Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Follow-Up Review of the APUL Project

1. Executive Session Director’s CD-1 Follow-Up Review of theAPUL Project November 2-3, 2009 Dean A. Hoffer

2. Agenda for Exec Session • Charge to Reviewers • Review Agenda • DOE O 413.3 Critical Decision Table • Document Requirements • Technical Design Review Guidance • Cost/Schedule Review Guidance • Reporting Structure • Reviewer Assignments • Cost / Contingency Table • Discussion Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

3. Charge Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

4. Charge (continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

5. Charge Attachment #1 Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

6. Charge Attachment #1 (continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

7. Agenda Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

8. Agenda (continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

9. Agenda (continued) Additional Rooms IB3 IB 1 Mezz Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

10. DOE O 413.3Critical Decision Table Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

11. CD-1 Documentation • Acquisition Strategy • Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP) • Preliminary Project Management Plan (PMP) • Assumptions Document • Conceptual Design Report (CDR) • Baseline Range and Resource Loaded Schedule • Configuration Management Plan • Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report • Risk Management Plan and Risk Assessment • Value Management Documentation • Quality Assurance Program Documentation Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

12. Two Parts to the Review • Technical - Independent Conceptual Design Review • Cost, Schedule and Project Management Review Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

13. Technical – Conceptual Design Review • Design Reviews are performed to determine if a product (drawings, analyses, or specifications) is correct and will perform its intended functions and meet requirements. • APUL’s technical scope was found to be in reasonably good shape during the July 16-17, 2009. The committee is to evaluate conceptual design as part of the independent review and should concentrate on any changes to that design since the last review. Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

14. Cost/Schedule Review Guidance Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

15. Cost/Schedule Review Guidance (Continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

16. Cost/Schedule Review Guidance (Continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

17. Cost/Schedule Review Guidance (Continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

18. Subcommittee Assignments SC1 – D1 Magnets • Jim Kerby • Bob Kephart • John Tompkins SC2 – Cold Powering System • Gary McIntyre • Jay Theilacker • Joe Tuozzolo SC3 – Cost, Schedule and Project Management • Jeff Sims • Fran Clark • Suzanne Saxer Note: Underlined names are subcommittee lead. Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

19. Reviewer Assignments Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

20. Reviewer Assignments (continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

21. Reviewer Assignments (continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

22. Reviewer Assignments (continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

23. Reviewer Assignments (continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

24. Reviewer Assignments (continued) Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

25. Reviewer Assignments for Breakouts Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

26. Reporting Structure • Review findings, comments, and recommendations should be presented in writing at a closeout with the APUL’s, Fermilab’s, and Broohaven’smanagement. • Section for each “Level 2” WBS plus Cost, Schedule, Management sections. Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

27. Findings Comments Recommendations Findings are statements of fact that summarize noteworthy information presented during the review. Comments are judgment statements about the facts presented during the review. The reviewers' comments are based on their experiences and expertise. The comments are to be evaluated by the project team and actions taken as deemed appropriate. Recommendations are statements of actions that should be addressed by the project team. A response to the recommendation is expected and that the actions taken would be reported on during future reviews. Findings, Comments, and Recommendations Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

28. Examples of Findings, Comments, and Recommendations Finding • A plan for the MI upgrades was presented. The major elements of this plan consist of an upgrade of a MI quad power supply, which is nearly complete, and the addition of two more RF stations. The cavities to be installed currently exist as spares so there is no design and prototyping required. Comment • The project has decided to build the DCCT in-house. The committee supports this effort since the technology and design of this device is well developed and well known. Recommendation • Work with Fermilab management to acquire resources needed to complete the accelerator and beamline modifications. Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

29. Old Project’s Cost & Contingency Estimate from July Review Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

30. New Project’s Cost & Contingency Estimate Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

31. Reviewer Write-ups • Write-up template is posted on Director’s Review Webpage. http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/OPMO/Projects/APUL/DirRev/2009/11__02/review.htm • Write-ups are to be sent to Terry Erickson at terickson@fnal.gov prior to 11:30 AM on Tuesday, November 3 for the Closeout Dry Run • A final report will be issued within 1 week after the closeout. Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project

32. Discussion • Questions and Answers Director's CD-1 Follow-up Review of the APUL Project