Management subcommittee closeout

1. Management subcommittee closeout Jay Marx (chair, LBNL), Joel Butler (Fermilab), Stan Wojcicki (Stanford) Thanks to all for cooperation and openness!!

2. Management aspects • RSVP is embedded in an unusual management situation:  An NSF project at DOE laboratory using a DOE accelerator facility • Shared agency responsibility for funding the accelerator facility • Brookhaven is “host” laboratory but is not a sponsor of project • DOE is not a direct sponsor of the project • The RSVP project itself is very complex with project offices at Columbia and BNL and 4 almost “stand-alone” subprojects to be integrated into a unified project

3. After much negotiation a unique and complicated management structure has been developed to address this situation. • The management structure is an “experiment” and should be given adequate time to see if it works. If not, changes should be made.

4. RSVP success requires coherent and cooperative management and communications at many levels involving The project team  The host lab (BNL)  The collaborations  The agencies (NSF and DOE) • The foreign partners • Scientific success is the overriding consideration, not just a successful project • Key challenge is integration into single project targeted to do the physics

5. The project team— • Project Director and Deputy bring important experience with large, complex projects • Transition from semi-autonomous experiments to centrally managed single project is crucial and by no means complete • Real structural changes must occur—e.g. KOPIO and MECO project managers fully accountable to central project office A sociological challenge for integration to succeed: • Project leadership must be actively engaged in building confidence of all key participants; especially leaders of collaborations. • Will require lots of goodwill, effort and open communication between all levels of project’s management and collaborations • A key element for success is open and frequent communication between the central management team, the collaboration spokespersons and the laboratory management. • Such meetings begin ASAP; occur at least monthly if not more frequently.

6. Brookhaven • BNL management seems engaged and committed to success of RSVP  Director and AD for HENP working to find ways to enhance likelihood of success • AGS management is actively engaged in providing for needs of RSVP • BNL management must continue to be engaged and committed to success over life of RSVP

7. Agencies Effective and continuing coordination is critical • NSF must plan for realistic levels of support during and beyond construction- • Increased and timely support for researchers for RSVP so collaborations can reach critical mass; • Operating cost exposures (more costly operations, longer operations, more costly D&D, etc). DOE should • Assure success of AGS project activities . • Provide adequate support for BNL scientific involvement in RSVP (host lab collaborators bring great value to an experiment)

8. Collaborations— • challenge to adapt to integrated centrally managed project and less autonomy  This is a time of real risk until RSVP gets formal OK; real concerns & anxiety  Wary about centralized management.  Concern whether all players are committed to the physics goals and not just a successful “project”  Must approach change with good will, effort and open communications • Foreign partners—Important to success and poised to contribute  RSVP and agencies must activate International Finance Committee and other steps to enable foreign collaborators to obtain support.

9. Management costs: • About $20M including 11% contingency  Support right size staff at Columbia and BNL project offices  Contingency too low, should be about 20% • Overall Contingency • Management subcommittee fully supports 45% overall contingency. • Less is incommensurate with success.

10. Overall cost concerns • ~2.8% inflation assumed throughout project is too low. • 4-5% more appropriate for labor part of estimate  Little or no schedule float is a significant cost risk • No contingency in estimate of operating costs. • Many unknowns (e.g. length of operations to do physics; DOE support of AGS ops; real cost of electricity after 2010, etc.). • Significant cost exposure for NSF. • D&D estimate for work in far future very uncertain (e.g environmental laws get stricter). • At least 100% contingency suggested.

11. Recommendations • NSF-- immediately set up frequent stakeholders meetings to assure that all elements of RSVP are integrated, well coordinated and vectored towards success. • Communications between the central management, the sub-project management, the collaboration spokespersons and the Brookhaven management should be significantly increased • RSVP- develop a single integrated management plan

12. Recommendations • NSF & RSVP-- address overall costing issues • RSVP- complete MOUs asap • Enable foreign participation to move forward • NSF & DOE- put in place interagency agreement to facilitate funding flow to BNL • NSF & RSVP- define performance goals for completion of AGS part of project as part of project plan • NSF, BNL RSVP agree on AGS beam delivery goals vs. time during operations phase