LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade
(LADU) Project
Jon Kotcher
Construction Project Manager
John Hobbs
Deputy Construction Project Manager (Interim) & NSF Upgrade PI
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA
April 3, 2013
Outline
 Motivation, context
 Background, status, recent history
 Project scope, organization
 BNL CD-1 Director’s Review
 Agency guidance, project cost
 Response to FY13 funding reduction
 Looking toward FY14
 Update on ATLAS upgrade discussions
 Summary of JOG issues
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
2
Phase I Motivation (1)
 Increase in instantaneous luminosity in Phase I (X2-5) causes
significant rate problems in the current trigger system.
 Phase I Upgrade strategy is to
enhance upstream functionality in
the trigger system in order to reject
background & remain within rate
budget, while retaining signal
efficiency.
 Design Phase I to be compatible
with envisioned Phase II to the
extent possible.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
3
Phase I Motivation (2)
 Enhanced rejection while retaining high pT relative efficiencies >95%.
muons
EM
Upgrade
Current Trigger
electrons
Rate Limit
X4-8
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
Rough benchmark: Without
upgrades, changing thresholds in
order to contain rates results in
~ 50% loss of efficiency for
events triggered on
massive-object, single-lepton
decay. Impacts W, WH, ttbar, top,
SUSY, …
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
4
LADU Subprojects
WBS 1.1: Liquid Argon
Calorimeter Trigger
Phase-I
Shaper
SCA
Front-End Board
ROD
SCA
nSW
Layout
WBS 1.2: Muon
New Small Wheel
2500 mm
830mm
930mm
DSP
SCA
Ped
Sub
SCA
Preampl.
S
ADC
MUX/Serializer
Optical Links
Optical Receiver
Deserializer
80-100m
fibers
Linear
Mixer
S
S
SCA
Controller
Channel
De-multiplexer
INPUT FPGA
Timing
Trigger
Control
RCx
E,t
N-tap FIR
Ped
Sub
E,t
N-tap FIR
Ped
Sub
E,t
N-tap FIR
Ped
Sub
E,t
N-tap FIR
DAQ
930mm
Timing Trigger Control Distribution
TTC Partition Master
Fixed Latency (~3.0us max)
Baseplane
Trigger Tower Sum
and Drivers
Receiver
Sα i S(t- τ i )
Current
L1Calo
Processors
α S(t)
Possible implementation
ΔηxΔφ=0.025x0.1 1st and
2nd layer EM
ΔηxΔφ=0.1x0.1 elsewhere
CLK Fanout
ADC
ADC
ADC
Gustaaf Brooijmans
OTx
CLK &
Cfg.
MUX/
Serializer
(FPGA)
Optical Links
Ped
Sub
Optical Receiver
Deserializer
~250 Gbps/board
Crate
Monitoring
930mm
X
Digital Processing System (DPS)
ORx
ADC
Red = New
Y
Level-1 Calorimeter Trigger
System
LAr Trigger Digitizer Board (LTDB)
S
830mm
930mm
Tower Builder Board [TBB]
PZ+Dly
830mm
Tim ing
Trigger
Control Rx
New
Layer Sum
Boards
[LSB]
Controller Board
Output
FPGA
480Gbps/module
1.92 Tbps/board
E,t
N-tap FIR
Ped
Sub
E,t
N-tap FIR
Ped
Sub
E,t
N-tap FIR
Ped
Sub
E,t
N-tap FIR
FPGA
S
980mm
50mm for
electronics
Tim ing
Trigger
Control Rx
Feature
Extractor
[FEX]
SDRAM
LAr Calorimeter Trigger Upgrade
505 mm
1
293 mm
sTGC & MM constructed into wedges
30-31 January 2013
U.S. ATLAS Opera ons Program
Director's Review
1
Level-1 Trigger in Phase-I
WBS 1.3:
Trigger/Data Acquisition
 U.S. Focus:
 Increased granularity in the Liquid Argon
Calorimeter Level 1 trigger.
 Forward Muon (New Small Wheel) front-end
readout, trigger, and alignment systems.
 Integration of calorimeter information for use
in topological and other triggering (TDAQ).
