19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ M&O MoUs - History so far 14 MarchIntent announced in RRB-D mid June - 12 JulyInitial draft formulation. Informal  Collaborations. 12 JulyDraft 0  Collaboration Managements. 12 July - 1 AugCollection and further discussion of comments 1 Aug - 17 SeptDraft 1  CERN & Expt. Mgmts (discuss in Collabs). Formal feedback from ATLAS and CMS, less formal comments from ALICE, LHCb and CERN. Lead to Draft 2  Collabs and FAs on 17 September SeptRound-table discussion with RRBs. 26 Sept - 15 OctSuccessive modification cycles in response to -round-table discussion -other comment received -checks with CERN Finance Divn and Legal Service Lead to present Draft 3.4  RRBs on 15 October

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Some general comments... M&O MoUs are necessary (foreseen in the Construction MoUs) M&O MoUs needed now - M&O expenses starting RRBs play a key role in overseeing and approving M&O arrangements Draft text did not start with an empty sheet of paper. It is based on: a)Construction MoUs (e.g. for Collaboration structures and relations with FAs) - addresses the uniquely large size of the Collaborations b)LEP M&O agreements - benefit from experience with M&O matters. General remarks on present text (Draft 3.4) Two aspects systematically clarified with respect to Draft 2: -Relationship with Construction MoUs -Precedence of “General Conditions for Experiments at CERN” “BINGO” is just place-holder! To be replaced in final MoUs by the name of the experiment concerned: ALICE, ATLAS, CMS or LHCb as appropriate.

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Preamble Sets the background and explains why M&O MoUs are needed Note that the form of the MoUs, explained in (c), is as for the Construction MoUs: -bilateral Funding Agency  CERN as Host for each FA involved (c) now makes clear the precedence of the Construction MoUs - first of a number of places where the Legal Service has been helpful (d) explains the role of the RRBs with respect to M&O

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 1 : Annexes Moved from the end as suggested (was Article 14 in Draft 2). It thus establishes from the start the context of the Annexes Relationship of some Annexes with those in the Construction MoU is more clearly stated.

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 2 : Parties (old Art 1) Names clearly the parties to the MoU (as in the Construction MoU) Refers to the Institutes in the Collaboration (Annex I) and to the Funding Agencies concerned (Annex 2)

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 3 : Purpose (old Art 2) Defines the subject matter of the MoU - M&O 3.1 makes it clear that computing is not addressed In response to comment, “pre-exploitation” and “exploitation” are more clearly separated and these terms are defined (3.2) The wording of 3.3 has been made simpler and more direct to emphasise that M&O of detector elements starts after commissioning 3.5 sets precedence of relevant Co-operation Agreements and Protocols (narrower than before)

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 4 : Duration (old Art 3) In response to comment, the provisions have been made more conventional for this kind of MoU: -Initial period of validity (now to 2011, i.e. the first 5 years of running) -followed by automatic 5-year extensions (unless RRB decides not) -until, at latest, the LHC programme is closed Also deals with withdrawal of FAs (4.4) and Institutes (4.5) 4.6 deals with the case of new Institutes joining (in Draft 2 was somewhat illogically in the Article on M&O Procedure). It is now also stronger and provides for additional M&O contributions from such Institutes

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 5 : “BINGO” (old Art 4) 5.1 defines the Detector (Annex 4) 5.2 defines the Collaboration management structure (Annex 5) 5.3 defines the participating Institutes (Annex 6) Compared with Draft 2, the reference at this point to the Collaboration membership list has been removed, since it belongs more naturally to the discussion on cost sharing in Article 9 (where it is made clear that the list is to be of PhD-equivalent scientific staff)

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 6 : Responsibilities (old Art 5) Cleaned up to use standard terminology, e.g. “sub-detector” 6.1 now spells out more clearly the basis. In response to comment, the link with “having supplied equipment” has been dropped. Both 6.1 and 6.2 have been raised to the status of “fundamental principles” on the advice of the Legal Service. 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 deal with the distinction between Common Items and sub-detectors/systems looked after by individual Institutes or groups of Institutes and have been re-ordered to treat Common Items first, as is done in Article has also been re-worded to make it more clear that it refers to M&O roles (not necessarily the same as Construction). 6.4 and 6.5 make it clear now that the values in Annexes 7 and 8 are those established by CORE 6.6 reaffirms the precedence of the General Conditions and also notes explicitly that CERN has two roles: Host and Collaborating Institute (The old 5.7 has been dropped since adequately covered by Gen. Con.)

