OFFICE OF SCIENCE DOE/SC Status Review of the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e) Project Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory July 25-27, 2017 Kurt Fisher Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
DOE/SC Status Reviewof the
Muon to Electron Conversion
Experiment (Mu2e) Project
Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryJuly 25-27, 2017
Kurt Fisher
Committee Chair
Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
2
Deliverables – Due Dates
• Closeout report (prepared in PowerPoint)
• Presented Thursday, July 27
• Instructions—slide 11
• Template—slide 13
• Final report draft (prepared in MS Word)
• Due Monday, July 31 to Casey
• Instructions—slide 12
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
3
DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA
Tuesday, July 25, 2017—One East (WH1E)
8:00 a.m. DOE Executive Session K. Fisher
8:15 a.m. Program Perspective T. Lavine
8:30 a.m. Federal Project Director Perspective P. Philp
8:45 a.m. Questions
8:55 a.m. Adjourn
DOE Executive Session
Project and review information is available at:
http://mu2e.fnal.gov/public/project/reviews/IPR2017/
Password: reviewer Username: mu2ereviewer
OFFICE OF
SCIENCEReview Committee
Participants
4
Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC, Chairperson
SC1 SC2 SC3
Accelerator Physics Superconducting Solenoids Detector Systems
* Geoff Pile, ANL * Soren Prestemon, LBNL * Harry Nelson, UCSB
Peter Ostroumov, ANL Ruben Fair, TJNAF Richard Kass, Ohio State
Amy Sy, TJNAF Jeff Nelson, W&M
Aaron Roodman, SLAC
Rick Van Berg, SLAC
SC4 SC5 SC6
Environment, Safety and Health Cost and Schedule Project Management
* Ian Evans, SLAC * Jerry Kao, DOE/CH * John Corlett, LBNL
Jeff McGhee, ANL Mike Fenn, DOE/PM Jeremy Duncan, ORNL
Deepa Rasalkar, LBNL Joe Ingraffia, ANL
Steve Meador, DOE/OPA
LEGEND
Mike Procario, DOE/HEP Thomas LeCompte, DOE/HEP SC Subcommittee
Ted Lavine, DOE/HEP Mike Weis, DOE/FSO * Chairperson
Bruce Strauss, DOE/HEP Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO
Ken Marken, DOE/HEP Paul Philp, DOE/FSO COUNT: 20 (excluding observers)
Mike Harrison, DOE/HEP Kail Zelaya, DOE/OPA
Observers
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
5
SC Organization
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
6
Charge Questions
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that the completed
project will perform as planned and the key performance parameters will be met?
2. Are the resource-loaded schedule and the estimate-to-complete up-to-date,
accurate, and credible?
3. Are the major procurements being managed successfully?
4. Is ES&H being handled appropriately?
5. Has the risk analysis been updated to reflect the real risks for completing the
project and are the contingencies acceptable?
6. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous
reviews?
7. Are there any other significant issues that require management attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
7
Agenda
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
8:00 am Executive Session—One East (WH1E) ......................................................... K. Fisher
9:00 am Welcome—One West (WH1W) ........................................................................... TBD
9:10 am Project Overview ................................................................................................. R. Ray
10:00 am WBS 2 Accelerator ..................................................................................... S. Werkema
10:30 am Break—Outside One West
11:00 am WBS 4 Solenoids ............................................................................................ M. Lamm
11:30 am WBS 5 Muon Beamline ................................................................................. G. Ginther
12:00 pm Lunch—2nd Floor Crossover
1:00 pm Photo for DOE Reviewers - Atrium
1:10 pm WBS 6 Tracker ......................................................................................... A. Mukherjee
1:30 pm WBS 7 Calorimeter ........................................................................................ S. Miscetti
1:50 pm WBS 8 Cosmic Ray Veto ................................................................................ C. Dukes
2:10 pm WBS 9 Trigger and DAQ ................................................................................ R. Rivera
2:30 pm Integration ....................................................................................................... K. Byrum
3:00 pm Break—One East (WH1E)
3:20 pm Subcommittee Breakout Sessions
Session 1 Management— One East (WH1E)
Session 2 Accelerator— Racetrack (WH7XO)
Session 3 Muon Beamline – Director’s (WH2SE)
Session 4 Solenoids— Hornet’s Nest (WH8XO)
Session 5 Calorimeter/Cosmic Ray Veto—Snake Pit (WH2NE)
Session 6 Tracker/DAQ—Black Hole (WH2NW)
5:00 pm Full Committee Executive Session— One East (WH1E)
6:30 pm Adjourn
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
8
Agenda (cont’d)
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
8:00 am Subcommittee Breakout Sessions—Continued in same rooms
10:00 am Break – One East (WH1E)
10:20 am Subcommittee Breakout Sessions—Continued in same rooms
12:00 am Working Lunch—2nd Floor Crossover
1:00 pm Response to Reviewer Questions— One East (WH1E)
2:00 pm Subcommittee Executive Session/Report Writing
2:30 pm Break – One East (WH1E)
3:30 pm Full Committee Executive Session— One East (WH1E)
Thursday, July 27, 2017
8:00 am Subcommittee Working Session— One East (WH1E)
9:30 am Full Committee Executive Session Dry Run— One East (WH1E)
