LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade (LADU) Project Jon Kotcher Construction Project Manager John Hobbs Deputy Construction Project Manager (Interim) & NSF Upgrade

LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade (LADU) Project

LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade (LADU) Project

Jon KotcherConstruction Project Manager

John HobbsDeputy Construction Project Manager (Interim) & NSF Upgrade PI

DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) MeetingNational Science Foundation

Arlington, VAApril 3, 2013

OutlineOutline

Motivation, context Background, status, recent history Project scope, organization BNL CD-1 Director’s Review Agency guidance, project cost Response to FY13 funding reduction Looking toward FY14 Update on ATLAS upgrade discussions Summary of JOG issues

2Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013 DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

Phase I Motivation (1)Phase I Motivation (1)

Increase in instantaneous luminosity in Phase I (X2-5) causes significant rate problems in the current trigger system.

Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013 DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA 3

Phase I Upgrade strategy is to enhance upstream functionality in the trigger system in order to reject background & remain within rate budget, while retaining signal efficiency.

Design Phase I to be compatible with envisioned Phase II to the extent possible.

Phase I Motivation (2)Phase I Motivation (2)

4

electrons muons

Enhanced rejection while retaining high pT relative efficiencies >95%.

X4-8

Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013 DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

Rate Limit

EM

Cur

rent

Trig

ger

Upg

rade

Rough benchmark: Without upgrades, changing thresholds in order to contain rates results in

~ 50% loss of efficiency for events triggered on

massive-object, single-lepton decay. Impacts W, WH, ttbar,

top, SUSY, …

LADU SubprojectsLADU Subprojects


WBS 1.1: Liquid Argon Calorimeter Trigger

WBS 1.2: Muon New Small Wheel

WBS 1.3: Trigger/Data Acquisition

U.S. Focus: Increased granularity in the Liquid Argon

Calorimeter Level 1 trigger. Forward Muon (New Small Wheel) front-end

readout, trigger, and alignment systems. Integration of calorimeter information for use

in topological and other triggering (TDAQ).

?, IR

4x

, bunch spacing 25 ns

~20-25 fb-1

~350 fb-1



Go to design energy, nominal luminosity

Injector and LHC Phase-1 upgrade to ultimate design luminosity

HL-LHC Phase-2 upgrade, IR, crab cavities?

√s=14 TeV, L=5x1034 cm-2 s-1, luminosity levelling

√s=14 TeV, L~2x1034 cm-2 s-1, bunch spacing 25 ns

√s=13~14 TeV, L~1x1034 cm-2 s-1, bunch spacing 25 ns

√s=7~8 TeV, L=6x1033 cm-2 s-1, bunch spacing 50 ns

LHC startup, √s = 900 GeV

~75-100 fb-1

The LHC TimelineThe LHC Timeline

LS2 is 12 months (CY18)

Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013 DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA 6S. Bertolucci, HCP2012, Kyoto

Status OverviewStatus Overview

We have rapidly pulled together a project plan, including: Scope definition Project personnel Cost, schedule, staffing estimates, milestones, etc. Contingency BoEs NSF/DOE split Risk assessments, mitigation Documentation (PEP, CDR, NSF proposal, Acquisition Strategy, etc.)

This represents a highly collaborative effort between the project, the collaboration, and among U.S. ATLAS management.

Rapid convergence of technical approaches owes much to upgrade R&D program (M&O).


Phase I/II CoordinationPhase I/II Coordination

Plans at CERN currently suggest a subsequent Phase II upgrade that will be much broader in scope.

The evolution of the US plans for Phase II will need to be developed concurrently with Phase I, and by many of the same people.

While CERN’s schedules may change, given the effort and planning resources involved, US ATLAS upper management has begun mapping out the approach to the coordination of the Phase I/II upgrades. Many issues: resources/R&D needs, Phase I design forward compatibility,

potential Phase II staging options, scheduling options and their impacts, etc. Nevertheless, the clear priority right now is to launch and deliver

Phase I, and we are proceeding with that clear focus.


Recent History Recent History

November 17: Kotcher began as LADU Construction Project Manager (CPM).

November 28: Selection of Stony Brook University as the NSF institution for LADU. John Hobbs, PI and Interim Deputy CPM.

