1. 1 draft NO A WBS J. Cooper NO A Working Group Meeting June 29,2005 Work is the effort of Ron, Dave, Bill, Suzanne, Harry, not just me.

2. 2 draft NO A WBS J. Cooper, Project Manager R. Ray, Deputy

3. 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. 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 M 27,000 km 7.5 M gallons, 24 kt 374 km, 6 kt Structural, but also light gathering

5. 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 NO A Detectors 3.1 – 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. 6 Level 4 Details 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. 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. 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. 9 draft NO A 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. 10 draft NO A 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 NO A Proposal is consistent with these numbers.

11. 11 draft NO A WBS - Level 1 Managers? S. Dixon ?R. RayJ. CooperJ. Cooper / S. Pasek / K. Kephart ? J. Cooper, Project Manager R. Ray, Deputy Clearly would depend on 3 strong Level 2 managers

12. 12 More structure, not WBS PMP usually shows Project  PPD  Directorate  DOE, line management Collaboration with Spokespersons to one side in a separate line –NO A 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