17 January,
2013
Kotcher,
Hobbs
– April 3, 2013TDAQ Upgrade: Hal Evans
1
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight
Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
5
The LHC Timeline
 LHC startup, s = 900 GeV
, bunch
spacing
s=7~8 TeV, L=6x10334x
cm-2 s-1, bunch
spacing
50 ns 50 ns
~20-25 fb-1
Go to design energy, nominal luminosity
s=13~14 TeV, L~1x1034 cm-2 s,-1bunch
, bunch
spacing
spacing
2525
nsns
~75-100 fb-1
LS2 is 12
months
(CY18)
Injector and LHC Phase-1 upgrade to ultimate design luminosity
s=14 TeV, L~2x1034 cm-2 s,-1bunch
, bunch
spacing
spacing
2525
nsns
~350 fb-1
HL-LHC Phase-2 upgrade, IR, crab cavities?
?, IR
s=14 TeV, L=5x1034 cm-2 s-1, luminosity levelling
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington,S.
VABertolucci,
HCP2012, Kyoto
6
Status Overview
 We have rapidly pulled together a project plan, including:








Scope definition
Project personnel
Cost, schedule, staffing estimates, milestones, etc.
Contingency
BoEs
NSF/DOE split
Risk assessments, mitigation
Documentation (PEP, CDR, NSF proposal, Acquisition Strategy, etc.)
 This represents a highly collaborative effort between the project,
the collaboration, and among U.S. ATLAS management.
 Rapid convergence of technical approaches owes much to upgrade
R&D program (M&O).
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
7
Phase I/II Coordination
 Plans at CERN currently suggest a subsequent Phase II upgrade that
will be much broader in scope.
 The evolution of the US plans for Phase II will need to be developed
concurrently with Phase I, and by many of the same people.
 While CERN’s schedules may change, given the effort and planning
resources involved, US ATLAS upper management has begun
mapping out the approach to the coordination of the Phase I/II
upgrades.
 Many issues: resources/R&D needs, Phase I design forward compatibility,
potential Phase II staging options, scheduling options and their impacts, etc.
 Nevertheless, the clear priority right now is to launch and deliver
Phase I, and we are proceeding with that clear focus.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
8
Recent History
 November 17: Kotcher began as LADU Construction Project Manager
(CPM).
 November 28: Selection of Stony Brook University as the NSF
institution for LADU. John Hobbs, PI and Interim Deputy CPM.
 March 6: Offer to a dedicated Deputy CPM went out, and has been
accepted.
 Odds and ends being finalized, August start is anticipated.
 Hobbs will remain heavily engaged in both the Phase I and II upgrades, and
continue to serve as NSF PI.
 This will have completed the upper tier of the upgrade management.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
9
LADU Project Organization
LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade (LADU) Construction Project Organization
BNL Associate Laboratory Director
B. Mueller, ALD
D. Lissauer, Deputy
Project Office
J. Kotcher (BNL), Construction Project Manager (CPM)
J. Hobbs (Stony Brook), Interim Deputy CPM
BNL/Stony Brook
Project Controls and Administration
WBS 1.1
LAr Cal Trigger Readout
G. Brooijmans (Columbia)
WBS 1.2
Muon Small Wheel
V. Polychronakos (BNL)
F. Taylor (MIT)
Project management will be
fully integrated, while
respecting each of the
stakeholder’s requirements.