March 6: Offer to a dedicated Deputy CPM went out, and has been accepted. Odds and ends being finalized, August start is anticipated. Hobbs will remain heavily engaged in both the Phase I and II upgrades, and

continue to serve as NSF PI. This will have completed the upper tier of the upgrade management.


10

LADU Project Organization LADU Project Organization

Project management will be fully integrated, while respecting each of the

stakeholder’s requirements.


LHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade Project, by WBSLHC ATLAS Detector Upgrade Project, by WBS

1.1 Liquid Argon Calorimeter Trigger Readout (LAr) 1.1.1 Baseplanes 1.1.2 Layer Sum Boards (LSB) 1.1.3 Liquid Argon Front End, Trigger Digitizer Boards (LTDB) 1.1.4 Liquid Argon Back End, Trigger Digital Processing System (LDPS)

1.2 Forward Muon System, New Small Wheel (nSW) 1.2.1 Micromegas (MM) Electronics 1.2.2 Alignment 1.2.3 Thin Gap Chamber (sTGC) Electronics

1.3 Trigger/Data Acquisition (TDAQ) 1.3.1 e/j Feature Extractor (FEX) Firmware 1.3.2 e/jFEX Read-Out Drivers (ROD) 1.3.3 e/jFEX Fiber Plant 1.3.4 TileCal/jFEX

1.4 Project Management


Major Milestones, Project Target DatesMajor Milestones, Project Target Dates

12

Aug 29, 2011 – DOE CD-0 approval for the upgrade. Dec 14, 2012 – first draft of WBS, including funding sources for all deliverables. Dec 19-20 – internal scrubbing with project personnel and US ATLAS management at BNL. Jan 11, 2013 – draft of Conceptual Design Report; draft of NSF upgrade proposal; fully loaded

WBS, with backup material; due in to upper management. Jan 17-18 – independent cost, schedule and technical review by external reviewers held at

SUNY Stony Brook. Jan 30–Jan 31 – BNL Associate Laboratory Director’s (ALD) review of operations and upgrade.

Preparation for March 6-7 joint NSF/DOE review. Feb 8 – Final project material in place prior to uploading into MS Project/Primavera. March 6-7 – NSF/DOE annual review. March-May – Individual scrubbing meetings with project personnel; focus on BoEs, cost

estimates, schedule. April 3 – NSF/DOE Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting. April (TBD) – Submission of NSF proposal; ATLAS scoping decisions may influence this date. July 11-12 – BNL ALD review of DOE CD-1 for upgrade. August 28-29 – DOE CD-1 review (at Fermilab).


BNL Director’s Review for CD-1 (Lissauer)

BNL Director’s Review for CD-1 (Lissauer)

July 11-12, at Brookhaven. Review Committee (assembled and charged by ALD):

Ed Blucher (Chicago) Bill Christie (BNL) Dmitri Denisov (FNAL) Diane Hatton (BNL) Marvin Johnson (FNAL) Jim Strait (FNAL) Bill Wisniewski (SLAC) Plus one reviewer for DAQ, TBD.

Having an agency charge in hand in May would help us to prepare.


Planning Documents Required for DOE CD-1/NSF Proposal Submission & Review

Planning Documents Required for DOE CD-1/NSF Proposal Submission & Review

Project Execution Plan (PEP) Integrated Project Team (IPT) Charter Acquisition Strategy Safety and Hazard Analysis Quality Assurance (QA) Security and Vulnerability Assessment National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Conceptual Design Report (CDR) Cost, schedule, staffing estimates Bottoms-up risk-based contingency estimates Cost Books, Bases of Estimate (BOE) Risk Analysis and Mitigation Project Management Plan Draft MoUs

14

• Each document is under development by an identified principal. A draft of each is in hand.

• Documents are being developed in conjunction with BNL experts (safety, QA, IT, etc.), where required, and with the Federal Project Director.


Definition of Project Completion: CD-4Definition of Project Completion: CD-4


We are in the process of adapting the definition of project completion according to the recommendations from the March 2013 Annual Operations Review.

Principal stages in end game: Bench tests in US to verify performance parameters prior to shipment. Visual inspections and limited test-stand acceptance testing on the surface

after deliverables arrive at CERN. This will verify the physical integrity and performance of the components after shipment, and will define CD-4 and KPPs.

