Simplify Your Life : Overcoming Closeout Anxiety OVPR Closeout Training April 25, 2006.
Closeout Report on the DOE/SC Status Review of the...review to eliminate issues with LFD in the...
Transcript of Closeout Report on the DOE/SC Status Review of the...review to eliminate issues with LFD in the...
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
1
Closeout Report on the
DOE/SC Status Review of the
Proton Improvement Plan (PIP-II)
Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryDecember 4-6, 2018
Kurt Fisher
Committee Chair
Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/
OFFICE OF
SCIENCEReview Committee
Participants
2
Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC, Chairperson
SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4
Accelerator Upgrades,
Accelerator Systems Linac and I&C SRF and Cryogenics Conventional Facilities
* Ali Nassiri, ANL * Thomas Roser, BNL * Matt Howell, ORNL * Brad Bull, MSU
Chris Adolphsen, SLAC Peter Ostroumov, MSU Brian DeGraff, ORNL Gary Bloom, ORNL
Matthew Bickley, TJNAF Marion White, ANL Ting Xu, MSU
Charles Reece, TJNAF
SC5 SC6 SC7
Env, Safety and Health Cost and Schedule Project Management
* Dave Rodgers, LBNL * Ethan Merrill, DOE/OPA * Mark Reichanadter, SLAC
Andrew Ackerman, BNL Frank Gines, DOE/ASO Greg Hays, SLAC
Lanson Oukrop, PNNL Joe Ingraffia, retired ANL
Robbie Leftwich-Vann, LBNL
Steve Meador, DOE/OPA
Observers LEGEND
Mike Procario, DOE/HEP SC Subcommittee
Ted Lavine, DOE/HEP * Chairperson
Mike Harrison, DOE/HEP [ ] Part-time Subcom. Member
Adam Bihary, DOE/FSO
Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO Count: 23 (excluding observers)
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
3
Charge Questions
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that the completed project will
perform as planned and meet the key performance parameters?
2. Will execution of PIP-II design plans and planned R&D program activities ensure most major
technical risks will be appropriately mitigated or retired prior to CD-3?
3. Has the project made adequate progress on its resource-loaded schedule to complete it by the
time of CD-2?
4. Are preparations for defining, documenting, and managing the international in-kind
contributions suitable to ensure their timely delivery and technical fidelity?
5. Is the proposed CD-2 timeline reasonable and consistent with the current project status?
6. Is ESH&Q being handled appropriately?
7. Are the proposed risk mitigation strategies reasonable and are the proposed contingencies
acceptable?
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous reviews?
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s attention?
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
4
2.1 Accelerator Systems
C. Adolphsen (SLAC), M. Bickley (TJNAF)
and A. Nassiri (ANL) Subcommittee 1
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that the
completed project will perform as planned and meet the key
performance parameters? Good progress has been made on the technical
front since CD-1. However the TRS’s are not adequately supported by
physics specification documents. In the near term, the project should
focus more on shoring up the design for CD-2 than production level
activities for post CD-2.
2. Will execution of PIP-II design plans and planned R&D program
activities ensure most major technical risks will be appropriately
mitigated or retired prior to CD-3? Yes.
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from
previous reviews? The team has addressed some and others are to be
done by CD-2.
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s
attention? DOE should review the appropriateness of the KPPs in light
of other improvement programs that are aimed at increasing the MI
beam power.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
5
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
Findings
• The PIP-II 800 MeV, SC linac in combination with the Booster, RR
and MI is to provide 1.2 MW of proton beam power before the start
of DUNE.
• The linac is also being built to support future CW beam operation
for multi-MW, few-GeV physics programs.
• CW RF operation with pulsed beams was suggested at the last
review to eliminate issues with LFD in the narrow-band SC cavities
– it is now the baseline design.
• The PIP-II linac utilizes both room-temperature and
superconducting technology – there are three classes of SC cavities:
HWR, SSR and Elliptical.
• An arrangement of four beam scrapers will be used in SRF linac to
eliminate transverse beam tails beyond ±3σ. The longitudinal beam
phase space is well within the Booster acceptance.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
6
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
Findings
• The H- ion source is capable of producing up to 15 mA of beam
current.
• Beam tracking studies were performed from the exit of the RFQ to
the end of SRF linac.o A 6D Gaussian distribution of 1M macro particles was simulated,
corresponding to bunch current of 5mA.
o 3D space charge forces were included.
• Synchronous phases in the cavities along the linac are kept
sufficiently large to accommodate a 6σ longitudinal phase space
variation.
• The final normalized RMS transverse emittance is below 0.25 mm
mrad.
• The MEBT absorber is capable of handling 21 kW of beam power.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
7
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
Findings
• Fermilab will provide circulators, RF distribution systems, controls
and interlocks for all linac systems.
• Fermilab is providing RF amplifiers for the warm cavities (6) and
HWRs (8).
• India will provide amplifiers for SSR1 (16), SSR2 (35), LB650 (33)
and HB650 (24).
• A working prototype 3 kW, 325 MHz amplifier from India has been
sent to FNAL for evaluation.
• A prototype 7kW, 325 MHz amplifier has been completed and an
order has been placed with a vendor (ECIL) for 9 production units.
• India will build prototypes and ECIL will ‘industrialize’ the design
using standard production techniques.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
8
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
Findings
• Circulators and waveguides are specified to handle four times the
power capability of the amplifiers. All circulators are tested CW
with full reflection at the rated power levels of the amplifiers.
• Preliminary designs of the magnets are proceeding based on the
beam physics requirements as outlined in the CDR.
• India will provide forty-four quadrupole magnets and twenty x-y
correctors magnets - prototypes are expected in Jan 2020.
• The LLRF system for each cavity is designed to provide rms
amplitude stability of 0.01% and rms phase stability of 0.01°.• The LLRF post down-mix modules are the same for all frequencies
and are housed in racks that independently regulate four cavities.
• The Controls Group is evaluating the use of EPICS versus
upgrading ACNET.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
9
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
Comments
• The accelerator team to be congratulated for its substantial progress
since CD-1.
• The team is highly experienced, competent and fully committed to
PIP-II Project.
• The LLRF Group has done well in leveraging its experience from
its work in developing the LCLS-II LLRF system.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
10
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
Comments
• The linac beam optics evaluation is fairly mature and simulations
will be expanded to include various beam loss scenarios and
magnet misalignment errors.
• There is a concern as to whether upgrading the global control
system will be complete by the start of the beam commissioning.
• The linac has hundreds of single-point failure sources that will
shutoff the beam so component reliability needs to be very high.
• Long term testing of the SSAs should be done as much as possible
to identify failure modes before full production begins.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
11
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
Comments
• We fully support and encourage using the PIP-II designed LLRF
systems for HWR and SSR1 tests at PIP2IT.
• It is imperative that the PIP-II staff have full access to all in-kind
design and fabrication documents, test results and vendor
inspections.
• We encourage further development of resonance control techniques
and laser profile monitor.
• A presentation should be made at the next DOE Review
summarizing how and when supporting R&D will address
remaining risks (e.g., microphonics and component reliability).
• The Project team should identify which tasks are R&D that reduce
CD-2 risks, and which tasks are pre-production aimed at reducing
CD-3 risks.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
12
2.1 Accelerator Systems
A. Nassiri, ANL / Subcommittee 1
Recommendations
1. Start immediately to better document physics-driven requirements
for the various sub-systems, consistent with the PDR – to be
evaluated for each sub-system before the CD-2 IPR.
2. Prior to the CD-2 IPR:
• Complete an overall availability assessment of the accelerator
sub-systems and include the results in the appropriate
requirement and specification documents.
• Complete linac beam tracking simulations including realistic
errors.
• Validate linac beam optics at PIP2IT as much as possible.
• Complete the 325 MHz, 7 kW amplifier evaluation.
• Finalize the controls modernization path.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
13
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Subcommittee members:
Peter Ostroumov (MSU), Thomas Roser (BNL), Marion White (ANL)
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that the completed project
will perform as planned and meet the key performance parameters? The scope for the
Objective KPPs is well defined and technical progress towards meeting the
Objective KPPs is adequate. The performance of the completed project (1.2MW
beam power on neutrino production target) and the full scope to achieve it,
however, is not as well defined. Achieving this level of performance also requires
additional accelerator upgrades planned for the 900-kW NuMI upgrade.
2. Will execution of PIP-II design plans and planned R&D program activities ensure
most major technical risks will be appropriately mitigated or retired prior to CD-
3? Yes.
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous
reviews? Generally yes. The recommendation from the CD-1 review “Review
Intensity Limits in Booster, Recycler and Main Injector before CD2.” was not fully
addressed.
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s attention? No
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
14
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Findings
● The PIP2IT commissioning was very productive and resulted in:
○ Successful delivery of beam to the dump at nominal parameters (5 mA,
0.55 ms, 20 Hz) with low losses and all aperture restrictions
○ Characterization of transverse and longitudinal beam parameters
○ Demonstration of bunch-to-bunch chopping
○ Reliable CW operation of the RFQ
○ Successful operation of beam optics devices developed and built in India
● Currently, the PIP2IT is being prepared for the acceleration of 25-MeV H-minus
beam at design parameters (2 mA, 20 Hz, 550 msec) through the HWR and SSR
cryomodules.
● Overall the planning for the Linac installation and commissioning is progressing
well.
● Lessons from PIP2IT installation are taken into account and provide valuable
guidance and training for the installation of PIP-II.
● Installation concepts are evolving in parallel with facility and system design,
commissioning planning, and Resource Loaded Schedule development
● Beam commissioning at PIP-II is foreseen to occur in parallel with installation
activities in 6 stages
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
15
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Findings
● Design work under the installation WBS is focused on cryomodule tunnel
transport system, warm unit structures and requirements for interface definition.
● 3D CAD modeling efforts and mechanical design tasks have been initiated and are
proceeding well.
● Building infrastructure scope deals with the design and purchase of materials to
extend utilities further into the building and interface with machine
infrastructure.
● Planning and developing layouts of utilities, racks, cables, and cable trays for the
LINAC Complex, PIP-II Utility Building (PUB), and Beam Transfer Line (BTL)
are underway.
● Team in place to advance designs of mechanical system, electrical system, interior
layouts, and cable database.
● The Test Infrastructure is at an advanced stage of the design with the fabrication
and installation of the infrastructure for these facilities already in progress. The
future conversion of PIP2IT into a cryomodule test stand for 650 MHz and
SSR1/SSR2 cryomodules, and the construction of the HTS-2 facility are at a
conceptual stage of design maturity.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
16
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Findings
● The upgrade of the Accelerator complex consists of the 800 MeV Booster injection
system, the upgrade of the Booster repetition rate to 20 Hz, an upgrade of the
Recycler cavities and a power upgrade of the Main Injector rf system.
● The charge exchange injection girder includes a pulsed four-bump (ORBUMP)
and a dedicated absorber for the unstripped and neutralized Hminus.
● The neighboring combined function defocusing magnets will be replaced with
shorter magnets with larger aperture.
● Design for the injection area has started with a PDR scheduled for April 2019.
● Little activity on the Booster repetition rate upgrade since last IPR. The main
issues for the upgrade are understood.
● The Recycler scope includes removing the current Recycler 53 MHz RF stations
and replacing them with new ones.
● The MI Upgrade scope includes delivery of 20 upgraded MI RF stations together
with their corresponding modulators and solid state drivers. A preliminary design
review is foreseen for 6/19.
● This scope is necessary to achieve the objective KPP of circulating beam in the
booster.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
17
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Findings
● Studies of the cavity with two power amplifiers look promising; plans are to
continue test stand studies and eventually beam studies if all goes according to
plan.
