1. Management Breakout: DOE Budget Summary Vincent Riot LSST Camera Interim Project Manager LSST Commissioning Plan Review January 24-26, 2017

2. Commissioning Focused View of LSST
Director
Deputy Director
Project Science Team
Project Manager
Project Scientist
Business Administration Tucson/Chile
Safety Team
Systems Engineering
Systems Scientist
SE Manager
DOE Supported Effort
Science Verification Team
Core Commissioning Team
Technical Coordination Team
System Verification Team
Project Scientist
DM AIV Lead
Data Management
Commissioning is The Project Priority
Technical Coordination team has direct access to subsystem teams
Subsystems continue development (DM) or focus on Maintenance (T&S)
Project Manager resolves resource & priority conflicts
Camera AIV Lead
Camera
T&S AIV Lead
Telescope & Site
and others…
Subsystem Teams

3. Camera Personnel management through SLAC as a pool of camera resources (matrixed system)
Chief Rsch. Officer
Sci. and Tech. Advisor
Chief Tech. Officer
Project Management Assurance Group
SLAC Laboratory Director
SLAC Deputy Director
LSST Director
LSST System Engineering and Commissioning
SE manager
System Scientist
LSSTCam System Engineering Group
LSSTCam Project Scientist
LSSTCam Project Manager
LSSTCam Deputy Project Manager
LSSTCam Administration Group
Commissioning Technical Coordination team
DM AIV Lead
Camera AIV Lead
T&S AIV Lead
Others …
LSSTCam ES&H and QA
Optics Sub-system
Sensor Sub-system
Cryostat Sub-system
Science Raft Sub-system
Auxiliary Electronics sub-system
Data Acquisition Sub-system
Corner Raft Sub-system
Integration and test
Camera Body&Shutter Sub-system
Camera Control Sub-system 3

4. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
A broad-based collaboration of institutions is planned to support commissioning of the camera under DOE Support
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
Overall project management, refrigeration system, DAQ, Control system, ComCam
Brookhaven National Laboratory:
ComCam, Sensors and Raft assemblies
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Optics
Institut National de Physique Nucleaire and et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3-Collection of multiple labs)
University-based instrumentation groups:
Harvard University – science, sensors & electronics
U. of Illinois – controls, software
UC Santa Cruz – science 4

5. Key Personnel brings extensive experience to commissioning from the construction phase of the project
Steven Kahn (Project Director)
Experimental astrophysicist
US Principal Investigator for Reflection Grating Spectrometer on ESA’s XMM-Newton Mission
Previous ALD for PPA at SLAC
LSST MREFC/MIE project director
Steve Ritz (Scientist)
LSST Camera MIE project scientist
Christopher Stubbs (Scientist)
LSST Camera MIE science raft sub-system manager
Martin Nordby (Systems Engineering)
Mechanical Engineer/Project Management
Chief Mechanical Engineer on GLAST
Subsystem Manager on PEP-II
J Langton (Cryostat/Refrigeration)
Mechanical Engineer
Tony Johnson (Control System)
Physicist/software specialist
Camera control system architect LSST Camera
Data handling coordinating on GLAST
SLAC computing coordinator for EXO-200
SLD offline computing scientist
Michael Huffer (DAQ)
High energy physicist/ DAQ specialist
Deputy Project Lead SLD DAQ
Project Lead BaBar DAQ
LSST Camera MIE DAQ sub-system manager
Kevin Reil (Camera/ComCam)
Experimental astrophysicist
LSST Camera MIE I&T Manager
Travis Lange (Camera I&T )
Mechanical Engineer 5

6. Commissioning WBS is in place and DOE funded effort has been identified and documented
Description
DOE Contribution
06C.02.01
Commissioning Management
06C.02.02
Commissioning Planning, Preparation, Tooling, & Simulations
06C
ComCam Development & Oversight
Camera shipping costs
06C
Camera Summit Servicing Area Preparation
Large Portion of Scope
06C
Analysis Software and Procedure Simulation & Validation
Scientist only
06C
Special Tooling
Shipping Containers and Tools
06C.02.03
Early System AI&T
06C
ComCam Shipping, Receiving & Reverification
CCS Install, DAQ Install, Commissioning of ComCam
06C
Calibration System AI&T
Some CCS and DAQ support
06C
Camera Refrigeration Pathfinder AI&T
06C
ComCam - Telescope AI&T
CCS and DAQ Support, Engineering Support, Scientist Support
06C
DMS + TCS/OCS + ComCam AI&T
CCS, DAQ, Scientist and Observation Support
06C
Performance Optimization & Characterization
06C.02.04
Full System AI&T
06C
Camera Shipping, Receiving & Reverification
06C
Camera-Telescope AI&T
06C
DMS+ TCS/OCS + Cam. Integration
06C.02.05
Science Verification
06C
Scheduler Driven mini-Surveys 1
06C
Scheduler Driven mini-Surveys 2
06C
Operations Readiness Review Preparations
Full DOE team supports
06C
SV Data Handling and Processing
Primarily Scientists

