2008/09 outturn Common

Fund

C&S Comments Issues

K. Long, Friday, 29th April 2009

Baseline (£M)

Item Total to Mar08Apr08-Mar09

Totalas at

Mar09as at

Dec08

Project Oversight 0.91 (0.13)

MICE Muon Beam 1.69 0.26MICE Infrastructure 1.81 0.52

MICE R&DRF Power 0.60 0.17Hydrogen 0.32 0.04

FC Module Design 0.80

Detection and Measurement 1.20 (0.02)

Travel 0.20 0.01

Total Phase 1 7.52 9.25 0.84 10.09

Working Margin 0.73Contingency 1.46

Total incl. WM & C 9.72 9.25 0.84 10.09 (0.37) (0.57)

MICE-UK Phase I financial summary

Variance (£M)Spend (£M)

Phase I financial summary:

Financial year 2008/09 outturn (first estimate) Phase I now closed

Phase II financial summary: Financial year 2008/09 outturn (first estimate):

As reported in previous meetings: Significant overspend (total £601k)

Staff o/s: £444k; non-staff o/s: £288.32k

How did we get to here? Through financial year 2008/09 we were:

Completing the Phase I project: Following the advice of the OsC we were pushing hard so as not to delay the MICE project

(see next slide); Starting the Phase II project; and Commissioning the beam line and taking data in the Step I configuration

Financial arrangements: No agreed budgets for Phase II programme until December 2008 Discussing/managing transition between Phase I and Phase II attributions between

project/laboratory/SPO up to October 2008 Caused lack of clarity on Phase II spend

Project (i.e. AN/KL) consistently predicted overspend because of the pressure of work (matching deadlines, juggling running with Phase I and Phase II construction):

We were caught out, and are embarrassed, by the scale of the overspend

Work package(£k) Allocation (incl. wm) Staff Non-staff Total Staff Non-staff WM Total (incl. wm)

MICE Hall and infrastructure 723.90 1,067.77 695.51 1,763.27 (506.79) (545.13) 12.54 (1,039.37)Common infrastructure 250.70 26.54 0.00 26.54 10.20 194.51 19.45 224.16RF power 61.10 52.51 0.15 52.66 8.59 (0.15) 0.00 8.44FC module 525.74 73.64 49.54 123.18 31.88 334.30 36.38 402.56Operations and analysis 532.30 407.12 322.22 729.34 11.81 (271.85) 0.00 (197.04)Total 2,093.74 1,627.58 1,067.42 2,695.00 (444.31) (288.32) 68.37 (601.26)

VarianceOutturn FY 2008/09 (first estimate)

Evolution of schedule in FY 2008/09:

Pressures on project work planning: Pace of Phase I construction work dictated by spectrometer solenoid #1 arrival:

Start of FY June 2008 Pace of Phase II construction work dictated by spectrometer solenoid #2 arrival: Pace of beam-line maintenance dictated by running schedule

Comments: OsC encouragement not to slow project down; AN/KL expected slip in solenoid #1 delivery, but not to the extent that has now occurred

Not a ‘blame’ comment: best endeavours on all sides

Date Provenance I II III IV V VIApr-08 MICE Feb-08 Sep-08 Nov-08 Oct-09 Apr-10 Dec-10Oct-08 MICE Feb-09 Mar-09 May-09 Nov-09 Apr-10 Dec-10Nov-08 MICE May-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Nov-09 Apr-10 Dec-10Dec-08 MICE May-09 Apr-09 Aug-09 Nov-09 Apr-10 Dec-10Jan-09 ABl @ NFMCC May-09 Apr-09 Aug-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Dec-10

Apr-09 (1) MuTAC09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Apr-11 Oct-11Apr09 (2) FAC Sep-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jun-11 Oct-11

Schedule issue Step

Jan-08

Jul-08

Feb-09

Aug-09

Mar-10

Sep-10

Apr-11

Nov-11

May-12

I II III IV V VI

Da

te e

qu

ipm

ent a

vail

ab

le

MICE Step

Evolution of MICE schedule

Apr-08

Oct-08

Nov-08

Dec-08

Jan-09

Apr-09 (1)

Apr09 (2)

Addressing to the overspend: first steps: Guidelines given to sub-task leaders

within STFC laboratory for Staff use: Profiled reduction in staff use to 50%

of December/January use C&S activity initiated with iMICE and

within MICE-UK to re-evaluate cost of programme and the degree of ‘fit’ with the schedule for the delivery of the major MICE sub-systems

