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

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

Hi Hal,

$10k is the order of magnitude of the uncertainty I would expect in this 
process.  In any case, we cannot do what you call "top down" accounting. 
 It makes it impossible to tell if we're cooking the books.  And if 
there's one thing we've learned working with NSF over the past few 
years, it's that top down won't work for them.

In any case, everybody should fill the spreadsheets so we are ready to 
answer questions at the DR.  After the DR we can go over each of the 
sheets in detail with each L2 system to make sure we understand all the 
numbers.

Best,

Gustaaf


On 6/11/21 1:42 PM, Evans, Harold G. wrote:
> Hi Gustaaf,
>
> I think that one of the main difficulties here comes from those cases 
> where we know that variances are due solely to COVID. (The L2s should 
> speak up if there are other issues). In these cases, it's very rare that 
> the estimated COVID impact from the numbers entered in Amy's accruals 
> spreadsheet match up with the actual variance. Differences of 10s of k$ 
> are easily possible, which could lead reviewers to believe that there 
> are non-COVID effects when these don't exist.
>
> We need to come up with a coherent way to explain these differences. 
> Perhaps this is as simple as stating that the accuracy of our estimation 
> method is only ~x% of the actual variance (where x = 10-20%?). But if 
> you or others can think of a better explanation, that would be great.
>
> In any case, doing the exercise of understanding quantitatively what the 
> differences actually are, e.g. by using your spreadsheet, is a valuable 
> piece of information, which we'll need to have for the EVMS review.
>
> Cheers  -  Hal
>
> On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 09:08 +0200, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when 
> > clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
> > -------
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > > 1. Presenting BCP and Actuals tables in the L2 talks
> > > A very interesting cross-check on our BCP strategy is to compare costs
> > > for BCP-1033 (excluding escalation) with the COVID-actuals we observed
> > > in the period 01-Nov-20 - 30-Apr-21. If our BCPs are accurate, these two
> > > numbers should agree reasonably well. I have compiled these comparisons
> > > at L2 in the attached table. As you can see, the NSF totals agree within
> > > 6%. However, individual L2 systems have much larger deviations.
> > > It might be useful for Gustaaf to show the rolled-up comparison in his
> > > talk. However, given the spread in L2 results, I'd suggest that we *do
> > > not* show the actuals tables in the L2 talks, but rather show only
> > > BCP-1033 and BCP-1038 diff's for Direct, Fringe, Overhead, Escalation.
> > > Let me know what the rest of you think.
> >
> > Thanks for this.
> >
> >
> > > 2. Harmonizing statements in variance reports with numbers in covid
> > > BCPs/Actuals
> > > We discussed at length the recent example of inconsistencies between
> > > reported covid actuals and statements in variance reports. The
> > > conclusion that we reached is that these inconsistencies are inevitable
> > > because of the way we report covid-related actuals. The problem is that
> > > the COVID-related fraction for each month is entered in the accrual
> > > sheet before the actual cost variance (CV = ACWP-BCWP) is known. Since
> > > the COVID fraction is a rough estimate of the fraction of that month's
> > > ACWP that is caused by COVID, it is very unlikely that it will turn out
> > > to be exactly equal to the CV that's actually calculated once the
> > > statusing is finished. Thus the numbers that we have will almost never
> > > agree with our explanations in the variance reports.
> > > This problem could be fixed if instead of reporting the COVID fraction
> > > as a fraction of the ACWP for that month, the anticipated fraction of
> > > the eventual CV were reported instead. Thus we would enter, for example,
> > > that 100% of the actual CV (whatever it turns out to be numerically) is
> > > due to COVID. Then it would be easier for the variance report
> > > explanations to reflect the actual variances. However, this method also
> > > has flaws in that it's entirely top-down.
> > > In any case, we should bring up these two options to the NSF and ask
> > > which they prefer. Neither is perfect but both have some attractive
> > > features.
> >
> > Yowza!  Please do not ever mention this idea any further!  Basically
> > this says "we'll look at the numbers and then we'll write a story that
> > fits."
> >
> > For my example from LAr, the explanation is presumably that something
> > else cost less.  There is for example the missing engineer at UT Austin,
> > a change in personnel at Columbia.  The point is that the story has to
> > be complete.  Not to invent one!
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Gustaaf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
> > Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > <mailto:Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> >
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l
> > <https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Hal Evans hgevans AT indiana.edu <mailto:hgevans AT indiana.edu>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://hgevans.pages.iu.edu/__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!UjQe060jIJcNaOe0YYblZlEzYL6jPkKd4ste-ZDgOee1xUP-f8Fj52JDlrPNLKKgykHdpijvKBZAgPl7fqGZHvGWvjKY$
>   
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://hgevans.pages.iu.edu/__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!UjQe060jIJcNaOe0YYblZlEzYL6jPkKd4ste-ZDgOee1xUP-f8Fj52JDlrPNLKKgykHdpijvKBZAgPl7fqGZHvGWvjKY$
>  >
>   Tel: (812)856-3828                    Fax: (812)855-5533
>   253 Swain Hall West               Indiana University
>   727 E. Third St.                Bloomington, IN 47405
> ----------------------