Any recovery up to and including this surface verification, if required, will remain the responsibility of the project.

This extension is easily accommodated within the project cost envelope(s). Installation and commissioning (I/C) will remain outside the upgrade

project scope, and its costs covered by the M&O program. Integrated I/C plan in place, and will be part of the resource-loaded schedule.

This approach limits the project’s exposure to CERN schedules.

• DOE costs below reflect DOE-only. Cost range: $22M-34M.

• NSF: project is requesting $13M, through FY18.

Agency GuidanceAgency Guidance

Critical Decision (CD) Fiscal Year

CD-0, Approve Mission Need FY 2012

CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range FY 2013

CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline FY 2013

CD-3, Approve Start of Construction FY 2014

CD-4, Approve Project Completion FY 2018

16

Fiscal Year FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Other Project Costs (OPC) 2.0 3.0 5.0

Total Estimated Cost (TEC) 0 0 8.5 11.0 9.5 29.0

Total Project Cost (TPC, $M) 2.0 3.0 8.5 11.0 9.5 34.0


Tables from DOE CD-0,

August 2012.

Project Cost (AY M$)Project Cost (AY M$)

17

WBS Subsystem NSF DOE Total

1.1 Liquid Argon 6.91 7.13 14.04

1.2 Muon New Small Wheel - 11.87 11.87

1.3 Trigger/DAQ 1.32 1.61 2.93

1.4 Project Management 1.20 3.32 4.52

BASE COST 9.43 23.93 33.37

Contingency 3.49 9.81 13.30

Contingency Fraction 0.37 0.41 0.40

TOTAL 12.93 33.74 46.67

NSF proposal •LAr: Trigger Digitizer Boards (LTDB), sPU design and production•TDAQ: e/jFEX ROD production, fiber plant

DOE proposal•LAr: Demonstrator board, Layer Sum Boards, front-end motherboards, LTDB integration•TDAQ: e/jFEX firmware and Tilecal/jFEX•All of Muon New Small Wheels


Full Project Base Cost ProfileFull Project Base Cost Profile

18

NSF + DOE


Cost/Funding Profiles, NSF & DOECost/Funding Profiles, NSF & DOE

19

DOE

NSF

Distribute (15, 20, 35, 30)% of the contingency in FY14-17.

Black = agency guidance


Near-term Pre-Construction FundingNear-term Pre-Construction Funding

DOE had budgeted $2M (OPC funds) for the upgrade in FY13, $1M of which was provided early in the FY. This has been allocated and distributed to the project.

The additional $1M has been reduced to $500k in response to the sequestration.

It is possible that some funds will also be provided by NSF at year’s end, depending on availability and project approval status.

All of the above funds will count against the project’s bottom line.


Schedule-Driven Nature of the Upgrade Schedule-Driven Nature of the Upgrade

Long Shutdown 2 (LS2) has a well-defined start and duration (CY18), set by our international partners.

Time for design and construction is not generous (FY14-17). Adequate funding is needed to support timely project ramp up, and

offset any downstream schedule delays: time lost up front is lost forever.

There is currently a shortfall in FY14 DOE funding relative to our projected needs. $2.5M, which includes a limited amount of contingency.

The problem is exacerbated by the recent $500k reduction in FY13 OPC funding.


Adapting to FY13 Funding ReductionAdapting to FY13 Funding Reduction

We have held extensive and iterative discussions with the L2 managers on how their requests for the remaining FY13 funds could be modified and/or reduced.

Specific cuts and their impacts have been examined in great detail. Both deferrals and reductions of all kinds were on the table.

While the Operations Program is able to loan funds to the upgrade from management reserve to help bridge this shortfall, it does not come without feeling the hit.

We have therefore made every effort to preemptively reduce the FY13 upgrade activities wherever possible in order to help relieve the significant budgetary pressures on the overall program.

Boundary conditions: (1) maintain project progress, and (2) retain all key personnel (no layoffs).


Priorities for Remaining FY13 FundsPriorities for Remaining FY13 Funds

Liquid Argon (WBS 1.1) Demonstrator Board for in situ probe of the viability of using COTS

components in the upgraded Liquid Argon system. This board must be fabricated in time for installation during LS1.

