented in
Conceptual Design Report (CDR) for the project. The project scope and preliminary
baseline range for the cost and schedule are to be defined at this point in the project.
Some additional documents that support the CD-1 determination are a Preliminary
Project Execution Plan (PEP), a Preliminary Project Management Plan (PMP) and the
Preliminary Hazard Analysis report.
The technical part of the review is an independent review of the conceptual designs for
D1 magnets and cold powering systems at interaction regions at points 1 and 5. It will
answer these questions: will these designs meet the requirements and specifications and
are the designs sound.
The cost, schedule and scope ranges are usually based on an initial set of documentation
such as the following: WBS – Work Breakdown Structure, WBS Dictionary, BOE –
Basis of Estimate documentation, risk and contingency analyses, RLS – Resource Loaded
Schedule, and time phased funding and cost profiles. The committee is asked to review
each of these items, for quality, completeness, and accuracy. Furthermore, the committee
is asked to review and assess the quality of and comment on the additional formal project
management documentation required for CD-1 approval.
DOE has expressed a desire to establish the APUL budget at $27M. In this review APUL
will be presenting a cost range of $27M – $29M. In evaluating this range the committee
is asked to review and assess the appropriateness of the contingency applied to the
current estimates and the scope contingency strategy developed by APUL. The review
committee would specifically like to hear the committee’s views on whether a $27M
budget can be established without assuming undue risk, either in the technical, cost, or
schedule realms.


Finally, the committee should present findings, comments, and recommendations at a
closeout meeting with APUL’s, Fermilab’s and Brookhaven’s management. A written
report will be provided soon after the review.
                         Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                      July 16-17, 2009
Page 24 of 37
                                                                                    Issued July 24, 2009


Attachment 1 - Charge for the Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project

Technical
     Are the requirements that form the basis for the design and engineering phase of the project clearly
        documented?
     Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance requirements?
     Has a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) been developed that includes a clear and concise
        description of the alternatives analyzed, the basis for the alternative selected, how the alternative
        meets the approved mission need?
     Has the Project employed value management as early as possible in the project development and
        design process so recommendations can be included in the planning and implemented without
        delaying the progress of the project or causing significant rework of completed designs?
     Has the Project identified specific standards which include codes, standards, regulations, and
        needed discipline (electrical, mechanical, nuclear, fire, radiation control, etc.) requirements to
        procure, fabricate, construct, inspect, and test the components, subsystems, and systems?
     Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the technical specifications? Is it a
        reasonable design?
Cost
     Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost
        range and project duration?
     Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound documented basis and are they
        reasonable?
     Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the work associated with performing
        Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities?
     Does an obligation profile exist and is it within funding guidance?
Schedule
     Does the Project’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) define the total scope of the project as a
        product-oriented family tree composed of hardware, software, services, data, facilities and other
        components?
     Is a schedule developed and resource loaded?
     Are the activity durations reasonable for the assumed resources?
     Is the schedule duration feasible for the resources assigned to accomplish the tasks?
     Does the schedule contain appropriate levels of milestones, sufficient quantity of milestones for
        tracking progress and do they appear to be achievable?
     Does the schedule include activities for design reviews, which include assessment of the designs
        readiness for procuring prototypes and preproduction materials?
     Have the activities associated with the Preliminary Design and Final Design been appropriately
        identified in the schedule?
Management
     Is there an appropriate management organization structure in place with the responsibilities
        defined and documented for the scope of work?
     Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and
        laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost, and schedule baseline?
     Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the projects
        current stage of development?
     Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3 in order and ready for Approval of CD-1?
     Are there adequate staffing resources available or planned for this effort?
     Is there a funding plan available or proposed to meet the resource requirements to realize the
        project?
     Has Risk Management been performed which includes risks assessments on each potential design
        alternative as a factor in selecting which alternative is to be pursued?




