OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1 3. Cost Estimate Gines, Fisher 2.Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary objectives, and justified by the supporting documentation? The MicroBooNE project was given a cost cap of $19.0 M by OHEP. The Committee recommends increasing the upper range. Has all the work been appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled, including the work associated with performing the preliminary design, final design and value engineering? YES, project scope and duration are well defined and preliminary estimates and schedules are developed. 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? Yes, the MicroBooNE project team has developed the requisite documentation for Critical Decision 1. However, some changes for consistency and clarity are needed.

OFFICE OF SCIENCE 2 3. Cost Estimate Gines, Fisher Findings Project was given a cost cap of $19 M by OHEP  Procedures for estimating cost and contingency are based on key assumptions and contingency rules  Cost estimates are documented in Basis of Estimates (BoE)  BoE created by L2 Managers; formalizes and documents estimate  BoE can have labor, M&S, and contingency estimates  For DOE MIE: project range is $17M-$19M, current point estimate is $18.785M (TEC=$15.322M and OPC=$3.463M)  NSF contribution is $1.632M  Detailed cost estimates by WBS; overall project contingency 33%

OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3. Cost Estimate Gines, Fisher Comments Key Assumptions Document and Value Engineering processes are recognized as good practices and should be continued Contingencies are not risk based, they follow the Contingency Analysis Rules A complete bottoms-up cost estimate will be needed for CD-2 From a cost and schedule perspective we believe the basis of estimate justifies the project duration, however, we believe that an increase in the cost range should be considered based on the scope presented Recommendations Complete bottoms-up cost estimate for CD-2 Consider increase funding range to a ceiling of $20M 3

OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4 4. Schedule and Funding Gines, Fisher 2.Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary objectives, and justified by the supporting documentation? From a cost and schedule perspective we believe the basis of estimates justifies the project duration, however, we believe that an increase in the cost range should be considered. Has all the work been appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled, including the work associated with performing the preliminary design, final design and value engineering? The project has appropriately identified, estimated and scheduled the work commensurate with the requirements of CD-1. An integrated plan to get to CD-2 was not presented. 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? Yes, the MicroBooNE project team has developed the requisite documentation for Critical Decision 1. However, some changes for consistency and clarity are needed.

OFFICE OF SCIENCE 5 4. Schedule and Funding Gines, Fisher Findings MicroBooNE Project CD-4 is scheduled for 3 rd quarter 2014 Project is currently utilizing Microsoft Project but will move to Primavera Project Resource Loaded Schedule (RLS) contains 930 Tasks Critical Path is tied to access to the MiniBooNE enclosure Project CD-4 date includes 12 months of float Current funding profile includes $3.5M in OPC and $10.6M in MIE with $4.7M contingency Funding profile; R&D $2M in FY10, MIE TEC $17M in FY11-FY13 Contingency is identified at ~33% of project cost

OFFICE OF SCIENCE 4. Schedule and Funding Gines, Fisher Comments A detailed integrated schedule laying out the path forward for CD-2 was not presented to the committee Recommendations  A comprehensive schedule to CD-2 requires development 6

OFFICE OF SCIENCE 7 5. Management and ES&H Gilchriese, Fisher, Gines 3.Does the proposed project team have adequate management experience, design skills and laboratory support to produce a credible technical, cost and schedule baseline? The project will require more management attention and a well defined, integrated plan to obtain CD-2 approval. 4.Are ES&H/QA aspects being properly addressed at the project’s current stage of development? Yes, the MicroBooNE project team has developed a draft NEPA Project Information Form, an Integrated Safety Management Document and a Quality Assurance Plan. 5.Is the DOE project scope well defined within the DOE and NSF funded collaboration? Are all the other parts of the project understood to be the responsibility of the other collaborators? The DoE (and NSF) project scope is well defined for this stage of the project. The cost range should be updated. Scope contingency should be identified. 6.Is the documentation required by DOE O413.3A in order and ready for approval of the Critical Decision 1? Yes, after some minor changes for consistency and clarity.

OFFICE OF SCIENCE 8 5. Management and ES&H Gilchriese, Fisher, Gines Findings  The project management organization is operational, although some personnel are in acting or part-time positions  The costs of project management were estimated to be $1817K(base) + $316K(contingency) = $2.1M(total), or about 10% of the total (DoE+NSF) cost.  Project documentation appropriate for a CD-1 review was produced, but some minor further developments are needed to obtain CD-1 approval  ES&H procedures and documentation are appropriate for CD-1 approval

OFFICE OF SCIENCE 9 5. Management and ES&H Gilchriese, Fisher, Gines Comments  Project integration and systems engineering is a key function of the overall Project Management and is understaffed.  The level of engineering supported by Project Management funding (WBS 1.1) is low. The Project should re-evaluate the relative need for engineering vs a Deputy Project Manager  More effort is needed to evaluate risks, quantify their impact on cost/schedule, and put in place procedures implemented by the Project Management to prioritize, reduce and retire risks.

OFFICE OF SCIENCE Management and ES&H Gilchriese, Fisher, Gines Recommendations  Produce a detailed plan/milestones for all deliverables/actions required for CD-2 and communicate this plan to the L2 managers and Collaboration by the end March  Develop a coherent strategy (and the critical milestones) with FNAL management for the D&D of MiniBooNE and the subsequent conversion of the enclosure for MicroBooNE by the end of April.  Identify potential items of scope contingency, their costs and the impact on scientific goals by June.