Results on following slides

Addressing the overspend [1]: A note on the time line:

2009-01-19: December 2008 books close;

2009-01-20: Financial summaries for Phase I and Phase II available

2009-01-21: First version of revised outturn forecast produced

2009-01-22: Interim measures put in place

1. With effect from the end of the present ISIS shutdown (Monday 26Jan09), overtime working must be agreed explicitly either with Andy or with KL;

2. With immediate effect, all equipment purchases -- including those made using GPCs -- must be agreed explicitly either with Andy or with KL; and

3. With immediate effect, all travel (within the UK or overseas) must be agreed explicitly either with Andy or with KL.

From Jan08 OsCpresentation

Common Fund 2008/09:

From Common Fund agreement June 2008

Status: Status of collection of 2008/09 levy:

Income and expenditure:

Source PhDs Invoiced Paid (at 20Apr09) Comments£k £k

CERN 1 3.0 3.0 Payment being arrangedGeneva 2 6.0 6.0 PaidHarbin 2 6.0 In-kind contribution to be definedItaly 6 18.0 In-kind contribution to be definedKEK 2 6.0 6.0 Payment arranged, paid by OsakaKyoto 1 3.0 In-kind contribution: spare TOF PMTs. GVA to make cash contribution.Osaka 2 6.0 6.0 Payment arrangedNIKHEF 1 3.0 3.0 PaidSofia 3 9.0 9.0 PaidUK 21 63.0 63.0 PaidUS DOE 11 33.0 33.0 PaidMuons Inc. 1 3.0 3.0 PaidRiverside 3 9.0 9.0 PaidIIT 2 6.0 Awaiting NSF GrantIowa 1 3.0 Awaiting NSF GrantMississippi 3 9.0 Awaiting NSF GrantNew Hampshire 1 3.0 Awaiting NSF GrantUCLA 1 3.0 Awaiting NSF Grant

Totals 64 192 141

First estimate financial year 2008/09 Income (£k) Expenditure (£k)

2008/09 COMMON FUND LEVY 162.00

MICE - USER SUPPORT COSTS 38.80MICE UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 146.71MICE TECHNICAL SUPPORT 0.48MICE BEAM LINE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 329.27MICE OFFICE FACILITIES 0.06MICE ELECTRONICS, DAQ CONSUMABLES 4.54

Totals 162.00 519.86

Start of discussion:

MICE CB yet to see and discuss expenditure

What is the ‘host labpremium’ that STFCcan bear?

Common Fund 2009/10:

Next week (end of April) will initiate 2009 census: Common Fund agreement defines census date

as 1st April each year The list of eligible members of the

collaboration will then be agreed by the Collaboration Board at the next MICE collaboration meeting (31May—03Jun09)

The invoices will then be raised

Project Management arrangements: Management of MICE project:

Decision making: MICE Executive Board:

Meets monthly: addresses strategic issues; sets policy and schedule Chaired by A.Blondel, MICE spokesman

MICE Technical Board: Meets monthly: reviews progress against milestones; addresses technical/integratino issues; addresses

safety issues Chaired by A.Nichols, MICE Project Manager

Tracking: MICO:

Meets weekly: tracks progress of sub-projects Chaired by A.Nichols, MICE Project Manager

MSPM: Meets weekly: coordination of work in the MICE Hall/on site

Chaired by W.Spensley, MICE Hall Manager and Principal Contractor

MICE-UK financial management: UKNF-FC:

Meets monthly (since May09); Chaired by K.Long, UK PI

Representation: STFC: C.Gore, M.Highmore, C.Jamieson, A.Medland, A.Reynolds Uni (to prepare Uni outturns): P.Dornan, C.Barlow KL & AN

Has taken some time to become effective (transition of Phase I to Phase II; absense of Phase II budgets)

Now in place and functioning effectively

Financial control: Initial budgets for 2008/09 set:

WP WP name Code Budget code title Category Owner Typical expenditure NotesCapital Total Typical personnel

FTE £k £k £k Typical company invoicesFR35000 MICE Phase II - contstruction Roll-up K Long 10.79 755.3 1045.257 1800.557

1 FR35100 MICE Hall, infrastructure, and management of installation and integrationRoll-up K Long 8.73 611.1 617.6 1228.7FR35110 Project management and project office Staff A Nichols 0 0 0 0 Nichols, Hayler, Griffiths No travel.FR35115 Project engineering Staff T Hayler 0 0 0 0 Lintern No travel.FR35120 RF system Staff A Moss 1.2 84 0 84 Moss No travel.FR35125 Hydrogen system Staff M Hills 2.53 177.1 0 177.1 Courthold, Hills, Rochford No travel.FR35130 Integration engineering Staff/Invoices MERIT PE A Nichols 0 0 0 0 MERIT PE, Cappocci No travel.

