1. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory May 8, 2012 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

2. 2 DOE Review of NO A DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, May 8, 2012—Wilson Hall, The Comitium 7:30 a.m.DOE Executive SessionD. Lehman 7:35 a.m.SC PerspectiveT. Lavine 7:45 a.m.Site Office PerspectiveP. Carolan 7:55 a.m.Questions/DiscussionD. Lehman 8:00 a.m.Adjourn Project and review information is available at: http://www-nova.fnal.gov/reviews_summer_2012/doe_rev_may_8.html username: review password: rev06 OFFICE OF SCIENCE

3. Review Committee Participants OFFICE OF SCIENCE Department of EnergyReview Committee Daniel R. Lehman, DOE, ChairpersonSubcommittee 1: Accelerator and Beamlines *Pat den Hartog Subcommittee 2: Detector * Bill Wisniewski, SLAC Subcommittee 3: Electronics *Peter Denes, LBNL Subcommittee 4: Cost and Schedule Observers*Ethan Merrill, DOE/SC Ted Lavine, DOE/SCRichard Elliott, DOE/OECM Eli Rosenberg, DOE/SC Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSOSubcommittee 5: Management Brian Huizenga, OECM*Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC * Lead 3

4. 4 DOE Organizational Chart OFFICE OF SCIENCE

5. 5 SC Organizational Chart OFFICE OF SCIENCE Office of Science Chicago Office Roxanne Purucker Office of the Director (SC-1) William F. Brinkman Advanced Scientific Comp. Research (SC-21) Daniel Hitchcock Workforce Development for Teachers/ Scientists (SC-27) P. Dehmer (A) Basic Energy Sciences (SC-22) Harriet Kung Fusion Energy Sciences (SC-24) Edmund Synakowski High Energy Physics (SC-25) James Siegrist Biological & Environ. Research (SC-23) Sharlene Weatherwax Nuclear Physics (SC-26) Timothy Hallman (A) Acting 2/2012 Deputy Director for Science Programs (SC-2) Patricia Dehmer Deputy Director for Resource Management (SC- 4) Jeffrey Salmon Deputy Director for Field Operations (SC-3) Joseph McBrearty Office of Project Assessment (SC-28) Daniel Lehman Office of Budget (SC-41) Kathleen Klausing Office of Scientific and Tech. Info. (SC-44) Walt Warnick Office of SC Program Direction (SC-46) Rebecca Kelley Office of Grants/ Cont. Support (SC-43) Linda Shariati Office of Business Policy & Ops (SC-45) V. Kountouris SC Communications & Public Affairs (SC-4) Dolline Hatchett Ames SO Cynthia Baebler Thomas Jeff. SO Joe Arango Stanford SO Paul Golan Pacific NWest SO Roger Snyder Princeton SO Maria Dikeakos Oak Ridge SO Johnny Moore Fermi SO Michael Weis Brookhaven SO Michael Holland Berkeley SO Aundra Richards Argonne SO Joanna Livengood SC Integrated Support Center Office of Lab Policy & Evaluat. (SC-32) D. Streit Office of Safety, Security & Infra. (SC-31) M. Jones Human Resources & Admin. (SC-45.3) Cynthia Mays Small Business Innovation Research (SC-29) Manny Oliver Oak Ridge Office J. Eschenberg (A)

6. 6 Charge Questions 1.Technical: Are the accomplishments to-date and remaining activities as planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? 2.Baseline Cost and Schedule: Is project's plan and performance consistent with the approved baseline? Are remaining costs and schedule contingency adequate for the risks? 3.Management: Are the management resources adequate to deliver the project within specifications, budget and schedule, including management and mitigation of remaining technical, cost and schedule risks? 4.Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? OFFICE OF SCIENCE