● These studies, if successful, will help retire the risk that the 2-amplifier solution
may not work
● Scope of the transfer line and absorber WBS includes defining and maintaining
the Lattice of the Beam Transfer Line and the Beam Absorber Line, specifying
Beam Line components, and design, procurement, fabrication, and testing of
Beam Transfer Line collimators and beam dumps. A 5-kW beam dump in line
with the Linac and the main 50-kW beam dump in the Beam Absorber line are
also included.
● There are no risks associated with transfer line or absorber in the register.
● No schedule or cost information was presented to the subcommittee.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
18
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Comments
● For the limited scope to reach the Objective KPPs the preparation for CD-2 is
making good progress.
● The final goal of the PIP-II project is to enable the delivery of 1.2 MW beam to the
neutrino target by the time LBNF starts operation.
● Additional accelerator upgrade projects are needed to reach 1.2 MW beam power
on target. These upgrades are also needed to reach 900 kW beam power on target
for NuMI. The completion of these additional upgrades should be tracked as they
are critical for the PIP-II project success.
● An overall project parameter optimization could be useful. As an example the
performance of the booster could substantially benefit from a shorter injection
time. It might be possible to operate the linac at higher peak current to shorten the
injection time into the Booster.
● The Objective KPP on the delivery of the number of particles per pulse should
also include pulse length.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
19
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Comments
● The warm front-end test stand successfully demonstrated required rf and beam
performance, assembly, integration, installation, and commissioning of the
complex front end.
● The CW beam development at the front end was stopped. Continuation of this
effort would be beneficial.
● The PIP2IT is using the FNAL-style control system and development of additional
software is expected with the installation of HWR and SSR cryomodules. The
project should make a decision on the PIP-II control system as soon as possible to
avoid substantial re-work effort if the EPICS toolkit will be adopted.
● The project should update the present plan for needed Booster modifications to
cope with the higher intensity and repetition rate required by PIP-II. This effort
should be based on detailed simulations and analysis of beam losses in the Booster.
The simulations should be benchmarked with presently observed beam losses
during Booster operation.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
20
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Comments
● A detailed beam commissioning plan is being developed based on the experience of
other similar facilities such as SNS. Currently, the commissioning team envisions 6
stages of beam commissioning, which will occur in parallel with installation
activities. It is encouraged to plan external ARRs prior to each of the six stages of
the beam commissioning to fully address safety requirements, hardware readiness
and efficiency of the commissioning.
● The project should be commended on the development of the extensive test
infrastructure, which includes the warm front end, beam test of two types of
cryomodules. The same facility will be modified for the testing of the production
cryomodules. This is efficient use of personnel that gained experience with testing
of LCLS II cryomodules.
● The project should be commended for laying out the Linac and the building
infrastructure using 3D CAD software. This work should continue.
● The Linac lattice needs to be finalized as soon as possible since many design
details depend on it.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
21
2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Comments
● There should be a full simulation of the charge exchange injection process to
optimize the design before the component specifications are finalized.
● First tests of the second rf power amplifier connected to a MI cavity are very
promising. The Committee supports the plan to install the 2 PA cavity in the MI
and test with beam.
● The design of the BTL and absorbers seems to be well advanced for this stage of
the project.
● A resource allocation plan will be needed to ensure that PIP-II, LBNF beam line,
NuMI upgrades and facility operation can proceed in parallel.
● The Committee supports the project’s plan to use the removable foil changing
device that is in operation at SNS.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE2.2 Accelerator Upgrades,
Linac and I&C
T. Roser, BNL / Subcommittee 2
Recommendations
1. Update the plan for needed Booster modifications to cope with the higher
intensity and repetition rate based on a detailed analysis of beam losses in the
Booster, benchmarked with present beam losses, and present the plan at the
next IPR.
2. Ensure that all the additional accelerator upgrades needed for 1.2 MW beam
power on the neutrino production target are completed before the start of
LBNF operation.
3. Perform an overall project parameter optimization before CD-2.
22
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
23
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Subcommittee Members:
Charles Reece (TJNAF), Ting Xu (FRIB/MSU) & Brian DeGraff (ORNL)
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that the completed
project will perform as planned and meet the key performance parameters?
Yes, with the current proposed KPPs.
2. Will execution of PIP-II design plans and planned R&D program activities
ensure most major technical risks will be appropriately mitigated or retired
prior to CD-3? Yes, however the SSR2 and LB650 prototype cryomodules will
be tested two years after CD-3. Three shipping tests will also occur after CD-3.
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous
reviews? Yes, but some recommendations are yet to be closed.
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s attention?
Resource requirements to achieve CD-2/3a by Q3 2019 are much higher than
the current allocated resource level.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
24
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Findings
• Changes since last review:
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
25
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Findings
• The SSR2 cryomodules are on the critical path. However, the LB650 and HB650
cryomodules are close to critical path.
• The project has made it a priority to accelerate the cryo plant and SRF development
schedules.
• There are four prototype cryomodules added to this project. Installation of the prototype
cryomodules in the linac is not part of the baseline plan but it is not eliminated as a
possibility.
• Cryomodules coming from India are supplied as kits. These kits are assembled at
FNAL.
• FNAL will supply the niobium specification to the partner institutes.
• It is not known whether Indian laboratories will build the SSR1 cavities or if the cavities
will be procured from an industrial vendor.
• Repair and rework costs for the cryomodules during production period are not part of the
base cost estimate. Any repairs would be paid for using contingency.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
26
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Findings
• New project team has been in place after CD-1. Project annex with INFN, Italy has
been signed 12/2018. New project organization tailored to address communication and
coordination of international partners. In-kind contribution scope is still varying in the
SRF scope.
• Cavity resonance control is considered a medium technical risk and extensive
test/development work is foreseen as part of each prototype cryomodule testing.
• HWR cryomodule from ANL is scheduled for delivery 3QFY19 and testing in PIP2IT
4QFY19. HWR module shipping vendor engaged with FNAL/ANL to develop and
evaluate shipping plan, preliminary Transport Readiness Review held, 14 August 2018.