                               Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                            July 16-17, 2009
                                                                                                Page 25 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009

                                              Appendix C
                                              Agenda
                  for the Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                          July 16-17, 2009
JULY 16TH
EXECUTIVE SESSION – Hermitage (Industrial Center Building 2nd floor East end)
8:00 – 8:45 AM  45     Executive Session                                      D. Hoffer

PLENARY SESSION - Hermitage
8:45 – 8:55   AM 10    Welcome                                               S. Holmes
8:55 – 10:10 AM  75    Project Overview                                      P. Wanderer
10:10 – 10:20 AM 10    BREAK
10:20 – 11:20 AM 60    Cold Powering overview                                S. Feher
11:20 – 12:20 PM 60    D1 magnets overview                                   M. Anerella
12:30 – 1:30 PM  60    LUNCH

BREAKOUT SESSIONS
D1 MAGNETS – Hermitage (Industrial Center Building 2nd floor East end)
1:30 – 2:30 PM   60      D1 details                                          M. Anerella
2:30 – 3:00 PM   30      Superconductor                                      A. Ghosh
3:00 – 3:30 PM   30      Field Quality                                       R. Gupta
3:30 – 4:00 PM   30      Testing                                             J. Muratore
4:00 – 4:30 PM   30      Cryogenics                                          K.C. Wu (presented by
                                                                             P. Wanderer)

COLD POWERING – IB3 Conference Room (IB3 2nd floor East end)
1:30 – 1:50 PM  20    Cost & Schedule                                        S. Feher
1:50 – 2:10 PM  20    Basis of Estimates                                     M. Kaducak
2:10 – 2:40 PM  30    Cooling Scheme                                         T. Peterson
(presented
                                                                             by S. Feher)
2:40 – 3:00     PM      20       Electrical Scheme & Protection              S. Feher
3:00 – 3:40     PM      40       SC Link Concept                             F. Nobrega
3:40 – 4:40     PM      60       DFX & Current Lead Concept                  J. Brandt
4:40 – 5:00     PM      20       Testing                                     T. Peterson (presented
                                                                             by S. Feher)
COST, SCHEDULE AND MANAGEMENT – Engineering Conference Room (ICB 3rd floor center area)
3:00 – 3:30 PM  30   Project Management Plan highlights (including
                     reviews)                                      P. Wanderer
3:30 – 4:00 PM  30   Cost and Schedule (including Key
                     Assumptions, Value Management)
                     Primavera and its reports should be available
                     for detailed questions.                       S. Feher
4:00 – 4:20 PM  20   Risk                                          M. Kaducak
4:20 – 4:40 PM  20   ES&H, QA, Configuration Management            M. Kaducak

EXECUTIVE SESSION - Hermitage
5:00 – 7:00 PM  120    Executive Session                                     D. Hoffer

                             Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                          July 16-17, 2009
Page 26 of 37
                                                                     Issued July 24, 2009

JULY 17TH

8:00 – 9:00   AM   60       APUL Response to Committee Questions        Hermitage
9:00 – 9:30   AM   30       Executive Discussion                        Hermitage
9:30 – 1:00   PM            Subcommittee Working Session and Report Writing
                            with Working Lunch                          Hermitage
1:00 – 4:00   PM            Committee Dry Run                           Hermitage
4:00 – 5:00   PM   60       Closeout Presentations                      Hermitage
5:00          PM            Adjourn




                        Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                     July 16-17, 2009
                                                                              Page 27 of 37
      Issued July 24, 2009

                                                    Appendix D
                      Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments
                         for the Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                            July16-17, 2009


Executive Summary                                                                        Dean Hoffer
1.0 Introduction                                                                         Dean Hoffer
2.0 D1 Magnets                                                                           Jim Strait
                                                                                         Bob Kephart
                                                                                         Mike Harrison
3.0 Cold Powering System                                                                 Claus Rode
                                                                                         Arkadiy Klebaner
                                                                                         Phil Martin
4.0 Cost, Schedule and Project Management
        4.1 Cost                                                                         Jeff Sims
                                                                                         Fran Clark
       4.2 Schedule                                                                      Fran Clark
                                                                                         Mike Lindgren
       4.3 Project Management                                                            Mike Lindgren
                                                                                         Jeff Sims
5.0 Charge Questions
       5.1 Technical – D1 Magnets
                5.1.1 Are the requirements that form the basis for the design and        Bob Kephart
                engineering phase of the project clearly documented?
                5.1.2 Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance
                requirements?
                5.1.3 Has a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) been developed that
                includes a clear and concise description of the alternatives analyzed,
                the basis for the alternative selected, how the alternative meets the
                approved mission need?
                5.1.4 Has the Project employed value management as early as
                possible in the project development and design process so
                recommendations can be included in the planning and implemented
                without delaying the progress of the project or causing significant
                rework of completed designs?
                5.1.5 Has the Project identified specific standards which include
                codes, standards, regulations, and needed discipline (electrical,
                mechanical, nuclear, fire, radiation control, etc.) requirements to
                procure, fabricate, construct, inspect, and test the components,
                subsystems, and systems?
                5.1.6 Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the
                technical specifications? Is it a reasonable design?




