UK status report (funding) Status of UK bid for funding Savings/contributions in kind Gateway process Support from ISIS Conclusions/personal comments

Status of UK bid for funding MICE-UK proposal submitted 29Apr03:  MICE muon beam and infrastructure  Focus-pair assembly  Spectrometer instrumentation  MICE software MICE-UK proposal defended 12May03:  Dan Kaplan: International perspective  Paul Drumm: Beam and infrastructure  Giles Barr: Focus-pair assembly  Ken Long: Spectrometer instrumentation/software  Talks/case well received

Status of UK bid for funding Funds requested:

Feedback from PPRP: 1 The Panel endorsed the science case for an eventual neutrino factory … The Panel recognised that muon cooling is an important technology milestone on the path to a neutrino factory, and that the proposed MICE facility is capable of achieving the first major step in demonstrating it. The Panel noted that, …, the opportunity to host MICE at RAL would allow the UK to take a strategic lead in developing neutrino factory technology … The Panel considered the proposed timescale for MICE to be aggressive, but acknowledged the enthusiasm of the proponents and their desire to maintain momentum for the project. The Panel … endorsed the recommendation … that an independent technical and cost review should take place at the earliest opportunity. The Panel noted the current estimate of 21.7M for the UK contribution and … encouraged the proponents to investigate mechanisms for reducing [it] … The Panel recognised that a minimal work programme in FY03/04 that involved clearing the experimental hall, procuring the shielding blocks, and preparing to drill a hole in the ISIS vault wall would provide a positive indication of a UK enthusiasm for MICE. The Panel recognised that, without such a programme, the project would be delayed by roughly a year and external funding could be jeopardized.

Feedback from PPRP: 2 The Panel acknowledged the vital roles that the UK groups are playing in the MICE experiment, namely the scintillating fibre detector R+D and the design of the solenoid focus coils. Assuming that funding is available, the Panel agreed that it was essential that the proponents contribute to the experiment in addition to providing the MICE beamline. The Panel appointed … referees and to work with the proponents to arrive at a minimal cost to allow these activities to proceed in the first year of the project, in FY03/04. The Panel encouraged the Director RAL-PPD to investigate whether a mechanism for providing costs for the first year programme could be negotiated with CLRC. The Panel agreed to consider the level at which it could fund such a minimal programme at the June meeting. ‘UK’ scientific approval to go alongside IPRC scientific approval

Feedback from PPRP: requests The Panel noted the current estimate of £21.7M for the UK contribution and felt that this would be likely to exceed the possible funds available until 2007/08 by a large factor. The Panel encouraged the proponents to investigate mechanisms for reducing the UK cost, for example by seeking additional foreign contributions or by descoping or reprofiling the project. The Panel therefore requested that the proponents submit a detailed proposal and justification for the FY03/04 funding request, which should include the work programme and costs, whilst keeping in mind the overall scope and priorities for the project.‘ Referees: Ferdi Willike (for 12May03), Daniel Froudivaux and Nick Brook The good news:  £7.5M potentially available, held by OST  Clear indication that £10M may be possible The challenge:  Careful analysis/negotiation now required to ‘meet funding agencies halfway’

Reply to PPRP: 1 Two documents addressing requests have been prepared and discussed (via ) with the referees Minimum request for 2003/04:  Preparation of MICE hall and break into synchrotron vault  Engineering effort required for AFCWG  Construction/commissioning of single-station prototype Negotiations in progress … strong chance that reasonable budget for 2003/04 will be forthcoming

Reply to PPRP: 2 Asked to consider the following scenarios: Scenario 1: £7.5M: profile: 2004/05 – 2006/07 Scenario 2: £10M: profile: 2004/05 – 2006/07 Scenario 3: £12.5M: profile: 2004/05 – 2008/09 Scenario 4: £15M: profile: 2004/05 – 2008/09 (Scenario 5: £20M: profile: 2004/05 – 2008/09) Note: presented to JMPB on 28May03. Board minded to bid for scenario 4.

WP1: B&I: profile and total Cost of construction of decay solenoid (PSI solenoid unacceptable) Work package 1: profile excluding cost of replacement solenoid

Interim conclusions/comments Scenario 1: £7.5M  UK can afford to do ‘most’ of beam and infrastructure project but nothing else! Would imply loss of UK leadership in any area of experiment Would jeopardise viability of MICE iMICE would look for alternative home laboratory Scenario 2: £10M  UK can afford to do beam and infrastructure project and attempt to mount an analysis effort Would imply loss to UK of focus-pair and instrumentation projects. Funds for modest software activity could perhaps be found if additional savings or international contributions to B&I could be found Would jeopardise viability of MICE MICE would be likely to consider an alternative home lab Consider scenarios 3 and 4 below assuming:  Risk that PSI solenoid will be used (retain small contingency to cover mods required at insatallation)  Seek additional contributions (e.g. MICE common fund/contributions in kind form UK or elsewhere)

WP1 large-cost items, WP2-4 WP 1: B&I: with all ‘savings’: £8,445k (including VAT, inflation and contingency)

Scenarios 3 and 4 Scenario 3: £12.5M  UK can do beam and infrastructure project and either focus- pair or instrumentation/software projects Assumes contribution from MICE common fund and contribution in kind for RF system UK could loose one key system of the experiment MICE would need to redistribute cost or find additional collaborators  risk to iMICE Scenario 2: £15M  UK can do beam and infrastructure project as well as focus- pair and instrumentation/software projects Assumes contribution from MICE common fund and contribution in kind for RF system UK will remain at the heart of both the MICE cooling channel and the MICE instrumentation Strong support +ve impact on likely success of MICE

Gateway process Gateway 0 – Strategic Assessment: Assessment of business need; Assessment of risk; initiation of an independent review team; review of the objectives and planned delivery; review of management structure and resource plans; Gateway 1 – Business Justification: Assessment of the business case for MICE; review of risk management plans; review delivery plans; Gateway 2 – Procurement Strategy: confirm procurement strategy; full funding availability; appropriate resources are in place; delivery plans, financial and management controls are in place and are realistic; Gateway 3 – Investment Decisions: confirm that the procurement strategy has been followed; review and agree procurement decisions; review risk management & change control procedures; Gateway 4 – Readiness for Service: review the implementation of the project; review operating plans and procedures; Gateway 5 – Benefits Evaluation: review of achieved benefits with respect to the business case; confirm the operating plans. Papers with chief execs.

Support from ISIS P. Drumm: schedule for work in the MICE hall and vault – approved by ISIS

First step … refurbishment of crane: Requisition signed!

Conclusions/personal comments Closing on 2003/04 budget … urgent to start work in MICE hall Will seek alternative funding sources and negotiate carefully in order to deliver all UK responsibilities:  JMPB strongly supportive IPRP, PPRP request WBS. In MICE (MICE-UK) interest too so that we can push down 30% contingency Personal comments: Discussion in PPRP closed session robust … but … asked for £21M, ‘offered’ £10M All to play for … should be cautiously optimistic