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

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

Hello L2 managers,

After our interactions with NSF for the most recent BCP and their 
comments on recent variance reports, we believe it is important that you 
prepare for the upcoming reviews by quantifying the impact of the 
statements you made over the past year.  This includes the descriptions 
in the COVID BCPs as well as statements in variance reports.

NSF will verify if everything is consistent.  Here's a relatively simple 
example related to the LAr ADC development that will lead to questions 
from NSF:

-significant COVID-induced delays were incurred because of the 
pre-prototype radiation test delay (8 months) and now the prototype 
foundry delay => ok
-there's also a statement that some parts of the chip are substantially 
more complex and require more engineering

Since the latter is not in any BCP, we should see a corresponding cost 
variance.  But here's what we see:

-in the May CPR, the combined 6.4.1 Columbia+Austin cost variance is 
-$98k, looks as expected
-however, declared COVID actuals for 6.4.1.1 and .2 add up to $118k
So the net non-COVID cost variance is actually +$20k.

NSF is asking

a) that statements like "some parts of the chip are substantially more 
complex and require more engineering" be quantified: how much more 
engineering?  At what cost?

b) that ultimately things add up: since that extra engineering isn't in 
the baseline, it's an extra cost.  But it's not reflected in the cost 
variance.  Why?

Please go through each of your deliverables, list all the statements you 
make and the variances at those times, and make sure you can explain all 
the numbers.  I attach a template that tries to make this easier.  The 
template may need adjustments...

You should probably complete this before the DR.

Best,

Gustaaf

Attachment: VR-tracking-v1.xlsx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet