**Close-Out Report**

on the

*Department of Energy/*

*National Science Foundation*

*Committee*

for the

Technical, Cost, Schedule, and

Management Review

of the

**U.S. LHC CMS**

**DETECTOR**

**PROJECT**

May 21, 2003

![](media/image2.wmf)

***U.S. Department of Energy***

***and the***

***National Science Foundation***

U.S. LHC JOINT OVERSIGHT GROUP

April 4, 2003

TO: Mr. Daniel Lehman, Director, Construction Management Support
Division, SC-81

DATE: March 31, 2003

RE: Request to Conduct a Review of the U.S. ATLAS and U.S. CMS
Construction Projects During May 19-23, 2003

The Joint Oversight Group (JOG) for the U.S. LHC Program requests that
you conduct a Review of the U.S. ATLAS and U.S. CMS Construction
Projects at Brookhaven National Laboratory on May 19-23, 2003.

The charge for this review is to assess:

-   Technical progress in each subsystem;

-   Schedule progress on completing the U.S. deliverables including
    installation;

-   Adequacy of the updated estimated cost to complete; and,

-   Project contingency budgets.

Please provide a report on the review to this office by June 30, 2003.

Mini-reviews were conducted of the U.S. ATLAS and U.S. CMS Construction
Projects in December 2002. The review committees concluded that both
projects were making good technical progress and costs were tracking
close to plans, with no major schedule concerns. These reviews also
concluded that planning for transition from the construction projects to
M&O is well underway. The committee should assess progress on planning
for this transition and consider the report from the U.S. LHC Detector
M&O Evaluation Group, which will meet for the first time on April 8-10,
2003.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter. As you know, these reviews
are an important element of the Department of Energy/National Science
Foundation (DOE/NSF) joint oversight of the U.S. LHC Program and help to
ensure that the U.S. meets our commitments on cost and schedule.

\[signed\] \[signed\]

John R. O'Fallon John W. Lightbody, Jr.

Co-chair Co-chair

U.S. LHC Joint Oversight Group U.S. LHC Joint Oversight Group

Department of Energy National Science Foundation

***U.S. Department of Energy***

***and the***

***National Science Foundation***

cc:

James Decker, SC-2 Ken Stanfield, Fermilab

Milton Johnson, SC-3 Thomas B.W. Kirk, BNL

S. Peter Rosen, SC-20 William Willis, Columbia University

Moishe Pripstein, SC-22 Dan Green, Fermilab

Aesook Byon-Wagner, SC-223 Jane Monhart, CH/Fermi Area Office

Marvin Goldberg, NSF James Yeck, CH/Fermi Area Office

Jim Whitmore, NSF Pepin Carolan, CH/Fermi Area Office

Steve Meador, SC-81

![](media/image3.wmf)

**Department of Energy/National Science Foundation**

**Review Committee on the U.S. CMS Construction Project**

**CONTENTS/WRITING ASSIGNMENTS**

Executive Summary Meador/Yeck

1\. Introduction Meador/Yeck

2\. Technical Systems Evaluations

2.1 End Cap Muon (WBS 1.1) Foster/Subcommittee 1

2.1.1 Findings

2.1.2 Comments

2.1.3 Recommendations

2.2 Hadron Calorimeter (WBS 1.2) Michael/Subcommittee 2

2.3 Trigger and Data Acquisition (WBS 1.3) Haggerty/Subcommittee 3

2.4 Electromagnetic Calorimeter (WBS 1.4) Schamberger/Subcommittee 4

2.5 Forward Pixels (WBS 1.5) Nelson/Subcommittee 5

2.6 Common Projects (WBS 1.6) Baltay/Subcommittee 6

2.7 Silicon Tracker (WBS 1.8) Nelson/Subcommittee 5

3\. Cost Estimate Kerby (with input from other subcommittees)

4\. Schedule and Funding Kerby (with input from other subcommittees)

5\. Management (WBS 1.7) Baltay (with input from other subcommittees)

[Appendices]{.underline}

A.  Charge Memorandum

B.  Review Participants

C.  Review Agenda

D.  Cost Table

E.  Schedule and Funding Charts

F.  Management Chart

G. Action Items

# 2.1 Endcap Muon (WBS 1.1)

**(B. Foster)**

**2.1.1 Findings**

The Endcap Muon (EMU) system is 77% complete and on schedule to perform
above-ground system tests as per CERN's V33 schedule. The assigned
contingency on the ETC remains 50 percent, which is adequate for this
subproject.

