1. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee for the LHC CMS Detector Upgrade Project Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 26-27, 2013 Kurt Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

2. 2 Executive Session OFFICE OF SCIENCE Project and review information is available at: http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OPMO/Projects/USCMS/DOERev/20130826/review.html https://indico.fnal.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=7183 Access key: uscms_cd1 DOE/SC EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Monday, August 26, 2013—Wilson Hall, the Comitium 8:00 a.m.Introduction and OverviewK. Fisher 8:15 a.m.Program Office PerspectiveM. Procario/S. Rolli 8:30 a.m.Federal Project Director PerspectiveS. Webster/P. Carolan 8:45 a.m. Questions

3. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Associate Administrator for Information Management & Chief Information Officer Office of General Counsel 3 DOE Organization

4. Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Office of the Director (SC-1) Patricia M. Dehmer (A) Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Barbara Helland (A) Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) P. Dehmer Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski High Energy Physics (SC-25) James Siegrist Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman (A) Acting 4/2013 Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia M. Dehmer Deputy Director for Resource Management (SC-4) Jeffrey Salmon Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) Joseph McBrearty Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman Office of Budget (SC-41) Kathleen Klausing Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Office of SC Program Direction (SC-46) Daniel Division Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Linda Shariati Office of Business Policy & Ops (SC-45) V. Kountouris SC Communications & Public Affairs (SC-47) Dolline Hatchett Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Thomas Jeff. SO Joe Arango Stanford SO Paul Golan Pacific NWest SO Roger Snyder Princeton SO Maria Dikeakos Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Fermi SO Michael Weis Brookhaven SO Frank Crescenzo Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Argonne SO Joanna Livengood SC Integrated Support Center Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) D. Streit Office of Safety, Security & Infra. (SC-31) D. Streit (A) Human Resources & Admin. ( SC-48 ) Cynthia Mays Small Business Innovation Research (SC-29) Manny Oliver Oak Ridge Office Larry Kelly OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4 SC Organization

5. 5 OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee Participants Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC, Chairperson SC1SC2SC3 HCal—Hadron Calorimeter (WBS 1.2)Forward Pixel Detector (WBS 1.3)Level 1 Trigger (WBS 1.4) Jim Proudfoot, ANL*Jim Brau, Oregon*Myron Campbell, U. of Michigan Jim Pilcher, U. of ChicagoMaurice Garcia-Sciveres, LBNLCharlie Young, SLAC Luciano Ristori, FNAL SC4SC5 Cost and ScheduleProject Management (WBS 1.1) Ethan Merrill, DOE/SC*Mark Reichanadter, SLAC Gail Penny, DOE/BHSOMichael Levi, LBNL Mark Palmer, FNAL Observers LEGEND Jim Siegrist, DOE/SCSCSubcommittee Mike Procario, DOE/SC*Chairperson Simona Rolli, DOE/SC Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO Steve Webster, DOE/FSOCount:13 (excluding observers)

6. Charge Questions 1.Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 2.Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? 3.Cost and Schedule: Are the cost and schedule estimates credible and realistic for this stage of the project? Do they include adequate scope, cost and schedule contingency? 4.Management and ES&H: Is the project being appropriately managed at this stage? Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and Laboratory support to produce a credible, technical, cost and schedule baseline? Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the project’s current stage of development? 5.Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval of CD-1 complete? 6 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

7. 7 Agenda OFFICE OF SCIENCE

8. 8 Agenda (cont.) OFFICE OF SCIENCE

9. 9 OFFICE OF SCIENCE Report Outline/ Writing Assignments

10. 10 Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures OFFICE OF SCIENCE

11. 11 Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OF SCIENCE (PowerPoint; No Smaller than 18 pt Font) 2.1Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. List Review Subcommittee Members List Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers 2.1.1Findings In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. 2.1.2Comments In 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 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2.

12. 12 Format: Final Report OFFICE OF SCIENCE (MSWord; 12 pt Font) 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. 2.1.1Findings Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions. 2.1.2Comments 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 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2. 3.

13. 13  Present closeout reports in PowerPoint.  Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, casey.clark@science.doe.gov, casey.clark@science.doe.gov by September 3, 8:00 a.m. (EDT). OFFICE OF SCIENCE Expectations

14. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Closeout Report by the Review Committee for the LHC CMS Detector Upgrade Project Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 27, 2013 Kurt Fisher Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/ 14

15. 15 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.1 Hadron Calorimeter (WBS 1.2) J. Proudfoot, ANL* / SC1 1.Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 2.Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? 5.Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval CD-1 complete?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

16. 16 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.2 Forward Pixel Detector J. Brau, Oregon* / SC2 1.Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 2.Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? 5.Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval CD-1 complete?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

17. 17 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2.3 Level 1 Trigger M. Campbell, U. of Michigan* / SC3 1.Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 2.Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? 5.Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval CD-1 complete?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

18. 18 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3. Cost and Schedule E. Merrill, DOE/SC* / SC3 1.Conceptual Design: Is the conceptual design sound and likely to meet the MIE project’s technical performance requirements most efficiently and effectively? Do the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? 2.Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? 3.Cost and Schedule: Are the cost and schedule estimates credible and realistic for this stage of the project? Do they include adequate scope, cost and schedule contingency? 5.Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval of CD-1 complete?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations

19. 19 OFFICE OF SCIENCE PROJECT STATUS Project TypeMIE / Line Item / Cooperative Agreement CD-1Planned:Actual: CD-2Planned:Actual: CD-3Planned:Actual: CD-4Planned:Actual: TPC Percent CompletePlanned: _____%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 Project Status E. Merrill, DOE/SC* / SC3

20. 20 OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4. Project Management M. Reichanadter, SLAC* / SC5 2.Project Scope: Are the project’s scope and specifications sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates? 4.Management and ES&H: Is the project being appropriately managed at this stage? Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills, and Laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline? Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are future plans sufficient given the projects current stage of development? 5.Documentation: Is the prerequisite documentation required for approval of CD-1 complete?  Findings  Comments  Recommendations