DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Run IIb Project Status Vivian O’Dell

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Run IIb Upgrade Project  Project Status Overview u Ingredients of the upgrade u Baselined Costs u Management u Current Status s Cost s Schedule u Response to July Director’s review

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Run IIb Luminosity Projections ~2.8e32 peak ~8 fb -1 integrated Accelerator draft plan: Peak luminosities Peak Luminosity (x10 30 cm -2 sec -1 ) D0 Peak BS ~9.36E31 Upgrade installation D0 Peak AS ~9.35E31

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Run IIb upgrade  Project consists of: u New Silicon Layer Zero detector s inner layer of silicon –Mitigate tracking losses due to radiation damage and detector aging –Provide more robust tracking and pattern recognition for higher luminosities –Improve impact parameter resolution u Trigger Upgrade s Complete upgrade program to keep trigger rates down as luminosity increases –L1 upgrades (Calorimeter, Central Track Trigger, Cal Trk-Match) –L2 upgrades (Silicon Track Trigger, L2  processors) u New electronics for central fiber tracker (AFE II) –Helps tracking efficiency in higher luminosity/occupancy environment –Not (yet?) formally part of the project – more on this later u DAQ/Online upgrade s Upgrade needed to handle higher luminosities s Upgrade level 3 processing power, database & host servers, control systems –Most of the technical work on this is done. –Still buying computing (ALAP)

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, AFE/TriPChiP A. Bross Run IIb Project V. O’Dell, Project Manager, R. Lipton, Deputy M. Johnson,Technical Coordinator T.J. Sarlina, Asst Project Manager, D. Knapp, Budget Officer T. Erickson, Adminstration Trigger Installation D. Edmunds Silicon Installation Mechanical: W. Cooper Electrical: L. Bagby L1 Cal Upgrade M. Abolins H. Evans Readout A. Nomerotski R. Sidwell Sensors M. Demarteau R. McCarthy Mechanical Design & Fabrication W. Cooper Detector Modules & Integration L. Bagby Installation R. Smith DAQ/Online S. Fuess Trigger P. Padley D. Wood Silicon Layer 0 A. Bean (R. Lipton) L1 Track Trigger M. Narain D. Lincoln L1 Cal/Track Match K. Johns L2  upgrade R. Hirosky Silicon Track Trigger U. Heintz Simulation E. Barberis, M. Hildreth Administration (A. Bean) Administration (D. Wood) L3 Systems D. Chapin G. Watts Network & Host Systems J. Fitzmaurice S. Krzywdzinski Control Systems F. Bartlett G. Savage V. Sirotenko DAQ/Online Management (S. Fuess) Run IIb Upgrade Organization Installation /commissioning not formally part of the project Clearly important We have a structure in place working on this More on this later in this talk Project personnel are overseeing installation Recently added L1 Calorimeter installation management team (see talk by Darien Wood) Will be updating org chart soon

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Silicon Layer Ø Universities on DØ-LØ Brown California State,Fresno CINVESTAV Mexico Fermilab University of Illinois Chicago Kansas State University Kansas University Louisiana Tech University Michigan State University Moscow State University Northwestern University Rice University University of Rochester SUNY-Stony Brook University of Washington Large NSF MRI grant (~$700k) Additional in-kind university support See talks by A. Nomerotski/W. Cooper

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Run IIb Trigger Upgrade  Level 1 u Calorimeter trigger upgrade s sharpens turn-on trigger thresholds s more topological cuts u Calorimeter track-match s fake EM rejection s tau trigger u L1 tracking trigger upgrade (CTT) s improved tracking rejection especially at higher occupancies  Level 2 u L2 Processor upgrades for more complex algorithms u Silicon Track Trigger expansion s More processing power s use trigger inputs from new silicon layer Ø  New Readout Electronics for Central Fiber Tracker u Not yet part of the project See talks by B. P. Padley D. Wood E. Barberis