Major production of the Cathode Strip Chambers (CSC) at Fermilab
finished on the schedule originally established in 1998. Production and
testing of the full complement of CSCs for the baseline detector at the
four Final Assembly and Test (FAST) sites should be completed by the end
of calendar '03.

An incoming test and storage facility has been successfully established
in the CERN ISR tunnel, and a throughput of production chambers has been
established sufficient to support the installation schedule.

Production of the on-chamber electronics has been completed and the
integration and test of on-chamber electronics has gone relatively
smoothly and on schedule. The FAST sites have proven successful at
identifying and correcting a number of issues with the on-chamber
electronics.

The off-chamber electronics are in an advanced prototype stage. A beam
test is currently underway to validate the performance of the
off-chamber EMU electronics in beam conditions and rates comparable to
that expected at the LHC. This effectively responds to a recommendation
from last year's review. Successful beam test results will permit a
final design review and production start in November '03, slightly ahead
of the December '03 milestone.

Final chamber mounting on the muon steel structures should commence in
mid-June. This represents a slippage since the November '02 date
projected at last year's review. Roughly half of this slippage appears
to have been due to factors outside of CMS' control.

Detailed planning exists for cabling, gas installation, and other
infrastructure.

Two workable alternatives have been developed for the HV system, with a
decision scheduled for this summer following tests.

The alignment system design and production is well advanced. The system
is in production and on schedule to be available when the magnet test
begins in early '05.

**2.1.2 Comments**

The EMU group continues to make excellent progress in all phases of the
project.

The Scope addition of the ME4/1 CSCs chambers appears not to have
adversely affected the project schedule. Production of these chambers is
to be completed FY'04 and common electronics has been adopted for these
additional chambers.

The group continues to exhibit due diligence to avoid major accidents
which might derail the EMU project. These include cooling water
spillages, "bad gas" incidents, large-scale mechanical or electrical
mishaps, etc.

The M&O plans are well advanced and reasonable. The question which arose
at the April M&O review as to the adequacy of the Engineering and
Technical manpower (1 vs. 8 FTEs) was resolved as having been due to
miscommunication.

An excellent candidate for the on-site M&O manager has been identified.
It is important that this position be filled as proposed by summer '04.

**2.1.3 Recommendations**

1.  Early warning systems such as the "wet wire" leak detection system
    and the gas-gain monitoring tubes used at CDF may be worth
    considering as modest scope increases.

2.  Redundant low-voltage power supplies should be considered for
    electronics in the collision hall.

3.  The EMU group should work with CMS management to ensure that the YE1
    cabling design and procurement takes place on a schedule which does
    not impede the installation of the YE1 chambers

4.  It will be most efficient if the off-chamber electronics for the
    ME4/1 CSCs are incorporated in the main production run of
    off-chamber electronics.

2.2 HCAL (WBS 1.2)

**(D. Michael)**

### 2.2.1Findings

The U.S. HCAL sub-project is 82% complete on an updated estimate at
completion of \$42,891k EAC. Important progress has been made in the
last year in all of the subsystems, especially on the HF, HPD
acquisition and testing and electronics systems.

In the last year, a total of \$1.1M of contingency was used. The main
uses were:

-   \$360k increase for overruns in the optics production at Fermilab,
    \$800k of which was already identified in a previous review.

-   \$250k increase for optical fiber cables and patch panel to connect
    the various segments of electronics.

-   \$267k engineering and \$94k production costs for the Gigabit
    Optical Links. This is a scope increase for the U.S. HCAL project
    which was undertaken to avoid possible delays in the previous U.S.
    responsibilities.

-   -\$170k for lower cost of production of HPDs

The current project schedule shows a negative 8 month variance,
primarily for production of the HCAL electronics. An additional negative
variance exists for the HPD acquisition and testing. These variances are
approximately the same as identified one year ago. However, we note that
the planned HCAL vertical slice test has slipped from May 03 to Fall 03.
The HCAL sub-project manager reports that they are working to a new
schedule which reflects this variance but that U.S. CMS schedules have
not yet reflected this new working schedule.

