Mu2e WGM

7/27/2011

R. Ray

Mu2e Project manager

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 2

Director’s Review

• We have settled on date for the Director’s CD-1 Review; Oct 11-12.• Focus of review will be cost, schedule, management and addressing

recommendations from the Design Review.• Most L2’s are large enough to merit their own break out session

• Management• Accelerator• Conventional Construction• Solenoids• Muon Channel• Tracker• Calorimeter

• The Cosmic Ray Veto and DAQ systems are smaller and could be combined, though they don’t have a lot in common.

• We combined the CRV with the Calorimeter for the IDR and it probably was not a good idea.

• If every L2 has its own breakout, we are looking at a committee of ~ 20 people.

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 3

Director’s Review

• We will have to work very hard to make this date.• The biggest job is to get the RLS complete and then make a couple of turns

on it to address cost, fix problems, etc. Trying to bring on an additional Project Controls person to help David.

• I would estimate that we need to have a complete RLS by about Sept 6. Things have to be posted by Sept 27 Input from the RLS is required for some of our documentation

o CDRo PMP

Have to get the project team familiar with the RLS format.

• If the RLS it not completed by ~ Sept. 6 we may have to delay the review. Emphasis from DOE is that it is more important to do a good job that to be ready

as soon as possible.

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 4

RLS

• Managed to run the Project Management L2 RLS through COBRA last week.

It worked, then it didn’t, then it finally did again…

• Now have P6 and Cobra working together on Loadspring web site. A fair amount of coding required for each L2 system before it can be processed

through Cobra David estimates this will take 2 weeks

o I asked for it sooner… Some requested changes from L2 managers are on hold while we make this all

work.

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 5

Cost and Schedule

• Based on bits and pieces we have put together so far, cost is going up and the schedule is stretching.

This is a concern for a project without a lot of scope contingency.• Most of the cost increase is in the accelerator system, which had a

100% contingency applied at CD-0.• Additional costs since CD-0 also include scientific effort that was

previously off project and pbar shielding.• Will have to explore potential cost cutting measures including

operation at lower beam power, moving some things off project (doesn’t lower the price but can possibly tap into different funding sources).

• I will have to discuss the cost with the DOE before any reviews.

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 6

11th Commandment

“Thou shalt not delay the solenoid schedule”The 11th Commandment, attributed to a disgruntled Project Manager

• The solenoids are the critical path until the very end of the project when we are installing the internal detectors.

• The solenoids are stretching the schedule. We are trying to understand how to expedite things where we can, but one can only do so much.

• On January 1, 2012 the solenoids become ballistic. On Jan 1 the solenoid concept is frozen and all resources

will be devoted to turning the conceptual design into a final engineering design.

• No resources will be devoted to options If a gradient is desired in the DS, a specification that

doesn’t increase the cost must be developed and included in the design by Jan 1.

“C” vs. “S” issues must be settled and incorporated into the design by Jan 1.

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 7

DocumentsDocument Current Status Notes

CDR First draft under revision

Expect near final version by early August

Acquisition Strategy Being reviewed by DOE Project’s part complete. DOE’s document now

Project Execution Plan Being reviewed by DOE Still have to agree on change control thresholds and KPPs

RLS In progress

Draft Configuration Management Plan

Done Good enough for CD-1

Draft Project Management Plan Almost done Needs input from cost & schedule.

Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report Being reviewed by DOE

WBS dictionary Out-of-date draft

Preliminary Risk Management Plan Done

Risk registry Draft Need one more cycle through with L2 managers and Risk manager

QA Plan Done Good enough for CD-1. Significant revision expected fro CD-2

Security Vulnerability Assessment Done

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 8

FY11 Endgame• Numbers for 1st 3 weeks of July are

down ~ 8%• Vacations?• Roll-off of AD engineering spike

to do cost estimate• Extrapolation using July numbers

suggests a $434k shortfall.• Can cut some CPs in CD• Mike Smith roll-off should be

accelerated.• CRV work can be postponed • Reduce shortfall to ~$350k, but no

room for error.• Some relief may come from Mike

Procario. Will know by the end of the month.

• In the absence of any relief, more people would have to be turned off.

Estim

ate

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 9

FY12 – Boom or Bust

• Originally all of Mu2e funding for FY12 was PED• We were able to reprogram some of that to operating funds for

“Advanced Conceptual Design” work.• Can’t keep doing that. At some point we are clearly doing

Preliminary Design work and spending operating funds on preliminary design is illegal.

• In the absence of an appropriations bill that allows new starts, our funding for FY12 allows us to keep the lights on and not much more.

• Once we get past the new starts hurdle we will have more money that we can spend in FY12 carry-over for future years to mitigate typical funding glitches at the beginning of fiscal years.

• Lab budget guidance is to assume full funding.

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 10

Exemption from Army Corps of Engineers

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM 11

Report from PAC

Mike Lindgren gave a talk (written by Chris Polly and me) about the Muon Program at the Aspen PAC meeting in June. From Pier’s letter summarizing the PACs findings:

• Simulations effort has significantly improved over the past year, but we still need more.• This point was made several times at last week’s Collaboration meeting.• Most of the Mu2e institutions are responding, to the extent that they can.

“