Step I No travel.FR35140 Step I integration Capital A Nichols 0.1 7 5 12 No travel.

Step II integration No travel.FR35145 Tracker/solenoid integration Capital G Barber 0.1 7 10 17 No travel.FR35146 Electrical Capital S Griffiths 1 70 152.1 222.1 Costs accounted under Step II No travel.FR31547 Vacuum Capital M Courthold 0 0 0 0 No travel.FR35148 Compressed-air supply Capital T Hayler 0 0 0 0 No travel.

Step III integration No travel.FR35150 Tracker/solenoid integration Capital G Barber 0.1 7 10 17 No travel.FR35151 Electrical Capital S Griffiths 0 0 0 0 Costs accounted under Step II No travel.FR35152 Vacuum Capital M Courthold 0 0 0 0 No travel.FR35153 Compressed-air supply Capital T Hayler 0 0 0 0 No travel.

Step IV integration No travel.FR35160 Liquid-hydrogen system Capital M Hills 0 0 187.5 187.5 Staff accounted under 35125 No travel.FR35161 Focus-coil integration Capital T Hayler 0 0 0 0 No travel.FR35162 Vacuum Capital M Courthold 0 0 0 0 No travel.FR35163 Electrical Capital S Griffiths 0 0 0 0 Costs accounted under Step II No travel.

Step V integration No travel.FR35170 Liquid-hydrogen system Capital M Hills 0 0 0 0 No travel.FR35171 Focus-coil integration Capital T Hayler 0 0 0 0 No travel.FR35172 Vacuum Capital M Courthold 0 0 0 0 No travel.FR35173 Electrical Capital S Griffiths 0 0 0 0 Costs accounted under Step II No travel.FR35174 RF infrastructure Capital A Moss 0 0 211 211 No travel.

General No travel.FR35180 Safety related hardware Capital A Nichols 0 0 10 10 No travel.FR35181 Target maintenance Staff/capital J Tarrant 3.7 259 32 291 No travel.FR35182 Alignment Capital T Hayler 0 0 0 0 No travel.

Focus-coil module Roll-up 0.83 58.1 426.6565 484.75653 FR35210 Focus-coil design and oversight during manufacture Staff T Bradshaw 0.83 58.1 0 58.1 No travel.

FR35220 TESLA: payments according to schedule agreed in contract Capital T Bradshaw 0 0 421.6565 421.6565 No travel.FR35230 Ancillary equipment Capital T Bradshaw 0 0 5 5 No travel.

4 Operations and analysis FR36500 Operations and analysis Roll-up K Long 1.23 86.1 113 199.1 No travel.FR36510 Instrumentation, calibration, and alignment Staff/capital C MacWaters 0.8 56 10 66 No travel.FR36520 Physics analysis Staff/capital K Long 0 0 10 10 No travel.FR36530 Common Fund payments for UK Capital N McCubbin 0 0 63 63 No travel.FR36540 Beam-line maintenance and operations Staff/capital K Long 0.43 30.1 15 45.1 [0.43 DS] No travel.FR36550 Infrastructure maintenance and operations Staff/capital T Hayler 0 0 15 15 No travel.

Travel TravelFR36210 Travel Travel A Nichols/K Long 0 0 50 50 25k for DL electrical Travel only.

Common Fund Common FundFR36000 MICE operations and analysis Roll-up K Long 0 0 -162 -162FR36100 MICE Common Fund income Income K Long 0 0 -192 -192 Income onlyFR36300 MICE user support costs Staff/capital A Nichols/K Long 0 0 0 0 Ketels, Hayes, Shand Includes iMICE taxisFR36310 MICE utilities, infrastructure services Staff/capital A Nichols/K Long 0 0 0 0FR36320 MICE Technical support Staff/capital A Nichols/K Long 0 0 0 0 Transfer fraction of MERIT and Hall supportFR36330 MICE beam line maintenance Staff/capital K Long 0 0 0 0FR36340 MICE office facilities Capital R Hayes 0 0 0 0FR36350 MICE electronics Staff/capital C MacWaters 0 0 30 30 Capital

Colour code:Budget fixed

Budget being checkedInformation required

StaffBudget (FY 09/10)

