Daniel R. Lehman, Chair DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

1. Daniel R. Lehman, Chair DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/ OFFICE OFSCIENCE Department of Energy/ National Science Foundation Review Committee for the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Project at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory June 22-23, 2010

2. DOE Review of DES OFFICE OFSCIENCE DOE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, June 22, 2010, Wilson Hall, Comitium 8:00 a.m. Introduction and Overview D. Lehman 8:10 a.m. SC/BES Perspective K. Turner 8:20 a.m. NSF Perspective N. Sharp 8:30 a.m. DOE Project Manager P. Philp 8:40 a.m. Questions D. Lehman Project and review information is available at: https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-project/reviews/jun10desdoensfrev/desrevapr09 User ID: desreviewsPasswd: DESrev

3. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Daniel R. Lehman, DOE/SC, Review Chairperson Review Committee Participants

4. Charge MemorandumCharge Questions OFFICE OFSCIENCE Technical: Are the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately? Cost and Schedule: Are the current cost, schedule and contingency projections consistent with the approved baseline for all the projects? Management: Is the management structure adequate and appropriate to successfully execute the projects within specifications, budget, and schedule? Are major risks being addressed effectively? ES&H: Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are Integrated Safety Management Principles being followed? Operations: Are the preliminary plans for the operations phase appropriate for this stage of the project? Previous Review: Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous review?

5. Agenda OFFICE OFSCIENCE

6. Agenda OFFICE OFSCIENCE

7. Report Outline/Writing Assignments OFFICE OFSCIENCE

8. Closeout Presentationand Final ReportProcedures OFFICE OFSCIENCE

9. Format: Closeout Presentation OFFICE OFSCIENCE • (No Smaller than 18 pt Font) • 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. • List Review Subcommittee Members • List Assigned Charge Questions and Review Committee Answers • 2.1.1 Findings • In bullet form, include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. • 2.1.2 Comments • 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. • 2.1.3 Recommendations • Begin with action verb and identify a due date. • 2.

10. Format: Final Report OFFICE OFSCIENCE • 2.1 Use Section Number/Title corresponding to writing assignment list. • 2.1.1 Findings • Include an assessment of technical, cost, schedule, and management. Within the text of the Findings Section, include the answers to the review questions. • 2.1.2 Comments • 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. • 2.1.3 Recommendations • Begin with action verb and identify a due date. • 2. • 3.

11. Expectations OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Present the closeout report in PowerPoint. • Forward your written section of the review report (in MSWord format) to Casey Clark, casey.clark@science.doe.gov, by Monday, June 28, 8:00 a.m.

12. Daniel R. Lehman, Chair DOE/SC Review Committee Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/ OFFICE OFSCIENCE Example Department of Energy/ National Science Foundation Review Committee for the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Project at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory June 22-23, 2010

13. 2.1.1 DECam Optics and Opti-Mech, CFIPMatt Johns, Carnegie Institute/ Ian Dell’antonio, Brown University OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Are the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

14. 2.1.2 DECam CCDs, SISPI and ElectronicsRoger Smith, CalTech/ Paul Padley, Rice University OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Are the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

15. 2.1.3 DECam Integration & TestMatt Johns, Carnegie Institute/ Ian Dell’antonio, Brown University OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Are the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

16. 2.2 DESDM, Simulations and CalibrationJulian Borrill, LBNL/ Rob Cameron, SLAC OFFICE OFSCIENCE • Are the accomplishments to date and planned future activities consistent with the baseline objectives and is the project progressing adequately? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

17. 3. Operations PlanningMatt Johns, Carnegie Institute/ Ian Dell’antonio, Brown University OFFICE OFSCIENCE • 5. Are the preliminary plans for the operations phase appropriate for this stage of the project? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

18. 4. Cost Kurt Fisher, DOE/SCMark Reichanadter, SLAC OFFICE OFSCIENCE • 2. Are the current cost, schedule and contingency projections consistent with the approved baseline for all the projects? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

19. 5. Schedule and FundingKurt Fisher, DOE/SCMark Reichanadter, SLAC OFFICE OFSCIENCE • 2. Are the current cost, schedule and contingency projections consistent with the approved baseline for all the projects? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

20. 6. ManagementMarkReichanadter, SLACHenry Heetderks, LBNL OFFICE OFSCIENCE • 3. Is the management structure adequate and appropriate to successfully execute the projects within specifications, budget, and schedule? Are major risks being addressed effectively? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations

21. 7. ES&HDennie Parzyck, DOE/FSO OFFICE OFSCIENCE • 4. Are ES&H aspects being properly addressed and are Integrated Safety Management Principles being followed? • Has the project responded satisfactorily to recommendations from the previous reviews? • Findings • Comments • Recommendations