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Central Fiber Tracker readout upgrade (AFE II)  AFE II + TriPT will u Improve noise floor and pedestal stability s Better hit efficiency u Addresses analog readout saturation issues u Readout architecture much more flexible u Added functionality of the TriPT (z information) s Significant reduction in track reconstruction time  R&D for AFE II is going well u AFE + TRiP and TripT all currently under test u This is not formally part of the Run IIb upgrade program s Need internal DØ review –Part I held 12/06/05 –Part II held 1/24/2005 s Reviewers working on report –If review is positive, the project would like to review the cost/schedule estimates –After completing cost/schedule review ask for formal laboratory review –If all reviews positive, then will go ahead with project  Have earmarked Run IIb project money for this –$1.47M + 0.7M Contingency –Will have to revisit this estimate after project review of cost/schedule See talk by P. Rubinov

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Installation/Commissioning  Installation and commissioning is NOT part of the Run IIb project u However project people are heavily involved in planning and overseeing installation and commissioning u Costs are not born by the project – must come out of operating u Installation tasks are not reported on in the same way as the project s However, we do have a fully resource loaded schedule –But this is a living document as we learn about installation s The schedule has been run through COBRA –We can get fully burdened costs, etc with the lab cost management tool u Schedule recently extensively updated to include what we have learned from the L0 aperture measurements s Results are very preliminary – we are still reviewing this s With new information on installing Layer 0, total collision hall access 14 weeks s Previous schedule had detector closed after 10 weeks  Project plan includes full system technical commissioning before installation u Some preparatory work was done in the FY04 shutdown s Some layer 0 infrastructure installed s CTT/L1 Cal infrastructure for pre-installation commissioning u Installation/Commissioning schedule includes all installation and commissioning tasks needed to bring the system up  Project on track for installation during 2005 shutdown u Again, we request flexibility in shutdown scheduling u More on this later  Physics commissioning includes all tasks associated with recording physics quality data u Have formed a collaboration wide committee (SC-IPC) to examine the full physics commissioning phase.. See talk by R. Smith See talk by G. Blazey

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cost Analysis Status of Project: Cost

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, DZero RunIIb Director’s Review Total Project Costs, burdened AY k$ as rebaselined January 2004 Includes MRI + InKind + R&D over lifetime of the project

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, DZero RunIIb Director’s Review Total DOE MIE Costs, burdened AY k$ as rebaselined January 2004 Includes AFEII costs: $1.47M in trigger costs + 0.7M in contingency This is the rebaselined total for the project Estimated AFE cost ($2.1M) is in the trigger profile

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Project Reporting  Vehicles for reporting u Use MS Project to track progress of project s Monthly updates by L2/L3 managers s Update % complete/forecast dates u Use parts of COBRA (lab project reporting machinery) s reports actual costs/baseline scheduled value/earned value u Monthly reports s Monthly reports to Lab and DOE management s Include milestones/costs/obligations u Change requests s Generated whenever there is a significant change in project: –Schedule –Cost –Scope

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cost Performance Report 12/31/05

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cost profile plots by L2 (Trigger) PO in place (Cost Accrued) Cumulative to 12/31 BCWS: $1,475 ACWP:$839 BCWP:$1,496 BAC:$2,182

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cumulative SPI/CPI (Trigger)  SPI = BCWP/BCWS, CPI = BCWP/ACWP  Spending largely at Universities u Accounting done by accruing according to earned value u Can only accrue if a PO is in place

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cost profile plots by L2 (Online) Cumulative to 12/31 BCWS: $557 ACWP:$101 BCWP:$497 BAC:$973

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cumulative SPI/CPI (Online)  SPI = BCWP/BCWS, CPI = BCWP/ACWP  Labor has not been charged off properly u working to fix this now  Some large purchases not yet invoiced  Interesting effects when file reworked for latest online purchasing philosophy u See talk by S. Fuess

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cost profile plots by L2 (Layer 0) Cumulative to 12/31 BCWS: $791 ACWP:$592 BCWP:$747 BAC:$980

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cumulative SPI/CPI (Layer 0)  SPI = BCWP/BCWS, CPI = BCWP/ACWP  Most of the DOE MIE cost is in Fermilab labor

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, DOE MIE Current Spending Estimate To Completion Total MIE Costs Through 12/31/05 Includes PO’s, but not RIPS Does NOT include RunIIb Silicon + Closeout Costs

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Silicon Closeout, ETC  Silicon Closeout complete u $607k under budget u Not all invoicing complete, but the obligations are complete. This is the final Silicon Closeout cost. DOE MIE Only

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Updated Cost and Contingency  Average contingency at L3 u Estimated on tasks to go at deeper levels  Large uncertainty on AFEII costs u Not yet reviewed by project u The money set aside for the AFEII is from the original estimate s Once we complete the AFEII review we will have a better estimate  Installation costs still “fermenting” u Installation is off project u We want to ensure that installation is paid for!