WBS 1.3
Trigger/Data Acquisition (TDAQ)
H. Evans (Interim) (Indiana)
WBS 1.4
Project Management
J. Kotcher (BNL)
(co-lead)
1.1.1 Baseplanes
J. Rutherfoord (Arizona)
1.1.2 Layer Sum Boards (LSB)
J. Mueller (Pittsburgh)
1.1.3 LAr Trigger Digitizer Boards
(LTDB)
M.A. Pleier (BNL)
1.1.4 LAr Digital Processing
System (LDPS)
S. Majewski (Oregon)
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
1.2.1 Micromegas (MM) Electronics
K. Johns (Arizona)
1.3.1 Readout Drivers (ROD) Firmware
K. Tollefson (Michigan State)
1.2.2 Alignment
J. Bensinger (Brandeis)
1.3.2 e/jFEX (Feature Extractor) ROD
W. Fisher (Michigan State)
1.2.3 Thin Gap Chambers (sTGC)
Electronics
J. Zhu (Michigan)
1.3.3 e/jFEX Fiber Plant
R. Schwienhorst (Michigan State)
1.3.4 TileCal/jFEX
H. Chen (BNL)
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
10
LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade Project, by WBS
 1.1 Liquid Argon Calorimeter Trigger Readout (LAr)




1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
Baseplanes
Layer Sum Boards (LSB)
Liquid Argon Front End, Trigger Digitizer Boards (LTDB)
Liquid Argon Back End, Trigger Digital Processing System (LDPS)
 1.2 Forward Muon System, New Small Wheel (nSW)
 1.2.1 Micromegas (MM) Electronics
 1.2.2 Alignment
 1.2.3 Thin Gap Chamber (sTGC) Electronics
 1.3 Trigger/Data Acquisition (TDAQ)




1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
e/j Feature Extractor (FEX) Firmware
e/jFEX Read-Out Drivers (ROD)
e/jFEX Fiber Plant
TileCal/jFEX
 1.4 Project Management
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
11
Major Milestones, Project Target Dates













Aug 29, 2011 – DOE CD-0 approval for the upgrade.
Dec 14, 2012 – first draft of WBS, including funding sources for all deliverables.
Dec 19-20 – internal scrubbing with project personnel and US ATLAS management at BNL.
Jan 11, 2013 – draft of Conceptual Design Report; draft of NSF upgrade proposal; fully
loaded WBS, with backup material; due in to upper management.
Jan 17-18 – independent cost, schedule and technical review by external reviewers held at
SUNY Stony Brook.
Jan 30–Jan 31 – BNL Associate Laboratory Director’s (ALD) review of operations and
upgrade. Preparation for March 6-7 joint NSF/DOE review.
Feb 8 – Final project material in place prior to uploading into MS Project/Primavera.
March 6-7 – NSF/DOE annual review.
March-May – Individual scrubbing meetings with project personnel; focus on BoEs, cost
estimates, schedule.
April 3 – NSF/DOE Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting.
April (TBD) – Submission of NSF proposal; ATLAS scoping decisions may influence this date.
July 11-12 – BNL ALD review of DOE CD-1 for upgrade.
August 28-29 – DOE CD-1 review (at Fermilab).
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
12
BNL Director’s Review for CD-1
(Lissauer)
 July 11-12, at Brookhaven.
 Review Committee (assembled and charged by ALD):








Ed Blucher (Chicago)
Bill Christie (BNL)
Dmitri Denisov (FNAL)
Diane Hatton (BNL)
Marvin Johnson (FNAL)
Jim Strait (FNAL)
Bill Wisniewski (SLAC)
Plus one reviewer for DAQ, TBD.
 Having an agency charge in hand in May would help us to prepare.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
13
Planning Documents Required for
DOE CD-1/NSF Proposal Submission & Review














Project Execution Plan (PEP)
Integrated Project Team (IPT) Charter
Acquisition Strategy
Safety and Hazard Analysis
Quality Assurance (QA)
Security and Vulnerability Assessment
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Conceptual Design Report (CDR)
Cost, schedule, staffing estimates
Bottoms-up risk-based contingency estimates
Cost Books, Bases of Estimate (BOE)
Risk Analysis and Mitigation
Project Management Plan
Draft MoUs
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
•
•
Each document is under development
by an identified principal. A draft of
each is in hand.
Documents are being developed in
conjunction with BNL experts (safety,
QA, IT, etc.), where required, and with
the Federal Project Director.
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
14
Definition of Project Completion: CD-4
 We are in the process of adapting the definition of project
completion according to the recommendations from the March 2013
Annual Operations Review.
 Principal stages in end game:
 Bench tests in US to verify performance parameters prior to shipment.
 Visual inspections and limited test-stand acceptance testing on the surface
after deliverables arrive at CERN. This will verify the physical integrity and
performance of the components after shipment, and will define CD-4 and KPPs.
 Any recovery up to and including this surface verification, if required, will
remain the responsibility of the project.
 This extension is easily accommodated within the project cost envelope(s).
 Installation and commissioning (I/C) will remain outside the upgrade
project scope, and its costs covered by the M&O program.
 Integrated I/C plan in place, and will be part of the resource-loaded schedule.
