CMS HL-LHC Detector Upgrades Project Planning Workshop, 26th – 30th Sept 2016, Fermilab Lucas Taylor Associate PM (for Cost, Schedule, Risk) Overview and Goals

CD-1 – Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range What is the function of CD-1? CD-1 serves as a determination that the selected alternative and approach is optimized to meet the mission need defined at CD-0. Key elements of the evaluation are the project’s conceptual design, cost and schedule range, and general acquisition approach. The cost range allows for uncertainty in the estimates and scope options such as a range of capabilities. What is a project expected to prepare for CD-1 approval? –An analysis demonstrating that the proposed alternative is the correct one. –A complete and independently reviewed conceptual design of a chosen alternative and associated cost and schedule range estimates. Typically the design is described in a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) and cost and schedule are supported by a resource loaded schedule and a collection of supporting information called “Basis of Estimate” (BOE) documents. –A funding profile (time phased funding plan) that is compatible with the project’s expected spending over time. –Management plans including an Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Project Execution Plan, Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report, Quality Assurance, Risk Management Plan, and a Risk Assessment. –National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) strategy and determination, i.e. whether a formal environmental assessment or impact statement is appropriate. What impacts does CD-1 approval have on a project? CD-1 allows for release of Project Engineering and Design (PED) funds, if available, for large projects. Projects begin the next phases of design (preliminary design and perhaps final design for some elements) and development of a detailed resource loaded schedule. R&D and prototyping continue Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab2 CD-1 target date: July 2017 Marc Kaducak

Independent Cost Review (ICR) – a CD-1 pre-requisite The Fermilab Office of Project Support Services (OPSS) will assist the US HL- LHC CMS and AUP projects in their preparations for the DOE Independent Cost Reviews (ICRs) through documentation review and site visit preparation. The Standard Operating Procedure for ICRs ( states that the required documentation will be tailored to the project. OPSS will review all required materials for completeness, consistency, reasonableness, and traceability and provide written feedback to the project teams prior to submission to the ICR team. OPSS will also help prepare the project team for the ICR site visit by conducting dry run presentations and drill down exercises. In addition to utilizing its own staff, OPSS will invite reviewers from other projects to participate in this process. Since the documentation is still in development and the project plans are evolving, the materials will be reviewed as they become available. Each project will prepare a schedule for availability of its documentation allowing for adequate time to review and updates in advance of submission to the ICR team Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab3 ICR target date: March 2017 Marc Kaducak

OPSS reviews help us meet ICR and CD-1 needs 1.WBS and Scope: Do the WBS and its dictionary represent the full scope and does each element represent a unique portion of the scope? Is it deliverable based such that progress can be measured? Will it allow for straightforward management control and reporting considering factors such as organization responsibilities and reporting requirements? 2.Basis of Estimate (BOE): 1.Is the set of BOEs complete and non-overlapping? 2.Are the estimating methods clear and appropriate? 3.Are the relevant assumptions and interfaces documented? 4.Is the BOE format and level of detail consistent and appropriate? 5.Is cost information fully traceable? 6.Is an appropriate list of resources and rates being used? 7.Is the basis for escalation reasonable? 8.Is the life cycle cost analysis (if required) reasonable? 9.Are procurement cost and schedule estimates reasonable? 10.Are the cost estimates for all the considered alternatives equally credible? 11.Are the bases for the limits of the cost and schedule ranges appropriate? 3.Schedule: Is the critical path clear? Are the high level milestones understood and appropriate? Is the schedule structure and logic appropriate for this (pre-CD-1) phase? Is the schedule consistent with the cost estimate? 4.Risk and Contingency: Has a reasonably complete list of potential risks been identified? Is the methodology and application of estimate uncertainty consistent and appropriate? Are the cost and schedule contingencies consistent with the risk assessment and design maturity? Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab4 Starting today, continuing up to ICR in March 2017 Marc Kaducak BoE reviewers are asked to consider these questions

CD-1 Preparations Dashboard Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab5 Workshop has six parallel sessions for each of the six L2 areas to cover three topics: 1.Cost – BoE reviews 2.Schedule – hands-on working in P6 3.Risk Identification – a first pass Workshop has six parallel sessions for each of the six L2 areas to cover three topics: 1.Cost – BoE reviews 2.Schedule – hands-on working in P6 3.Risk Identification – a first pass

HL-LHC Planning Workshop Sep 2016, Fermilab Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab6

1. Cost – BoE Reviews (4 hours per L2 area) Goal 1: Review BoEs to help us prepare for ICR/CD-1 and PDR 1.Demonstrate a drilldown on one selected BoE 2.Review BoEs starting with the main cost-drivers 3.Suggest improvements  capture by annotating BoE Word file –Narrative, justifications, vendor quotes needed, M&S/Labor tables, etc. 4.Provide short summary of review findings  e.g. –Can be simply short answers to the questions on slide Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab7

1. Cost – BoE Reviews (4 hours per L2 area) Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab8 M. Lindgren (Fermilab Chief Project Officer) R. Ray (Mu2e PM) H. Cheung (US-CMS) C. Hill (US-CMS) R. Marcum (Fermilab Project Controls Mgr.) A. Ryd (US-CMS) V. O’Dell (US-CMS) M. Kaducak (Head OPSS) R. Ray (Mu2e PM) F. Chlebana (US-CMS) J. Hirshauer (US-CMS) M. Kaducak (Head OPSS) F. Chlebana (US-CMS) C. Hill (US-CMS) J. Hirshauer (US-CMS) E. Gottschalk (Head IPPM) M. Lindgren (Fermilab CPO) R. Marcum (Head, Proj Ctrls) J. Strait (US-CMS) E. Gottschalk (Head IPPM) R. Marcum (Head, Proj Ctrls) H. Cheung (US-CMS) A. Dominguez (US-CMS) A. Ryd (US-CMS)

2. Schedule – hands-on working in P6 (6-12 hours) Goal 2: Build an initial (high-level) P6 schedule including: External milestones – funding, LHC, CMS “need-by” dates Activities from BoEs (typically at L4/L5) with durations Schedule logic linking activities and [int/ext]ernal milestones Lucas and Bill will lead the P6 work and PM, DPM, L2s (and maybe a few L3s) help out in P6 and hence become familiar Stretch workshop goals, if time permits: Load M&S and labor resources Fix up BoEs based on reviewers’ comments Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab9

3. Risk Identification (up to ~4 hours) Goal 3: Perform initial risk identification (but not analysis): 1.Show people how to use the web risk register –Identify one person to enter the new risks in web register 2.Brainstorm main risks – what keeps you awake at night? 3.Identify risks for each L3 area in turn 4.Review Risk Breakdown Structure to ensure a broad range of risk areas has been considered Breakdown Structure.aspx Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab10

Useful links 1.Indico site for the review  2.Project web site + all documents  3.Work Breakdown Structure  4.Project CD-1 dashboard  5.CD-1 Conceptual Design Report  –Almost a first full draft, some gaps 6.Outer Tracker parts count  –Draft — and not yet agreed with CMS 7.DOE ICR guidance  Sept 2016Lucas Taylor -- HL-LHC Planning Workshop at Fermilab11