7. 7 Draft Agenda OFFICE OF SCIENCE Tuesday, May 8, 2012—Fermilab, Wilson Hall, The Comitium 7:30 amDOE Executive SessionD. Lehman 8:00 amWelcomeP. Oddone 8:05 amProject Summary AssessmentJ. Cooper Technical Status Cost, Schedule, EVM and Milestone Performance Contingency Assessment Response to Recommendations from Previous Review 9:15 a.m.Break 9:30 amAccelerator and NuMI UpgradesP. Derwent FY2012 Shutdown—Status of installation readiness, plan and progress 10:30 amDetector Module ProductionK. Heller 10:50 amFar Detector Assembly Status & ScheduleP. Lukens 11:10 am Detector Electronics/DAQL. Mualem APD/Other Electronics/DAQ issues, status and plans 11:40 amFar Detector Outfitting Status & ScheduleR. Tesarek 12:00 pmLunch 12:30 pmDOE Executive Session, Close-Out preparationD. Lehman 2:00 pm Closeout 3:00 pmAdjourn

8. 8 Report Outline/Writing Assignments OFFICE OF SCIENCE Executive SummaryFisher 1.IntroductionLavine 2.Technical (Charge Questions 1, 4) 2.1Accelerator and Beamlinesden Hartog*/SC1 2.1.1Findings 2.1.2Comments 2.1.3Recommendations 2.2DetectorWisniewski*/SC2 2.3ElectronicsDenes*/SC3 3.Cost and Schedule (Charge Questions 2, 4) Merrill*/SC4 4.Management (Charge Questions 3, 4) Fisher*/SC5

9. Closeout Presentation and Final Report Procedures OFFICE OF SCIENCE 9

10. Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OF SCIENCE (Use PowerPoint / No Smaller than 18 pt Font) 2.1Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. List Review Subcommittee Members List Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers 2.1.1Findings In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. 2.1.2Comments In bullet form, list descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. 2.1.3Recommendations 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2. 10

11. Format: Final Report OFFICE OF SCIENCE (Use MS Word / 12pt Font) 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. 2.1.1Findings Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions. 2.1.2Comments Descriptive material assessing the findings and the conclusions based on the findings. This is narrative material and is often omitted as a separate heading and the narrative included either under Findings or Recommendations as appropriate. This heading carries more emphasis than the Findings, but does not require an action as do the Recommendations. Do not number your comments. 2.1.3Recommendations 1. Begin with action verb and identify a due date. 2. 3. 11

12. Expectations  Present closeout reports in PowerPoint.  Forward your sections for each review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, casey.clark@science.doe.gov, casey.clark@science.doe.gov by May 14, 8:00 a.m. (EDT). OFFICE OF SCIENCE 12

13. OFFICE OF SCIENCE Closeout Report on the Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory May 8, 2012 Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

14. 2.1 Accelerator and Beamlines den Hartog, ANL OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1.Technical: Are the accomplishments to-date and remaining activities as planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? 4.Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations 14

15. 2.2 Detector Wisniewski, SLAC OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1.Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? 4.Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations 15

16. 2.3 Electronics Denes, LBNL OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1.Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? 4.Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations 16

17. 3. Cost and Schedule Merrill, DOE/SC/Elliott, DOE/OECM 2.Baseline Cost and Schedule: Is project's plan and performance consistent with the approved baseline? Are remaining costs and schedule contingency adequate for the risks? 4.Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations OFFICE OF SCIENCE 17

18. Project Status Merrill, DOE/SC/Elliott, DOE/OECM OFFICE OF SCIENCE PROJECT STATUS Project TypeMIE / Line Item / Cooperative Agreement CD-1Planned:Actual: CD-2Planned:Actual: CD-3Planned:Actual: CD-4Planned:Actual: TPC Percent CompletePlanned: _____%Actual: _____% TPC Cost to Date TPC Committed to Date TPC TEC Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve)$_____% to go Contingency Schedule on CD-4b______months_____% CPI Cumulative SPI Cumulative 18

19. 4. Management *Fisher, DOE/SC OFFICE OF SCIENCE 3.Management: Are the management resources adequate to deliver the project within specifications, budget and schedule, including management and mitigation of remaining technical, cost and schedule risks? 4.Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations 19