• Cryogenic Distribution System (CDS) ICD are well developed.
• HB CM design is at an early stage. PDR scheduled for 2019.
• HB650 cavity treatment for robust Q & gradient R&D is underway.
• LB650 cavity RF design has been frozen, mechanical designs being refined. LB650 will
be partially tested at partner labs. All cryomodules will be cold tested in the test bunker
before installing into tunnel
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
27
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Findings
• An integrated design team for the 650 CMs has been formed. Two different supporting
structures have been proposed and analyzed for transportation loads. Three international
shipping tests of 650 MHz cryomodules have been added as lesson learned from LCLS
II project. The first test is planned FY2022.
• The current cryogenics plant design does not account for upgrades to the SCL. The
threshold KPP is 600 MeV instead of 700MeV reported at CD-1 review.
• The cryogenic plant is designed to operate the linac at 2K and provide sufficient cooling
at either pulsed or continuous wave operation.
• There is no LN2 precooling in the cold box
• Impact of insufficient heat load capacity from the single plant is to add a small (~$3M
4.5K liquefaction plant)
• Spare compressor and spare recovery compressor are not part of the vendor contract.
• Cryoplant delivery is planned for Q3 of 2021.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
28
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Findings
• Cryoplant vendor is required to provide all necessary hardware to validate the capacities
of the box at all temperature levels, including 2K.
• Recovery compressor will be a Mycomm compressor and will not have backup power.
The recovery compressor will serve as the main compressor in the event of a need for a
supplemental 4.5K cold box. In the event of a power outage, helium is vented.
• The change from a primary pulsed machine to a primary CW machine has changed the
needed cryogenic plant capacity with appropriate margins. At CD-1 the requested plant
capacity given to vendors was 2 kW at 2K. The new required 2K capacity is about 2.2
kW. This has yet to be communicated to the cryoplant vendors. It is hoped that after the
Indian plant is ordered, that the PIP-II plant can have some design modifications to
increase the 2K capacity by about 200 W.
• SSR2 cavity design is on-going and PDR is planned Mar 2019. No progress on SSR2
cryomodule design is reported this time.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
29
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Comments
• It is estimated that it will require 45 FTEs to advance the SRF/Cryo design to CD-2/3a
maturity by June 2019. Currently, approximately 30 FTEs are working on this scope.
Manpower requirements must be managed and integrated with competing projects.
• The provision of four prototype cryomodules early enough to provide feedback for
refinement of production is to be commended as this will significantly retire technical
risk, including possible microphonic resonance control issues. However, two prototype
cryomodules are completed approximately two years after CD-3. The resource and cost
impact should be carefully evaluated.
• Installed cryomodule performance is vulnerable to particulate contamination residual
from all processing, assembly, installation, and maintenance activities, and from
migration within beamline vacuum. Common QA standards for “particle free” assurance
are indicated for all cryomodule preparation, assembly, installation, and maintenance
activities, as well as all other linac beamline elements.
• Provisions have been made for a spare compressor and recovery compressor, however
they are not in the current project baseline scope. Meeting the availability requirements
without these spare compressors will be challenging.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
30
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Comments
• The recommendation from CD-1 to “Define operational gradient margin and
cryomodule maintenance strategy to meet the performance specification of 90%
reliability with only 8 weeks of maintenance per year by CD-2” is ongoing.
• The newly installed PIP-II SRF staff have little prior project experience. Active
management of the complex set of documentation required to attain CD-2 will be
difficult, especially in view of the network of partners/suppliers. Organizational links
with partners are setup. In some cases, partners are more experienced than FNAL staff.
The high communication overhead needs to be reflected in labor allocation plans.
• Including bayonet cans for the two upgrade cryomodule slots in CDS baseline scope
would facilitate future upgrades to increase beam energy for negligible cost and
schedule impact.
• If the beam energy KPP is not met, rebuilding existing cryomodules or adding additional
cryomodules in the upgrade cryomodule slots could be done to increase beam energy.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
31
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Comments
• With international partners and procurement of the cryo plant advancing, integrating the
instrument and controls into the FNAL controls architecture may be an issue.
• The level 3 managers were not able to quickly answer resource requirements questions
to get to where they are going by CD-2/3a. Some of this is because there have been
many recent changes to the project team. This is a concern.
• International scope is not in the EVMS system. A system to track the progress of
international partner scope will be beneficial to the project.
• The cryoplant and CDS are relying on matrixed personnel to meet the required design
level before CD2. Adding staffing is most likely needed.
• No cost and RLS has been presented to the committee. Additional external review for
the cost and schedule will help vet the resources required before CD2/3a.
• Partner laboratory Intellectual Property barriers prevented the committee from seeing the
technical requirements specification for the cryogenic plant. This prevented the
committee from being able to completely assess technical details.
• Expectation is this documentation would be available to the committee by CD-2/3a
review
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
32
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Comments
• The shipping test for the LB650 occurs late in the current schedule. A detail schedule
should be created and reviewed to verify that time is still available to correct any
problems this test reveals.
• Cryo plant and cryo plant building infrastructure requirements and interfaces shall be
fully detailed before CD3a.
• To work towards the same CAD software for the integrated design team is a good
approach and will significantly reduce the risk to have design and fabrication issues due
to file translation and facilitate the ECO process.
• All four types of cryomodules production are planned to be in parallel and finish very
close to each other. Additional float has been built into the schedule due to the concern
of lack of the experience of some partner labs. The committee encourages the project
team to provide support to partner labs in certain areas.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
33
2.3 SRF and Cryogenics
M. Howell, ORNL / Subcommittee 3
Recommendations
1. Reconcile the schedule and the required experienced resources of the SRF/Cryo team to
advance the design to the PDR level by CD-2/3a.
2. Develop a comprehensive particulate contamination management plan that ensures
consistent specifications, procedures, and QA for cavity preparation, string assembly,
CM assembly, CM testing, installation, operation and maintenance across all systems
that include linac beamline vacuum elements by CD-2/3a.
