Mu2e WGM 7/27/2011 R. Ray Mu2e Project manager

Director’s Review We have settled on date for the Director’s CD-1 Review; Oct Focus of review will be cost, schedule, management and addressing recommendations from the Design Review. Most L2’s are large enough to merit their own break out session Management Accelerator Conventional Construction Solenoids Muon Channel Tracker Calorimeter The Cosmic Ray Veto and DAQ systems are smaller and could be combined, though they don’t have a lot in common. We combined the CRV with the Calorimeter for the IDR and it probably was not a good idea. If every L2 has its own breakout, we are looking at a committee of ~ 20 people. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM2

Director’s Review We will have to work very hard to make this date. The biggest job is to get the RLS complete and then make a couple of turns on it to address cost, fix problems, etc.  Trying to bring on an additional Project Controls person to help David. I would estimate that we need to have a complete RLS by about Sept 6.  Things have to be posted by Sept 27  Input from the RLS is required for some of our documentation o CDR o PMP  Have to get the project team familiar with the RLS format. If the RLS it not completed by ~ Sept. 6 we may have to delay the review.  Emphasis from DOE is that it is more important to do a good job that to be ready as soon as possible. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM3

RLS Managed to run the Project Management L2 RLS through COBRA last week.  It worked, then it didn’t, then it finally did again… Now have P6 and Cobra working together on Loadspring web site.  A fair amount of coding required for each L2 system before it can be processed through Cobra  David estimates this will take 2 weeks o I asked for it sooner…  Some requested changes from L2 managers are on hold while we make this all work. R. Ray - Mu2e WGM4

Cost and Schedule R. Ray - Mu2e WGM5 Based on bits and pieces we have put together so far, cost is going up and the schedule is stretching.  This is a concern for a project without a lot of scope contingency. Most of the cost increase is in the accelerator system, which had a 100% contingency applied at CD-0. Additional costs since CD-0 also include scientific effort that was previously off project and pbar shielding. Will have to explore potential cost cutting measures including operation at lower beam power, moving some things off project (doesn’t lower the price but can possibly tap into different funding sources). I will have to discuss the cost with the DOE before any reviews.

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM6 11 th Commandment “Thou shalt not delay the solenoid schedule” The 11 th Commandment, attributed to a disgruntled Project Manager The solenoids are the critical path until the very end of the project when we are installing the internal detectors. The solenoids are stretching the schedule. We are trying to understand how to expedite things where we can, but one can only do so much. On January 1, 2012 the solenoids become ballistic.  On Jan 1 the solenoid concept is frozen and all resources will be devoted to turning the conceptual design into a final engineering design. No resources will be devoted to options  If a gradient is desired in the DS, a specification that doesn’t increase the cost must be developed and included in the design by Jan 1.  “C” vs. “S” issues must be settled and incorporated into the design by Jan 1.

Documents R. Ray - Mu2e WGM7 DocumentCurrent StatusNotes CDRFirst draft under revision Expect near final version by early August Acquisition StrategyBeing reviewed by DOEProject’s part complete. DOE’s document now Project Execution PlanBeing reviewed by DOEStill have to agree on change control thresholds and KPPs RLSIn progress Draft Configuration Management Plan DoneGood enough for CD-1 Draft Project Management PlanAlmost doneNeeds input from cost & schedule. Preliminary Hazard Analysis ReportBeing reviewed by DOE WBS dictionaryOut-of-date draft Preliminary Risk Management PlanDone Risk registryDraftNeed one more cycle through with L2 managers and Risk manager QA PlanDoneGood enough for CD-1. Significant revision expected fro CD-2 Security Vulnerability AssessmentDone

FY11 Endgame R. Ray - Mu2e WGM8 Numbers for 1 st 3 weeks of July are down ~ 8% Vacations? Roll-off of AD engineering spike to do cost estimate Extrapolation using July numbers suggests a $434k shortfall. Can cut some CPs in CD Mike Smith roll-off should be accelerated. CRV work can be postponed Reduce shortfall to ~$350k, but no room for error. Some relief may come from Mike Procario. Will know by the end of the month. In the absence of any relief, more people would have to be turned off. Estimate

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM9 FY12 – Boom or Bust Originally all of Mu2e funding for FY12 was PED We were able to reprogram some of that to operating funds for “Advanced Conceptual Design” work. Can’t keep doing that. At some point we are clearly doing Preliminary Design work and spending operating funds on preliminary design is illegal. In the absence of an appropriations bill that allows new starts, our funding for FY12 allows us to keep the lights on and not much more. Once we get past the new starts hurdle we will have more money that we can spend in FY12  carry-over for future years to mitigate typical funding glitches at the beginning of fiscal years. Lab budget guidance is to assume full funding.

R. Ray - Mu2e WGM10 Exemption from Army Corps of Engineers

Report from PAC R. Ray - Mu2e WGM11 Mike Lindgren gave a talk (written by Chris Polly and me) about the Muon Program at the Aspen PAC meeting in June. From Pier’s letter summarizing the PACs findings: Simulations effort has significantly improved over the past year, but we still need more. This point was made several times at last week’s Collaboration meeting. Most of the Mu2e institutions are responding, to the extent that they can. “