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Cost Contingency for Project Admin (1.4)  Project Administration u FY03 BAC $284k, ACWP $129k s Project office began later in FY03 than we thought it would u FY04 BAC $222k, ACWP $231k (4% high) u FY05 BAC $229k, ACWP $48.6k u FY06 BAC $118k (full salaries until 03/06) s Most of project completed by 12/05. s Depending on AFE, may need project office beyond this, but at a much reduced level –Not sure what is needed for project “closeout” u Estimate s Adjusted BAC (removing additional FY03 money) –$854.5 – $155.4 = $699.1 s Contingency –“Schedule” contingency Assume 5 months at current cost (~$18.5k/month) = 92.5k –“Cost” contingency on ETC About 10% from past experience s Total contingency in $$ of $122k (42 %)

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Contributions to the Projected Cost Underruns by Subproject  Silicon + closeout is done. We know the underrun here. u Substantial savings of $607k.  New trigger estimate shows a potential savings u We were conservative with the original estimate.  Online systems estimate based on current prices and known work u This estimate will pay for the Run IIb scope u Ongoing replacement of L3 nodes is an issue – should be paid from operating after RunIIb scope complete s We can’t forget about this!  Layer 0 original estimate was very conservative. u We feel comfortable with this current estimate  Most of the Project Administration underrun is due to the underrun in FY03.  We have not reviewed and updated the AFEII project cost. We are uncomfortable with reducing our total contingency until we do this.

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Schedule Analysis Status of Project: Schedule

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Project Schedule: Director’s Milestones

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, “Float” Analysis since Rebaselining # workdays current forecast date is ahead of L1 DOE Milestone date by month

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Schedule and Float  From previous 2 slides we learned: u Online float/schedule fairly stable s Good confidence in schedule and cost here s Reworked cost/schedule to coincide with changed philosophy –Earmarked some contingency for possible additional L3 nodes – see Stu’s talk. u Silicon Layer 0 float/schedule fairly flat s But just now going into module production – will learn a lot about the schedule in the next 2 months or so –We will revisit the schedule float as we get more information from module production u L1 trigger float/schedule has some interesting features s Downward slope caused mainly by ADF delays –Prototype board is now under test and PRR is scheduled for Feb 11. –Current tests look good. s Some delays also in the CTT –PRR recently held, DFEA2’s should be going into production soon –BU has recently added additional effort for debugging and testing at Fermilab u L2 trigger has slid down as well s Due to L2 STT slipping – this is partially due to taking time to understand the TFC situation before moving ahead –This is not an issue. s L2 Beta has also slipped – effect of wanting to buy processors as late as possible. –Also not an issue

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, What does this mean?  Pacing items: u L1 Cal Trigger s Many delays in design and layout of ADF –Part of this will be made up in one less prototype cycle s 1 st prototype ADF v2 has been tested and works well –PRR for ADF scheduled for Feb 11 –First module of production run scheduled to be tested mid-March u L1 CTT s Runs neck and neck with L1 Cal as pacing item s Critical path is DFEA2 boards –Recently had PRR –Will likely enter production soon –First module of production run scheduled to be tested mid-May u L0 Silicon s Module production has begun s Start installing modules April 1 – so towards the end of April we will have learned a lot about the integration effort. L0 folks are focused on the schedule risks. s Installation fixturing is also a pacing item, although in principle not part of the project. s Lots of understanding of installation/fixturing developed after 04 shutdown  We will understand our schedule much better after these items u We would like the lab to remain flexible on the scheduling of the 2005 shutdown