3. Conduct a design failure mode analysis of the cryo plant including the “in-kind”
contribution and the FNAL contribution to ensure the plant meets the reliability and
availability requirements of the project prior to CD-2/3a.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
34
3. Conventional Facilities
B. Bull, MSU and Gary Bloom ORNL
Subcommittee 4
1. Is the project making adequate technical progress to ensure that
the completed project will perform as planned and meet the key
performance parameters? Yes, but the underground utility routing
for the cryoplant needs to be expedited so they can be included in
60% design documents
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations
from previous reviews? Yes
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s
attention? No
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
Findings
• A total of 8 recommendations have been satisfactorily addressed from the previous
reviews and the recommendations have been closed.
• Cryoplant construction is scheduled for completion in 2 quarter of FY2021
• Bids for the Site Preparation package have been received
• Conceptual Design Complete for Utility Plant Building (WBS 121.06.04), Linac
Complex (WBS 121.06.05), Booster Connection (WBS 121.06.06)
• Construction delivery method is planned to be firm fixed price contracts
• Currently there are 0 High Risks, 15 Medium Risks and 31 Low Risks for CF
• Cost Estimates are updated at 60% and 90% design stage
• A/E responsible for estimating the construction costs but has in turn retained a
national construction manager to provide this service
• Level 2 manager has extensive experience at the laboratory
• Utilizing Fermilab guidance for escalation with a base rate of 3.4% but the difference
between the base rate and actual rate is carried at the project level as a risk
35
3. Conventional Facilities
B. Bull, MSU and Gary Bloom ORNL
Subcommittee 4
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
Findings
• A total of 8 recommendations have been satisfactorily addressed from the previous
reviews and the recommendations have been closed.
36
3. Conventional Facilities
B. Bull, MSU and Gary Bloom ORNL
Subcommittee 4
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
Comments
• The late validation of building requirements from the cryoplant vendor could cause
significant design and construction changes to a firm fixed price construction
contract. Consider delaying bidding or at least finalizing the construction contract
until the building requirements are validated.
• The project should continue to evaluate and update the cost estimates, and technical
requirements.
• Consider developing a list of technical construction activities that would typically be
completed by construction trades to evaluate whether some should be included in
the CF bid packages.
• Using an IDIQ like type of contract for A/E design services allowing the release of
work by task order is a good practice for the phased construction anticipated
• Consider carrying the escalation difference between project escalation rate and
annual construction forecast escalation rate in the base construction package
estimate.
37
3. Conventional Facilities
B. Bull, MSU and Gary Bloom ORNL
Subcommittee 4
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
Comments
• The risk Cost Impact and/or Schedule Impact for some of the conventional facilities
risks appears to be low. Consider reviewing the cost and schedule Impact level for
the CF risks.
• Consider developing a commissioning plan that accounts for the installation of the
technical equipment after substantial completion of the CF work and before the CF
equipment will see loads.
• Consider completing a construction market analysis to determine if there are any
advantages to awarding to a construction manager or general contractor that could
also deliver the balance of the project by task order .
• Advancing site clearing to avoid environmental impact issues is commendable.
38
3. Conventional Facilities
B. Bull, MSU and Gary Bloom ORNL
Subcommittee 4
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
Recommendations
• The project should detail routing of all final connections from CF systems to technical
equipment but at a minimum for all underground or concealed routes prior to 60%
design completion for each package
• Interfaces between CF and technical groups need to be fully defined, including
installation responsibility, stay clear zones and treaty points prior to 60% design
completion for each package
• CF group should add additional dedicated staff that reports up through the project
prior to releasing cryoplant building for bidding
39
3. Conventional Facilities
B. Bull, MSU and Gary Bloom ORNL
Subcommittee 4
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
Subcommittee members:
Dave Rodgers (LBNL); Andrew Ackerman (BNL)
6. Is ESH&Q being handled appropriately?
Yes. EHS&Q is well integrated into the project.
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from
previous reviews?
All recommendations have not been completed but are on track for
completion by 3/31/2019.
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s
attention?
No.
40
4. Environment, Safety and Health
D. Rodgers, LBNL / Subcommittee 5
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
41
4. Environment, Safety and Health
D. Rodgers, LBNL / Subcommittee 5
Findings
• CD-1 recommendations are either done or on track to be completed
prior to CD-2:
o Prepare the CD-1 required Environmental Compliance Strategy
consistent with existing programs and documentation. Complete
Posted v2 1/17/18, Schedule to be added when EA complete.
o Continue NEPA process/strategy as briefed, and complete in
accordance with a schedule that supports CD-2. In progress;
FONSI expected 12/31/18.
o Perform an overall document review for consistency and
integration across programs and project functions prior to CD-2.
In progress, expected 3/31/19.
o Per project documents, ensure Quality Assurance processes and
oversight for international and domestic providers that mitigate
risks are included in the baseline for procurements. In progress,
expected 3/31/19.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
42
4. Environment, Safety and Health
D. Rodgers, LBNL / Subcommittee 5
Findings (cont.)
• The QA manager is performing on an acting basis but this may turn out
to be permanent.
• QA engineer position is posted to support L2/L3 managers, starting with
SRF and Cryo Systems.
• A Safety by Design process has been developed and implemented just
begun.
• Formal program for integrating Lessons learned into project has being
developed.
• EHS and QA requirements will be integrated into Project Planning
Documents both for international partners and participating DOE labs.
The plans will be reviewed and approved by Fermilab staff and the
partners.
• EHS staffing is 0.5 FTE but able to be increased as needed.
• ODH monitors will be installed.
• The project plans for cryomodule transport testing with prototypes
being sent back and forth to Europe.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
43
4. Environment, Safety and Health
D. Rodgers, LBNL / Subcommittee 5
Findings (cont.)