                                   Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                                July 16-17, 2009
      Page 28 of 37
                                                                            Issued July 24, 2009


5.2 Technical – Cold Powering System
        5.2.1 Are the requirements that form the basis for the design and        Arkadiy Klebaner
        engineering phase of the project clearly documented?
        5.2.2 Does the conceptual design satisfy the performance
        requirements?
        5.2.3 Has a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) been developed that
        includes a clear and concise description of the alternatives analyzed,
        the basis for the alternative selected, how the alternative meets the
        approved mission need?
        5.2.4 Has the Project employed value management as early as
        possible in the project development and design process so
        recommendations can be included in the planning and implemented
        without delaying the progress of the project or causing significant
        rework of completed designs?
        5.2.5 Has the Project identified specific standards which include
        codes, standards, regulations, and needed discipline (electrical,
        mechanical, nuclear, fire, radiation control, etc.) requirements to
        procure, fabricate, construct, inspect, and test the components,
        subsystems, and systems?
        5.2.6 Can the conceptual design be built? Does the design meet the
        technical specifications? Is it a reasonable design?
5.3 Cost - D1 Magnets
        5.3.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting                   Mike Harrison
        documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project
        duration?
        5.3.2 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a
        sound documented basis and are they reasonable?
        5.3.3 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the
        work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design
        and Value Management activities?
5.4 Cost – Cold Powering System
        5.4.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting                   Phil Martin
        documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project
        duration?
        5.4.2 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a
        sound documented basis and are they reasonable?
        5.4.3 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the
        work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design
        and Value Management activities?
5.5 Cost – Overall Project
        5.5.1 Does an obligation profile exist and is it within funding          Jeff Sims
        guidance?




                           Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                        July 16-17, 2009
                                                                                      Page 29 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009

 5.6 Schedule
         5.6.1 Does the Project’s Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) define          Jeff Sims
         the total scope of the project as a product-oriented family tree
         composed of hardware, software, services, data, facilities and other
         components?
         5.6.2 Is a schedule developed and resource loaded?
         5.6.3 Are the activity durations reasonable for the assumed
         resources?
         5.6.4 Is the schedule duration feasible for the resources assigned to
         accomplish the tasks?
         5.6.5 Does the schedule contain appropriate levels of milestones,
         sufficient quantity of milestones for tracking progress and do they
         appear to be achievable?
         5.6.6 Does the schedule include activities for design reviews, which
         include assessment of the designs readiness for procuring prototypes
         and preproduction materials?
         5.6.7 Have the activities associated with the Preliminary Design and
         Final Design been appropriately identified in the schedule?
 5.7 Project Management
         5.7.1 Is there an appropriate management organization structure in      Mike Lindgren
         place with the responsibilities defined and documented for the scope
         of work?
         5.7.2 Does the proposed project team have adequate management
         experience, design skills, and laboratory support to produce a
         credible technical, cost, and schedule baseline?
         5.7.3 Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future
         plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development?
         5.7.4 Is the documentation required by DOE O 413.3 in order and
         ready for Approval of CD-1?
         5.7.5 Are there adequate staffing resources available or planned for
         this effort?
         5.7.6 Is there a funding plan available or proposed to meet the
         resource requirements to realize the project?
         5.7.7 Has Risk Management been performed which includes risks
         assessments on each potential design alternative as a factor in
         selecting which alternative is to be pursued?
     Note underlined names are the primary writer.




                            Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                         July 16-17, 2009
Page 30 of 37
                                                                       Issued July 24, 2009

                                           Appendix E

                 Reviewer Assignments for Breakout Sessions
                 for the Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                    July16-17, 2009


1) D1 Magnets (Hermitage)                                                  Mike Harrison
                                                                           Bob Kephart
                                                                           Jim Strait
                                                                           Fran Clark*
                                                                           Mike Lindgren*
2) Cold Powering (IB3 Conference Room)                                     Arkadiy Klebaner
                                                                           Phil Martin
                                                                           Claus Rode
                                                                           Jeff Sims*
                                                                           Dean Hoffer*
3) Cost, Schedule and Project Management (Engineering                      Fran Clark
Conference Room)                                                           Dean Hoffer
                                                                           Mike Lindgren
                                                                           Jeff Sims

* Attend technical breakouts for cost and schedule presentation at beginning of sessions.


