RSVP Review Closeout Comments November 5, 2004

1
RSVP ReviewCloseout CommentsNovember 5, 2004

• RSVP Review Committee
• R. Larsen, S. Ecklund, J. Seeman,
• A. Marchionni, E. Metral, G. McMichael, R.
  Pasquinelli

2

•   CHARGE TO
  THE COMMITTEE
•  
• 1 Review all elements of the proposed AGS
  Upgrade Construction Program for RSVP through
  presentations by the design team. Team should
  present
•  
•         essential aspects of the plan, including
  the proposed scope that has been verified with
  RSVP experimental teams
•         upgrade implementation plan, including
  resource loaded schedule
•         as clearly identified and separately
  costed, any non-RSVP elements of the proposed
  plan
•         technical, schedule and cost risks to
  the plan.
•  
• 2 Review the proposed Operations Plan for RSVP,
  including plan and resource-loaded schedule
  potential conflict with non-RSVP operations and
  vice-versa.
•  
• 3 Examine the management structure of the AGS
  Upgrade Program for RSVP, including line
  authorities in the Brookhaven Laboratory and RSVP
  management. Is there sufficient integration,
  interaction, communication, etc.? Are
  responsibilities clear?
•  
• 4 Explore with the design team possible
  reductions in scope, deferment, or future staging
  of elements of the proposed upgrade. Identify
  and characterize attendant risks and trade-offs
  associated with each of these changes. Explore
  all issues of joint concern to AGS, RSVP teams.
•  
• 5 Summarize findings and recommendations in
  final closeout report.

3
Presentations

• Team presentations
• Booster
• AGS
• Electrical
• Mechanical
• Switchyard
• KOPIO, MECO infrastructure
• Beam development
• Schedule Personnel
• Operations cost schedule
• Management Issues

• The Committee was pleased to see the level of
  work represented by the presentations, which were
  clear and well integrated.
• Most detailed planning cost work accomplished
  since July 2004.
• Some aspects of content need further development.

4

• 
  CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
•  
• 1 Review all elements of the proposed AGS
  Upgrade Construction Program for RSVP through
  presentations by the design team. Team should
  present
•  
•         essential aspects of the plan, including
  the proposed scope that has been verified with
  RSVP experimental teams
•         upgrade implementation plan, including
  resource loaded schedule
•         as clearly identified and separately
  costed, any non-RSVP elements of the proposed
  plan
•         technical, schedule and cost risks to
  the plan.
•  
• 2 Review the proposed Operations Plan for RSVP,
  including plan and resource-loaded schedule
  potential conflict with non-RSVP operations and
  vice-versa.
•  
• 3 Examine the management structure of the AGS
  Upgrade Program for RSVP, including line
  authorities in the Brookhaven Laboratory and RSVP
  management. Is there sufficient integration,
  interaction, communication, etc.? Are
  responsibilities clear?
•  
• 4 Explore with the design team possible
  reductions in scope, deferment, or future staging
  of elements of the proposed upgrade. Identify
  and characterize attendant risks and trade-offs
  associated with each of these changes. Explore
  all issues of joint concern to AGS, RSVP teams.
•  
• 5 Summarize findings and recommendations in
  final closeout report.

5
Implementation Plan Resource Loaded Schedules

• The implementation plan for Booster, AGS and
  Switchyard was well detailed.
• The plans for experimental beams and Beam
  Development have questions concerning the
  experimental interfaces and schedule.
• Some resource analysis was shown, but resource
  loaded schedules are not yet developed.

6

• CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
•  
• 1 Review all elements of the proposed AGS
  Upgrade Construction Program for RSVP through
  presentations by the design team. Team should
  present
•  
•         essential aspects of the plan, including
  the proposed scope that has been verified with
  RSVP experimental teams
•         upgrade implementation plan, including
  resource loaded schedule
•         as clearly identified and separately
  costed, any non-RSVP elements of the proposed
  plan
•         technical, schedule and cost risks to
  the plan.
•  
• 2 Review the proposed Operations Plan for RSVP,
  including plan and resource-loaded schedule
  potential conflict with non-RSVP operations and
  vice-versa.
•  
• 3 Examine the management structure of the AGS
  Upgrade Program for RSVP, including line
  authorities in the Brookhaven Laboratory and RSVP
  management. Is there sufficient integration,
  interaction, communication, etc.? Are
  responsibilities clear?
•  
• 4 Explore with the design team possible
  reductions in scope, deferment, or future staging
  of elements of the proposed upgrade. Identify
  and characterize attendant risks and trade-offs
  associated with each of these changes. Explore
  all issues of joint concern to AGS, RSVP teams.
•  
• 5 Summarize findings and recommendations in
  final closeout report.

