Executive Session Director’s Progress Review of the NOvA Project August 4-5, 2010 Dean A. Hoffer

Executive Session Director’s Progress Review of the

NOvA Project

August 4-5, 2010Dean A. Hoffer

Director's Progress Review of the NOvA Project

204-Aug-2010

Agenda for Executive Session• Charge to Reviewers• Review Focus• Review Agenda• Reporting Structure• Reviewer Assignments• Discussion


304-Aug-2010

ChargeThis charge is for the Committee to conduct a Director’s Progress Review of the NOvA project at Fermilab. The review team is to evaluate the project’s progress against the approved baseline and determine if the project is on track to achieve the required scope of work within budget and schedule. Additional, confirm that the project is prepared for the DOE Independent Project Review (IPR) scheduled for August 31 – September 1, 2010.

The purpose of the NOvA project is to fabricate the NOvA near and far detectors and to provide a detector hall for the far detector, as well as upgrade the Fermilab Recycler and Main Injector accelerators and the NuMI beamline. The ensemble will permit the experimenters to study neutrino oscillations, in particular, to search for the oscillation of muon-type neutrinos to electron-type neutrinos. If these oscillations can be observed then the experimenters may be able to determine the mass-ordering of the neutrinos and to observe Charge Parity (CP) violation in the neutrino sector. Determination of the mass-ordering is a unique contribution made possible by NOvA’s very long baseline.

In performance of a general assessment of progress, current status, and the identification of potential issues, the committee should address the following specific items:

1. Baseline Cost and Schedule: Are the current project cost and schedule projections consistent with the approved baseline cost and schedule? Is the cost contingency and schedule float remaining adequate for the risks?


404-Aug-2010

Charge (continued)2. Management: Evaluate the management structure as to its adequacy to deliver the project within

specifications, budget and schedule. Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? In particular the two recommendations for the DOE IPR conducted on January 28, 2010. Has a contingency analysis been performed and a contingency spend plan documented that

identifies the decision dates and costs? Has an updated bottoms-up cost estimate been performed that reflects a realistic estimate to

complete the remaining scope of work? 3. Construction: Has there been adequate progress on the construction activities, particularly the

work funded by the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act of 2009? Have Fermilab and the project made the necessary preparations for the remaining activities?

4. Is the NOvA project appropriately prepared for the DOE Independent Project Review scheduled for August 31 – September 1, 2010?

Finally, the committee should present findings, comments, and recommendations at a closeout meeting with NOvA’s and Fermilab’s management and provide a written report soon after the review.


5

Questions to be addressed in each breakouts

• What work has been accomplished and was the work done per the project’s plan (cost and schedule baseline)?

• Is the plan for the remaining work reasonable and achievable?

• Is the organization in place to accomplish the remaining work per the plan?

04-Aug-2010


604-Aug-2010

AgendaWednesday, August 4, 2010

7:30 am Executive Session - One North (WH1N) ............................................................. D. Hoffer

8:15 am Plenary Session - One West (WH1W) 8:15 am Welcome .............................................................................................................. P. Oddone 8:20 am Project Overview ................................................................................................... J. Cooper 9:10 am Accelerator and NuMI Upgrades ........................................................................ P. Derwent 9:25 am Ash River Site and Building ................................................................................... S. Dixon

9:40 am Break - outside One West (WH1W)

10:00 am Plenary Session - One West (WH1W) 10:00 am Scintillator ............................................................................................................ S. Mufson 10:10 am Fiber ................................................................................................................. C. Bromberg 10:15 am PVC Extrusions ...................................................................................................... R. Talaga 10:25 am Extrusion Module Factory ..................................................................................... K. Heller 10:35 am Electronics and DAQ .......................................................................................... L. Mualem 10:45 am Near/Far Detector Assembly ................................................................................. P. Lukens 11:00 am Near Detector / Integration Prototype .................................................................. R. Tesarek

11:30 am Lunch

12:15 pm Tour of Near Detector / Integration Prototype .......................................................... All (bus to site, 45 minutes for tour, bus back to WH, no break)


704-Aug-2010

Agenda (continued) 27-July-2010 1:30 pm Breakout Sessions

1. Accelerator and Beamline - Curia II (WH2SW) 2. Site and Building & Near Detector Cavern - Tabernacle (WH5E) 3. Commodities: Scintillator, Fiber, and PVC - Racetrack (WH7XO) 4. Extrusion Module Production - Snake Pit (WH2NE) 5. Electronics and DAQ - Black Hole (WH2NE) 6. Near and Far Detector Assembly - Fish Tank (WH13XO) 7. ES&H - Small Dining Room (WH1SW) 8. Project Management, Cost, and Schedule - One North (WH1N)

3:00 am Break - outside One West (WH1W)

