February 2002 Scope and Contingency; Transition to the Research Phase William J. Willis Columbia University

February The U.S. ATLAS Scope is subject to new issues, as well as the old ones  We continue to add new scope from the Management Contingency Deliverables list in our Project Management Plan, keeping the total of contingency >36% of remaining cost at risk  We have done this in collaboration with ATLAS Management, in a “U.S. ATLAS Management Contingency Working Group”  New items have been added by the Subsystems, and considered on their own merit, also aid to ATLAS Technical Coordination, as urged by JOG  In agreement with the Working Group, the Muon cost has been capped, as part of ATLAS staging. We are preparing a proposal to NSF to restore the missing MDT chambers, CSMs, etc.  The funding agencies have defined their stance on the use of M&O funds for “installation” expenses. This is more restrictive than we hoped or expected. This will have an effect on the use of our Contingency that will affect our ability to provide detector deliverables. We are trying to minimize this effect, which will require cooperation with ATLAS.

February From: Yeck, Jim Sent: Wednesday, December 19, :00 PM To: 'Bill Willis' Cc: HOWARD GORDON; JEREMY DODD; Carolan, Pepin; Subject: RE: installation Bill, Both DOE and NSF hope to provide significant funding for the U.S. LHC Research Program. The scope of this program is described in the DOE/NSF MOU on U.S. Participation in LHC Program, "The activities and functions included in the Research Program are preparation for operation of the detectors, development of the software required for data analysis, maintenance and operation of the detectors, analysis of the data, publication of the physics results from the experiments, and related activities. The U.S. LHC Research Program will require additional resources for the laboratories and universities, analogous to the pre-operational and operational phases of a new research facility. These resources are complimentary to the funding provided in Article VIII of the International Agreement." The implication is that INSTALLATION is on construction and COMMISSIONING, etc. is on pre-ops. Therefore we should avoid installation on the research program. I believe that both DOE and NSF agree on this matter. Regards, Jim

February Response of ATLAS  We immediately alerted the ATLAS Spokesperson to this agency interpretation, more strict in ruling out use of Research Phase funding than we hoped, and he alerted the ATLAS EB at its next meeting.  He favors maximizing detector deliverables, consistent with his position from the start  This will require cooperation within ATLAS

February Management Contingency

February Transition to the Research Phase  We intend to maintain the schedule of the U.S. ATLAS Construction Project, whatever delay the LHC may encounter, in order to maximize the deliverables and minimize costs, and to allow the switch to the Research Phase funding as soon as possible, assuming a ~flat total profile  The JOG wants the Research Phase to continue to be strongly managed, though it cannot be cast to the framework of a construction project. This will be worked out with the agencies over the next months  Our own Project Advisory Panel looked at the Research Phase plans in October. One of the recommendations addresses the transition more concretely than the JOG has done, up to now:

February “U.S. Manager of ATLAS Operations The Project Advisory Panel met in October 2001 One recommendation was “The PAP recommends that the U.S. ATLAS Project Manager soon create a new position, ‘U.S. Manager of ATLAS Operations’ in the U.S. ATLAS Project Office, a position that would be filled by an experienced manager who would expect take over as the top ATLAS manager for U.S. participation in the Management & Operations (M&O) and initial upgrade phase of the LHC research program once the US ATLAS detector project comes to a close in FY We note that the M&O phase is anticipated to begin as early as FY 2002, so this position should be created and filled in the next year. The new manager would report to the present project manager until the end of the detector construction project.”

February Participation of U.S. ATLAS collaborators in the process of transition  I support this recommendation, though I note that the process of appointing the new manager could take a little longer than mentioned;  There will (we hope) be significant M&O funds in 2004, so the new manager should be on board by then.  This appointment will be made by Tom Kirk, consulting with this body. Tom feels that this person should reside at BNL.  I think that the universities will have a strong interest in this matter, and now is the time to discuss the process and guidelines