U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

[Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>]

Hi All,

Below is an exchange I had with Mark Coles after receiving the Lifecycle committee questions. I was surprised at the nature and quantity of the questions, so I checked with Mark, who also was surprised by them and promises to again set the expectations for the review. I also asked specifically about the EPO question which certainly seemed to come out of nowhere – I thought it might have been Mark’s question but it wasn’t. Hopefully he will damp down the committee expectations for the review.

 

He also sent me the connection information for the phone conference with the committee to go over the questions Thursday is 1-2pm EDT.

 

Teleconference information:

Telephone (US access):                 866.692.3158

Participant code:                              8201991(#)

Telephone (Switz, free access):  0800.001.157     

Telephone (Switz. toll):                  +41.44.580.7533

 

Cheers, Mike

 

 

 

 

From: Coles, Mark W. <mcoles AT nsf.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 7:17 PM
To: Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] - Some questions about the Lifecycle review committee questions

 

Hi Mike

 

I was a bit surprised at some of these questions too. I will give them a presentation in executive session before we start Monday to explain (again) that the purpose of this review is really to provide a sanity check that the projected impacts of the upgrades on operating costs fit within a flat budget envelope – at least as far as we can tell at this point in time. I don’t know where the EPO question came from – but clearly it doesn’t belong. I will speak up on Thursday to say that this isnt in the scope of the review.

 

This is the first time NSF will have seen budget estimates for installation and commissioning costs in LS3, and also the first time that the operations program will provide specific projections on the NSF share of computing costs in operation. So we are expecting the panel to write a report confirming that these are reasonable projections that don’t overlook some major element. We are not expecting FDR quality budget estimates.

 

A feature of this panel is that, aside from the cost and schedule people, the rest are new and so will need a little coaching regarding NSF expectations.

 

 

Mark

 

From: Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 4:18 PM
To: Coles, Mark W. <mcoles AT nsf.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Some questions about the Lifecycle review committee questions

 

Hi Mark,

 

Looking at the questions that were sent to us from the lifecycle review, I must admit that I was a bit surprised at the number and specificity asked for. I worry that the bar being used is the FDR-type information (detailed cost estimate and FDR quality schedule etc) but I hope that is not the bar that is being used. We will of course answer all the questions as best we can, but hopefully the committee expectations are not for FDR quality answers?

 

In addition I guess I was surprised to see the EPO question ( “What is the plan for EPO in O&M?”). Here I assume that Tony’s earlier reply that “O&M” means the full Operations Program. So, while Kruse and the OP folks are looking at this, I expect there is no detailed plan that far into the future. I think quite a bit of the budget currently goes to partially support QuarkNet, but I am not really in that loop. Maybe this is your question, if so, what are your expectations for an answer to this question?

 

Finally, do we have connection information for the meeting with the committee? (apologies if I missed it) – in my schedule I see it is Thursday 9/26 from 1-2pm. Is that correct?

 

Thanks, Mike