MICE Hall, infrastructure, and management of installation and integration

16Apr09: Draft 2

Financial control: Initial budgets set:

Preparing revision following C&S review Monitoring/control:

At the end of each month: C.Gore will send STP and recurrent breakdown to each task leader;

Question staff/recurrent use above expected level; Ask for line-by-line check of expenditure

Adjustments requested will be made UKNF-FC meeting:

Will review STP/recurrent spend and responses from sub-task leaders Identify appropriate action within MICE-UK or:

Discuss options/recommendations to: MICE, PSAG, CMPB, UKNF-EB, …

Differences to start of financial year 2008/09: Have budgets set:

At ‘STFC’ and at sub-task level; Have closed Phase I

‘Only’ doing Phase II progamme and running from September Have financial reporting and control arrangements in place

Control/monitoring of schedule: As reported to Jan09 OsC:

R.Gamet has agreed to prepare milestone tracking for UKNF (and MICE-UK) project

Sufficient for UKNF but not for future of MICE/MICE-UK project

Issues: Tracking schedule for delivery of large overseas

contributions to MICE: Have basis now through C&S exercise, but, require to track so

that UK project can be matched more closely to the schedule of the international deliverables

Detailed tracking of schedule for UK deliverables: Example: target rebuild:

Weekly target w/g meetings augmented by less frequent target w/s (next one 08May @ IC);

Sub-task leaders update schedule for each meeting: Example …

Control/monitoring of schedule: As reported to Jan09 OsC:

R.Gamet has agreed to prepare milestone tracking for UKNF (and MICE-UK) project

Sufficient for UKNF but not for future of MICE/MICE-UK project

Issues: Tracking schedule for delivery of large overseas contributions to

MICE: Have basis now through C&S exercise, but, require to track so that UK

project can be matched more closely Detailed tracking of schedule for UK deliverables:

Example: target rebuild: Weekly target w/g meetings augmented by less frequent target w/s (next one

08May @ IC); Sub-task leaders update schedule for each meeting:

Example …

Require to make this uniform across project to: Provide information to AN/KL in management of UK project Provide i/p to MICE PM, MICE TB, MICE EB, MICO meetings to guide

global schedule priority/schedule discussions

Control/monitoring of schedule: Project planner:

Support for AN/KL in PM/PI roles: Job spec. written:

Tracking of project progress and spend; Preparation of reports

Time commitment: No point doing ‘half a job’ so that AN/KL need to backstop Our estimate:

Full time task while learning the experiment, what’s required, meeting the people, etc. Possibly 50—75% in steady state; depends on person

Steps taken to identify/recruit: International collaboration:

Sought support from iMICE: Ideal individual identified (S.Virostek at LBNL);

Some support for C&S exercise, but limited to the RFCC module for which LBNL has responsibility Not a long term solution:

Does not have sufficient time due to other responsibilities; hard to spend time at RAL MICE-UK:

Present complement overstretched and no direct match with skills required Sought support from PPD, TBU:

Support from N.McCubbin, N.Snodgrass, R.Eccleston Optimistic leads (also ideal people identified), but, in the end not possible to identify individual who could take on task

Our proposal: Promising contact with individual at ATC KL/AN will talk with him to see if the person matches the requirements and whether the time commitment

matches his availability

Bottom line: KL/AN believe the ‘project planner’ role must be filled for the good of the whole MICE project including (of course) the MICE-

UK project

C&S exercise: headlines for paper:

MICE Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Nichols2.1-MICE-Muon-Beam Long

2.1.1-Target Long2.1.2-Decay-solenoid Courthold

2.2-MICE-Hall and infrastructure Hayler2.2.1-Reinstatement-of-Step-I Hayler2.2.2-Integration-of-Step-II Hayler2.2.3-Integration-of-Step-III Hayler2.2.3-Integration-of-Step-IV Hayler2.2.4-Integration-of-Step-V Hayler

2.3-MICE-Instrumentation: Bross2.2.1-TOF 2 Bonesini2.2.2-Spectrometer-solenoid Virostek2.2.3-Tracker Long

2.2.3.1-Trigger-distribution MacWaters2.2.4-EMR Graulich2.2.5-DAQ Graulich2.2.6-Integration test MacWaters2.2.7-Controls Leaver2.2.8-Integration test MacWaters

2.4-MICE-Cooling-Channel: Zisman2.2.1-Absorber-focus-coil-module Lau

2.2.1.1-Absorber Ishimoto2.2.1.2-Focus-coil-module Lau

2.2.2-RF-cavity-coupling-coil-module Li

Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment: WBS -- Draft 20Apr09

Top level schedule:

Critical!