7. LSST Camera MIE project on track to deliver the CD-4 required transition to operation plan
Transition to operation CD-4 deliverable covers camera MIE construction transition to camera commissioning (early operation)
Document has been drafted (LCA-10825) and reviewed at CD-3. This document will be updated to reflect details of the camera commissioning plan once reviewed at this review
Technical details of the camera MIE construction transition to commissioning early operation were presented in Kevin Reil’s talk (see 11:45am presentation)
Phase 0: Summit facility preparation
Phase 1: ComCam
Phase 2: LSST Camera (shipping, unpack, install, re-verify)
Phase 3: Science verification
Integrated safety management (see presentation from Chuck Gessner at 12:15pm)

8. Cost assumptions for the DOE supported commissioning budget
The following are the cost assumptions for developing the commissioning budget as applied to DOE estimates.
The base year for all cost estimates is FY16.
Labor rates and material rates have indirect applied in Primavera 6.
Labor and material indirect rates are the official rates provided by SLAC (other institution may be used.
Contingency is estimated using a task based maturity assessment for every task.
Labor rates and M&S costs are escalated by 3.5% (burden and overhead percentage are fixed)
FTEs are calculated assuming 1 FTE=1800 hours and 1440 hours for scientists to account for science time
Scientist effort (for DOE scope support) are contributed on science budget except in the case of faculty contribution in excess of 2 months of effort (21 FTE of contributed labor)

9. Commissioning Cost Break down
WBS
Description
Total Cost ($K)
DOE Cost ($K)
06C.02.01
Commissioning Management
$21,951
$10,673
06C.02.02
Commissioning Planning, Preparation, Tooling, & Simulations
$3,581
$1,203
06C.02.03
Early System AI&T
$4,712
$1,517
06C.02.04
Full System AI&T
$3,010
$1,374
06C.02.05
Science Verification
$3,067
$521
Planned Cost ($K)
$36,321
$15,289
Total Commissioning Cost is.
$36.3M total,
$15.3M supported by DOE (including contingency)
LSSTCam MIE closes at SLAC after Camera verifies that it has met the KPPs

10. Cost Breakdown is well understood
LSST Commissioning (DOE funded) Category
Total Cost ($K)
Labor
$9,834
M&S
$363
Travel
$653
Shipping
$630
Contingency
$3,810
Total
$15,289
LSST Commissioning (DOE funded) Labor type
Total Cost ($K)
Management
$1,507
Engineer
$2,074
Sr. Engineer
$1,472
Software Engineer
$692
Sr. Software Engineer
$3,201
Technician
$636
Sr. Technician
$251
Total
$9,834

11. Budget Authority Versus Budget Actuals/Obligation
LSST Commissioning DOE funding is able to support the Camera commissioning plan per expected funding profile except in FY17/FY18
Expected LSST DOE related funding profile
Pre-Operations Activities
activities in our schedule 6834
Going forward we have 1304 milestones
milestones per year (after April 1st): Fy13 = 159; Fy14=295; Fy15=290; Fy16=266; Fy17=139; Fy18=96; Fy19=41; Fy20=20

12. Staffing Profile is achievable and transitions well from MIE and into operation
The resource loaded schedule enables us to optimize our delivery plans.
The staffing profile transitions well with MIE end of construction
Operation ramp up is independent of commissioning due to mostly different skillsets
52 FTE total (32 FTE supported on budget, 21 FTE contributed scientists)

13. FTE profile is consistent with a successful commissioning schedule
12 months of contingency

14. Contingency Analysis Details
Risk Factor
Value
Risk Weight
Technical
Existing design/procedure & off-the-shelf hardware 1
Minor modifications to an existing design/procedure 2
Extensive modifications to an existing design/procedure 3
New design/procedure, nothing exotic 4
Design OR manufacturing
New design/procedure, different from established designs, existing technology or procedures 6
Design AND manufacturing
New design/procedure, requires some R&D, but does not advance the state of the art 8
New design, development of new technology or processes that advances the state of the art 10
New design/procedures, way beyond state of the art 15
Cost
Off-the-shelf or catalog item
Vendor quote from established drawings
Vendor quote with some design sketches
In-house estimate based on previous similar experience
Material cost OR labor rate
In-house estimate for item with minimal experience but related to existing capability
Material cost AND labor rate
In-house estimate for item with minimal experience & minimal in-house capability
Top-down estimate from analogous programs
Engineering judgement
Schedule
No schedule impact on any other item
Delays completion of noncritical path subsystem item
Same for all
Delays completion of critical path subsystem item
Foreign Location
Domestic location
Simple foreign location
Complex foreign location
Sole Source
Multiple possible sources
Simple single source
Complex single source
Each DOE activities was assessed in the commissioning plan at WBS level 3
Assessment reflects technical maturity, cost, schedule factors
Similar approach successfully used for the LSST MIE project at CD-2
Contingency Factor (%) =
(Technical risk factor * Technical risk weight) +
(Cost risk factor * Cost risk weight) +
(Schedule risk factor * 1) +
(Location origination risk factor * 1) +
(Source availability risk factor * 1)