Following some additional delays in the last year in starting
production, HPD deliveries from DEP now have reached the planned maximum
of 40 units per month. The testing capabilities at Minnesota are matched
to this production rate. At this point, the acceptance rate of delivered
tubes is 62%. At this time, MMM tubes out of a required NNN have been
accepted. The yield is smaller than nominally planned. About half of the
HPDs which have not yet been accepted do not meet the contract
specifications. The other half have some anomalies which may not
disqualify them for use but which has kept these tubes from being
declared accepted at this time. All HPDs undergo an important two-week
burn-in period as part of the testing.

Good progress is being made on all of the electronics, including that to
be installed in the readout boxes which represents the most critical
path. It appears that the XXX ASIC fabrication has been successful after
the "engineering" fabrication iteration and that the QIE ASIC is also
working well. This will permit electronics fabrication to proceed soon.
At this time, the group is waiting for additional assurance from
test-beam operation this summer prior to proceeding with the final
fabrication. Significant new results were presented on radiation and
lifetime aging of the electronic boards and chips.

Important progress was shown on the HF systems. Some of the most
important progress was in the fabrication of the large mechanical
components which is not a direct U.S. responsibility. However, getting
this moving forward helps to make the U.S. contribution in the design,
fiber acquisition and readout systems a contribution towards a complete
system. The new manager for the HF appears to be having a very positive
impact. Almost all of the fiber has been acquired, the PMTs have all
been purchased and tested and the complete readout system is advancing
well.

The HCAL group is planning a vertical slice test/burn-in phase.
Currently both are defined as part of M&O. Should delays occur in the
critical path items the first impact will be a shortening of this
test/burn-in phase.

The HO RBX still does not have a final design. Although some float
remains in the demand for this system, its production is lingering well
behind the original schedule.

Important progress from the 2002 test beam effort was shown. A 2003
testbeam effort is just now getting underway. Performance from the 2002
running was consistent with expectations for resolution and uniformity
for all systems. The measured resolution was roughly 120%/sqrt(E) with a
5-7% constant term. In addition to the measured calorimetry performance,
these run periods are also demonstrating a considerable ability of the
HCAL group as a whole to meet tight schedule objectives.

### Comments

Overall, the HCAL sub-project has made excellent progress in the last
year. Particular highlights include successful test-beam operation,
important progress on HF fabrication and important advances in design
and testing and fabrication of readout box components, including ASIC
fabrication and testing and HPD production and testing.

Progress in the last year was good but the schedule remains very tight.
Importantly, the group appears sufficiently well staffed to succeed in
the face of tight schedules and is focused on achieving their
installation objective. The main risk is likely not that the group
cannot meet the defined installation schedule but that the installed
readout box devices (which are very difficult to access) will have had
less opportunity for full system burn-in tests than desired given the
stringent requirements on failure rates once installed. It is important
that management fight slips in order to keep as much of this
pre-operational testing phase intact as possible. It is advisable that
the group continue to find additional means of increasing the testing,
where possible, for the readout boxes as a system. In the last year, the
U.S. group decided to take on additional scope for the Gigabit Optical
Links. This was a wise use of contingency to avoid possible delays to
the completion of the critical readout boxes.

The HCAL group is currently working to a schedule which is not
represented in the main U.S. HCAL schedule. HCAL and U.S. CMS management
should resolve this. The nominal working schedule is tight for
completion of work for installation, but there is no action at this
point which will significantly recover time from the HCAL working plan.
At the same time, HCAL managers must work to avoid additional delays.
Getting the electronics into full production is very important. Pushing
forward with readout box assembly and testing is critical. Although HPD
production and testing are now moving forward, it is possible that
increasing the planned HPD "spares" pool to perhaps 20-25% of the total
needed might be one way to mitigate risks of using "acceptable, but less
than perfect" devices. More time would make such action unnecessary (or
demonstrate it is necessary) but this would now delay the critical path.

The U.S. HCAL group is responsible for providing optical fiber cables to
connect the readout boxes to the main electronics systems. These cables
must go through some patch panels and must also have provision for
dealing with extra lengths of cable. The definition of this system is
the responsibility of the CMS integration group but no final action has
been taken yet. This presents a schedule risk for the U.S. groups to
provide these cables in time. Decisions must be taken soon.

### Recommendations

1.  U.S. CMS management should work with the CMS integration group to
    define the readout optical cable system for HCAL by Sep. 1 2003.

2.  Plan as much burn-in testing time as possible for the completed
    readout boxes. Where possible, find ways to increase this time
    before boxes become too inaccessible.