Decay solenoid: Quench detector repaired and magnet run:

At 870 A for one hour (nominal current) At 900 A for 20 minutes

Preparing for more extensive tests this week when chiller (cools turbos) failed

Bottom line: Repair to MLI has produced a functional magnet DS team now preparing a new schedule:

Commissioning and routine work Components on next slide

Must shift emphasis to LH2 prototype task

Decay solenoid: routine work:Repair of leaks: ---------------- * Small leak on d/s flange not an issue; seek to mitigate with spray sealant; * Urgent to make sure that stress relief of vacuum flange is sufficient to fix leak on transfer line; - Risk is that repair of transfer line may be required which must not Be left too late; * Need to check with Matt how far along on his schedule he is; * Pump stands and resolution of turbo controller issue 'in hand'. Quench detector: ---------------- * May need to u/g or re-furbish: task must be specified; * Rebuild, if carried out, should include test box. Linde 'fridge: -------------- * Chiller repair; company conacted; * Final, Linde-supervised cool-down. Magnet tests: ------------- * Thorough test of quench protection system (started) * Soak test at 1/4 power for 48 hours, followed by; * Soak test at full power for 48 hours. Documentation: -------------- * Contents: - Notes on documentation - User Manual - Quench detection system - Power supply - Vacuum system - Refrigerator - Risk assessments - Training material - Photographs - History log of work done on the system - Maintenance schedule and procedures

Cost of the UK programme: Cost of programme to meet schedule

presented above:

Compared to allocation:

Implies an additional projected overspend of £861k Integral and profile are ‘uncomfortable’

compared to present allocation

Profile summary table (present costing)2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total

MICEMICE Phase II 3430 2950 1436 7815Operations and analysis 500 528 548 1575

Sub-total 3929 3477 1983 9390

£k

Profile summary table (allocation)2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total

MICEMICE Phase II 2339 2776 1569 6684Operations and analysis 583 619 643 1844

Sub-total 2922 3395 2212 8528

£k

De-scope options considered: RF-power distribution hardware provided from

‘elsewhere’: Remove ~£1M capital cost from RF power w/p Possibility as:

FNAL (Bross) has requested support as part of the ‘stimulus package’;

Proposal to NSF (Kaplan) for RF power h/w

Integral within allocation; But in excess if account is taken with present o/s

Profile still uncomfortable compared with allocation; Risk:

RF power h/w can not be provided from elsewhere Also schedule risk as depends on bids from ‘elsewhere’

Profile summary table(no RF power distribution hardware) 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 TotalMICE

MICE Phase II 3430 1878 1436 6743Operations and analysis 500 528 548 1575

Sub-total 3929 2406 1983 8318

£k

De-scope options, continued: UK does not contribute to Physics analysis:

Integral within allocation; But in excess if account is taken with present o/s

Profile still uncomfortable compared with allocation;

Logically possible while we’re thinking the unthinkable, but: UK does not reap the scientific award; UK University community significantly damaged

Profile summary table (No UK contribution to Physics analysis) 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 TotalMICE

MICE Phase II 3430 2950 1436 7815Operations and analysis 158 170 178 507

Sub-total 3588 3120 1614 8322

£k

De-scope options continued: Delay to schedule to reduce cost in the next

three financial years:

Cost over three years, £7.1M Including present o/s, brings spend over period 2008/09

to 2011/12 to within allocation; Significant increase in integral cost of programme Profile in 2009/10 still uncomfortable

Risks: Break-up of collaboration due to long timescale; Implies significant loss of reputation for UK with

resultant loss of credibility in bid to host any future large facility

Profile summary table(Schedule slip) 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 TotalMICE

MICE Phase II 2806 1496 1232 2002 391 84 5534Operations and analysis 500 528 548 498 529 551 1575

Sub-total 3305 2023 1780 2499 919 635 11162

£k

De-scope options continued: Schedule slip with additional postponement of LH2

prototype/system #1 work to bring profile in line with allocation:

Cost over three years, £7.1M Including present o/s, brings spend over period 2008/09 to 2011/12

to within allocation; Significant increase in integral cost of programme Profile in 2009/10 no-longer uncomfortable

Risks amplified: Break-up of collaboration due to long timescale; Implies significant loss of reputation for UK with resultant

loss of credibility in bid to host any future large facility Additional technical risk that issues in the LH2 delivery

system lead to further delays

Profile summary table(Schedule slip - including delay to LH2 prj) 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 TotalMICE

