1. Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Follow-Up Review of the APUL Project November 2-3, 2009 Dean A. Hoffer

2. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 2 Agenda for Exec Session Charge to Reviewers Review Agenda DOE O 413.3 Critical Decision Table Document Requirements Technical Design Review Guidance Cost/Schedule Review Guidance Reporting Structure Reviewer Assignments Cost / Contingency Table Discussion

3. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 3 Charge

4. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 4 Charge (continued)

5. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 5 Charge Attachment #1

6. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 6 Charge Attachment #1 (continued)

7. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 7 Agenda

8. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 8 Agenda (continued)

9. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 9 Agenda (continued) Additional Rooms IB3 IB 1 Mezz

10. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 10 DOE O 413.3 Critical Decision Table

11. CD-1 Documentation Acquisition Strategy Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP) Preliminary Project Management Plan (PMP) Assumptions Document Conceptual Design Report (CDR) Baseline Range and Resource Loaded Schedule Configuration Management Plan Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report Risk Management Plan and Risk Assessment Value Management Documentation Quality Assurance Program Documentation 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 11

12. Two Parts to the Review Technical - Independent Conceptual Design Review Cost, Schedule and Project Management Review 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 12

13. Technical – Conceptual Design Review Design Reviews are performed to determine if a product (drawings, analyses, or specifications) is correct and will perform its intended functions and meet requirements. APUL’s technical scope was found to be in reasonably good shape during the July 16-17, 2009. The committee is to evaluate conceptual design as part of the independent review and should concentrate on any changes to that design since the last review. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 13

14. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 14 Cost/Schedule Review Guidance

15. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 15 Cost/Schedule Review Guidance (Continued)

16. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 16 Cost/Schedule Review Guidance (Continued)

17. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 17 Cost/Schedule Review Guidance (Continued)

18. Subcommittee Assignments SC1 – D1 Magnets Jim Kerby Bob Kephart John Tompkins SC2 – Cold Powering System Gary McIntyre Jay Theilacker Joe Tuozzolo SC3 – Cost, Schedule and Project Management Jeff Sims Fran Clark Suzanne Saxer Note: Underlined names are subcommittee lead. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 18

19. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 19 Reviewer Assignments

20. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 20 Reviewer Assignments (continued)

21. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 21 Reviewer Assignments (continued)

22. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 22 Reviewer Assignments (continued) 5.3 Cost - D1 Magnets 5.3.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? John Tompkins 5.3.2 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound documented basis and are they reasonable? 5.3.3 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the D1 Magnets work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities? 5.4 Cost – Cold Powering System 5.4.1 Does the conceptual design report and supporting documentation adequately justify the stated cost range and project duration? Jay Theilacker 5.4.2 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound documented basis and are they reasonable? 5.4.3 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for the Cold Power System work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities? 5.5 Cost – Overall Project 5.5.1 Has the project established a realistic cost estimate for all work associated with performing Preliminary Design, Final Design and Value Management activities? Suzanne Saxer 5.5.2 Does an obligation profile exist and is it within funding guidance?

23. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 23 Reviewer Assignments (continued)

24. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 24 Reviewer Assignments (continued)

25. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 25 Reviewer Assignments for Breakouts

26. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 26 Reporting Structure Review findings, comments, and recommendations should be presented in writing at a closeout with the APUL’s, Fermilab’s, and Broohaven’s management. Section for each “Level 2” WBS plus Cost, Schedule, Management sections.

27. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 27 Findings, Comments, and Recommendations Findings Comments Recommendations Findings are statements of fact that summarize noteworthy information presented during the review. Comments are judgment statements about the facts presented during the review. The reviewers' comments are based on their experiences and expertise. The comments are to be evaluated by the project team and actions taken as deemed appropriate. Recommendations are statements of actions that should be addressed by the project team. A response to the recommendation is expected and that the actions taken would be reported on during future reviews.

28. Examples of Findings, Comments, and Recommendations Finding –A plan for the MI upgrades was presented. The major elements of this plan consist of an upgrade of a MI quad power supply, which is nearly complete, and the addition of two more RF stations. The cavities to be installed currently exist as spares so there is no design and prototyping required. Comment –The project has decided to build the DCCT in-house. The committee supports this effort since the technology and design of this device is well developed and well known. Recommendation –Work with Fermilab management to acquire resources needed to complete the accelerator and beamline modifications. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 28

29. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 29 Old Project’s Cost & Contingency Estimate from July Review

30. New Project’s Cost & Contingency Estimate 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 30

31. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 31 Reviewer Write-ups Write-up template is posted on Director’s Review Webpage. http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OPMO/Projects/APUL/DirRev/2009/11__02/review.htm Write-ups are to be sent to Terry Erickson at terickson@fnal.gov prior to 11:30 AM on Tuesday, November 3 for the Closeout Dry Run A final report will be issued within 1 week after the closeout.

32. 02-Nov-2009Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project 32 Discussion Questions and Answers