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 7 : M&O Categories (old Art 6) Defines the three Categories of M&O expenses - A, B and C Points to the explicit lists of headings in Annexes 9, 10 and 11 In now notes for Category C the precedence of the General Conditions

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 8 : Approval etc. (old Art 7) The word “Approval” now appears in the title to make it clear that the RRB performs more than a monitoring function. 8.1 now says explicitly what the RRB must approve: -all the details of Category A -overall level of Category B and the sharing of B proposed by the Collaboration 8.2 now says explicitly that the RRB appoints its Scrutiny Group and is more specific about the role of this group The detailed procedure under which the Scrutiny Group will work is specified in Annex 12

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 9 : Cost Sharing (old Art 8) The consensus of all the opinion heard on sharing seems to be: -Category A by scientific staff with PhD or equivalent -Category B as proposed by the Collaboration for both the pre-exploitation and exploitation phases 9.2 now says clearly how the list that will be the basis for the Category A sharing (Annex 13) is to be maintained. I will return to this when speaking of Article 10 on Procedure The statement about Category A contributions normally being in cash has been elevated to a sub-article (9.3) -Category A contributions in-kind must be agreed by the RRB -Provision for a minimum fixed cash contribution per Institute has been introduced. Rebates on Cat A contributions are introduced in 9.4, referring to Annex 14 (list of eligible NMS countries) and Annex 15 (the rebate formula). Roger Cashmore will speak in more details about these aspects.

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 9 ctd. 9.4 now uniformly refers to “rebate”, i.e. clarifies that the amounts of the invoices will be reduced (rather than sending invoices for the full amounts and then handing some money back later). The formula for the rebates has to be approved by the DG In their approval of the CERN Medium Term Plans, Council will be approving the overall amounts. Provision is made for reviewing the arrangements for rebates every three years. 9.5 reaffirms that the Category B sharing is to to be proposed by the Collaboration and 9.6 recalls that CERN will pay C costs from its operating budget.

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 10 : Procedure (Old Art 9) Clarified in the light of comments. For any year “n”:

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 10 ctd. Note (10.5) that invoices will be in Swiss francs. The payment procedure is in Annex specifies who can make payments and the framework for authorisation levels 10.8 specifies what will happen if the RRB cannot reach agreement on the M&O arrangements for a given year and is an important safety measure

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 11 : Rights etc. (old Art 10) This simply says in the standard way that the people who joined the Collaboration to build the detector can do physics with it.

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 12 : Admin. etc. (old Art 11) Standard statements on financial rules and the authority of the CERN Director General The paragraph on default (12.3) now clearly separates actions towards the defaulters from the more general question of recovery from the loss (which is for the RRB to consider)

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 13 : Amendments (old Art 12) Standard phrasing. The consensus at the September meetings seemed to be that annual updates of the Annexes are adequate

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Article 14 : Disputes (old Art 13) Wording on handling of disputes has been clarified with the help of the Legal Service has been introduced, also at their suggestion, to cleanly de-couple obligations under this MoU from those under the Construction MoU.

19/10/2001DJ for RRBs 22-23/10/ Annex 12 : Scrutiny Group It is made explicit that the RRB appoints the Scrutiny Group On advice received, the number of external members (12.1) has been increased to six It is clarified (12.4) that the Chair should be an external member. The possibility of proxies is introduced (12.5) For completeness the actual work is summarised (12.6)