2.3 Trigger and Data Acquisition (WBS 1.3)

**(J. Haggerty)**

**72.3.1 Findings**

Excellent progress has been made on both trigger and data acquisition
systems since the last review.

The CMS management estimates that 65% of the trigger work is complete,
which is consistent with information presented by the calorimeter and
muon trigger groups. Many of the final boards are complete in both the
calorimeter and muon trigger systems, and design and prototyping is well
under way for all of them.

The CMS management estimates that 24% of the data acquisition work is
complete, consistent with the achievements presented.

The data acquisition group completed an extensive document describing
the design in the Technical Design Report of December 20002.

**2.3.2 Comments**

The slice test is an important reality check for both the trigger and
data acquisition systems, and CMS management is to be commended for
recognizing its importance. It is important that both trigger and data
acquisition systems use this test to exercise their designs as
thoroughly as possible.

Significant additions have been made to the Wisconsin, MIT, and UCSD
groups, consistent with previous recommendations, and these new hires
have filled some essential needs.

The data acquisition Technical Design Report describes a present state
of the art data acquisition system that appears to be very well grounded
in experience and prototyping.

**2.3.3 Recommendation**

Identify adequate manpower to work on the slice test at CERN while
testing and production continue in the US, particularly on the muon
trigger system.

**2.4 Electromagnetic Calorimeter (WBS 1.4)**

**(D. Schanbergr, K. Lang)**

**2.4.1 Findings**

The progress on the Electromagnetic Calorimeter (ECAL) of the U.S. CMS
since

the June 2002 DOE/NSF review has been mixed and included changes in
deliverables.

The US group is responsible for procurement of 1/3 of Avalanche
Photodiodes (APDs) and providing about 4.5 FTEs for APD certification
and characterization.

The group will also supply a laser-based monitoring system for PWO
crystals. Within the last year the scope of the monitoring expanded from
using one blue laser to two blue lasers and one red laser as recommended
by the 2002 DOE/NSF Review. In addition, the U.S. ECAL has been
participating in the development of the front-end FPPA chip for the
APDs, but the circuit turned out to be very difficult to fabricate and
has only 30% production yield. The collaboration chose to pursue in
parallel a more promising multi-gain preamplifier (MGPA) integrated
circuit to be fabricated in deep sub-micron (0.25 um) technology. U.S.
ECAL will fund 50% of MGPAs and their neutron irradiation testing
effort. MGPA is not a baseline chip yet and its certification is
underway. The group is also responsible for the delivery of parts of the
fiber optic link for the barrel section as well as for the design and
delivery of about 50% of the clock/control links. Finally, in response
to general CMS needs, the group has recently taken up yet another
responsibility of designing and fabricating parts of the low voltage
power supply, and due to the early stages of the system specification
the exact deliverables of this part are still not completely defined.

The US ECAL system has maintained a solid progress in procuring and
certification of the Hamamatsu's APDs. About 93,000 (out of 128,000)
units have been delivered so far, testing is on schedule and projected
to be complete in April 2004.

Fermilab's electronics testing facility is being set up to test the MGPA
chips.

US ECAL would benefit from additional physicist manpower needed in the
near future in the beam tests, system monitoring and calibration
analysis, and the development of the low voltage power.

Production and delivery of the PWO crystals which are not a US ECAL
responsibility has slipped about half a year in the past year and is on
the critical path. However, US deliverables are mostly decoupled from
this potentially serious delay.

Due to delays in the choice of preamps, the ADC purchase is still on
hold.

No participation in the slice test is presently be considered for any
ECAL modules.

2.4.2 Comments:

It is encouraging to observe that a lot of progress has been made on the
front end preamplifier. Both the original and backup plans have made
significant progress. While the baseline design is still the original
Floating Point Pre-Amp (FPPA) version, which now have working
prototypes, it is clear that the system costs will be very high. Every
effort should be made to insure that the alternate Deep SubMicron (DSM)
Multi-Gain Pre-Amp (MGPA) is made to work. This is a significant change
to be making this late in the project, but appears to be appropriate.
Having working electronics using this new design in time for next year's
beam test which starts in April 2004 is vital for calibrating some
supermodules with beam. Given less than a year, and still testing the
first submission makes this a very aggressive schedule. Every effort
should be made to meet this time scale and resources should be directed
towards that end to ensure reliability. The same level of testing and
certification as in the APD must be maintained.

