U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade LAr Level 2 and Level 3 Managers Mailing List

[John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

FYI, please take care of this asap and let me know when it is done.

Also, a reminder that the Feb. status and technical bullets were due 
yesterday (thanks to Tim for sending his).

                John


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] January VRs
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 07:05:43 -0500
From: Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>
To: Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov


Hello all,

VRs are now overdue.

Thanks,

Gustaaf

-6.4 is missing
-6.4.1: it is the CPI that’s 0.57, not the SV.  "The increase from $294k 
to $419k” should that be to $477k?  Maybe the CA should add that the VL+ 
purchase date will be moved as part of the rebaseline?  I’ll unlock this.
-6.4.2/3 are missing

-6.5.4 looks good

-6.6.4: thanks for the update, looks good.  (Does that mean we should 
only attribute ~$230k to COVID?)

-6.8 is missing
-6.8.4: Be careful with statements like "The CPI is largely to due work 
on the fitter being done by uncosted labor (partly as mitigation from 
the delay of the EE due to gFEX).”  Please remember that we argued with 
NSF long ago that there is some work that needs engineers, and some work 
that needs physicists.  We should keep the grey area as small as possible.

-6.10.2 is missing

> On Feb 20, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> January VRs are due.  Here are comments on the ones that have been entered 
> (thanks!).
>
> Best,
>
> Gustaafd
>
> -6.4 is missing
> -6.4.1: it is the CPI that’s 0.57, not the SV.  "The increase from $294k to 
> $419k” should that be to $477k?  Maybe the CA should add that the VL+ purchase 
> date will be moved as part of the rebaseline?  I’ll unlock this.
> -6.4.2/3 are missing
>
> -6.5.3 looks good.
> -6.5.4 is missing
>
> -6.6 looks good
> -6.6.1 looks good
> -6.6.3 is fine (although one has to read between the lines to get the actual 
> explanation)
> -6.6.4: for the cost variance, you now list complexity.  What is the 
> contribution of complexity to this?  I’ll unlock.
> -6.6.5 looks good
>
> -6.8 is missing
> -6.8.3: looks good. This continues to lose ground…  will the future schedule 
> (post-BCP-1057) be realistic?
> -6.8.4 is missing
>
> -6.10.2 is missing
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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