Subcommittees

SC1 – D1 Magnets
      Jim Strait
      Bob Kephart
      Mike Harrison

SC2 – Cold Powering System
       Claus Rode
       Arkadiy Klebaner
       Phil Martin

SC3 – Cost, Schedule and Project Management
       Mike Lindgren
       Fran Clark
       Jeff Sims

Note: Underlined names are subcommittee lead.




                          Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                       July 16-17, 2009
                                                                                Page 31 of 37
Issued July 24, 2009

                                        Appendix F
                       Reviewers’ Contact Information
                for the Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                   July16-17, 2009




                       Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                    July 16-17, 2009
Page 32 of 37
                                                                              Issued July 24, 2009

                                          Appendix G

                                    Participant List
                for the Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                   July16-17, 2009

                                                        First
            Role                  Last Name                                    Institution
                                                       Name
APUL Project                   Brandt               Jeffrey           Fermilab
                               Ghosh                Arup              Brookhaven National Lab
                               Gupta                Ramesh            Brookhaven National Lab
                               Muratore             Joseph            Brookhaven National Lab
                               Nobrega              F                 Fermilab
                               Anerella             Michael           Brookhaven National Lab
                               Feher                Sandor            Fermilab
                               Kaducak              Marc              Fermilab
                               Prwivo               Ronald            Brookhaven National Lab
                               Wanderer             Peter             Brookhaven National Lab
DOE                            Eng                  Joe               DOE BSO
DOE Federal Project Director   Caradonna            Robert            DOE BSO
DOE Program Manager            Strauss              Bruce             DOE HEP
DOE SO                         Carolan              Pepin             DOE FSO
Fermilab/Directorate           Holmes               Steve             Fermilab
Fermilab/Directorate           Kim                  Young-Kee         Fermilab
Fermilab/TD                    Apollinari           Giorgio           Fermilab
Fermilab/TD                    Limon                Peter             Fermilab
Observer                       Ostojic              Ranko             CERN
Review Chair                   Hoffer               Dean              Fermilab
Reviewer                       Clark                Fran              Consultant - Argonne Retired
                               Harrison             Mike              Brookhaven National Lab
                               Kephart              Robert            Fermilab
                               Klebaner             Arkadly           Fermilab
                               Lindgren             Michael           Fermilab
                               Martin               Phil              Consultant - Fermi Retired
                               Rode                 Claus             Jefferson Lab
                               Strait               Jim               Fermilab assigned at CERN




                         Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                      July 16-17, 2009
                                                                                         Page 33 of 37
    Issued July 24, 2009

                                               Appendix H

                                Table of Recommendations
                    for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4 – 6, 2007


                                                                Assigned   Status/
#                   Recommendation                                                   Date
                                                                   To      Action
    2.0 D1 Magnets
1   Work with the agency to develop a plan for
    acquiring critical long-lead-time materials such as
    superconductor, steel, etc early enough in the
    project such that the magnet delivery schedule to
    CERN can be met.
2   Develop a plan that starts the construction of a
    prototype magnet before CD-3a. This prototype if
    successful could be the spare with resultant cost
    savings for the project.
3   Examine the strategy for choosing milestones. The
    current choices will not alert management of
    problems until it is too late to respond effectively.
    The project needs high level milestones that APUL
    and OHEP management can use to gauge progress
    well before 2011.
4   Develop a formal requirements document signed
    off by the APUL management, US collaborating
    institutions and CERN.           This document is
    important to insure that the parties have similar
    expectations.
5   DOE and CERN management need to establish a
    common understanding on available DOE
    resources for APUL and thus the scope of the
    project that can be supported.
6   Work with CERN to perform a Failure Mode and
    Effects analysis to insure pressure vessels, support
    members, electrical insulation, etc. are adequate.
    CERN should sign-off on this and other such
    system related requirements.
7   Simulate magnetic field effects and forces for the
    combined D1 assembly including both end-to-end
    forces on coils and field harmonics.