3:15 am Breakout Sessions Continue in same conference rooms 5:00 pm Subcommittee Discussions – In Breakout Meeting Rooms .............. Subcommittee Leads 5:30 pm Full Committee Executive Session - One North (WH1N) ................................... D. Hoffer 6:30 pm Adjourn Thursday, August 5, 2010

8:00 am NOvA Respond to Committee Questions from 1st Day - One North (WH1N) 8:45 am Subcommittee Working Session/Report Writing - One North (WH1N) 11:15 am Full Committee Executive Session Dry Run - One North (WH1N) .................... D. Hoffer

12:00 pm Working Lunch

3:00 pm Summary and Closeout - One West (WH1W) ..................................................... D. Hoffer 4:00 pm Adjourn


804-Aug-2010

Reviewer AssignmentsExecutive Summary Dean Hoffer 1.0 Introduction Dean Hoffer 2.0 Accelerator and Beamline (WBS 1/2.0) Alireza Nassiri*

Lionel Prost 3.0 Site and Building (WBS 1/2.1) & Near Detector Cavern Jason Budd*

Tim Wyman 4.0 Commodities: Scintillator/Fiber/PVC (WBS 1/2.2, 1/2.3, 1/2.4) Bill Cooper*

Mike Dinnon 5.0 Extrusion Module Production (WBS 1/2.5) Linda Stutte*

Jim Freeman 6.0 Electronics and DAQ (WBS 1/2.6, 1/2.7) Jonathan Lewis*

Mark Bowden 7.0 Near and Far Detector Assembly (WBS 1/2.8, 1/2.9) Charlie Cooper*

Rob Roser 8.0, Cost, Schedule, ES&H and Project Management Rich Stanek*

Fran Clark Cat James Jim Priest Jimmy Proudfoot

8.1 Cost Jimmy Proudfoot 8.2 Schedule Fran Clark 8.3 ES&H Jim Priest 8.4 Management Rich Stanek

02-Aug-2010

Note: Underlined names are the primary writer * Indicates Subcommittee Lead


904-Aug-2010

Reviewer Assignments (continued) 02-Aug-2010

9.0 Charge Questions 9.1 Baseline Cost and Schedule: Are the current project cost and schedule projections consistent with the approved baseline cost and schedule? Is the cost contingency and schedule float remaining adequate for the risks?

Fran Clark All

9.2 Management: Evaluate the management structure as to its adequacy to deliver the project within specifications, budget and schedule. Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? In particular the two recommendations for the DOE IPR conducted on January 28, 2010. • Has a contingency analysis been performed and a contingency spend plan documented that identifies the decision dates and costs? • Has an updated bottoms-up cost estimate been performed that reflects a realistic estimate to complete the remaining scope of work?

Rich Stanek All

9.3 Construction: Has there been adequate progress on the construction activities, particularly the work funded by the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act of 2009? Have Fermilab and the project made the necessary preparations for the remaining activities?

Rob Roser All

9.4 Is the NOvA project appropriately prepared for the DOE Independent Project Review scheduled for August 31 – September 1, 2010?

Rich Stanek All

Note: Underlined names are the primary writer * Indicates Subcommittee Lead


1004-Aug-2010

Reviewer Assignments for Breakouts1) Accelerator and Beamline (Curia II – WH2SW) Alireza Nassiri

Lionel Prost 2) Site and Building & Near Detector Cavern (Tabernacle, WH5E) Jason Budd

Tim Wyman 3) Commodities – Scintillator/Fiber/PVC (Racetrack – WH7XO) Bill Cooper

Mike Dinnon 4) Extrusion Module Production (Snake Pit – WH2NE) Jim Freeman

Linda Stutte 5) Electronics and DAQ (Black Hole – WH2NW) Mark Bowden

Jonathan Lewis 6) Near and Far Detector Assembly (Fish Tank – WH13XO) Charlie Cooper

Rob Roser 7) ES&H (Small Dining Room – WH1SW) Jim Priest 8) Project Management, Cost, and Schedule (One North –WH1W) Fran Clark

Cat James Jimmy Proudfoot Rich Stanek


1104-Aug-2010

Reporting Structure

• Review findings, comments, and recommendations should be presented in writing at a closeout with the NOvA’s and Fermilab’s management.

• Section for each “Level 2” WBS plus Cost, Schedule, Management sections.


1204-Aug-2010

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.


13

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.

04-Aug-2010


1404-Aug-2010

Reviewer Write-ups

• Write-up template is posted on Director’s Review Webpage. http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OPMO/Projects/NOvA/DirRev/2010/08_04/Closeout_Presentation_NOvA_Progress_2010-08-04.docx

• Write-ups are to be sent to Terry Erickson at [email protected] prior to 10:30 AM on Thursday, August 5 for the Closeout Dry Run

• A final report will be issued within 1 weeks after the closeout.


1504-Aug-2010

Discussion

• Questions and Answers

Documents

Executive Session Director’s Progress Review of the NOvA Project August 4-5, 2010 Dean A. Hoffer