Template Response to Questions Steve Kahn LSST Commissioning Plan Review January 24-26, 2017

Question 1: Contingency for “extra” year Lien on contingency for the additional year depends on the cause and when we learn about the delay. The most likely cause for the needing time in the extra year is delays in the delivery of the LSSTCam and/or the Telescope. Early awareness of the delay can be mitigated to some extent by compressing the time with ComCam. A delay in the start of Commissioning, would have a small impact on the use of DOE-Commissioning contingency. An extension of Commissioning beyond what is planned would have the highest impact on the draw of contingency. “Marching army” cost for DOE labor is ~$3M per year, covering fully the extra year would draw ~$3.1M of contingency out of the $3.8 estimated.

Question 2: Early Ramp of DOE Commissioning The scope in FY17 and FY18 can be broken down into two main items Preparation for a “CD-2 like” review. Basis of estimate and detailed planning requires currently unfunded engineering support on the DOE We cannot support a CD-2 like review without this support. FY17 impact can be removed by delaying next review well into FY18 Early commissioning of CCS, DAQ, OCS, TCS and DM control systems is a risk mitigation to prevent future delays This is can be delayed or stretched into later years causing higher risks later in commissioning

WBS 06.02.01 Commissioning Management, Core Commissioning Team, Science Verification Team 24 FTEs + some contracted sabbatical support Expect ~half of these to carry forward into the same roles in operations [e.g. Observatory Operations scientists, CCS/DAQ software engineers]. Expect many of the rest to carry forward into related roles [e.g. SDQA, community support, long-term survey monitoring].