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

[Andy Haas <andy.haas AT nyu.edu>]

Hi,
We could also submit in late July the BCP to extend the sRTM+LASP FDR
date, after the review? I assume the whole upgrade/CERN schedule will
shift before the next review, so that the LASP is no longer on the
critical path, assuming it stays near to the Feb 2026 FDR date. This
might fluster fewer feathers and I don't see any real downsides.
Also, there is the KJ BCP for replacing the lost AZ firmware
personpower money. It was $209k. We were thinking to submit it in
March or April. He needs the money by August.
Best, Andy.

On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 10:31 AM John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu> 
wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>         Mike T. needs us to forecast any NSF BCPs needed through June 2025. 
>     He
> would like to keep the list short, so we should include only BCPs that
> are really needed before July.
>         For the FEB2 (6.4.2), I don't see any coming soon. I need to hear 
> asap
> from Tim and Andy any they see coming soon in their L3 area.  I attach
> for reference the recent Scrubbing Report.  Some comments:
>
> 6.4.1
> - the ADC "production complete" milestone for UT Austin is currently
> 05-Jan-26, so presumably no need to change soon?
> - the SMU work was just approved through end September, so we can
> postpone the next BCP until July-August (ie. later than June)
>
> 6.4.3
> - we learned this week the LASP is now aiming "tentatively" for an FDR
> around Feb. 2026.  Our current SRTM FDR date is set 25-JUL-25.  So
> presumably this will have to change?  And if so when do you want to
> change it?
>         A couple more notes:
>                 - If we need to change it by 6-7 months, the SRTM will take 
> over the
> Critical Path again (since it is currently ~4 months ahead of the FEB2).
>                 - we currently have 205 (162) days float in the Baseline 
> (Working)
> schedule, compared to 90% CL need from MC of 137 days. If we introduce
> now 120-140 days of delay, we will be back in negative float, just in
> time for the NSF review in July.  I think that could prove quite
> problematic at the review.
>                 - I am also concerned about the BCP cost if, like for 
> previous SRTM
> delays, we extend all the firmware labor to keep its end date aligned
> with the SRTM hardware.
>
>         Andy/John H. should take a look and see what would make sense.  If 
> we
> want to delay the July date, we would need to have the BCP by May,
> meaning it should go on Mike's list now.  We might consider for now 2
> options to compare:
>
> 1. delay by 4 months, extending only SRTM work (this would be smallest
> request)
>
> 2. delay by 6-7 months, extending SRTM + f/w (this would be largest request)
>
>         Regards,
>                 John
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        [[Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l] ] Need you input on
> projected NSF BCPs now through June 2025
> Date:   Tue, 4 Mar 2025 15:22:22 +0000
> From:   Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
> Reply-To:       Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>
> To:     usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> <usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> CC:     Amy Garwood - Nevis Labs (agarwood AT nevis.columbia.edu)
> <agarwood AT nevis.columbia.edu>
>
>
>
> Hi NSF L2 managers,
>
> In talking with the NSF, we need to resolve a “bookkeeping” issue (my
> view)regarding what NSF calls the “Contingency Balance” [if you
> diligently read the NSF monthly report you will find that in Table 5 😉]
> . You will see that in January it turned negative (~-$1.7M), which at
> this time NSF does not like to see, they want that number to be
> positive. We need to provide them with the expected use of contingency
> beyond what we reported in January (through BCP-1102, not including
> 1101). So I need from you:
>
>   1. Your best estimate for BCPs that would be submitted through June
>      2025 – if possible please indicate a date by which you would submit
>      the BCP. If some can be delayed beyond that date, please do that as
>      I would like to keep the number smaller as it will be easier for NSF
>      to swallow
>   2. Please include (a) estimated $ amount  (your best guess), (b) what
>      WBS #, (c) one line description
>   3. Due COB March 6 – the sooner we get this in the better given the
>      looming Continuing Resolution deadline of March 14
>
> Thanks, Mike