 This approach limits the project’s exposure to CERN schedules.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
15
Agency Guidance
• DOE costs below reflect DOE-only. Cost range: $22M-34M.
Fiscal Year
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
Other Project Costs (OPC)
2.0
3.0
Total Estimated Cost (TEC)
0
0
8.5
11.0
9.5
29.0
Total Project Cost (TPC, $M)
2.0
3.0
8.5
11.0
9.5
34.0
5.0
Critical Decision (CD)
Fiscal Year
CD-0, Approve Mission Need
FY 2012
CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
FY 2013
CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline
FY 2013
CD-3, Approve Start of Construction
FY 2014
CD-4, Approve Project Completion
FY 2018
Tables from
DOE CD-0,
August 2012.
• NSF: project is requesting $13M, through FY18.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
16
Project Cost (AY M$)
WBS
Subsystem
1.1
Liquid Argon
1.2
Muon New Small Wheel
1.3
1.4
NSF
•
7.13
14.04
-
11.87
11.87
Trigger/DAQ
1.32
1.61
2.93
Project Management
1.20
3.32
4.52
BASE COST
9.43
23.93
33.37
Contingency
3.49
9.81
13.30
Contingency Fraction
0.37
0.41
0.40
12.93
33.74
46.67
NSF proposal
LAr: Trigger Digitizer Boards (LTDB), sPU
design and production
TDAQ: e/jFEX ROD production, fiber plant
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
Total
6.91
TOTAL
•
DOE
•
•
•
DOE proposal
LAr: Demonstrator board, Layer Sum Boards,
front-end motherboards, LTDB integration
TDAQ: e/jFEX firmware and Tilecal/jFEX
All of Muon New Small Wheels
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
17
Full Project Base Cost Profile
5,000
NSF + DOE
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
LAr
NSW
2,500
TDAQ
PM
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
FY13
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
FY18
18
Cost/Funding Profiles, NSF & DOE
12,000
DOE
10,000
8,000
Cont
PM
6,000
Black = agency guidance
TDAQ
NSW
4,000
LAr
2,000
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY186,000
NSF
5,000
Distribute (15, 20, 35, 30)%
of the contingency in FY14-17.
4,000
Cont
PM
3,000
TDAQ
2,000
LAr
1,000
-
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting;
Arlington,FY15
VA
FY13 NSF,FY14
FY16
FY17
FY18
19
Near-term Pre-Construction Funding
 DOE had budgeted $2M (OPC funds) for the upgrade in FY13, $1M of
which was provided early in the FY.
 This has been allocated and distributed to the project.
 The additional $1M has been reduced to $500k in response to the
sequestration.
 It is possible that some funds will also be provided by NSF at year’s
end, depending on availability and project approval status.
 All of the above funds will count against the project’s bottom line.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
20
Schedule-Driven Nature of the Upgrade
 Long Shutdown 2 (LS2) has a well-defined start and duration (CY18),
set by our international partners.
 Time for design and construction is not generous (FY14-17).
 Adequate funding is needed to support timely project ramp up, and
offset any downstream schedule delays: time lost up front is lost
forever.
 There is currently a shortfall in FY14 DOE funding relative to our
projected needs.
 $2.5M, which includes a limited amount of contingency.
 The problem is exacerbated by the recent $500k reduction in FY13
OPC funding.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
21
Adapting to FY13 Funding Reduction
 We have held extensive and iterative discussions with the L2
managers on how their requests for the remaining FY13 funds could
be modified and/or reduced.
 Specific cuts and their impacts have been examined in great detail.
Both deferrals and reductions of all kinds were on the table.
 While the Operations Program is able to loan funds to the upgrade
from management reserve to help bridge this shortfall, it does not
come without feeling the hit.
 We have therefore made every effort to preemptively reduce the
FY13 upgrade activities wherever possible in order to help relieve
the significant budgetary pressures on the overall program.
 Boundary conditions: (1) maintain project progress, and (2) retain
all key personnel (no layoffs).
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
22
Priorities for Remaining FY13 Funds
 Liquid Argon (WBS 1.1)
 Demonstrator Board for in situ probe of the viability of using COTS
components in the upgraded Liquid Argon system. This board must be
fabricated in time for installation during LS1.
 Muon nSW (WBS 1.2)
 A prototype submission of the nSW Front End (FE) chip is scheduled for a
MOSIS submission in May ($176k).