The low voltage system design for the ECAL is just getting started by a
new group. No bottoms up cost estimate is available. It is not possible
to evaluate if the contingency is adequate for the US deliverables part
of this category.

It appears that the design, specification, and the procurement plan of
the data and trigger fiber optic links to the outside of the detector is
complete and production is ready to start. The 12x receiver module,
which is part of the optical link, is not yet budgeted for the barrel
ECAL by CMS. The number of clock and control links has recently doubled
and the US ECAL has not changed scope to instrument the entire barrel
system.

The ECAL system will not be a part of the "slice test". This will
probably delay the understanding of integration issues associated with
running with other detector subsystems.

The laser calibration system is in good shape. The expansion from 1 to 3
lasers seems prudent but costly in M&O.

In view of changes of US ECAL deliverables the M&O estimates should be
re-evaluated.

**2.4.3 Recommendations:**

1\) Make the MPGA decision no later than the end of Summer 2003.

2\) Consider alternate voltage regulators (or more of the same) which
are not run close to their maximum rated current.

3\) Improve the project definition, and define a procedure for the
end-game to maximize the use of available resources.

**2.5 Forward Pixels (WBS 1.5)**

**(H. Nelson, M. Crisler)**

**2.5.1 Findings**

The Forward Pixel subproject is 35% complete, with a contingency of
approximately \$1.9M or 40% of the estimated cost to complete of \$4.9M.
This subproject is nearing the end of development, and is planned to
transition to construction in 2004 or 2005.

The pixel cell size has been changed from 150μm by 150μm to 100μm by
150μm, corresponding to the change in the Read Out Chip (ROC) from the
DMILL technology to ¼ μm technology. The ROC is responsibility of PSI
(the Paul Scherrer Institute) in Switzerland.

A set of sensors submitted by U.S. collaborators in 2001 was received in
2002. These sensors have been evaluated with 80% yield measured and
radiation tests have been performed. The sensor design for the pixel
forward disks is distinct from the design for the barrel pixel.

About 300 ROC's, produced in DMILL technology and known as the PSI43
design, have been received and tested, and a yield of about 50% has been
measured. These ROC's have and will be used to characterize the
detectors, bump bonds, and readout chain.

The new ROC design in ¼ μm, known as the PSI46 design, has been
finalized at PSI and passed on (on 5/16/03) to CERN for checking and
submission. The pixel size for PSI46 was changed, the overall dimensions
are smaller than PSI43, and the power consumption is substantially
smaller for PSI46 than for PSI43.

The sensors are to be bump bonded to the ROC's. Three vendors (MCNC in
the U.S., and IZM and VTT in Europe) are presently doing bump bonding.
Working sensors bonded to DMILL ROC's are expected to arrive between
August, 2003 and October, 2003.

The chip that controls the ROC is the Token Bit Manager (TBM). All
TBM's, for both the barrel pixel system (mostly a European
responsibility) and for the U.S. forward disk pixel system are a
responsibility of the U.S.

Working TBM's, designed by the U.S. forward pixel group and produced in
DMILL technology, were available and characterized last year. The TBM's
are now being translated to ¼ micron, with submissions planned in June
of 2003 and again in October of 2003.

The ROC's sit on a Very High Density Interconnection (VHDI) flexible
circuit. Tests of a VHDI populated with 5 ROCs, using one of 8 test
stands produced by the forward pixel group, have been undertaken.

The test stands simulate the complete readout stream, and allow further
design and characterization of the downstream data acquisition system.

Mechanical and thermal design and study has been advanced during the
past year.

Project manpower (less faculty) has increased from 6 FTE in 2001 to 11
FTE in 2002 to 14 FTE in 2003.

**2.5.2 Comments**

2.  This subproject remains on the cutting edge of technology
    advancement, with many associated risks. This subproject has never
    been planned to be online when beams are first available at the LHC,
    which explains the fraction of work completed being small. The pixel
    systems have been designed for relatively straightforward
    installation after first operation of the LHC. The high level of
    contingency is appropriate for this subproject.

    Communication between the U.S. forward pixel subsystem and European
    counterparts has improved over the past year. There is particularly
    close communication between the U.S. chip designers and their
    counterparts at PSI.

