Accelerating Project Development Timeline for Critical Decisions and Design Reviews

1. Critical Path, Decisions, Design Reviews and Doc-DB Brenna Flaugher Fermilab Meeting March 15, 2019

2. Notional DOE/NSF Project Development Timeline

3. DOE/HEP Critical Decisions (see https://opss.fnal.gov/critical-decision-overview/)

4. End date came out to be Feb. 2028. We are looking for ways to speed it up DSR Review (Dec 2018) Schedule: The Cost and Schedule driver for the project is the Detector Fabrication Now – April 2021 Pre-conceptual R&D and Design Dev ~2 years ~2 years pre-production ~3 years production ~2 years assembly, test, deploy

5. Current Cost Estimate (~$613M) Work in progress! • The current estimate is fully loaded, escalated, and includes 35% contingency • December 2019Review total was $706.5M • Cost and schedule cleanup is still in progress • The granularity is larger at L2 than at the Dec. Review to allow more options for distributing well identified scope • Cost without R&D and ⅔ cost of scientific effort (similar to CDT) is $588M. • Cost is being developed with even distribution of SATs. Once that is stable we will calculate the effects of changing this distribution

6. Review Path to CD-1 – April 2021 working backwards Lead-up to CD-1 Review April 2021 – Approval Goal ~ Feb.-March 2021 – DOE Review ~ Oct. 2020 Director’s Review (due to Pole travel in Nov.) ~ before Sept. 2020 Individual Subsystem Design Reviews ~ Oct. 2019 – ~Annual status review – internal (like DSR review in Dec. 2018) Now to Oct. 2019: Cost and schedule cleanup and scrubbing, review individual subsystems in detail.

7. Next Steps with more detail and working forwardNow – June 2019 focus on Cost and Schedule for DSR March: Finish cost and schedule cleanup, include feedback from Detector and Readout Task Force Phase 1, including feedback/impact on cost and schedule from number of detector types and and frequencies April-May Cost and schedule scrubbing, include feedback from Detector and Readout Task Force Phase 2 (modules) Broad effort, we will be scheduling dedicated time for internal review by subsystem June: Make sure cost and schedule match technical developments, technical requirements and what is in the DSR (or why it is different) Final Cost and Schedule review pre-DSR submission – ready for CATE process

8. Next Steps: June 2019 – Oct.2019 review Update design report documentation Improve Science case, flow-down to technical requirements Make sure designs meet requirements and are documented, options and choices are documented Update and refine cost and schedule, risk analysis Collaboration meeting ~Sept. 2019 Review project design/cost and schedule, prepare for Oct. Review

9. What is a project expected to prepare for CD-1 approval? https://opss.fnal.gov/critical-decision-overview/ An analysis demonstrating that the proposed alternative is the correct one. A complete and independently reviewed conceptual design of a chosen alternative and associated cost and schedule range estimates. Typically the design is described in a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) and cost and schedule are supported by a resource loaded schedule and a collection of supporting information called “Basis of Estimate” (BOE) documents. A funding profile (time phased funding plan) that is compatible with the project’s expected spending over time. Management plans including an Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Project Execution Plan, Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report, Quality Assurance, Risk Management Plan, and a Risk Assessment. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) strategy and determination, i.e. whether a formal environmental assessment or impact statement is appropriate.

10. CD-3A For long lead items (like detectors) we will probably want to request CD 3A at the time of CD1 or CD2. CD-3A allows for limited release of construction funds so projects can proceed with selected construction related activities and procurements. A complete and independently reviewed final design. The definition of final design completion is not absolute and does not necessarily mean that all drawings are 100% complete, but design should be mature enough so that procurements and construction can begin. This may include completion of design verification tests of appropriate components. If, in April 2021, we want to be allowed to move forward on detector fabrication “early” (before 2023) then we need to show we have a path to being ready – rigorous reviews planned etc.

11. Subsystem Design reviews can serve as the “independent reviews” What is expected: Technical Requirements that flow down from Science requirements Design (that meets those requirements) and scope Cost, schedule (and basis of estimate documentation) List of interfaces and plan for managing them Alternatives analysis Value engineering Quality Assurance and Quality Control plan Lots of Documents! We have templates and examples from other projects to help

12. Documentation DataBase The Project needs a system of storing/retrieving documents. There are many options. Doc-DB has been used by many experiments so we set up a Doc-DB for CMB-S4 https://cmbs4-docdb.fnal.gov Click on Private Login: cmbs4 500K-Det

13. Welcome to Doc-DB

14. Add yourself as an Author – then upload a document Everyone should add themselves as an author Add a new document (Must be an author) Will have to pick a topic and type of document

15. Documents are organized by Topic Brad and I can create new topics This is a start. Let us know if you want another topic

16. Doc-DB Has Version Control ( can easily go back to old versions) Will be used for storing and presenting documentation for reviews Can make select documents reviewer viewable Many other features that the project will eventually need Give it a try!

17. Summary Lots of fun to come! And now, Don Mitchell will describe a system we could use as we start to develop detailed designs…