7
Non-RSVP Elements

• These elements appear to have been identified and
  excluded appropriately.
• Manpower support for operations requires
  integration with the existing RHIC matrix, which
  will be augmented with levels of manpower
  appropriate to the incremental RSVP levels.

8

• CHARGE
  TO THE COMMITTEE
•  
• 1 Review all elements of the proposed AGS
  Upgrade Construction Program for RSVP through
  presentations by the design team. Team should
  present
•  
•         essential aspects of the plan, including
  the proposed scope that has been verified with
  RSVP experimental teams
•         upgrade implementation plan, including
  resource loaded schedule
•         as clearly identified and separately
  costed, any non-RSVP elements of the proposed
  plan
•         technical, schedule and cost risks to
  the plan.
•  
• 2 Review the proposed Operations Plan for RSVP,
  including plan and resource-loaded schedule
  potential conflict with non-RSVP operations and
  vice-versa.
•  
• 3 Examine the management structure of the AGS
  Upgrade Program for RSVP, including line
  authorities in the Brookhaven Laboratory and RSVP
  management. Is there sufficient integration,
  interaction, communication, etc.? Are
  responsibilities clear?
•  
• 4 Explore with the design team possible
  reductions in scope, deferment, or future staging
  of elements of the proposed upgrade. Identify
  and characterize attendant risks and trade-offs
  associated with each of these changes. Explore
  all issues of joint concern to AGS, RSVP teams.
•  
• 5 Summarize findings and recommendations in
  final closeout report.

9
Technical, Schedule Cost Risks

• The bulk of the Booster, AGS and Switchyard
  upgrades are low technical risk.
• Achieving higher levels of intensity and cleaner
  extinction between pulses through additional RF
  magnets are critical to the experiments these
  have been modeled but not been demonstrated and
  are higher technical risk.
• Changes in the experiments may pose additional
  technical risks beyond the control of the AGS
  team.

10
Schedule Risk

• The risks were discussed during various
  presentations.
• The schedule risks for the bulk of AGS upgrades
  appears to be mostly in ramping up to needed
  manpower levels and finding appropriate people
  for temporary work, esp. engineers.
• The start date of 2006 appears aggressive
  considering the unknowns of total project cost
  and funding.
• The Beam Development schedule is a draft and will
  be reexamined to attempt to reduce duration from
  five to three years.
• The overall schedule integrated with the
  experiments needs to be developed.
• The delivery of critical experimental components
  poses risks beyond the control of the AGS Upgrade
  team.

11
Cost Risk

• Cost risks were not presented as a separate
  analysis by the team, but in subsequent
  presentations.
• The contingency levels of most estimates averaged
  less than 25 which indicates high confidence
  factor.
• This is appropriate for most parts of the AGS
  complex since the upgrade includes few technical
  uncertainties.
• Uncertainties of experiments can pose serious
  risk
• KOPIO production angle, pit size
• MECO production solenoid, target etc.
• Overall cost growth in estimates is causing
  serious concern within the funding agency.

12
Cost Growth

• The cost estimate has grown since January 2004 by
  30M to a final total of 84M of which 32M is
  attributed to Beam Development.
• The latter is in reality Pre-Ops as opposed to
  construction and did not change since January.
• Therefore the construction segment appears to
  have more than doubled.
• Reasons
• Magnet/PS/controls upgrades to reduce risk to
  RHIC
• ESH requirements for caps over high-activation
  areas
• Growth in experimental beams costs
• Addition of Project Office

13

• CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
•  
• 1 Review all elements of the proposed AGS
  Upgrade Construction Program for RSVP through
  presentations by the design team. Team should
  present
•  
•         essential aspects of the plan, including
  the proposed scope that has been verified with
  RSVP experimental teams
•         upgrade implementation plan, including
  resource loaded schedule
•         as clearly identified and separately
  costed, any non-RSVP elements of the proposed
  plan
•         technical, schedule and cost risks to
  the plan.
•  
• 2 Review the proposed Operations Plan for RSVP,
  including plan and resource-loaded schedule
  potential conflict with non-RSVP operations and
  vice-versa.
•  
• 3 Examine the management structure of the AGS
  Upgrade Program for RSVP, including line
  authorities in the Brookhaven Laboratory and RSVP
  management. Is there sufficient integration,
  interaction, communication, etc.? Are
  responsibilities clear?
•  
• 4 Explore with the design team possible
  reductions in scope, deferment, or future staging
  of elements of the proposed upgrade. Identify
  and characterize attendant risks and trade-offs
  associated with each of these changes. Explore
  all issues of joint concern to AGS, RSVP teams.
•  
• 5 Summarize findings and recommendations in
  final closeout report.