15. Maturity based cost estimate uncertainty estimate (not in risk registry)
WBS
Description
Budgeted Cost ($K)
Activity Based contingency (%)
Activity Based contingency ($K)
06C.02.01
Commissioning Management
$6,863
33%
$2,285
06C.02.02
Commissioning Planning, Preparation, Tooling, & Simulations -
06C
ComCam Development & Oversight
$25
24% $6
06C
Camera Summit Servicing Area Preparation
$184
$44
06C
Analysis Software and Procedure Simulation & Validation $0
06C
Special Tooling
$994
$239
06C.02.03
Early System AI&T
06C
ComCam Shipping, Receiving & Reverification
$502
29%
$146
06C
Calibration System AI&T $7
06C
Camera Refrigeration Pathfinder AI&T
$466
40%
$186
06C
ComCam - Telescope AI&T
$477
$138
06C
DMS + TCS/OCS + ComCam AI&T
$77
$22
06C.02.04
Full System AI&T
06C
Camera Shipping, Receiving & Reverification
$809
$324
06C
Camera-Telescope AI&T
$512
$205
06C
DMS+ TCS/OCS + Cam. Integration
$53
$21
06C.02.05
Science Verification
06C
Scheduler Driven mini-Surveys 1
$170
$68
06C
Scheduler Driven mini-Surveys 2
$85
$34
06C
Operations Readiness Review Preparations
$267
$107
06C
SV Data Handling and Processing
TOTAL
$11,479
$3,810
Percentage for each high level WBS element should be agreed upon by Chuck/Kevin/Steve/Victor/Vincent. Total is generally an RMS sum of each WBS element

16. LSST Commissioning Risk are identified
Commissioning risks are documented in the commissioning risk registry (See backup slide for risk methodology)
Current status: 18 total risks identified
8 Camera related commissioning risks

17. Commissioning top risks related to DOE funded effort
Risk Title
Risk Description (if/then)
Score
Current Exposure
Camera Late to Summit
If the camera is late to the summit THEN schedule following it's arrival is delayed.
14.0
Moderate
Refrigeration Pathfinder
IF the refrigeration pathfinder efforts are not time efficient THEN other ComCam related commissioning work will be delayed.
10.7
DOE Early Ops Funding
IF DOE early operations funding is not available THEN schedule will delayed or commissioning descopes will need to occur.
10.5
ComCam efficiency
IF initial integration and commissioning of ComCam is not time efficient THEN mini surveys or other pre LSSTCam activities may be reduced in scope
9.5
Minor
Camera Damage in Chipping
IF the camera sustains shipping damage THEN integration of the camera onto the telscope will be delayed
9.3
ComCam Logistics
IF ComCam front end assembly integration work at SLAC interferes with camera work THEN one of the two schedules will be impacted.
7.0
ComCam Late to Summit
IF the ComCam is delivered to the summit behind schedule THEN the Early System AI&T schedule will need to be adjusted with possible descopes
6.3
Camera-Telescope Interfaces
IF interface issues between the camera and telescope and site teams remain at integration time THEN camera integration could be prolonged.
5.3

18. Major Milestones to be tracked during commissioning
116 milestones for the entire commissioning effort captured in the resource loaded schedule
DOE scope related Milestones well defined (summary below)
Milestone ID
Milestones
Date
COMC
Camera Facility Fiber Optic Lines Ready
11-Dec-17
COMC
Camera Facility Refrigeration Lines Ready
27-Dec-17
COMC
Summit Facility White Room ready
4-Jan-18
COMC
ComCam Dewar Ready for AI&T in Tucson
30-Oct-18
* COMC
On-Site CCS Software Install
3-Jul-19
COMC
ComCam arrives at summit
25-Jul-19
* COMC  
on-Site ComCam DAQ Install
15-Aug-19
COMC
White Room Refrigeration System Ready for LSSTCam
30-Oct-19
COMC
ComCam Ready to Start Early System AI&T
4-Nov-19
**COMC
LSSTCam Pre-Ship Acceptance
14-Feb-20
COMC
LSSTCam Summit
13-Mar-20
COMC
TMA Refrigeration Tests Complete
18-Jun-20
COMC
Camera Reverification Complete
29-Jul-20
COMC
LSSTCam-Tel Integration Complete
19-Mar-21
COMC
Operation Readiness Review Complete
23-Aug-21
* Not a commissioning deliverable but tracked as a need from MIE
** MIE main deliverable

