AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting

1
AGS RSVP Weekly Meeting, 18 Nov 2004

• Agenda
• AGS Review close-out, probable outcome from
  AGS review, meco magnet review actions, next
  significant events, ACCESS data base status (P.
  Pile)
• How we get from here to there - fully loaded
  Project schedules (A. Pendzick/D. Phillips)

• Useful Links
• RSVP Project http//rsvp.bnl.gov
• C-AD AGS Project Office http//server.c-ad.bnl.
  gov/esfd/RSVP/RSVP_AGS_WBS.htm

2
AGS WBS Review, 4-5 Nov 2004

• RSVP AGS Review Committee
• R. Larsen, S. Ecklund, J. Seeman, A. Marchionni,
  E. Metral, G. McMichael, R. Pasquinelli
• Slides to follow are from close-out (R. Larsen)
• Close-out slides are archived on web
• http//server.c-ad.bnl.gov/esfd/RSVP/November2004/
  rsvp-presentations.htm

3
General Comments

• The Committee was pleased to see the level of
  work represented by the presentations, which were
  clear and well integrated.
• Most detailed planning cost work accomplished
  since July 2004.
• Some aspects of content need further development.

4
Implementation Plan Resource Loaded Schedules

• The implementation plan for Booster, AGS and
  Switchyard was well detailed.
• The plans for experimental beams and Beam
  Development have questions concerning the
  experimental interfaces and schedule.
• Some resource analysis was shown, but resource
  loaded schedules are not yet developed.

5
Non-RSVP Elements

• These elements appear to have been identified and
  excluded appropriately.
• Manpower support for operations requires
  integration with the existing RHIC matrix, which
  will be augmented with levels of manpower
  appropriate to the incremental RSVP levels.

6
Technical, Schedule Cost Risks

• The bulk of the Booster, AGS and Switchyard
  upgrades are low technical risk.
• Achieving higher levels of intensity and cleaner
  extinction between pulses through additional RF
  magnets are critical to the experiments these
  have been modeled but not been demonstrated and
  are higher technical risk.
• Changes in the experiments may pose additional
  technical risks beyond the control of the AGS
  team.

7
Schedule Risk

• The risks were discussed during various
  presentations.
• The schedule risks for the bulk of AGS upgrades
  appears to be mostly in ramping up to needed
  manpower levels and finding appropriate people
  for temporary work, esp. engineers.
• The start date of 2006 appears aggressive
  considering the unknowns of total project cost
  and funding.
• The Beam Development schedule is a draft and will
  be reexamined to attempt to reduce duration from
  five to three years.
• The overall schedule integrated with the
  experiments needs to be developed.
• The delivery of critical experimental components
  poses risks beyond the control of the AGS Upgrade
  team.

8
Cost Risk

• Cost risks were not presented as a separate
  analysis by the team, but in subsequent
  presentations.
• The contingency levels of most estimates averaged
  less than 25 which indicates high confidence
  factor.
• This is appropriate for most parts of the AGS
  complex since the upgrade includes few technical
  uncertainties.
• Uncertainties of experiments can pose serious
  risk
• KOPIO production angle, pit size
• MECO production solenoid, target etc.
• Overall cost growth in estimates is causing
  serious concern within the funding agency.

9
Cost Growth

• The cost estimate has grown since January 2004 by
  30M to a final total of 84M of which 32M is
  attributed to Beam Development.
• The latter is in reality Pre-Ops as opposed to
  construction and did not change since January.
• Therefore the construction segment appears to
  have more than doubled.
• Reasons
• Magnet/PS/controls upgrades to reduce risk to
  RHIC
• ESH requirements for caps over high-activation
  areas
• Growth in experimental beams costs
• Addition of Project Office

10
Operations Plan, Resource-Loaded Schedule,
Conflicts

• The plan was presented along with an incremental
  total manpower analysis.
• The resources were averaged and not leveled in
  detail.
• Conflicts with RHIC requirements have to be
  worked out in detail.
• Concerns about difficulties of finding skilled
  people matrix management.
• Potential impacts on costs and schedules.

11
Management Plans

• Integration, Communication major factors
• There is recent precedent at BNL for similar
  management issues, e.g. SNS and ATLAS.
• Lines of authority appear well understood though
  inherently complicated by dual lines of authority
  up the chain.
• Standing management meetings either exist already
  or will be set up alongside the current RHIC
  management structure.
• Operations will be well integrated with RHIC
  through liaisons, daily weekly meetings.

