1 / 20

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

OFFICE OF SCIENCE. Review Committee for the LHC CMS Detector Upgrade Project Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 26-27, 2013. Kurt Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/. Executive Session.

rowena
Télécharger la présentation

Kurt Fisher 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 LHC CMS Detector Upgrade Project Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 26-27, 2013 Kurt Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  2. Executive Session OFFICE OFSCIENCE DOE/SC EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Monday, August 26, 2013—Wilson Hall, the Comitium 8:00 a.m. Introduction and Overview K. Fisher 8:15 a.m. Program Office PerspectiveM. Procario/S. Rolli 8:30 a.m. Federal Project Director PerspectiveS. Webster/P. Carolan 8:45 a.m. Questions • Project and review information is available at: • http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OPMO/Projects/USCMS/DOERev/20130826/review.html • https://indico.fnal.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=7183 • Access key: uscms_cd1

  3. DOE Organization OFFICE OFSCIENCE Office of the Secretary Dr. Ernest J. Moniz Secretary Daniel B. Poneman, Deputy Secretary* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Inspector General Loans Program Office Chief of Staff Office of the Under Secretary for Science Vacant Under Secretary for Science Office of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security Neile L. Miller (Acting) Under Secretary for Nuclear Security Office of the Under Secretary Vacant Under Secretary Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs U.S. Energy Information Administration Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Bonneville Power Administration General Counsel Southwestern Power Administration Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Office of Science Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Chief Financial Officer Southeastern Power Administration Legacy Management Advanced Scientific Computing Research Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Chief Human Capital Officer Western Area Power Administration Basic Energy Sciences Assistant Secretary for Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors Deputy Under Secretary for Counter-terrorism & Counter-proliferation Economic Impact & Diversity Biological and Environmental Research Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security Associate Administrator for Emergency Operations Chief Information Officer Management Fusion Energy Science Indian Energy Policy and Programs Associate Administrator for External Affairs Associate Administrator for Infrastructure & Operations Intelligence & Counterintelligence Health Safety and Security High Energy Physics Associate Administrator for Management & Budget Associate Administrator For Acquisition & Project Management Public Affairs Hearings and Appeals Nuclear Physics Associate Administrator for Safety & Health Workforce Development For Teachers/Scientists 21 May 2013 Associate Administrator for Information Management & Chief Information Officer *The Deputy Secretary also serves as the Chief Operating Officer. Office of General Counsel

  4. SC Organization OFFICE OFSCIENCE Office of the Director (SC-1) Patricia M. Dehmer (A) Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) Joseph McBrearty Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia M. 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 Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Barbara Helland (A) 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) D. Streit (A) SC Integrated Support Center Brookhaven SO Frank Crescenzo Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman SC Communications & Public Affairs (SC-47) DollineHatchett Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax Office of SC Program Direction (SC-46) Daniel Division Fermi SO Michael Weis Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski Oak Ridge Office Larry Kelly Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Human Resources & Admin. (SC-48) 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 4/2013

  5. Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC, Chairperson SC1 SC2 SC3 HCal—Hadron Calorimeter (WBS 1.2) Forward Pixel Detector (WBS 1.3) Level 1 Trigger (WBS 1.4) Jim Proudfoot, ANL * Jim Brau, Oregon * Myron Campbell, U. of Michigan Jim Pilcher, U. of Chicago Maurice Garcia-Sciveres, LBNL Charlie Young, SLAC Luciano Ristori, FNAL SC4 SC5 Cost and Schedule Project Management (WBS 1.1) Ethan Merrill, DOE/SC * Mark Reichanadter, SLAC Gail Penny, DOE/BHSO Michael Levi, LBNL Mark Palmer, FNAL Observers LEGEND Jim Siegrist, DOE/SC SC Subcommittee Mike Procario, DOE/SC * Chairperson Simona Rolli, DOE/SC Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO Steve Webster, DOE/FSO Count: 13 (excluding observers) Review Committee Participants OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  6. OFFICEOF SCIENCE Charge Questions • Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? • Cost and Schedule: Are the cost and schedule estimates credible and realistic for this stage of the project? Do they include adequate scope, cost and schedule contingency? • Management and ES&H: Is the project being appropriately managed at this stage? 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 project’s current stage of development? • Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval of CD-1 complete?

  7. Agenda OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  8. Agenda (cont.) OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  9. Report Outline/ Writing Assignments OFFICE OF SCIENCE

  10. Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  11. Format:Closeout Presentation OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (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.

  12. Format:Final Report OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (MSWord; 12 pt 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.

  13. 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 September 3, 8:00 a.m. (EDT).

  14. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Closeout Report by the Review Committee for the LHC CMS Detector Upgrade Project Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 27, 2013 Kurt Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  15. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.1 Hadron Calorimeter (WBS 1.2) J. Proudfoot, ANL* / SC1 • Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? • Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval CD-1 complete? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  16. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Forward Pixel DetectorJ. Brau, Oregon* / SC2 • Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? • Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval CD-1 complete? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  17. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Level 1 TriggerM. Campbell, U. of Michigan* / SC3 • Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? • Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval CD-1 complete? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  18. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/SC* / SC3 • Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? • Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? • Cost and Schedule: Are the cost and schedule estimates credible and realistic for this stage of the project? Do they include adequate scope, cost and schedule contingency? • Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval of CD-1 complete? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

  19. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Project StatusE. Merrill, DOE/SC* / SC3

  20. OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4. Project ManagementM. Reichanadter, SLAC* / SC5 • Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? • Management and ES&H: Is the project being appropriately managed at this stage? 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? • Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval of CD-1 complete? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

More Related