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

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

Hello all,

Thanks for the updates, a few comments:

-6.4.1: cost variances are based on accruals, so delayed invoicing cannot 
lead to a cost variance.  There is an issue with the accruals, not just the 
invoicing.  Also, "we expect the invoicing to catch up in the next several 
months.” isn’t credible since this has been going on for many months.

 -6.6: thanks for removing the cost variance discussion, but please quantify 
the contributions to the schedule variance - this is an NSF requirement.

-6.6.3: the impact is about the non-existent cost variance, but it needs to 
be about the schedule variance

-6.10.2 is missing

Thx

Gustaaf


> On Jan 27, 2022, at 5:21 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans 
> <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>