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

[Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Hi John,


> - Sec. 2.7.3 - I suggest to add the question about whether they used the 
> full production quantity for the FEB2 PCB fab and assy quotes.  Even 
> that would not explain their high numbers, but it would go in the right 
> direction at least.
>    (I note that using the ACTUAL LTDB costs paid by BNL for Ph. 1, which 
> has a much smaller quantity than FEB2, would still give variances of 
> 220% and 50% for fab and assy respectively, compared to the ICE post-rec 
> numbers. So it is still a mystery why their quotes are so much higher 
> than ours.)

I modified to "...to see if the difference is possibly due to a 
difference in specifications or number of items."

> - For the rad-tol customs parts, they accepted our CERN pricing for 
> lpGBT and VTRx+ (Tab. 2-8), which is good.  However, for some reason 
> they did not do the same for the ADC (Tab 2-6). Instead, they state "the 
> cost reduction for the production ADCs is changed from 95% to 97.8%. 
> These cost reductions are applied to account for sole source pricing of 
> these devices."; this makes no sense to me and seems completely 
> arbitrary.  It is true the CERN Frame Contract with TSMC is sole source, 
> so if they want to assume a higher risk that is fine. However, as for 
> the lpGBT, all that really makes sense is to assume the CERN pricing as 
> the central value.  You really can't expect producing your own custom 
> chips to cost the same as buying commercial chips.  We should ask why 
> they do not accept the CERN quote based on the TSMC Frame Contract.

Yes, I have a statement to that effect along with 2.7.10.

> - as Mike pointed out already, they made an error in Tabs. 2-5 and 2-6, 
> where the ATLAS costs should of course be the same for pre-/post-rec. 
> Looking at the latest BOE (ie. for FDR), our M&S costs for ADC 
> production are $1070k, which somehow sit between the 2 values used by 
> ICE, so I am not sure exactly what they are using (I couldn't quickly 
> find again the table of costs that was prepared for ICE reconciliation, 
> which perhaps was still using an older version of the BOE?). So, the 
> post variance is likely even higher than the 27% they are quoting, and 
> is more likely ~50%, making even more important the question above about 
> why they don't accept the TSMC Frame Contract quote.

Yes, that's also already in the comments (with 2.7.1).

Best,

Gustaaf


> On 1/11/20 6:21 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Here's a first draft set of comments and questions for the ICE team.  
> > We need to send this on Monday.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Gustaaf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
> > Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l

--
Gustaaf Brooijmans - Columbia University
@Columbia: (212) 854 4527; Nevis virtual phone: (914) 591 2804

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.