• Shielding assessment awaits baseline design at CD-2 and the process
resides with the Accelerator Division. Done in-house.
• Air activation not expected to be a problem but more detailed analysis
will be performed during shielding assessment.
• Plans for compliance with the Accelerator Safety Order (ASO) include a
revised Safety Analysis Document (SAD), Accelerator Safety Envelope
(ASE) and three planned Accelerator Readiness Reviews (ARRs).
• Preliminary shielding assessment is complete for the cryo-building/linac
penetration.
• Electrical AHJ is traveling to India to inspect equipment.
• A USI process was used to address the addition of PIP-II to Fermilab
complex and resulted in need for Shielding Assessment/SAD/ASE.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
44
4. Environment, Safety and Health
D. Rodgers, LBNL / Subcommittee 5
Comments
• Progress on the responses to the CD-1 recommendations has not been
completed. The planned completion schedule seems appropriate for
finish prior to CD-2.
• Lessons learned program is ambitious and can provide significant value
to project.
• The QA manager is fully involved in implementing appropriate project
QA processes.
• EHS/QA are well integrated into the project. Management can help
support these roles by including these managers in senior planning
meetings.
• Providing a dedicated QA person embedded at the L2/L3 levels is an
excellent practice.
• Plans for integrating EHS and QA requirements into Project Planning
Documents seems well developed and a good practice, but full
implementation will be challenge prior to CD-2.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
45
4. Environment, Safety and Health
D. Rodgers, LBNL / Subcommittee 5
Comments (cont.)
• The Safety by Design process is an admirable initiative and is a new
process for Fermilab.
• The plans for Accelerator Safety Order compliance utilizing three ARRs
should be reconsidered to better match the planned six stage
commissioning plans with expected installation schedules.
• The plans for testing cryo module transportation by shipping prototypes
to Europe and back should provide maximum assurance that
production modules will be shipped without equipment damage.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
46
4. Environment, Safety and Health
D. Rodgers, LBNL / Subcommittee 5
Recommendtions
1. Close out remaining CD-1 recommendations prior to CD-2:
• Perform a comprehensive document review for consistency and
integration.
• Complete the Environmental Assessment process by receiving a
FONSI.
• Update the QAP and implementing processes to better address
international partners.
2. Finalize and post the HAR prior to CD-2.
3. Finalize the Project Planning Documents providing for EHS and QA
flowdown to the international and domestic partners, prior to CD-2.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
47
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
3. Has the project made adequate progress on its resource-loaded schedule to
complete it by the time of CD-2? The project has made good progress but the
RLS is not complete. Completing a credible RLS in time for a June 2019 CD-
2 IPR will be challenging.
7. Are the proposed risk mitigation strategies reasonable and are the proposed
contingencies acceptable? The proposed preliminary mitigation strategies
appear reasonable; however, an analysis of the cost and schedule contingency
values are not feasible at this time as the performance measurement baseline
and risk register are still in development.
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous
reviews? Yes.
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s attention?
Continue to monitor progress in developing project documentation supporting
the Basis of Estimate documentation, RLS, finalized time-phased risk register
and revised probabilistic risk assessment, and updated cost and schedule
contingency analysis.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
48
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
• Findings
• The PIP-II Project is currently maintaining the CD-1 cost range of $653M - $928M with
preliminary Total Project Cost point estimate of $721M including $191M (37%) in cost
contingency (from the PPEP). The TPC is being revised and was not presented at this
review.
• The PIP-II Tier 4 CD-4 date is Q3 FY27. The Tier 1 CD-4 date is Q1 FY30, providing
30 months of schedule contingency.
• The current DOE-HEP funding profile between FY16 and FY27 supports the $721M
TPC which is based on the CD-1 point estimate.
• The project cost and schedule development methodology follows the DOE Cost
Estimating Guide and employs standard estimating and scheduling tools (P6, Cobra,
Primavera Risk Analysis).
• The project risk register contains 109 open and approved entries (101 threats, 7
opportunities and 1 uncertainty). The project risk severity rated as 15 high, 49 medium,
and 45 low.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
49
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
• Findings
• The project is reliant on international deliverables estimated at approximately $250M in-
kind contributions.
• Cost risks associated international in-kind contributions are not held by the project.
• The project has obligated approximately $60.7M since January 2016.
• The project cost to date is $56.2M.
• The project is proposing to freeze the project baseline in February 2019 and begin
exercising the FRA EVMS in March 2019.
• The project’s procurement durations are based on guidance from the Fermilab
Procurement Office.
• Critical Path goes through SSR2 prototype/production and LINAC
installation/commissioning. LB650 & HB650 productions are near Critical Path.
• Schedule tailoring plans CD-2/3a for Q4FY19 (Jun 2019) and CD-3b in Q4FY20.
• CD-3a – Site Preparation & Cryoplant Building Construction
• CD-3b – Civil construction of LINAC Complex, cryoplant installation, SSR1 power
coupler, and High Bay LCW system. Civil construction of booster connection
maybe added to give schedule flexibility.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
50
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
• Findings
• The RLS contains 6841 activities, 243 T5 milestones, 141 Design review milestones (53
PDR, 88 FDR), 211 International milestones (64 major design reviews, 147 major
deliverables), and 95 Major procurements.
• BOE being develop by 24 CAMs for 116 Control Accounts (CAs) identified, one BOE
for each CA.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
51
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
• Comments
• The PIP-II project controls team is experienced and employing best practices and
lessons learned to execute the PIP-II Project. The project should consider augmenting
the project controls staff as quickly as possible.
• The process of preparing a revised TPC, project schedule, bases of estimate
documentation, contingency estimates, and an updated risk register to reflect changes
in the project organization, project scope, and execution strategy implemented since
the CD-1 IPR will require a comprehensive effort to complete prior to CD-2.
• The project maintains a credible Basis of Estimate (BOE) development process down
to the WBS Level 5 incorporated into a preliminary, technically constrained project
schedule.