11:00 am Closeout Presentation— Curia II (WH2SW)
12:00 pm Adjourn
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
9
Report Outline/Writing
Assignments
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................Fisher*
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... Lavine*
2. Technical Systems Evaluation (Charge Questions 1, 6, 7)
2.1 Accelerator Physics .............................................................................. Pile*/SC-1
2.1.1 Findings
2.1.2 Comments
2.1.3 Recommendations
2.2 Superconducting Solenoids ....................................................... Prestemon*/SC-2
2.3 Detector Systems ............................................................................. Nelson*/SC-3
3. Environment, Safety and Health (Charge Questions 4, 6, 7)..................... Evans*/SC-4
4. Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 1, 5, 6, 7) ..........................................Kao*/SC-5
5. Project Management (Charge Questions 1, 3, 6, 7) .................................. Corlett*/SC-6
*Lead
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
10
Closeout Presentation
and Final Report
Procedures
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
11
Format:
Closeout Presentation
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
12
Format:
Final Report
Please Note: Recommendations are approved by the full committee and presented at the review closeout briefing.
Recommendations SHOULD NOT be changed or altered from the closeout report to the Final Report.
(Use MS Word / 12pt Font)
2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list.
2.1.1 Findings – What the project told us
Include a brief narrative description of technical, cost, schedule, management information
provided by the project. Each subcommittee will emphasize their area of responsibility.
2.1.2 Comments – What we think about what the project told us
Descriptive material assessing the findings and making observations and conclusions
based on the findings. The committee’s answer to the charge questions should be
contained within the text of the Comments Section. Do not number your comments.
2.1.3 Recommendations – What we think the project needs to do
1. Beginning with an action verb, provide a brief, concise, and clear statement with a due date.
2.
Cost and schedule subcommittee should provide attachments for approved project cost breakdown and schedule. Management
subcommittee should provide attachment for approved project organization and names of personnel.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
13
Closeout Report on the
DOE/SC Status Review of the
Muon to Electron Conversion
Experiment (Mu2e) Project
Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryJuly 25-27, 2017
Kurt Fisher
Committee Chair
Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
14
2.1 Accelerator Physics
G. Pile, ANL / Subcommittee 1
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and the key
performance parameters will be met?
6. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
7. Are there any other significant issues that require management
attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
15
2.2 Superconducting Solenoids
S. Prestemon, LBNL / Subcommittee 2
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and the key
performance parameters will be met?
6. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
7. Are there any other significant issues that require management
attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
16
2.3 Detector Systems
H. Nelson, UCSB / Subcommittee 3
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and the key
performance parameters will be met?
6. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
7. Are there any other significant issues that require management
attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
17
3. Environment, Safety and HealthI. Evans, SLAC / Subcommittee 4
4. Is ES&H being handled appropriately?
6. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
7. Are there any other significant issues that require management
attention?
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
18
4. Cost and ScheduleJ. Kao, DOE/CH / Subcommittee 5
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and the key
performance parameters will be met?
5. Has the risk analysis been updated to reflect the real risks for
completing the project and are the contingencies acceptable?
6. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
7. Are there any other significant issues that require management
attention?
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
19
4. Cost and ScheduleJ. Kao, DOE/CH / Subcommittee 5
PROJECT STATUS
Project Type MIE / Line Item / Cooperative Agreement
CD-1 Planned: Actual:
CD-2 Planned: Actual:
CD-3 Planned: Actual:
CD-4 Planned: Actual:
TPC Percent Complete Planned: _____% Actual: _____%
TPC Cost to Date
TPC Committed to Date
TPC
TEC
Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve) $ _____% to go
Contingency Schedule on CD-4b ______months _____%
CPI Cumulative
SPI Cumulative
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
20
5. Management J. Corlett, LBNL / Subcommittee 6
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and the key
performance parameters will be met?
3. Are the major procurements being managed successfully?
6. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews?
7. Are there any other significant issues that require management
attention?
• Findings
• Comments
• Recommendations
Related Documents