    The pixel dimensions changed from 150 μm by 150 μm to 150 μm by 100
    μm, and the technology for all readout and data acquisition chips
    have been changed from DMILL to ¼ micron technology. There was no
    top-to-bottom evaluation of system consequences of these changes, as
    recommended in earlier reviews. Some consequences identified at this
    review, include enhanced mechanical clearances, and a reduction in
    heat production in the detector, appear beneficial. Essentially
    final mechanical and cooling designs can now be made.

    The ROC's and TBM's delivered so far have been useful for the
    development of system aspects of the forward pixel project, but less
    so than were anticipated. Many test stands are now able to read out
    a pixel slice, and soon sensors bump-bonded to ROC's will be
    available. Test beam work and a \`two-blade' system test are planned
    in the near future. There appears to be adequate technical manpower
    support for these activities.

    There is adequate scientific manpower, however, there is inadequate
    focus on certain tasks, including bump bonding and integration. The
    success of the system tests over the next two years depends on an
    increased level or participation from scientists in the subproject.
    We encourage the forward pixel scientists to exploit the test stands
    and detectors now available to characterize their systems. This
    activity is crucial for the timely success of the project.

    3.  **Recommendations**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Continue to improve communications between International CMS
    Management, US CMS Management, and the US Forward Pixel group.

2.  Focus, in the next year, scientific manpower on system integration
    activities.

2.6 COMMON PROJECTS (WBS 1.6)

**(P. Carolan)**

**2.6.1 Findings and Comments**

Common Projects is essentially (\~99%) complete. Procurement of
superconductor for the CMS magnet has been completed. All Endcap Iron
disks have been erected at the CERN CMS SX-5 surface building on budget
and schedule. This accomplishment is due to good management, good
design, and good workmanship from those who were involved. Cathode Strip
Chamber mounts have been located with acceptable accuracy, requiring no
corrective adjustment for the CSC mount mechanism. The only remaining
costs are for magnet field mapping tasks (design and M&S), and projected
costs for this has been incorporated into the latest EAC. There is no
need to revise the Common Projects budget figure.

**2.6.2 Recommendations**

None.

7.  **Silicon Tracker (WBS 1.7)**

    **(H. Nelson, M. Crisler)**

    1.  **Findings**

        The Silicon Tracker subproject is 33% complete, with a
        contingency of approximately \$1.2M or 53% of the estimated cost
        to complete of \$2.3M. This subproject consists of assembly from
        parts produced outside the U.S., and testing, qualification and
        installation of the assembled modules.

        Production facilities have been established at FNAL and UCSB,
        including functioning assembly robots (gantries), Model 8090
        wirebonders, as well as burn-in and well advanced test
        procedures and facilities. At each site, the planned production
        rate is about 10 Tracker Outer Barrel (TOB) modules per day.

        New tasks undertaken include the assembly of hybrids with pitch
        adapters at UCSB; module diagnostics and repair at UCR, and
        sensor probing at Rochester.

        Delays associated with the hybrids have consumed a total
        compared to the original baseline of 12-15 months, and left
        little schedule float relative to the v33 schedule, although
        there is additional capacity that can in principal earn float
        back.

        The wirebonds on modules have been damaged during transit.

        Project manpower (less faculty) has increased from 1 FTE in 2001
        to 11 FTE in 2002, to about 25 FTE in 2003. A further increase
        to 40 FTE is planned in 2004.

    2.  **Comments**

        The consumption of most of the remaining schedule float by more
        delays in the hybrids is worrisome. A delivery of hundreds of
        hybrids suitable for production is expected in the next few
        weeks.

        We commend the reactions of the silicon tracker group, which
        include the shouldering of new tasks designed to minimize the
        impact of further delays, and we also commend them for their
        ramp-up in manpower. The relationships of the U.S. CMS silicon
        tracker subgroup with International CMS are close, with good
        communication an well-coordinated efforts.

        Nevertheless, the production task that the silicon group faces
        could prove daunting. Continued adaptation to late arriving
        parts will be required, and a few delays due to peculiarities in
        delivered parts would push the project into multishift
        production to maintain the schedule.

        At the mid-year review six months from now it will be possible
        to evaluate whether the delivery of parts and production have
        achieved the ramp-up needed for timely completion of the
        project.

    3.  **Recommendations**

        Continue to develop and execute plans to handle the late arrival
        of parts, particularly the hybrids.