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Response to July Review

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Director’s Review – Cost & Schedule  Cost Recommendations: 1. Performance management indicators do not consistently reflect actual costs for the work that has been completed. The area with the largest discrepancies is for work being done at the universities for which invoices have not been received. More effort should be put into getting estimated expenditures from the universities so the costs can be more accurately estimated and accrued, so a more detailed analysis of the cost variances can be performed to determine if corrective actions are required. u This has been fixed. We are now accruing costs at Universities according to reported earned value, providing they have a PO in place. In addition Universities are required to request authorization for any spending on approved codes larger than $1,500 and for any overspending on their project of any amount so that we can track any costing issues.  Schedule Recommendations 1. Pitch Adapters for Layer 0 Silicon Detector were not part of original scope and have been added to the work, are in the prototype state and are being paid on MRI funds. This scope of work was not added via a Change Request and not added to the schedule. Currently there are issues in the prototype phase. This additional scope could have impact on the schedule for Layer 0. The Pitch Adapter should be added to the project scope via the Change Control process and then added into the project schedule. s This has been done. See Change Request. Both $$ and schedule impact are minimal. 2. Layer 0 has “Ready to Move” milestone with a baseline schedule milestone of 5/25/06 an aggressive schedule date of 7/21/05. Layer 0 Management forecasts an approximate 2 months earlier completion date, but they have not modifying the aggressive/working schedule. The aggressive/working schedule should be modified to reflect the current forecast for work completion. u This has been done. The Silicon Layer 0 project file contains the most up to date thinking on milestone forecast dates.

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Director’s Review – Cost & Schedule (Continued)  Schedule Recommendations (Continued) 1. The four DOE Level 1 Milestones in the PEP have the same completion dates for the equivalent Level II Directorate's Milestones, which does not allow any contingency between the milestones. To minimize the risk of the Level 1 milestone dates being missed, a heightened level of awareness needs to be adopted for these four milestones. This can be addressed by emphasizing these milestones separately in the Project's Monthly Report. Additionally, the Directorate should assess whether or not the dates of the equivalent Level 2 Directorate Milestones should be modified to allow float between the Level 1 and Level 2 milestones. u This has been addressed by adding a section to the monthly report, highlighting the four DOE Level 1 Milestones. We have not modified the dates of the L2 Director’s milestones for this. u There were several examples of variances between the current working schedule and how work will be performed. There are concerns from the project management that the effort to update the schedules and costing tool for the smaller changes could be difficult with the present level of project office support. The Project Manger should address this concern as soon as possible. s We have updated these areas. We are trying to make do with the level of support we have.

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Director’s Review - Management  Recommendations: 1. Resolve the issues about DOE Headquarters/DOE Field Office/Directorate milestones. u Done. (addressed in previous slides) 2. Include all tasks (ex: pitch adapter) in the project schedule. u Done. (addressed in previous slides) 3. Formalize the L0 Silicon testing plan after May ’05 (end of production) and before the ’05 shutdown. u We are working on this. See talk by A. Nomerotski. 4. Initiate communications with Division Heads and Directorate to obtain manpower resources in an appropriate manner. u We have addressed this. We have already received support from PPD for the AFE upgrade and for help at SiDet. 5. Insure availability of key personnel at SiDet for the L0 Assembly during the ’04 shutdown. u We have addressed this. 6. Present a plan for the assessment and analysis of the risks connected with the L0 Installation. u This is being actively worked on, especially in light of the Layer 0 aperture measurements. See talk by W. Cooper.

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Conclusions (I)  Project is making impressive technical progress u All trigger components are either in production or very close to it. s This is good news! u Layer Ø continues to move quickly s Module production has begun u Online systems have “redesigned” server options s Allows us to take full advantage of Moore’s law s These changes have been put into the project plan, and a change request will be forthcoming u Costs are under control s Tools in place to understand and track them u Full project on schedule for 2005 installation u We would like the lab to remain flexible in scheduling the shutdown

DZero RunIIb Director’s Review February 3, Conclusions (II)  Installation/Commissioning plans have been revisited u Learned a lot about Layer 0 installation during FY04 shutdown u Also reworked the L1 Cal trigger installation with input from the project u Resource loaded installation schedule exists and we continue to update it as our understanding matures u New installation cost estimates from COBRA s We would like some reassurance that the installation costs will be covered by the lab s We would like to have some flexibility in assigning installation tasks –e. g. U of Washington is designing support fixtures – we would like to be able to pay their engineering and M&S costs from an installation budget  SC-IPC (Standing Committee on Installation to Physics Commissioning) has studied the additional effort needed for DZero to return to “physics” running after installation