Daniel R. Lehman, Chair DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Energys Office of Science

OFFICE OF SCIENCEDark Energy Survey (DES) Projectat the Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryJune 22-23, 2010Department of Energy/National Science FoundationReview Committeefor the Daniel R. Lehman, ChairDOE/SC Review CommitteeOffice of Science, U.S. Department of Energyhttp://www.science.doe.gov/opa/1Review Committee ParticipantsOFFICE OF SCIENCEDaniel R. Lehman, DOE/SC, Review Chairperson

4Charge MemorandumCharge QuestionsTechnical: Are the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately? Cost and Schedule: Are the current cost, schedule and contingency projections consistent with the approved baseline for all the projects? Management: Is the management structure adequate and appropriate to successfully execute the projects within specifications, budget, and schedule? Are major risks being addressed effectively?ES&H: Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are Integrated Safety Management Principles being followed?Operations: Are the preliminary plans for the operations phase appropriate for this stage of the project?Previous Review: Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous review?

OFFICE OF SCIENCE5OFFICE OF SCIENCEAgenda

6AgendaOFFICE OF SCIENCE

7Report Outline/Writing Assignments OFFICE OF SCIENCE

8Closeout Presentation

and Final Report

ProceduresOFFICE OF SCIENCE9Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OF SCIENCE(No Smaller than 18 pt Font)

2.1Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list.List Review Subcommittee MembersList Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers2.1.1Findings In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management.2.1.2CommentsIn 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.2.1.3Recommendations Begin with action verb and identify a due date.2. 10Format: Final Report OFFICE OF SCIENCE2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list.2.1.1FindingsInclude an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions.2.1.2CommentsDescriptive 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.2.1.3Recommendations Begin with action verb and identify a due date.2. 3. 11ExpectationsPresent the closeout report in PowerPoint.

Forward your written section of the review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, [email protected], by Monday, June 28, 8:00 a.m.OFFICE OF SCIENCEOFFICE OF SCIENCEDepartment of Energy/National Science FoundationReview Committeefor the Daniel R. Lehman, ChairDOE/SC Review CommitteeOffice of Science, U.S. Department of Energyhttp://www.science.doe.gov/opa/Example12Dark Energy Survey (DES) Projectat the Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryJune 22-23, 201012132.1.1 DECam Optics and Opti-Mech, CFIPMatt Johns, Carnegie Institute/ Ian Dellantonio, Brown University OFFICE OF SCIENCEAre the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately?

Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews?

FindingsCommentsRecommendations

142.1.2 DECam CCDs, SISPI and ElectronicsRoger Smith, CalTech/ Paul Padley, Rice University OFFICE OF SCIENCEAre the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately?



152.1.3 DECam Integration & TestMatt Johns, Carnegie Institute/ Ian Dellantonio, Brown University OFFICE OF SCIENCEAre the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately?



162.2 DESDM, Simulations and CalibrationJulian Borrill, LBNL/ Rob Cameron, SLAC OFFICE OF SCIENCEAre the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately?



173. Operations PlanningMatt Johns, Carnegie Institute/ Ian Dellantonio, Brown University

OFFICE OF SCIENCE5.Are the preliminary plans for the operations phase appropriate for this stage of the project?



184. Cost Kurt Fisher, DOE/SCMark Reichanadter, SLAC

OFFICE OF SCIENCE2.Are the current cost, schedule and contingency projections consistent with the approved baseline for all the projects?



195. Schedule and Funding Kurt Fisher, DOE/SCMark Reichanadter, SLAC OFFICE OF SCIENCE2.Are the current cost, schedule and contingency projections consistent with the approved baseline for all the projects?



206. ManagementMark Reichanadter, SLACHenry Heetderks, LBNL

OFFICE OF SCIENCE3.Is the management structure adequate and appropriate to successfully execute the projects within specifications, budget, and schedule? Are major risks being addressed effectively?



217. ES&HDennie Parzyck, DOE/FSO OFFICE OF SCIENCE4.Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are Integrated Safety Management Principles being followed?



Daniel R. Lehman, Chair DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

Documents

Transcript of Daniel R. Lehman, Chair DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy