​CF Subcommittee

CF Procurement12/14/2018

​Management Subcommittee


Cost and Schedule​

Please Fill out IPR Chart Slide

Cost and Schedule1/8/2019

Mgmt Committee

Please add the EU Cont. by subproject on the Cost Summary Slide​

Cost and Schedule1/8/2019

​Mgmt Committee

​Please provide a report with the current Tiered Milestones with dates

Cost and Schedule1/8/2019

Management and C/S Subcommittee​

​Provide the final report from the Director's Cost/Schedule Review in Oct 2018



​Provide start dates for new LBNF team members

​Ron Peters, Co-Procurement Manager  1/7/2019

Jolie Macier, LBNF Deputy PM  11​/1/2018

Rob Roser, NS Scientist and Beamline PM, 4/1/2018

Justin Frietag, Designer (contractor), 8/1/2018

Christine Michalis, Budget Analyst, 8/20/2018

Ladia Jakubec, FS Logistics Manager, 10/15/2018

Kate Sienkiewicz, CF Deputy Manager, 10/29/2018

Kennedy Hartsfield, NSCF Project Engineer, 8/20/2018

Colton Clark, FSCF Project Engineer, 10/15/2018

David Bressler, FSCF Sr Construction Specialist, 7/23/2018

Tunde Sobeyo, Project Controls Specialist (contractor), 6/11/2018

David Crabb, Procurement Administrator, 7/23/2018

Chris Allen, Procurement Administrator, 5/21/2018

Kody Whittington, Procurement Administrator, 1/7/2019

Jodi Campbell, Administrative Asst, 6/18/2018​


​Brian DeGraaf.

Kelly Dixon.


​Brian DeGraaf.

Kelly Dixon.


​Management SC

​How much contingency does DUNE-US have?

The estimate uncertainty contingency @ 90% is $25,235k (20% of costs to go, slide 12, Macier) .  The estimated DUNE-US portion of the LBNF/DUNE risk summary is about 9% of the toal, or ~$11,936k. The toal amount is $37,171k, or 29%. Contingency is held in common by LBNF/DUNE.


Detector subcommittee​

​more information requested about the near detector


​Management subcommittee 

​from 1/8/19 AM:  To baseline DUNE-US. There are major uncertainties in the non-US parts and basic time-phased scope(SP vs DP). Is the baseline plan, including schedule, to define the DUNE-US baseline at CD-2a as deliverables independent of future collaboration choices?

​Yes. The current plan is for US-DUNE to fabricate APAs and Cold Electronics and install these in the first two far detector modules.  This plan is what currently appears in the P6 schedule and is what we expect to baseline.  In the event that the collaboration decides to install a dual-phase detector in the 2nd far detector module, we would still plan to produce the APAs and CE required for the 2nd single-phase detector on the same schedule (it would not make sense to shut down and then later re-start the factories).  The integration of components on the surface would also likely be done on the original schedule.  Post-integration the detector components would then need to be put in storage to await installation in the 3rd far detector module.​


​Management Subcommittee

​from 1/8/2019 AM: SURF operations: LBNF/DUNE currently depend on the existence of SURF operations and funding of same by DOE. Could you summarize the planned "interface" between SURF operations and the nascent SDSD, who is expected to provide what? 

SDSD will continue to operate as the primary point of contact for Fermilab operations in SD and the primary conduit for coordination with SDSTA, DOE, and Fermilab​


​Management Subcommitee

​from 1/8/2019 AM: Non-Project OHEP funding estimate: What is the total estimated cost during the Project phase of technical coordination, SDSD, SURF operations + whatever else is off Project and the funding needed from OHEP? A very simple estimate would indicate this is $300M+(10 years, $15-20M per year for SURf ops, $10-15M per year for technical coordination+SDSD. Is this close?

​As discussed in person, this number is close. SURF operations has never been discussed as a project cost in the past or considered one in the future. SURF operations supports the operation of the entire facility, which hosts multiple projects across the national lab system. 


​Management subcommittee

​from 1/8/2019 AM: Scope contingency: Please clarify "Any reductions in scope are not intended to increase contingency (i.e., become scope options) but either to reduce TPC or provide for future flexibility after baselining if something goes wrong."  Usually scope contingency is realized, returning $ to the contingency pool for use.   

​Agree, scope contingency is realized (taken out of the project’s scope) to return $ to the contingency pool for use, but the timing can be now (to increase % contingency) or later (when something goes wrong and requires $). Our clarification is that we do not want to increase the contingency by removing that scope now to free up contingency to increase cost contingency above 33%. We would prefer to identify what could be removed in the future. ​


​management, C/S subcommittees, and Detectors

​Questions posed end of first day 1/8/2019

Management, C/S, Detectors1/9/2019