Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l - Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] December variance reports

usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>
  • To: "Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] December variance reports
  • Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:21:13 -0500


Hello all,

A quick update:

-6.4.1 is *still* missing, please get this done TODAY!
-6.4.2: will you fix?

-6.5* look good to me

-6.6: thanks for removing the cost variance discussion, but please quantify
the contributions to the schedule variance - this is an NSF requirement.
-6.6.1 thanks for the fix
-6.6.3: the impact is about the non-existent cost variance, but it needs to
be about the schedule variance
-6.6.4 looks good now.

-6.10.2 is still missing

Thx

Gustaaf


> On Jan 24, 2022, at 10:17 AM, Gustaaf Brooijmans
> <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for filing the variance reports. Here are some comments, please
> follow-up soon.
>
> -6.4 typo: filling => falling
> -6.4.1 is missing
> -6.4.2 "since the COVID-related BCPs do not take them into account” =>
> that’s your choice though; I would remove that comment. The corrective
> action is not a really a corrective action, but fine…
> -6.4.3 looks fine to me
>
> -6.5: "which is very unlikely to be exceeded” is a bit ambiguous in my
> view, maybe “used up” is better than exceeded?
> -6.5.1 and 6.5.3 look fine to me
>
> -6.6: no cost variance report is needed, so don’t file one. Please
> quantify the main contributions to the schedule variance
> -6.6.1: maybe better to say "The cost savings due to raw parts will
> *likely* be compensated”
> -6.6.3: there’s no request for a cost variance anymore, so either don’t
> file one, or explain it should be there but isn’t due to an accrual issue.
> It’s been almost 6 months that the submission was going to happen in the
> next few months…
> -6.6.4: reading the explanation I expected something in the corrective
> action about the large scale test stand…
> -6.6.5 looks good to me
>
> -6.8.2 and 3 look fine to me
>
> -6.10.2 is missing
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page