1 / 7

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

OFFICE OF SCIENCE. Closeout Report on the Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO  A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory May 8, 2012. Exa m ple. Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

ormand
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Closeout Report on the Review Committee for the NuMi Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NO A) Experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory May 8, 2012 Example Daniel R. Lehman Review Committee Chair Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy http://www.science.doe.gov/opa/

  2. 2.1 Accelerator and Beamlines den Hartog, ANL OFFICE OFSCIENCE Technical: Are the accomplishments to-date and remaining activities as planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

  3. 2.2 DetectorWisniewski, SLAC OFFICE OFSCIENCE Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

  4. 2.3 ElectronicsDenes, LBNL OFFICE OFSCIENCE Technical: Are accomplishments to-date and remaining activities planned sufficient to meet baseline scope objectives? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■ Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

  5. 3. Cost and ScheduleMerrill, DOE/SC/Elliott, DOE/OECM OFFICE OFSCIENCE Baseline Cost and Schedule: Is project's plan and performance consistent with the approved baseline? Are remaining costs and schedule contingency adequate for the risks? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

  6. Project Status Merrill, DOE/SC/Elliott, DOE/OECM OFFICE OFSCIENCE

  7. 4. Management *Fisher, DOE/SC OFFICE OFSCIENCE Management: Are the management resources adequate to deliver the project within specifications, budget and schedule, including management and mitigation of remaining technical, cost and schedule risks? Has the project responded satisfactorily to the recommendations from the previous independent project review? ■Findings ■ Comments ■ Recommendations

More Related