• The project maintains a credible risk management process; however, the risk register
provided needs to be tied to schedule activities to facilitate the risk management
process (appropriate time phasing of risk retirement).
• The project should consider developing a draft scope deduct list prior to CD-2/3a.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
52
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
• Comments
• The project plans to be ready for a DOE baseline review in June 2019, to achieve this
the baseline will need to be locked down in February 2019. EVMS implementation
will begin in March 2019. The subcommittee is concerned that this schedule is very
aggressive and may not be achievable.
• The overall cost and schedule contingency appeared adequate for the project at CD-1;
however, the subcommittee was unable to evaluate the appropriateness of current
contingency estimates. The aggressive schedule to baseline could result in inadequately
defined scope and associated risk and uncertainties.
• The project’s cost and schedule contingency should be re-evaluated for adequacy prior
to CD-2.
• Although some data was available for this review, the following project information (at
a minimum) should be developed and available for the CD-2 review.
• Performance Measurement Baseline (cost and schedule), BA/BO Profile, RAM,
planned value by FY at control account level, FTE profile by FY at the control
account level, preliminary scope deduct list, monthly reports, updated risk register
with qualitative/ quantitative analysis performed, and cost estimate/basis of
estimate documentation.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
53
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
• Comments
• The Level 3 Managers (L3M) demonstrated familiarity with their cost estimates as
evidenced by three cost drill down sessions. However, the current cost estimates are in
various stages of revision.
• The updated WBS appears reasonable and complete to better define and control
planned work although impact to the TPC is uncertain.
• The project should consider revising the procurement schedule to reflect HCA/IRB
approval of contract values greater than $25M.
• HCA/IRB approval required before issuing RFP (~55 working days)
• HCA/IRB approval to award (~40 working days)
• Consider repricing resource rates in FY19 dollars prior to setting baseline.
• The project should evaluate the impact of concurrent projects to identify and mitigate
any potential conflicts (i.e., resources/labor/interfaces) to ensure PIP-II Project
deliverables can be achieved on the schedule proposed.
• The project should evaluate the current work packages to ensure they appropriately
reflect the revised project scope. Some conversion back to planning packages may be
required. Further discrete planning can be performed using rolling wave planning as
scope maturity increases throughout the life-cycle of the project (planning package to
work package conversion).
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
54
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
• Recommendations
1. Complete development of all the necessary baseline documentation (RLS, Basis of
Estimate, risk assessment, etc) and other related items in the comments above and in
comments made by other subcommittees prior to the CD-2 Director’s Review.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
55
5. Cost and ScheduleE. Merrill, DOE/OPA, L. Oukrop, PNNL, F. Gines, DOE/ASO
Subcommittee 6
PROJECT STATUS – November 2018
Project Type Line Item
CD-1 Planned: Q2FY19 Actual: 7/23/2018
CD-2/3a Planned: Q3FY20 Actual:
CD-3b Planned: TBD Actual:
CD-3 Planned: Q4FY21 Actual:
CD-4 Planned: Q1FY30 Actual:
TPC Percent Complete Planned: ___N/A__% Actual: __10.6___%
TPC Cost to Date $56.2M
TPC Committed to Date $60.7M
TPC (TPC being revised, not presented at this review) $721M @ CD-1
TEC $435M @ CD-1
Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve) $191M @ CD-1 _ _37__% to go
Contingency Schedule on CD-4 (Apr2027-Dec2029) ____30__months __ 30__% to go
CPI Cumulative N/A
SPI Cumulative N/A
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
56
4. Are preparations for defining, documenting, and managing the international in-
kind contributions suitable to ensure their timely delivery and technical fidelity?
Partially, the project has defined and drafted a number of governance documents to
coordinate the international contributions, however the implementation processes,
procedures and staffing to assert needed oversight by the host lab are not yet
implemented to ensure timely delivery and technical fidelity.
5. Is the proposed CD-2 timeline reasonable and consistent with the current project
status?
The Committee found the timeline to CD-2 very aggressive and will be a challenge to
deliver a quality product. See follow-on comments in the body of the report.
8. Has the project satisfactorily responded to the recommendations from previous
reviews?
Yes, the staffing plan recommendation still needs a few critical hires.
9. Are there any other significant issues that require HEP or project’s attention?
RLS, transition to operations, operations budget dependencies were not presented.
Preliminary KPPs may require additional definition. Cryomodule production spares
should be evaluated in light of the last two SC projects which have experienced >10%
production loss.
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
57
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC
Findings
• The PIP-II Project proposes to deliver a high proton energy beam (up to 1.2MW), thus
providing an intense neutrino beam to the LBNF and DUNE experiments (near and far
sites).
• PIP-II will be upgradeable to multi-MW capability and compatible with CW-operations,
greatly increasing the linac output and providing for a full modernization of the front-
end of the Fermilab accelerator complex (new SC Linac and upgrades to Booster,
Recycler, and Main Injector). A preliminary set of KPPs have been proposed which will
be finalized at CD-2.
• PIP-II was fully endorsed by the HEPAP P5 Report, “to provide proton beams of >1 MW
by the time of first operation of the new LBNF.”
• The PIP-II Project is hosted by Fermilab with in-kind contributions from four
international partners (UK, France, Italy, India, additional partners are under
consideration). Currently, “in-kind” contributions comprise ~25% of the PIP-II project.
• “In-kind” contributions from international partners (includes design, hardware, labor and
delivery to FNAL) are managed through Project Planning Documents (PPDs).
• Five PPDs are planned (DAE, INFN, CEA, IN2P3, UKRI) to be completed by May 2019
and signed/approved by September 2019 (before CD-2/3A ESAAB). PPDs are not
legally binding.
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
58
Findings
• PIP-II received CD-1 approval in July 2018, with a cost range is $653M - $928M and
point estimate of $721M. The project team has been working on an updated
performance baseline, however the updated baseline along with a risk-based
contingency assessment was not available for this review.
• The project has not identified a significant list of scope contingency.