Muon nSW (WBS 1.2) A prototype submission of the nSW Front End (FE) chip is scheduled for a

MOSIS submission in May ($176k). The FE chip is a US responsibility, and is required by international ATLAS to

enable forward progress on all aspects of nSW design. Next viable window for submission would be November 2013, which would

introduce an unacceptable six month delay. TDAQ (WBS 1.3)

Requests for fabrication of Demonstrator Board for TileCal2jFEX had previously been deferred to FY14. This will have minimal impact.


Summary and Resolution of FY13 FundingSummary and Resolution of FY13 Funding


With the approval of the US ATLAS Management Advisory Committee, the Operations Program has agreed to loan the outstanding $241k to the upgrade in FY13. This will enable the project to remain on track in the near term.

MoUs incorporating these adjustments are in preparation.

Looking Ahead: FY14 (1)Looking Ahead: FY14 (1)

We intend to begin bifurcating the NSF/DOE funding in FY14, using NSF (DOE) funds for NSF (DOE) upgrade scope.

To do this, we will need NSF funds in hand sufficiently early in FY14. More generally, we are concerned that, despite our collective best

efforts, circumstances may force the reconsideration of the final allocations and time scales for release of FY14$, from both agencies.

This could endanger upgrade progress and, potentially, its viability.


Looking Ahead: FY14 (2)Looking Ahead: FY14 (2)

To help ameliorate this problem, we intend to begin negotiating forward funding agreements with US ATLAS institutions involved in the upgrade. We assume that, in this climate, such funding will be needed sooner or later,

in any case. This is best initiated once the upgrade has more traction in

Washington – ~ end summer. However, the time scales on which these agreements can be put in

place, and the cumulative amount available, may not be sufficient to adequately cover shortfalls, particularly in FY14 (~ $2.5M).

We believe it would be profitable to discuss the FY14 funding situation in more detail as the situation clarifies, and the opportunity exists to provide input to the decision-making.


Update on ATLAS Upgrade Status (1)Update on ATLAS Upgrade Status (1)

Aware of the demands of the U.S. approval process, U.S. ATLAS has rapidly converged on an upgrade organization and project plan.

The scope of the U.S. effort is consistent with the ATLAS upgrade plans that are defined in the Phase I LoI, which was approved by the LHCC in March 2012.

The financial framework laying out the cost sharing agreement between the different countries was endorsed by the CERN RRB in October 2012. The U.S. proposal is consistent with this framework.

Approvals for all subprojects in which the U.S. is involved will be finalized by Fall 2013. TDRs/LHCC approvals: nSW in Spring 2013. LAr and TDAQ in Summer/Fall 2013.


Update on ATLAS Upgrade Status (2)Update on ATLAS Upgrade Status (2)

The second ATLAS Liquid Argon Upgrade Week took place the week of March 11. It was well attended by the US.

Negotiations are converging, but outstanding issues remain. The goal is to have verbal agreements between the principals in hand in June.

TDAQ week is April 8, where negotiations are expected to converge via verbal agreements on the same (June) time frame.

The muon nSW is more advanced, with formal LHCC approval of the TDR scheduled for May. ATLAS Muon Week was held the week of March 25.

We remain closely involved in all of the relevant discussions. The project is taking the evolution of alternatives into consideration

in its planning. 28Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013 DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA

JOG Issues for the Upgrade (1)JOG Issues for the Upgrade (1)

Can we have a DOE CD-1 charge in hand in May in order to help us to prepare for, and get the most out of, the July 11/12 BNL Director’s Review?

In order to begin funding subprojects in an agency-specific manner in FY14, we will need to be in a position to allocate funds from both agencies early in FY14. Is this an unreasonable expectation?

There is a significant DOE funding shortfall in FY14 ($2.5M) that will impact the project schedule. Forward funding alone, even if secured in time, may well be insufficient. Can we discuss the possible means of ameliorating this problem on a May/June time frame, prior to our final preparation for the July Director’s Review?


JOG Issues for the Upgrade (2)JOG Issues for the Upgrade (2)

We remain concerned about the overall availability of funds in this climate. As this project is schedule-driven, the only remaining lever to adjust in response would be scope. If/as yearly shortfalls grow in likelihood, can we discuss the impact to the project with the agencies prior to funding decisions being made?