                              Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                           July 16-17, 2009
    Page 34 of 37
                                                                           Issued July 24, 2009


                                                                Assigned   Status/
#                   Recommendation                                                           Date
                                                                   To      Action
     3.0 Cold Powering System
8    Develop a performance requirements document
     that specifies operating and transient parameters
     and failure modes, constraints and safety
     requirements.
9    Develop a conceptual design for the SC Link
     thermal expansion.
10   Develop an integration plan for the system
     installation at CERN and consider possible
     preassembly at Fermilab.
11   Perform full scale 10 cycles test of remove and
     installation of a 13 kA power lead de-mountable
     solder joint mock-up prior to CD-2.
12   Add or move to Level 2 Milestones:
         A. DFX Design Complete
         B. Power Lead Design Complete
         C. SC Link Design Complete
         D. DFX Contract Awarded
         E. DFX 1st Article Construction Complete
         F. DFX box and prototype SC link test at
             Fermilab
         G. Final DFX Construction Complete
     4.0 Cost, Schedule and Project Management
     4.1 Cost
13   Complete BoE documents that defend all M&S
     and Labor estimates for each activity. Ensure that
     BoE costs are traceable between the BoE,
     Primavera and COBRA for drill down exercises at
     the CD-1 IPR.
14   Clearly identify the method used to escalate base
     estimate costs within COBRA.
15   Recalculate the bottoms up cost estimate with
     adequate contingency on TEC and OPC. Once this
     is complete, evaluate the TPC and identify scope
     contingency needed to generate a cost range
     consistent with the DOE funding profile guidance.
16   Verify that the APUL cost estimating and
     scheduling methods are in accordance with the
     FRA EVM system description.
17   Expected value of project risks should be
     compared to total project contingency prior to CD-
     1 to ensure initial contingency estimate is
     reasonable.
     4.2 Schedule
                              Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                           July 16-17, 2009
                                                                                     Page 35 of 37
     Issued July 24, 2009


                                                                Assigned   Status/
#                    Recommendation                                                  Date
                                                                   To      Action
18   Complete the transfer of MS Project schedule
     information into Primavera as soon as possible.
19   Seek out experienced project controls staff and
     oversight to review and scrub the schedule.
20   Use step milestone function or other techniques in
     Primavera to optimize schedule.
21   Remove tasks labeled as “float” and use locked
     milestones.
22   Leave LOE tasks off of the critical path analysis.
23   Add Levels1 and 2 milestones earlier in schedule.
     Review milestones with Federal Project Director
     (FPD).
24   Review all milestones for their effectiveness in
     managing the project.
25   Once schedule is completely integrated into
     Primavera:       close open-ended tasks; level
     resources; determine actual schedule float
     available, determine actual critical path.
26   Scrub schedule to conform to FRA EVM system
     description requirements.
27   A one-page “cartoon” schedule should be
     developed for presentation at the IPR that shows
     the start/finish dates of WBS Level 2, high-level
     milestones (Levels 1 and 2), and the critical path.
28   Update WBS dictionary to ensure descriptions are
     complete and match the WBS. Update the
     Milestone dictionary descriptions to include
     completion criteria.
     4.3 Project Management
29   Continue to complete the project management
     documents needed for a project of this size.
30   Review the most recent 413.3A guidance
     documents to ensure the PEP, AS, and CDR
     comply.
31   Prepare for the DOE CD-1 review by making a
     cost and schedule range rather than a point
     cost/schedule.
32   Options for generating scope contingency and
     associated cost impacts should be considered,
     understood, and addressed.
33   The schedule risk at BNL and Fermilab of not
     getting the needed personnel on the optimal
     timescale because of competing priorities should
     be addressed in the risk assessments.
                              Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                           July 16-17, 2009
     Page 36 of 37
                                                                       Issued July 24, 2009


                                                            Assigned   Status/
#                 Recommendation                                                         Date
                                                               To      Action
34   An MOU should be prepared between Fermilab
     and Brookhaven.
35   The APUL management should seek advice on
     how best to present information to the CD-1
     review committee.




                          Director’s CD-1 Review of the APUL Project
                                       July 16-17, 2009
                                                                                 Page 37 of 37

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:8/7/2011
language:English
pages:37