• Outside project dependencies are defined and captured in a project assumptions
document and an Interface Control Document (ICD)
• DOE program, international institution and Fermilab (host lab) support are in place.
Regular governance meetings at the agency, international and project levels are
beginning to function.
• PIP-II proposes a tailored CD strategy, starting with a CD-2/3A IPR in June 2019 to
establish commitment by DOE-HEP, its international partners and the project team.
• $10M of OPC funding is planned in the last two years for commissioning according to
the CD-1 profile.
• The project is considering a phased transition-to-operations plan to transfer equipment
when it has achieved its project objectives.
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
59
Findings
• Since CD-1, a new management team has been formed with a significant number of
new hires, the WBS has been restructured, and many of the necessary governance
documents and management plans have been drafted.
• A Project Scientist role has been filled and will lead the development of scientific
requirements and specifications for the PIP-II technical and conventional systems.
• A new PIP-II Procurement Manager has recently been hired. The project will matrix
additional procurement staff from the FNAL procurement department. A few critical
hires remain to be filled (PMCS, some QA, etc.).
• An acting risk manager is assigned to the project, but is not located permanently within
the US.
• An acting quality assurance manager is assigned to the project. Two requisitions are
being opened for full-time quality assurance engineers to support the project.
• A FONSI is expected on the Environmental Assessment later in December 2018.
• Prototype cryomodules are being considered as operational spares.
• Currently, shutdown schedules between PIP-II and LBNF do not align.
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
Comments
• The project team has made significant improvements since CD-1. A capable project
management team is in place, and the processes, tools and staff to successfully deliver
the PIP-II Project have made substantial progress. Nice job!
• However, a significant amount of work has yet to be accomplished in a short time
assuming CD-2/3A IPR in June 2019. From the committee’s perspective, a partial list
of deliverables not yet complete to support a CD-2/3A Director’s Review (in May
2019) are:
• RLS in alignment with funding profile guidance provided by the program
• All BOEs complete with supporting WBS dictionary
• Risk-based (cost and schedule) contingency analysis
• Transition to Operations (TTO) Plan and Operation budget dependencies
• List of scope contingency
• Updated PEP, PMP, Procurement Management Plan, HAR, QAP, APPs
• Off-project commitments documented in an MOU with time phasing, resources,
and stakeholder signatures
• Finalized Assumption and Interface Control Documents
• Preliminary Design Report w/ independent committee recommendations
• 1-month minimum of EVMS reporting on a stable baseline60
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
Comments
• PIP-II management team will track progress on international deliverables using an
extensive set of milestones. However, there is not yet enough oversight of other
international project functions, particularly in the areas of procurement and QA.
• While PIP-II is an international collaboration, Fermilab is the host and ultimate owner
of its partners’ in-kind hardware. With this in mind, it is important the PIP-II Project
Office provide sufficient oversight of its in-kind partners (particularly in the
procurement and QA) and conduct project management partnering sessions to ensure
the entire organization clearly understands their respective roles and responsibilities.
• The project should identify explicitly which international partner milestones trigger risk
mitigation plans.
• There are a number of key staffing roles which need to be hired or strengthened prior to
CD-2/3A. Project Controls Lead, Risk Management and Procurement Specialists in
particular need to be staffed with clear R2A2s across the project organization.
Procurement oversight on international deliverables would be a good place to start. In
addition, Fermilab should consider hiring a full-time risk manager and matrix at least
50% during the development of the PIP-II CD-2/3A package.
61
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
62
Comments
• Many PIP-II senior leaders are new to the project and ~half of the CAMs are new to
CAM responsibilities. Given the new project processes to be rolled-out, a steep
learning curve for FNAL and its international partners should be expected. Conduct
early on project management sessions to ensure clear R2A2s and process familiarity.
• PIP-II proposes to use technical configuration and baseline configuration processes
which are layered and complex. Consider simplifying to only one TCB and CCB with
the PIP-II PO, L2 Managers and international partner leads. The goal is for PIP-II to
minimize the effects of boundaries between its partners. Common and simple
processes can facilitate this goal.
• To mitigate the risk of a late international deliverables due to inadequate funding,
investigate using an investment bond. This helped moderate cash flow issues on the
ESS Project.
• Multiple international partners provide the same components (e.g., HB650
Cryomodules). Sourcing same components from multiple international sources could
increase cost, result in quality (fit/finish) issues and overload vendor(s). Consider
bundling large, critical procurements at one institution with drop-ship to other partners.
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
63
Comments
• For critical technical components with limited vendor base, the project should consider
defining approved vendors for international partners. In some cases, consider
embedding expert project staff at major international production facilities.
• Off project dependencies should be expanded to define dependency owners, resources,
time frame of dependency by quarter and fiscal year, and should be signed in
agreement by all stakeholders. The document should also be updated annually.
• The project should consider a TTO plan prior to CD-2 and determine if an update to
the funding profile is needed to permit early TTO plans for equipment.
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC
OFFICE OF
SCIENCE
64
Recommendations1. Review the Committee list of CD-2 deliverable yet to be completed and develop a
schedule for completion leading up to a CD-2/3A Director’s Review. Once
complete present this “CD-2/3A Timeline” to the PIP-II IPT and Level 2s (G9) no
later than January 15, 2019. This timeline should be used as the basis to
determine when the project is ready for CD-2/3A.
2. Consider streamlining the project’s configuration and change control processes
and rolling out in project management training sessions in line with the
committee’s comments.
3. After settling on the PIP-II international project management processes, conduct
project management sessions to ensure clear R2A2s and process familiarity.
4. Hire the PMCS Lead, clarify the role of the Procurement Manager and obtain
adequate Risk Management support as soon as possible.
5. Review the commissioning portion of the PIP-II performance baseline in the next
iteration.
Management/Subcommittee 7G. Hays (SLAC), J. Ingraffia (ANL), R. Leftwich-
Vann (LBL), S. Meador (DOE), M.
Reichanadter, SLAC