1 / 19

Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

OFFICE OF SCIENCE. Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO  A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory May 8, 2012. Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/.

nassor
Télécharger la présentation

Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory May 8, 2012 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  2. DOE Review of NOA OFFICE OFSCIENCE DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, May 8, 2012—Wilson Hall, The Comitium 7:30 a.m. DOE Executive SessionD. Lehman 7:35 a.m. SC PerspectiveT. Lavine 7:45 a.m. Site Office PerspectiveP. Carolan 7:55 a.m. Questions/DiscussionD. Lehman 8:00 a.m. Adjourn Project and review information is available at: http://www-nova.fnal.gov/reviews_summer_2012/doe_rev_may_8.html username: review password: rev06

  3. OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Department of EnergyReview Committee • Daniel R. Lehman, DOE, Chairperson Subcommittee 1: Accelerator and Beamlines • *Pat den Hartog • Subcommittee 2: Detector • * Bill Wisniewski, SLAC • Subcommittee 3: Electronics • *Peter Denes, LBNL • Subcommittee 4: Cost and Schedule • Observers*Ethan Merrill, DOE/SC • Ted Lavine, DOE/SC Richard Elliott, DOE/OECM • Eli Rosenberg, DOE/SC • Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO Subcommittee 5: Management • Brian Huizenga, OECM *Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC • * Lead Review Committee Participants

  4. DOE Organizational Chart OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  5. OFFICE OFSCIENCE SC Organizational Chart Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Office of Science Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) Joseph McBrearty Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia Dehmer Deputy Director for Resource Management (SC-4) Jeffrey Salmon Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) D. Streit Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) P. Dehmer (A) Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Daniel Hitchcock Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Office of Budget (SC-41) Kathleen Klausing Office of Business Policy & Ops (SC-45) V. Kountouris Argonne SO Joanna Livengood Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Linda Shariati Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Office of Safety, Security & Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones SC Integrated Support Center Brookhaven SO Michael Holland Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman SC Communications & Public Affairs (SC-4) DollineHatchett Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax Office of SC Program Direction (SC-46) Rebecca Kelley Fermi SO Michael Weis Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski Oak Ridge Office J. Eschenberg (A) Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Human Resources & Admin. (SC-45.3) Cynthia Mays Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Small Business Innovation Research (SC-29) Manny Oliver Princeton SO Maria Dikeakos High Energy Physics (SC-25) James Siegrist Pacific NWest SO Roger Snyder Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman Stanford SO Paul Golan (A) Acting Thomas Jeff. SO Joe Arango 2/2012

  6. Charge Questions OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Technical: Are the accomplishments to-date and remaining activities as planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? • Baseline Cost and Schedule: Is project's plan and performance consistent with the approved baseline? Are remaining costs and schedule contingency adequate for the risks? • Management: Are the management resources adequate to deliver the project within specifications, budget and schedule, including management and mitigation of remaining technical, cost and schedule risks? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review?

  7. Draft Agenda OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Tuesday, May 8, 2012—Fermilab, Wilson Hall, The Comitium • 7:30 am DOE Executive SessionD. Lehman • 8:00 am Welcome P. Oddone • 8:05 am Project Summary AssessmentJ. Cooper • • Technical Status • • Cost, Schedule, EVM and Milestone Performance • • Contingency Assessment • • Response to Recommendations from Previous Review • 9:15 a.m. Break • 9:30 am Accelerator and NuMI UpgradesP. Derwent • • FY2012 Shutdown—Status of installation readiness, plan and progress • 10:30 am Detector Module ProductionK. Heller • 10:50 am Far Detector Assembly Status & ScheduleP. Lukens • 11:10 am Detector Electronics/DAQL. Mualem • • APD/Other Electronics/DAQ issues, status and plans • 11:40 am Far Detector Outfitting Status & ScheduleR. Tesarek • 12:00 pm Lunch • 12:30 pm DOE Executive Session, Close-Out preparationD. Lehman • 2:00 pm Closeout • 3:00 pm Adjourn

  8. Report Outline/Writing Assignments OFFICE OFSCIENCE Executive SummaryFisher 1. IntroductionLavine 2. Technical (Charge Questions 1, 4) 2.1 Accelerator and Beamlinesden Hartog*/SC1 2.1.1 Findings 2.1.2 Comments 2.1.3 Recommendations 2.2 DetectorWisniewski*/SC2 2.3 ElectronicsDenes*/SC3 3. Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 4)Merrill*/SC4 Management (Charge Questions 3, 4)Fisher*/SC5

  9. Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  10. Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (Use PowerPoint / No Smaller than 18 pt Font) • 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. • List Review Subcommittee Members • List Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers • 2.1.1 Findings • In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. • 2.1.2 Comments • In bullet form, list descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. • 2.1.3 Recommendations • Begin with action verb and identify a due date. • 2.

  11. Format:Final Report OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (Use MS Word / 12pt Font) • 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. • 2.1.1 Findings • Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions. • 2.1.2 Comments • Descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. • 2.1.3 Recommendations • Begin with action verb and identify a due date. • 2. • 3.

  12. Expectations OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Present closeout reports in PowerPoint. • Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, casey.clark@science.doe.gov, by May 14, 8:00 a.m. (EDT).

  13. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Closeout Report on the Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory May 8, 2012 Example Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  14. 2.1 Accelerator and Beamlines den Hartog, ANL OFFICE OFSCIENCE Technical: Are the accomplishments to-date and remaining activities as planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

  15. 2.2 DetectorWisniewski, SLAC OFFICE OFSCIENCE Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

  16. 2.3 ElectronicsDenes, LBNL OFFICE OFSCIENCE Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

  17. 3. Cost and ScheduleMerrill, DOE/SC/Elliott, DOE/OECM OFFICE OFSCIENCE Baseline Cost and Schedule: Is project's plan and performance consistent with the approved baseline? Are remaining costs and schedule contingency adequate for the risks? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

  18. Project Status Merrill, DOE/SC/Elliott, DOE/OECM OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  19. 4. Management *Fisher, DOE/SC OFFICE OFSCIENCE Management: Are the management resources adequate to deliver the project within specifications, budget and schedule, including management and mitigation of remaining technical, cost and schedule risks? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

More Related