14
Operations Plan, Resource-Loaded Schedule,
Conflicts

• The plan was presented along with an incremental
  total manpower analysis.
• The resources were averaged and not leveled in
  detail.
• Conflicts with RHIC requirements have to be
  worked out in detail.
• Concerns about difficulties of finding skilled
  people matrix management.
• Potential impacts on costs and schedules.

15

• CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
•  
• 1 Review all elements of the proposed AGS
  Upgrade Construction Program for RSVP through
  presentations by the design team. Team should
  present
•  
•         essential aspects of the plan, including
  the proposed scope that has been verified with
  RSVP experimental teams
•         upgrade implementation plan, including
  resource loaded schedule
•         as clearly identified and separately
  costed, any non-RSVP elements of the proposed
  plan
•         technical, schedule and cost risks to
  the plan.
•  
• 2 Review the proposed Operations Plan for RSVP,
  including plan and resource-loaded schedule
  potential conflict with non-RSVP operations and
  vice-versa.
•  
• 3 Examine the management structure of the AGS
  Upgrade Program for RSVP, including line
  authorities in the Brookhaven Laboratory and RSVP
  management. Is there sufficient integration,
  interaction, communication, etc.? Are
  responsibilities clear?
•  
• 4 Explore with the design team possible
  reductions in scope, deferment, or future staging
  of elements of the proposed upgrade. Identify
  and characterize attendant risks and trade-offs
  associated with each of these changes. Explore
  all issues of joint concern to AGS, RSVP teams.
•  
• 5 Summarize findings and recommendations in
  final closeout report.

16
Management Plans

• Integration, Communication major factors
• There is recent precedent at BNL for similar
  management issues, e.g. SNS and ATLAS.
• Lines of authority appear well understood though
  inherently complicated by dual lines of authority
  up the chain.
• Standing management meetings either exist already
  or will be set up alongside the current RHIC
  management structure.
• Operations will be well integrated with RHIC
  through liaisons, daily weekly meetings.

17

• CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
•  
• 1 Review all elements of the proposed AGS
  Upgrade Construction Program for RSVP through
  presentations by the design team. Team should
  present
•  
•         essential aspects of the plan, including
  the proposed scope that has been verified with
  RSVP experimental teams
•         upgrade implementation plan, including
  resource loaded schedule
•         as clearly identified and separately
  costed, any non-RSVP elements of the proposed
  plan
•         technical, schedule and cost risks to
  the plan.
•  
• 2 Review the proposed Operations Plan for RSVP,
  including plan and resource-loaded schedule
  potential conflict with non-RSVP operations and
  vice-versa.
•  
• 3 Examine the management structure of the AGS
  Upgrade Program for RSVP, including line
  authorities in the Brookhaven Laboratory and RSVP
  management. Is there sufficient integration,
  interaction, communication, etc.? Are
  responsibilities clear?
•  
• 4 Explore with the design team possible
  reductions in scope, deferment, or future staging
  of elements of the proposed upgrade. Identify
  and characterize attendant risks and trade-offs
  associated with each of these changes. Explore
  all issues of joint concern to AGS, RSVP teams.
•  
• 5 Summarize findings and recommendations in
  final closeout report.

18
Explore Reductions in Scope, etc.

• This was attempted throughout the meeting
• Delete one of the experiments Unacceptable.
  Experiments have been sold as a package.
• Defer AGS upgrades Bad strategy poses high risk
  to RHIC and would miss existing low activation
  window of opportunity in AGS.
• Reduce or eliminate Beam Development program
  Possible cost reduction of 14M without much
  compromise to program, if any, appears feasible.
  Team will investigate.
• Additional cost reductions should be sought
  through scrubbing technical component design
  and costs, labor costs, system design
  improvements in both AGS and experiments.

19
Recommendations

• Continue refining estimates with Lehman-like
  documentation (resource loaded leveled
  schedules, cost books etc.) for future review.
• Schedule future cost scrubbing reviews of both
  AGS and experimental programs.
• Continue aggressive cost-reduction plan, such as
  design improvements to replacement components,
  reducing/eliminating Beam Development program,
  beam operations manpower levels etc
• Continue identifying, mitigating technical,
  schedule and cost risks.

20
Conclusion

• The Committee is very pleased that a large effort
  over the past four months has shown impressive
  progress and dividends in the planning process.
• We look forward to seeing continued progress in
  planning and development, and ultimate success in
  securing full funding and staffing.
• Thanks to all the presenters for their diligent
  efforts in helping meet our Charge.
• Keep up the good work!