12
Explore Reductions in Scope, etc.

• This was attempted throughout the meeting
• Delete one of the experiments Unacceptable.
  Experiments have been sold as a package.
• Defer AGS upgrades Bad strategy poses high risk
  to RHIC and would miss existing low activation
  window of opportunity in AGS.
• Reduce or eliminate Beam Development program
  Possible cost reduction of 14M without much
  compromise to program, if any, appears feasible.
  Team will investigate.
• Additional cost reductions should be sought
  through scrubbing technical component design
  and costs, labor costs, system design
  improvements in both AGS and experiments.

13
Conclusion

• The Committee is very pleased that a large effort
  over the past four months has shown impressive
  progress and dividends in the planning process.
• We look forward to seeing continued progress in
  planning and development, and ultimate success in
  securing full funding and staffing.
• Thanks to all the presenters for their diligent
  efforts in helping meet our Charge.
• Keep up the good work!

14
Recommendations
Probable Guidance well get from Willis/Kotcher

• Continue refining estimates with Lehman-like
  documentation (resource loaded leveled
  schedules, cost books etc.) for future review.
• Schedule future cost scrubbing reviews of both
  AGS and experimental programs.
• Continue aggressive cost-reduction plan, such as
  design improvements to replacement components,
  reducing/eliminating Beam Development program,
  beam operations manpower levels etc
• Continue identifying, mitigating technical,
  schedule and cost risks.

15
Preliminary Guidance our plan(subject to
change we have not yet received guidance from
Willis/Kotcher as result of 4-5 Nov AGS Review)

• Continue cost scrubbing and schedule development
• Highest priority to AGS/BOOSTER WBS 1.4.1
• Cost scrubbing, what can we postpone until
  operations phase? etc
• Schedule in particular a plan to get the
  AGS/BOOSTER in shape for high intensity beam
  development --- by beginning of 3rd year of
  construction?
• Beam development plan that fits within constant
  effort RHIC budget scenario with 2 beams i.e.
  figure on 80 hrs/week and 15 weeks/year
• Case 1 Beam development during entire 5 year
  construction period
• Case 2 Beam development beginning 3rd year of
  construction
• The construction plan should be developed
  consistent with no beam development in first two
  years of the project (Case 2 above)
• D-line decommissioned
• C-Line available beginning of 3rd year for tests
• theres a risk (small) that we may have to revert
  back to the original plan (Case 1).

16
Update on MECO Magnet Issues

• Still no formal guidance as result of the 10-11
  Oct MECO Magnet Review
• A plan to implement some of the panel
  recommendations is, however, being developed.

17
--DRAFT--
18
--DRAFT--
RSVP FY05 Supplemental Request MECO Magnet
19
next significant events
Milestone Date Status, Comments
Discussion of Baseline Expectations, Timeline with Experiments September 13 Held
MECO Magnet Review Sun-Tue, Oct 10-12 Held
AGS Review Thu-Fri, Nov 4-5 Held
Internal discussion of resource-loaded schedules (RLS) for all projects Thu, Dec 10? Includes PO, NSF PM, ALD experiments. Anticipate one full day. Date TBF.
Simulations Backgrounds Review Tue-Thu, Jan 11-13 Set, reviewers assembled, held at NYU
Initial review of RLS for all projects Tue-Thu, Jan 18-20 Reviewed by LOG. Dates TBF.
Reviews of other sub-projects Weeks of Jan 24 Feb 21 Series of LOG-based reviews of RSVP sub-systems
Draft versions of PMP, PEP, Conceptual Design Report completed Mon, Feb 14
Operations Review Week of Mar 7
Project startup pre-review Week of Mar 15 Comprehensive preparatory review of full project, proposal
Project startup review Week of Apr 18 Final project startup review, iteration of above. NSF review.
Finalize documentation for May submission to NSF Week of Apr 25
Product submitted to NSF/NSB Mon, May 2
20
RSVP AGS Cost Status as of 11/18/04
21

• Darlene has information from the latest
  spreadsheets (V22) in entered into the ACCESS
  data base
• Changes to your WBS spreadsheets should go
  directly to Darlene
• finish your WBS Dictionaries! Enter on same
  spreadsheet as costs
• Send revised (available cost scrubbing) estimates
  by 7 Dec, in time for the 9 Dec Internal
  Discussions
• Highlight changes for easy recognition and
  summarize changes (with date) on the Change
  spreadsheet
• Darlene will then send spreadsheets to me and a
  new version will be published

22
Next Meeting

• 2 Dec 2004
• Agenda
• Update on AGS/BOOSTER WBS 1.4.1 cost scrubbing
  (Brown)
• Update on beam development plan (Leif)
• Status of resource loaded schedules (Pendzick)