**Cost, Schedule, Project Management (WBS 1.7) & Common Projects (WBS
1.6)**

**Subcommittee 6:** Charles Baltay, Jim Kerby, Steve Meador

**3. COST ESTIMATE**

**3.1 Findings**

The U.S. CMS total project cost remains at \$167.25 million. As reported
at the end of March 2003, the project is 76 percent complete.
Contingency as a percentage of remaining work is 49 percent. Table 3-1
compares the cost estimate from the June 2002 review to this review.

**Table 3-1. U. S. CMS Cost Estimate**

+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
|      |                            | **U.S.    |         |          |
|      |                            | CMS       |         |          |
|      |                            | Baseline  |         |          |
|      |                            | Com       |         |          |
|      |                            | parison** |         |          |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| ##   | ####### System or Item     | **April   | **March | **Diff   |
| #### |                            | 2002**    | 2003**  | erence** |
|  WBS |                            |           |         |          |
|      |                            | **Base    | **Base  |          |
|      |                            | Cost      | Cost    |          |
|      |                            | (AY\$K)** | (A      |          |
|      |                            |           | Y\$K)** |          |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1.1  | > End Cap Muon (EMU)       | 38,885    | 39,786  | 901      |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1.2  | > Hadron Calorimeter       | 41,082    | 42,111  | 1,029    |
|      | > (HCAL)                   |           |         |          |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1.3  | > Trigger/Data Acquisition | 12,391    | 14,629  | 2,238    |
|      | > (Tridas)                 |           |         |          |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1.4  | > Electromagnetic          | 12,136    | 10,745  | -1,391   |
|      | > Calorimeter (ECAL)       |           |         |          |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1.5  | > Forward Pixels (FPIX)    | 7,234     | 7,366   | 132      |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1.6  | > Common Projects (CP)     | 23,000    | 23,349  | 349      |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1.7  | > Project Office (PO)      | 6,642     | 7,047   | 405      |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 1.8  | > Silicon Tracker (SiTkr)  | 3,353     | 3,382   | 29       |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| >    |                            | 144,723   | 148,415 | 3,692    |
| U.S. |                            |           |         |          |
| >    |                            |           |         |          |
|  CMS |                            |           |         |          |
| > T  |                            |           |         |          |
| otal |                            |           |         |          |
| > E  |                            |           |         |          |
| stim |                            |           |         |          |
| ated |                            |           |         |          |
| >    |                            |           |         |          |
| Cost |                            |           |         |          |
| > (A |                            |           |         |          |
| Y\$) |                            |           |         |          |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| >    |                            | 22,527    | 18,835  | -3,692   |
|  Con |                            |           |         |          |
| ting |                            |           |         |          |
| ency |                            |           |         |          |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+
| >    |                            | 167,250   | 167,250 | 0        |
| U.S. |                            |           |         |          |
| >    |                            |           |         |          |
|  CMS |                            |           |         |          |
| > T  |                            |           |         |          |
| otal |                            |           |         |          |
| >    |                            |           |         |          |
|  Pro |                            |           |         |          |
| ject |                            |           |         |          |
| >    |                            |           |         |          |
| Cost |                            |           |         |          |
| > (A |                            |           |         |          |
| Y\$) |                            |           |         |          |
+------+----------------------------+-----------+---------+----------+

As of March 2003, the overall project cost variance is reported to be a
positive 9,462M\$. At least 70% of this variance is understood by
project management to be an artifact of the accounting system, and will
be lowered as invoices for completed work are received. The overall
project schedule variance is reported as a negative 10,136M\$. Of this,
U.S. CMS management recognizes that a small number of these variances
are related to critical path items, while the remainder are to U.S. CMS
internal milestones or in delays in formally reporting work as complete.

The funding profile for the construction project is adequate, and U.S.
CMS has done an admirable job husbanding contingency such that it has
remained around (or above) 50% of the remaining work for the past 5
years.

2.  **Comments**

The U.S. CMS team is commended for their use of project management tools
and their understanding of the information provided by those tools.

The U.S. CMS overall contingency situation is adequate to complete the
project. The first priority of the U.S. CMS project remains the
completion of the US deliverables in a timely manner. In the course of
the next year, the U.S. CMS team may find itself in a position to use
contingency to further assist the International CMS collaboration in
completion of other portions of the detector. The committee supports the
U.S. CMS construction project in this secondary goal.

A contingency analysis was successfully completed by U.S. CMS and
presented at the fall 2002 Quarterly Project Review.