While it is natural to carry alternatives through CD-1, the timing of the submission of the NSF proposal is more intimately linked to the scope negotiations within ATLAS. Is there flexibility that can be exploited to optimize the submission date?


Backup SlidesBackup Slides


Definition of Project Completion: CD-4Definition of Project Completion: CD-4

32

Project scheduled for completion in 2018. Contains approximately 10 months of schedule float.

Installation and commissioning (I/C) are not part of upgrade project scope. Project complete when deliverables are on the loading dock at CERN. Bench tests will verify performance parameters prior to shipment.

I/C costs covered by operations (M&O) program. Project personnel have completed initial pass at quantifying the I/C needs.

Example: Muon nSW

I/C in FY17 & 18


Contingency Comparisons at CD-1Contingency Comparisons at CD-1

Project Description Base Cost

Cont Comment

LBNE New beamline, near and far detector systems, conventional facilities

587M 40% Estimate

Mu2e Solenoidal system, detector and beamline elements

229M 32% Cost range

MicroBoone Liquid argon TPC for neutrino detection 20M 33% Estimate

Advanced Photon Source Upgrade

Accelerator and x-ray source upgrades, beamlines, technical capabilities

264M 35% Estimate

33

• This upgrade:– Complex electronic designs, components.– Engineering, design and production at multiple sites, significant integration

considerations. – Well-defined and finite shutdown CERN (LS2): schedule-driven project, funds will

be needed to hold the delivery schedule.

• Project Management believes holding 40% contingency at this stage is prudent.


Risk Codes for Contingency EstimationRisk Codes for Contingency Estimation

34

Estimate Type

Code Type of Estimate Description

0 Work Complete Work is complete. Costs are known (actual)

1 Existing Purchase Order A subcontract or purchase order has been awarded.

2 Catalog Listing or Industrial Construction Database This estimate type is to be used when most of the costs in an estimate can be documented from current vendor catalogs or from published or proprietary industrial or construction databases..

3 Documented Vendor Estimate Based on Drawings/ Sketches and Specifications

This estimate type is to be used primarily when a vendor estimates have been obtained for the specific item or activity. To the extent possible, these estimates will be written rather than oral. Such quotes by a vendor indicate that a design is sufficiently mature that its cost can be independently estimated (i.e., significant detail in drawings and specifications have been prepared), although the quotes will not be taken as an offer to sell at that price.

4 Engineering Estimate Based on Drawings/ Sketches and Specifications

This estimate type has the same level of detail available in the Documented Vendor Estimate Based on Drawings/ Sketches and Specifications category, but the estimates are done by an estimator, or a subcontractor who is not likely to be a vendor.

5 Engineering Estimate Based on Similar Items or Procedures This estimate type is to be used on items that have previously been procured or undertaken. The basis for scaling up or down (i.e. factoring) should be documented in the estimate files. Given the variable degree of similarity between components of various FRA projects, judgment must be used between selecting this item and Engineering Estimate Based on Drawings/ Sketches and Specifications

6 Engineering Estimate Based on Analysis This estimate type is to be used on items that are different from previous experience, and while sketches and specifications may exist, the level of detail is not sufficient to qualify for Engineering Estimate Based on Similar Items or Procedures. Some labor costs, such as assembly of an item not previously built may fall into this category. Supporting background for procured items would include, for example, standard costs for fabricating a given material and the mass of material needed.

7 Expert Opinion This estimate type is to be used on items having little documented basis for the estimate. It indicates little confidence in the estimate. Its use should be minimized when completing the final estimate. It will be used as the estimate preparation develops, however, to measure the maturity of the estimate at any given point.



Integrated Management ApproachIntegrated Management Approach

Single resource-loaded schedule (RLS) being developed. Includes both NSF and DOE activities. Installation and commissioning is being integrated into the RLS.

Project Office populated by both BNL and Stony Brook personnel. Full project will be “statused” monthly, and reported out to the

appropriate stakeholders. In addition, close coordination between Upgrade and M&O.

Discussions of resource planning and allocations, major programmatic and technical decisions, and any other issues of significance.

Weekly meetings, and more frequent ad-hoc discussions. We are creating an integrated U.S. ATLAS effort that aims to

optimize the allocation of limited resources.


Comment on PersonnelComment on Personnel

A number of technical personnel are being cut from the core program during the comparative review process.

