1. DOE Annual Review of SLAC HEP Research Program June 14-16, 2005 SLAC Charge to Committee Issues Procedures

2. Charge to Committee Evaluate the importance and quality of HEP Research Program at SLAC in the context of the national program: In the areas of Experimental program: BaBar, GLAST, EXO, particle-astro Theory program: particle physics, Kavli Accelerator R&D program Scientific and technical merit and importance of the area Quality and impact of the recent research Adequacy of the allocated resources Feasibility for carrying out the proposed plans Comparison with research at other laboratories

3. SLAC HEP Program Budget figures: SLACSLAC OHEP HEP (HEP+BES) FY05: $172M$271M$736M FY06 request: $144M$309M $714M  About 75% of SLAC HEP budget is for B-factory operations. Operations of B-factory reviewed in June 2004  Well managed and priorities effectively set  Significant infrastructure challenges threaten ongoing operations  Staff is performing heroically, but this may not be sustainable; business operations staff is thin and stressed Serious accident in October 2004  Operations just restarted B-factory operations will be reviewed separately in fall 2005 Scope of this review: Research program

4. From Past Reviews Annual reviews in past couple of years very positive  Outstanding B-Factory operation and its scientific productivity  Overall, good marks in all other areas  Leading NLC R&D effort  Exciting and expanding Non-Accelerator physics program –neutrino –particle astrophysics and cosmology: joint venture with Kavli  Strong Advanced Accelerator R&D program  Theory program with strength in perturbative QCD, phenomenology & string theory  Also praised for improved relationship with external users Received excellent marks on management

5. Conclusion from last review Overall outstanding job  Director expects and gets excellent performance from SLAC staff and set very high standards for the collaborating institutions  Morale is clearly high  Remarkable accomplishment given the budget difficulties faces during the past several years However, there are challenges to face including the lean organization which creates vulnerabilities as laboratory balance future programmatic growth with the known programmatic, technical and infrastructure risks.

6. Over last few months: LC technology choice: recommendation by ITRP  Program transition plan being developed GLAST/LAT Project: needed another rebaseline  DOE project cost increased from $42M to $45M and capped  DOE operations support also capped to $5M per year Electrical accident and B-factory shutdown  What used to be neck to neck race with KEK-B  Now PEP-II delivered ~280 fb -1 vs KEK-B logged ~460 fb -1 B-factory in FY06 President’s budget request  To conclude by 2008 at the latest All above impacted morale at SLAC SLAC reorganized  Structure and senior management  “Recognizing new science goals and discovery opportunities and adapting rapidly to exploit them efficiently, cost effectively and safely” Impacts on future program direction

7. Evaluations requested Performance of existing research program: activities during past year, goals for next year  Are SLAC collaborators delivering on their commitments?  Are SLAC research programs productive?  Is the Lab managing resources well? Long term plan: your assessment on strategic Plan Overall program balance and priorities Resource, staffing, & budget  National HEP budget continues to decline in real purchasing power  Tight budget in FY05 and even more so in FY06  SLAC HEP program is no exception  Staff reduction in past few years: likely further reduction expected in FY05-06 for SLAC HEP program  Is the current & planned future program appropriate, considering the available resource and staffing?

8. Review Procedures Presentations today, followed by executive session  Go-around-table, bring your impressions & questions  Questions will be delivered to SLAC management before dinner 2 nd day: presentations continues, followed by breakout then executive sessions  Go-around-table with your general comments & impressions  Any additional questions to SLAC management 3 rd day executive session  Answers from SLAC management  Dry run of closeout (6~7 minutes per consultant) Closeout to give fast feedback to laboratory management  Not an open session  Feel free to be as open as desire  However, your definitive evaluation is your letter

9. Review Procedures - continue Your individual review letter by July 6  Address to Robin Staffin and copy to me  Serve as the basis for DOE’s evaluation of the laboratory  Will be kept confidential Official letter report will be issued to the laboratory director