 The FE chip is a US responsibility, and is required by international ATLAS to
enable forward progress on all aspects of nSW design.
 Next viable window for submission would be November 2013, which would
introduce an unacceptable six month delay.
 TDAQ (WBS 1.3)
 Requests for fabrication of Demonstrator Board for TileCal2jFEX had
previously been deferred to FY14. This will have minimal impact.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
23
Summary and Resolution of FY13 Funding
 With the approval of the US ATLAS Management Advisory Committee, the
Operations Program has agreed to loan the outstanding $241k to the upgrade
in FY13. This will enable the project to remain on track in the near term.
 MoUs incorporating these adjustments are in preparation.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
24
Looking Ahead: FY14 (1)
 We intend to begin bifurcating the NSF/DOE funding in FY14, using
NSF (DOE) funds for NSF (DOE) upgrade scope.
 To do this, we will need NSF funds in hand sufficiently early in FY14.
 More generally, we are concerned that, despite our collective best
efforts, circumstances may force the reconsideration of the final
allocations and time scales for release of FY14$, from both agencies.
 This could endanger upgrade progress and, potentially, its viability.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
25
Looking Ahead: FY14 (2)
 To help ameliorate this problem, we intend to begin negotiating
forward funding agreements with US ATLAS institutions involved in
the upgrade.
 We assume that, in this climate, such funding will be needed sooner or later,
in any case.
 This is best initiated once the upgrade has more traction in
Washington – ~ end summer.
 However, the time scales on which these agreements can be put in
place, and the cumulative amount available, may not be sufficient to
adequately cover shortfalls, particularly in FY14 (~ $2.5M).
 We believe it would be profitable to discuss the FY14 funding
situation in more detail as the situation clarifies, and the
opportunity exists to provide input to the decision-making.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
26
Update on ATLAS Upgrade Status (1)
 Aware of the demands of the U.S. approval process, U.S. ATLAS has
rapidly converged on an upgrade organization and project plan.
 The scope of the U.S. effort is consistent with the ATLAS upgrade
plans that are defined in the Phase I LoI, which was approved by the
LHCC in March 2012.
 The financial framework laying out the cost sharing agreement
between the different countries was endorsed by the CERN RRB in
October 2012. The U.S. proposal is consistent with this framework.
 Approvals for all subprojects in which the U.S. is involved will be
finalized by Fall 2013. TDRs/LHCC approvals:
 nSW in Spring 2013.
 LAr and TDAQ in Summer/Fall 2013.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
27
Update on ATLAS Upgrade Status (2)
 The second ATLAS Liquid Argon Upgrade Week took place the week
of March 11. It was well attended by the US.
 Negotiations are converging, but outstanding issues remain. The
goal is to have verbal agreements between the principals in hand
in June.
 TDAQ week is April 8, where negotiations are expected to converge
via verbal agreements on the same (June) time frame.
 The muon nSW is more advanced, with formal LHCC approval of the
TDR scheduled for May.
 ATLAS Muon Week was held the week of March 25.
 We remain closely involved in all of the relevant discussions.
 The project is taking the evolution of alternatives into consideration
in its planning.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
28
JOG Issues for the Upgrade (1)
 Can we have a DOE CD-1 charge in hand in May in order to help us to
prepare for, and get the most out of, the July 11/12 BNL Director’s
Review?
 In order to begin funding subprojects in an agency-specific manner
in FY14, we will need to be in a position to allocate funds from both
agencies early in FY14. Is this an unreasonable expectation?
 There is a significant DOE funding shortfall in FY14 ($2.5M) that will
impact the project schedule. Forward funding alone, even if secured
in time, may well be insufficient. Can we discuss the possible means
of ameliorating this problem on a May/June time frame, prior to our
final preparation for the July Director’s Review?
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
29
JOG Issues for the Upgrade (2)
 We remain concerned about the overall availability of funds in this
climate. As this project is schedule-driven, the only remaining lever
to adjust in response would be scope. If/as yearly shortfalls grow in
likelihood, can we discuss the impact to the project with the agencies
prior to funding decisions being made?
 While it is natural to carry alternatives through CD-1, the timing of
the submission of the NSF proposal is more intimately linked to the
scope negotiations within ATLAS. Is there flexibility that can be
exploited to optimize the submission date?