3.  **Recommendation**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Continue to monitor the contingency situation such that a decision
    on additional scope may be made within the next year.

**4. SCHEDULE and FUNDING**

**4.1 Findings**

In 2002 CMS adopted a new schedule, consistent with CERN Installation
schedule v33, and U.S. CMS effort is well matched to the new schedule.
With the change in CERN schedule, DOE split the CD-4 completion date
such that it is expected 95% of U.S. CMS will be complete at the end of
FY2005, with the remaining 5% complete at the end of FY2007. The
portions moved beyond the original 2005 end date are those U.S. CMS
components dependent on items in the CERN schedule.

**4.2 Comments**

Overall the U.S. CMS schedule is reasonable. Frequent schedule updates
provide planning and project execution information for U.S. CMS project
and subproject teams.

The schedule revision has been well used by U.S. CMS to plan detector
slice commissioning tests of components above ground at CERN before
installation.

The current funding profile is provided in Figure 4-1.

**Figure 4-1. U.S. CMS Funding and Commitments (Needs UPDATE)**

![](media/image4.wmf)

**4.3 Recommendations**

1.  Continue to work towards the CD-4A completion date, and closely
    monitor the CERN schedule for any further potential impacts.

2.  Resolve outstanding schedule variances due primarily to
    administrative issues by September 1, 2003.

**5. MANAGEMENT (WBS 1.7)**

**5.1 Findings**

The U.S. CMS project is now 76% complete. The completion of the project
has been broken into two phases, CD-4a when the project is 95% complete
by the end of FY 2005, and CD-4b for the remaining installation part up
to FY 2008.

The construction project appears on schedule and well within budget to
achieve its stated goals. A total of \$28.8M of contingency has been
expended so far. The estimate to complete the project is \$36.0M with a
remaining contingency of \$18.8M. Management has a plan to maintain this
50% contingency to the end of FY 2005, and to keep a 100% contingency of
the remainder of the construction project to FY 2008.

The plan outlined by management for the next phase of the project,
namely Pre-operations, Maintenance and Operations (M&O), Software and
Computing (SWC), and R&D for the future LHC upgrades, seems fairly well
advanced.

A plan was presented to use the period after FY 2005, when most of the
detector components have been completed, and the installation on time,
to carry out detector subsystem tests ("slice tests") in the above
ground buildings at the CERN site. The purpose of these tests is to
increase the probability of an early start of the productive physics
program.

The Deputy Project Manager, who has been instrumental to keeping the
construction project so well on track, is leaving the project in the
very near future.

2.  **Comments**

The Review Committee feels that the U.S. CMS management has done an
excellent job in carrying the construction project close to completion.
Keeping such a complex enterprise on schedule and well within budget is
a very significant achievement.

The Committee feels that separating the completion of the construction
project into two parts was very wise in that it separates the
construction completion of the project mostly under U.S. control (CD-4a)
from the installation (CD-4b) that is much more correlated to the
overall CERN schedules.

The U.S. CMS management should be given high accolades for their
contingency experience of this project. The committee endorses the plan
to keep a 50% contingency to close to the end of FY 2005 and 100%
beyond.

The U.S. CMS management should also be complimented for the initiation
of the slice tests, which is a very sensible use of the time window
opened up by the slippage of the overall LHC schedule.

The M&O Plan presented by the management team seems sensible and
sufficiently well thought out for this stage of the procedure. This is
clearly a dynamic problem and flexibility should be allowed to adjust to
needs and changes as they arise. The plan to keep the Category B efforts
and costs specific to the detector components built by the U.S. CMS
seems appropriate and practical.

The Committee feels strongly that the departing Deputy Project Manager
should be replaced by a professional, highly qualified in these areas.
Thinking on this issue is naturally coupled to plans of how to change
the top level management from a construction project to one that
includes completion of the construction as well as looking forward to
M&O and the general CMS Research program. An example of the future
management structure might be:

In this plan the replacement of the Deputy Project Manager could serve
as the Construction Project Manager as well as the M&O Manager since
efforts on the first will be winding down as the second one builds up,
and the two require similar skills.

3.  **Recommendations**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Replace the departing Deputy Project Manager with a strong
    professional by September 1, 2003.

2.  Work to maintain the 50% contingency up the end of FY 2005 and a
    100% contingency of the remaining construction funds to FY 2008.