19. Summary
The scope of the commissioning effort supported by DOE is well understood
Detailed cost estimates and schedules have been generated
Staffing and profile is compatible with Camera MIE project and operation
Adjustment to the funding profile would allow for a more optimized commissioning effort (FY17 and FY18 funding)

20. End

21. DOE funded rate assumptions
Fringe
Labor Indirect
30.60%
60.50%
Position
Hourly Rate ($)
engineer
62.4
technician
53.7
sr. technician
55.35
sr. engineer
93.54
scientist
84.67
sr. scientist
93.13
software eng.
64.17
sr. software eng.
75.25
management
96.25

22. Definition of Risk and Risk Analysis
Risk can be defined as an undesirable event during project execution that negatively effects program goals for performance, cost or schedule.
Risk management is the ongoing process of comprehensively assessing project risks.
methodology to manage risks is defined below
Definition of Risk Probability
Pts
Likelihood of Occurrence
Approximate Probability
Description of Probability 1
Rare
<1%
Likelihood of occurrence is not credible 2
Unlikely
1-5%
Not reasonably expected to occur 3
Possible
5-25%
Possible, or difficult to assess the chance of occurrence 4
Likely
25-67%
Very likely that an adverse event will occur 5
Highly Probable
>67%
High probability that an adverse event will come to pass
Definition of Risk Impact
Pts
Severity of Impact
Description of Impact
Cost Impact 1
Insignificant
Overrun of cost of < $30K, recoverable with project contingency 2
Minor
Overrun of cost of $30k - $200K, recoverable with project contingency 3
Moderate
Overrun of cost of 200k - $1.5M, with significant impact on contingency 4
High
Overrun of baseline cost of $1.5M - $10M, with re-baseline required 5
Critical
Overrun of baseline cost of >$10M, with project in jeopardy
Schedule Impact
Degradation of schedule margin to project critical path by < 2 wks
Degradation of schedule margin to project critical path by 2 wks to 1.5 months
Degradation of schedule margin to project critical path by 1.5 to 3 months
Degradation of schedule margin to project critical path by 3 to 6 months
Degradation of schedule margin to project critical path by > 6 months
Performance Impact
No effect on ability to meet requirements; minor design changes needed
Minor excursion from subsystem requirement, but compensated elsewhere
Level 2 and/or SRD design specification exceeded
Level 1 and/or SRD minimum specification exceeded
Unable to achieve any of the primary science missions
Quasi-quantitative process to assign objective values to probability of occurrence and impact of occurrence aspects of risk.
Total Impact:
(0.50*Cost Impact) (0.33*Schedule Impact) + (0.33*Performance Impact)
Risk Score:
Risk Probability * Total Impact

23. Contingency Assessment details
WBS
Description
Technical Risk
Weight
Cost Risk
Schedule Risk
Foreign Location
Sole Source
Cont.
06C.02.01
Commissioning Management
Level of effort
33%
06C.02.02
Commissioning Planning, Preparation, Tooling, & Simulations
06C
ComCam Development & Oversight
New design, development of new technology or processes that advances the state of the art
Design OR manufacturing
In-house estimate for item with minimal experience but related to existing capability
Material cost OR labor rate
No schedule impact on any other item
Domestic location
Multiple possible sources
24%
06C
Camera Summit Servicing Area Preparation
06C
Analysis Software and Procedure Simulation & Validation
06C
Special Tooling
06C.02.03
Early System AI&T
06C
ComCam Shipping, Receiving & Reverification
Delays completion of noncritical path subsystem item
Simple foreign location
29%
06C
Calibration System AI&T
06C
Camera Refrigeration Pathfinder AI&T
Delays completion of critical path subsystem item
Complex foreign location
40%
06C
ComCam - Telescope AI&T
06C
DMS + TCS/OCS + ComCam AI&T
06C.02.04
Full System AI&T
06C
Camera Shipping, Receiving & Reverification
06C
Camera-Telescope AI&T
06C
DMS+ TCS/OCS + Cam. Integration
06C.02.05
Science Verification
06C
Scheduler Driven mini-Surveys 1
06C
Scheduler Driven mini-Surveys 2
06C
Operations Readiness Review Preparations
06C
SV Data Handling and Processing