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
30
Backup Slides
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
31
Definition of Project Completion: CD-4
 Project scheduled for completion in 2018. Contains approximately 10 months
of schedule float.
 Installation and commissioning (I/C) are not part of upgrade project scope.
 Project complete when deliverables are on the loading dock at CERN.
 Bench tests will verify performance parameters prior to shipment.
 I/C costs covered by operations (M&O) program.
 Project personnel have completed initial pass at quantifying the I/C needs.
Example: Muon nSW
I/C in FY17 & 18
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
32
Contingency Comparisons at CD-1
Project
Description
Base
Cost
Cont
Comment
LBNE
New beamline, near and far detector
systems, conventional facilities
587M
40%
Estimate
Mu2e
Solenoidal system, detector and beamline
elements
229M
32%
Cost range
MicroBoone
Liquid argon TPC for neutrino detection
20M
33%
Estimate
Advanced Photon
Source Upgrade
Accelerator and x-ray source upgrades,
beamlines, technical capabilities
264M
35%
Estimate
• This upgrade:
– Complex electronic designs, components.
– Engineering, design and production at multiple sites, significant integration
considerations.
– Well-defined and finite shutdown CERN (LS2): schedule-driven project, funds will
be needed to hold the delivery schedule.
• Project Management believes holding 40% contingency at this stage is prudent.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
33
Risk Codes for Contingency Estimation
Estimate Type
Code
0
1
2
Type of Estimate
Work Complete
Existing Purchase Order
Catalog Listing or Industrial Construction Database
Description
Work is complete. Costs are known (actual)
A subcontract or purchase order has been awarded.
This estimate type is to be used when most of the costs in an estimate can be documented from current vendor
catalogs or from published or proprietary industrial or construction databases..
3
Documented Vendor Estimate Based on Drawings/ Sketches
and Specifications
This estimate type is to be used primarily when a vendor estimates have been obtained for the specific item or
activity. To the extent possible, these estimates will be written rather than oral. Such quotes by a vendor
indicate that a design is sufficiently mature that its cost can be independently estimated (i.e., significant detail
in drawings and specifications have been prepared), although the quotes will not be taken as an offer to sell at
that price.
4
Engineering Estimate Based on Drawings/ Sketches and
Specifications
This estimate type has the same level of detail available in the Documented Vendor Estimate Based on
Drawings/ Sketches and Specifications category, but the estimates are done by an estimator, or a subcontractor
who is not likely to be a vendor.
5
Engineering Estimate Based on Similar Items or Procedures
This estimate type is to be used on items that have previously been procured or undertaken. The basis for
scaling up or down (i.e. factoring) should be documented in the estimate files. Given the variable degree of
similarity between components of various FRA projects, judgment must be used between selecting this item
and Engineering Estimate Based on Drawings/ Sketches and Specifications
6
Engineering Estimate Based on Analysis
This estimate type is to be used on items that are different from previous experience, and while sketches and
specifications may exist, the level of detail is not sufficient to qualify for Engineering Estimate Based on
Similar Items or Procedures. Some labor costs, such as assembly of an item not previously built may fall into
this category. Supporting background for procured items would include, for example, standard costs for
fabricating a given material and the mass of material needed.
7
Expert Opinion
This estimate type is to be used on items having little documented basis for the estimate. It indicates little
confidence in the estimate. Its use should be minimized when completing the final estimate. It will be used as
the estimate preparation develops, however, to measure the maturity of the estimate at any given point.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
34
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
35
Integrated Management Approach
 Single resource-loaded schedule (RLS) being developed.
 Includes both NSF and DOE activities.
 Installation and commissioning is being integrated into the RLS.
 Project Office populated by both BNL and Stony Brook personnel.
 Full project will be “statused” monthly, and reported out to the
appropriate stakeholders.
 In addition, close coordination between Upgrade and M&O.
 Discussions of resource planning and allocations, major programmatic and
technical decisions, and any other issues of significance.
 Weekly meetings, and more frequent ad-hoc discussions.
 We are creating an integrated U.S. ATLAS effort that aims to optimize
the allocation of limited resources.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
36
Comment on Personnel
 A number of technical personnel are being cut from the core program during the
comparative review process.