MICE Phase II 2396 1916 1232 2002 391 84 5544Operations and analysis 500 528 548 498 529 551 1575

Sub-total 2895 2444 1780 2499 919 635 11172

£k

The ‘stakes’: The Neutrino Factory with MICE as the ‘beating heart’ is a flag-ship

programme: For the UK, but also for the international community International recognition (gaining in strength and influence) of:

The need for a high-sensitivity and high-precision programme of measurements of the properties of the neutrino;

The opportunity the Neutrino Factory offers as: The best facility for the precision neutrino oscillation programme; The relationship of the Neutrino Factory and the Muon Collider, possibly the best way to

provide multi-TeV lepton/anti-lepton collisions

Neutrino Factory is on: The RCUK roadmap, the European roadmap for particle physics

Opportunity for the UK: Neutrino Factory, perhaps in combination with a high-power pulsed

neutron spallation source, is the best opportunity in a generation for the UK to bid to host a world-beating facility for particle physics/basic science and innovation

MICE is the at the very centre of this programme: If MICE fails, or is perceived to have failed, due to lack of will/support in the UK it is

clear that: The UK’s opportunity in the Neutrino Factory area will be squandered UK reputation will be severely damaged in general

Step VI and international commitment: Issue:

While experiment has scientific approval to Step VI, UK has not made funding commitment

The collaboration (including the UK collaboration) is committed to MICE to Step VI The US and China were ready to commit resources to Step VI

for the RFCC module but have not been able to due to UK funding uncertainties

Costs to US estimted to be at the $150k level already [Costs to STFC are already at £20k (bobbin forging)]

Japan (KEK) is building enough absorber bodies to serve Step VI

Europe is committed to contribute up to Step VI EMR (GVA, Italy, FNA); O&A; etc.

Significant pressure from: US Muon Technical Advisory Panel FAC representatives (especially DOE and NSF)

MICE

Recommendations To assess the performance of the 201 MHz RF

in the magnetic field levels for MI CE to verify the assumption of dark current levels.

Recognising the vital contribution that a timely delivery of MI CE step VI will make to both the neutrino factory I DS and a Design Feasibility Study (DFS) for a Muon Collider, this committee recommends that maximum pressure is exerted by the collaboration on UK funding bodies to make a timely decision to fund the entire programme to the aspirational timescale.

Provide an assessment of the timescales and costs of a wedge absorber test MI CE

47Alan Bross UKNF Meeting Lancaster April 22, 2009

Step VI: L.K. Len’s suggestion at FAC:

Can STFC find a way to indicate commitment to Step VI without committing all the money?

e.g. soliciting proposal for FC module #3 only Cost (capital only) ~£350k Larger costs in RF power and integration effort to be

considered later

Issues: Host laboratory costs:

Last discussion of host-lab costs was in September 2006 Is it time to revisit the issue?

Presently ‘host lab costs’ are borne by the UK collaboration’s budgets or the Common Fund;

Common Fund will now come under scrutiny as there is a first accounting:

JW already indicated some discomfort at the FAC at the scale of the mis-match between Common Fund income and the attributed expenditure in the MICE Muon Beam maintenance and operations line

I am exposed as CB chair and CF ‘accountant’ UK collaboration’s budget have been reviewed and set as though we

were contributing to an experiment overseas Not the same thing as hosting the experiment which implies

responsibility for: Integration; Safety; Maintenance etc.

Issues continued: Control and review of schedule:

UK collaboration is in control of only a part of the schedule; Necessarily the UK deliverables support the international

community and must adjust to meet as far as possible the internationally agreed schedule;

UK has input to schedule discussions, but, collaboration, quite reasonably, seeks to push hard to keep the pace high Implies pressures on UK budgets and personnel

Is it time to consider and ‘international version’ of the Oversight Committee? [in addition to the UK OsC]

Strongly expressed wish of the Spokesman and Deputy; I believe it is the right thing to do, because:

Would bring to the international project the scrutiny and advice that the OsC gives to the UK project;

Schedule conflicts etc. could be identified much more clearly and independent advice brought to bear on:

Setting of priorities; Finding solutions to conflicting requirements, budgetary or personnel issues etc.

In conclusion: Despite the problems, the experiment is really making progress; Grounds for optimism that the spectrometer solenoid repairs

have borne fruit and that by the end of this year we shall have Step II underway … We can still demonstrate ionisation cooling in time for the 2012

decision point