These sometimes represent people who are key to fulfilling our international commitments, on whom the ATLAS experiment has come to rely.

Their technical expertise is often experiment-specific, developed over many years. Such people can frequently not be replaced on any reasonable time scale, or,

often, at all. They can of course be funded out of project and operations, but those who can

find more stable work, will. Allocating adequate contingency in an effort to reduce the impact of this will make

everything more expensive, and ultimately reduce the scope we can take on. Note that money cannot solve the problem in all cases.

The upgrade relies on such people to deliver on our obligations.


W Boson W Boson

Use the rate vs. threshold predictions for electrons and muons, along with pT spectra to study efficiency vs. rate.


Impacts a variety of physics signatures: W, WH, ttbar, top, SUSY physics.

DOE-only Project Cost (with contingency)DOE-only Project Cost (with contingency)

39

DOE-only

Distribute (15, 20, 35, 30)% of the contingency in FY14-17.= agency guidance


General Context (1)General Context (1)

The LADU Construction Project represent the first major construction effort on U.S. ATLAS since the deployment of the original detector.

This initial phase is limited in scope: Approximately $47M max Total Project Cost (NSF + DOE), over ~ 5 years. Additional funding from operations and generic R&D being provided in

FY13 and FY14.

It has been launched under tight time constraints: NSF proposal submission in April.

DOE Critical Decision 1 (CD-1) review August 28-29.


Two Principal De-Scoping DecisionsTwo Principal De-Scoping Decisions

Descope forward muon (MM) chamber production. Design and international roles and responsibilities in very early stage; timing does not

mesh with DOE process. Would require large contingency, encroach on other important scope. Cost growth was a concern, impact would be felt project-wide. Heavy construction effort that is beyond scale and spirit of this upgrade. Other countries will take this on.

ATLAS Forward Proton Detector began in scope contingency, but has been removed from project. Recent ATLAS internal review noted that physics case needs improvement, technical

issues need to be resolved, and called for organizational improvements. Fundamental mismatch between AFP approval and upgrade schedules, and therefore

the ability to support it in the construction project. Group has been encouraged to seek other sources of funding. Proposals to operations program, of finite duration and level of effort, will be

considered.


Meshing with International ATLAS (2)Meshing with International ATLAS (2)

We have had detailed discussions about the relationship between the U.S. and ATLAS approval processes with the agencies.

The timing is considered to be consistent with the U.S. approval process, and the carrying of alternatives at a project’s early stages. The Project has performed an alternatives analysis that examines the impact

of decisions yet to be made. We are moving forward with the agencies with the understanding

that modifications to the U.S. scope may be necessary after initial agency approvals are obtained. A natural consequence of an asynchronous international approval process.

We have also discussed the situation with ATLAS management. U.S. experience and expertise in these upgrade systems is well-recognized.

We are, and will remain, actively involved in negotiating the U.S. role with our international collaborators as the upgrade scope is finalized.



Level 2 MilestonesLevel 2 Milestones

From PEP draft

Financial Guidance Provided to SubsystemsFinancial Guidance Provided to Subsystems

Based on agency guidance, management distributed guidelines to project principals for use in developing the base estimates for their subsystems (mid-Nov).

Based on a number of factors, including (not priority-ordered): Initial plan submitted by and vetted with project principals. History and nature of past U.S. ATLAS technical role. Estimated amount of total project contingency that will be needed for a

project at this stage (~ 40%). Priority of physics goals subsystem upgrades will address. Overall scope that can be accommodated within financial constraints.

Deliverables describe a coherent, self-contained and “trackable” project plan for each agency.


Final RemarksFinal Remarks

The U.S. ATLAS Phase I upgrades consist of technical improvements designed to best exploit the physics in the Phase I running environment.

Its scope has been carefully tailored, with an eye toward the spirit and scale of the intended effort, available time and resources, and the dictates of the physics.

A strong organization is in place, and a working project plan is in hand and being prepared for baselining.

An integrated organizational approach, both within the Construction Project and with the Operations Program, is being developed.

We remain closely involved with both the agencies and our international partners as scope definitions are finalized.

The transition to project mode has been made. 45Kotcher, Hobbs – April 3, 2013 DOE/NSF Joint Oversight Group (JOG) Meeting; NSF, Arlington, VA