 These sometimes represent people who are key to fulfilling our international
commitments, on whom the ATLAS experiment has come to rely.
 Their technical expertise is often experiment-specific, developed over many years.
 Such people can frequently not be replaced on any reasonable time scale, or,
often, at all.
 They can of course be funded out of project and operations, but those who can
find more stable work, will.
 Allocating adequate contingency in an effort to reduce the impact of this will make
everything more expensive, and ultimately reduce the scope we can take on.
 Note that money cannot solve the problem in all cases.
 The upgrade relies on such people to deliver on our obligations.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
37
W Boson
 Use the rate vs. threshold predictions for electrons and muons,
along with pT spectra to study efficiency vs. rate.
Impacts a variety of physics signatures:
W, WH, ttbar, top, SUSY physics.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
38
DOE-only Project Cost (with contingency)
12,000
DOE-only
10,000
8,000
Cont
PM
6,000
TDAQ
NSW
LAr
4,000
2,000
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
Distribute (15, 20, 35, 30)% of the contingency in FY14-17.
= agency guidance
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
39
General Context (1)
 The LADU Construction Project represent the first major
construction effort on U.S. ATLAS since the deployment of the
original detector.
 This initial phase is limited in scope:
 Approximately $47M max Total Project Cost (NSF + DOE), over ~ 5 years.
 Additional funding from operations and generic R&D being provided in
FY13 and FY14.
 It has been launched under tight time constraints:
 NSF proposal submission in April.
 DOE Critical Decision 1 (CD-1) review August 28-29.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
40
Two Principal De-Scoping Decisions
 Descope forward muon (MM) chamber production.
 Design and international roles and responsibilities in very early stage; timing does not
mesh with DOE process.
 Would require large contingency, encroach on other important scope.
 Cost growth was a concern, impact would be felt project-wide.
 Heavy construction effort that is beyond scale and spirit of this upgrade.
 Other countries will take this on.
 ATLAS Forward Proton Detector began in scope contingency, but has been
removed from project.
 Recent ATLAS internal review noted that physics case needs improvement, technical
issues need to be resolved, and called for organizational improvements.
 Fundamental mismatch between AFP approval and upgrade schedules, and therefore
the ability to support it in the construction project.
 Group has been encouraged to seek other sources of funding.
 Proposals to operations program, of finite duration and level of effort, will be
considered.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
41
Meshing with International ATLAS (2)
 We have had detailed discussions about the relationship between the
U.S. and ATLAS approval processes with the agencies.
 The timing is considered to be consistent with the U.S. approval
process, and the carrying of alternatives at a project’s early stages.
 The Project has performed an alternatives analysis that examines the impact
of decisions yet to be made.
 We are moving forward with the agencies with the understanding
that modifications to the U.S. scope may be necessary after initial
agency approvals are obtained.
 A natural consequence of an asynchronous international approval process.
 We have also discussed the situation with ATLAS management.
 U.S. experience and expertise in these upgrade systems is well-recognized.
 We are, and will remain, actively involved in negotiating the U.S. role
with our international collaborators as the upgrade scope is finalized.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
42
Level 2 Milestones
From PEP draft
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
43
Financial Guidance Provided to Subsystems
 Based on agency guidance, management distributed guidelines to
project principals for use in developing the base estimates for their
subsystems (mid-Nov).
 Based on a number of factors, including (not priority-ordered):
 Initial plan submitted by and vetted with project principals.
 History and nature of past U.S. ATLAS technical role.
 Estimated amount of total project contingency that will be needed for a
project at this stage (~ 40%).
 Priority of physics goals subsystem upgrades will address.
 Overall scope that can be accommodated within financial constraints.
 Deliverables describe a coherent, self-contained and “trackable”
project plan for each agency.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
44
Final Remarks
 The U.S. ATLAS Phase I upgrades consist of technical improvements
designed to best exploit the physics in the Phase I running
environment.
 Its scope has been carefully tailored, with an eye toward the spirit
and scale of the intended effort, available time and resources, and
the dictates of the physics.
 A strong organization is in place, and a working project plan is in
hand and being prepared for baselining.
 An integrated organizational approach, both within the Construction
Project and with the Operations Program, is being developed.
 We remain closely involved with both the agencies and our
international partners as scope definitions are finalized.
 The transition to project mode has been made.
Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013
DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA
45