1

draft NOA WBSJ. Cooper

NOA Working Group MeetingJune 29,2005

Work is the effort of Ron, Dave, Bill, Suzanne, Harry, not just me.

2

draft NOA WBS

J. Cooper, Project ManagerR. Ray, Deputy

3

Far Site, 1.1 – 1.7• Starting now with the EAW

process• Major work

• Maybe 2 contractors, maybe 1• RGU complication mostly

applies here• This “outfitting” is tied to the

building• Crucial to proper containment

• Need “Roads & Grounds” during Detector assembly phase

• Safeguards & Security• Under Lab / University

umbrellas except at Far Site• Value at scattered assembly

sites is low, major value is at Far site

• e.g. thinking security fence, video surveillance, gates, ….

$ 7.4 M$ 13.7 M

$ ?

$ ?

$ ~ 3.0 M

~ 19 % of cost + contingency

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.7

1.5

$ 6.8 M

4

Strategic Materials, 2.1 – 2.3

• All are large phased procurements• Value management will dictate

competition• e.g. 2 extrusion vendors with 33% each?• Mix vs. buy scintillator?

• All have cost fluctuation problems• $ to Yen• Price of crude oil

• Together they dominate the detector cost + contingency

• therefore the cost risk & contingency• All have a common thread of QA

• Sustained over several years, often done on the same object in several places

• All need to aim for conservative HEP version of “just in time delivery” to the far site

• Delivery from vendors within our cost profile

• Delivery to the sites where the raw materials are needed

• Need to minimize storage

$ 20.0 M

$ 34.8 M

~ 44% of cost + contingency

$ 17.4 M27,000 km

7.5 M gallons,24 kt

374 km, 6 ktStructural, but also light gathering

5

• Near structure identical to Far, so can roll each up

• Except add “fast electronics” task to Near – this is 5 planes only

• Far is now the assembly of 24,000 objects of various kinds

• APDs, TE coolers, ASICs, PC boards• Module factories

– Manifolds and bottom closures• Trigger / DAQ (underestimated?)

– But is a large fraction of the EDIA– Supernova complication?– Slow controls…

• & Final Assembly at Far Site• Block Raiser, Assembly tables• Crew

NOA Detectors3.1 – 3.3

~ 23 % of cost + contingency

$ 3.1 M “no cost”$ 2.8 M

$ 0.4 M

$ 10.1 M

$ 8.1 M

$ 13.5 M

6

Level 4Details in Detector

3.1• One module part is

structural and dear to heart of “Assembly 3.1.5”

• Scintillator Distribution & QA 3.1.5.8 is now the act of filling extrusions, separate from the building distribution task in 1.

7

Details of 3.3 -Simulations

• Why is this in the Project?• Needs structure, leaders• Direct feedback in many

cases to project scope / details

• Could correlate with total mass• May imply design changes• Near Detector details

• E.g. move up slope if LSND confirmed

• Overburden question• Prototype Near, Final Near

• Must carry calibrations to Far• “no cost” since thought to be

all scientist effort• So having this in the project

allows us to track the total scientific effort better

• “DOE liked this for BTeV” ??

8

Project Management 4.

• Project Office - $ 4.7 M• SWF for non-scientists• Travel, computing

• $ 14.1 M of “additional contingency” listed in proposal stashed here

• Expect to farm this out to other WBS elements in resource loaded schedule exercise

• i.e. not for Director’s Review

~ 12 % of cost + contingency

9

draft NOA WBS Comments• Need Near subtasks in Strategic Materials if we

are to roll up a real total for Near• Suzanne notes the Detector roll-up has an

additional level, implies two financial reports….• Add some Level 2 task and make 1,2,4 at Level 2 below that?

10

draft NOA WBS MORE Comments

• Do we want to include the R&D in this “project”?• Want to duplicate structure to track it anyway?• Should start with FY05

• The “$ 165 M” cost does NOT include the R&D– Additional ~ $ 3 M of M&S– Additional ~ $ 3 – 4 M of SWF (crude estimate)– Mike Procario heard these numbers February 28, 2005.– The March 2005 NOA Proposal is consistent with these numbers.

11

draft NOA WBS - Level 1 Managers?

S. Dixon ? R. Ray J. Cooper J. Cooper / S. Pasek / K. Kephart ?

J. Cooper, Project ManagerR. Ray, Deputy

Clearly woulddepend on 3 strong Level 2 managers

12

More structure, not WBS

• PMP usually shows • Project PPD Directorate DOE, line management

• Collaboration with Spokespersons to one side in a separate line– NOA has an Executive Committee

• Project might have a Technical Advisory Committee to the Project Manager

– Composed of Level X managers + a few more?

• So eventually the structure is way more complicated than shown today