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

["Redlinger, George" <redlinge AT bnl.gov>]

Hi All,

 

Sorry for the bad sound from my side in the meeting today, and thanks to Mark for reading my mind (almost).

 

There’s some truth to the point that Lucas likes to see things done in his way, but my sense of one of their comments was that

• The committee had a hard time disentangling the effect of COVID in our simulation results.  This is in part due to the fact that the COVID BCPs have been worked into the RLS on which the simulation is based.  This probably should be dealt with at the presentation level, maybe in our contingency summary tables.
• Although we’re not on the hook for COVID risks, the committee (and NSF) would ultimately like an estimate of their potential exposure to COVID.  And who better than us to estimate it.  So this leads to the enhanced risk register (or whatever it was called) where we list up not only risks directly connected to COVID but also the knock-on effects that we expect to see in the next months as COVID itself dies down but residual side effects remain.  Part of this would be estimating the impacts on our external suppliers/collaborators, but maybe also internal to the project (e.g. new hiring).
• I think what the committee ideally wanted to see was two simulations: one with the non-COVID-BCP schedule plus uncertainties and non-COVID risks, and the second with the current RLS (with COVID BCP’s included) plus uncertainties plus all risks (non-COVID, COVID and COVID knock-on effect).

 

So my question was whether the above interpretation sounds correct, and how much of this we want to implement for the August review and how much we want to save for the re-baselining (which some on the committee were recommending take place as soon as possible, casting the unknowns in the forms of additional  uncertainties and risks).

 

                           -George