Office of Project Assessment Status Review Report on the

Proton Improvement Plan II (PIP-II) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

November 2016

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Department of Energy/Office of Science (DOE/SC) review of the Proton Improvement Plan II (PIP-II) project was conducted on November 15-16, 2016 at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) in Batavia, Illinois. The review was requested by James Siegrist, Associate Director of the Office of Science for High Energy Physics (HEP), conducted by the Office of Project Assessment (OPA), and chaired by Kurt Fisher. The purpose of this review was to evaluate PIP-II’s project status since achieving Critical Decision (CD) 0, Approve Mission Need, in November 2015, and in preparation for CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range, expected in late 2017. Overall, the Committee judged that the project team made good progress with the technical aspects of the project since receiving CD-0. However, the project team now has to transform from a research and development effort to align with more focused “project like” activities, in order to support CD-1. The Committee also judged that the project team should consider leading the export licensing and intellectual properties (IP) issues, to make it a standard part of an in-kind collaboration strategy that ensures uniformity during the execution of contracts. The Committee advised the project team to establish overall coordination support (regulatory issues, logistics) for in-kind contracts by the project. Technical The design of the superconducting linac is well advanced, including functional specifications, detailed drawings, and fabrication plans—this is a continuation of a seven-plus-year effort to design and demonstrate components for a high-intensity proton driver. At this stage, however, the design documentation may in some cases be too detailed, if cost and risk reduction strategies are yet to be implemented. Tests of cavity performance are very encouraging, so far. However, pulsed power operation is likely to be problematic, given the small cavity bandwidth, and so the facility may need to run with continuous waveform power. Criteria should be established on how and when such a decision would be made. This will have implications for how the cryoplant is optimized for initial operation. The R&D program is well organized for the linac effort. PIP-II plans tests of critical subsystems to ensure that they work in PIP-II. However, the test of a High-Beta 650 MHz (HB650) cryomodule comes fairly late in the program. Cost and Schedule The cost estimate is unchanged from the June 2015 DOE/SC CD-0 review. A detailed assessment by the Committee on the appropriateness of the estimate, based on the current state of design maturity, could not be fully performed. There are elements (scope and costs) missing from the estimates presented, based on information that was presented by the project team for review by the Committee.

ii

After the incorporation of missing scope elements, updating costs for FY 2016, and assessing risk/uncertainty, it is probable that the point estimate and Total Project Cost range will grow outside the values established at CD-0. While the project is funding constrained and operating in an uncertain fiscal environment, the project team is taking advantage of what resources they have available, and is attempting to focus them on key scope areas to move the project forward where possible. Management The project team is very experienced and appears adequate to successfully deliver the project. Staffing appears to be appropriate for this phase of the project. However, competition for resources with other FNAL projects will require careful coordination at the laboratory level. Project controls may need to be augmented. The project team can be ready for CD-1 in a year; however, there is considerable work to do, not just in completing the requirements, but also in continuing to formally establish and operate as a project on a daily basis. The project does not have a risk register, a critical item for the development of a project mindset. An assumptions document has not yet been developed. A PIP-II/FNAL Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has not yet been developed. Writing these documents (or one integrated document) will help to clearly define the scope of the project. The current collaboration agreement with India is being updated. based on the experience of the past 18 months. A revision is expected to be signed early in CY 2017. A method for transparently tracking deliverables on a regular basis should be implemented, in order to ensure that the collaboration continues to grow successfully. The appropriate level of collaboration management can then address issues identified by tracking deliverable facts. Key Recommendations

Complete the CD-1 planning related to the schedule, risk and uncertainty analysis, cost, and identification of needed scope, in order to validate the ability to meet the planned critical milestones and funding profile.

Finalize the agreements with the partner institutes to fully define the division of responsibilities by CD-2. The Acquisition Strategy needed for CD-1 may require some of this information.

Establish a risk management tool, as soon as possible, to strengthen the risk management process to ensure that risks are reported consistently.

Actively address issues that arise in the international collaborations. Develop a key assumptions document prior to CD-1. Develop a MOU between the

project and FNAL management that outlines the project’s needs prior to CD-1. Consider leading the export licensing and IP-rights issues, to make it a standard part of

FNAL’s in-kind collaboration strategy and to ensure uniformity during the execution of contracts. Establish overall coordination support (regulatory issues, logistics) for in-kind contracts by the project.

iii

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ i

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Technical.................................................................................................................................. 3

3. Cost and Schedule ................................................................................................................... 6

4. Project Management .............................................................................................................. 11

Appendices

A. Charge Memorandum B. Review Participants C. Review Agenda D. Funding Table E. Schedule Chart F. Organization Chart

1

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2014, the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) subpanel of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) called for Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) to establish a neutrino accelerator program that would extend its current leadership with the most powerful neutrino beam in the world. Since then, the world community has come together to form the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), a collaboration that plans a 40 kiloton liquid argon detector deep underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in South Dakota. The DUNE experiment will be supported in both Illinois and South Dakota by the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) project. P5 also recognized the need to deliver higher power proton beams to the neutrino-generating target that serves the LBNF/DUNE program, calling for a capability of 1.2 MW on target at 120 GeV when DUNE comes on-line. This need for higher proton beam power will come at a time when many components of the existing accelerator complex that delivers beam to the Main Injector—especially the linac and the Booster—would be about 50 years old. Thus, the Proton Improvement Plan II (PIP-II) is proposed to meet two main goals: higher beam power and ensuring sustained high reliability operation. The centerpiece of the PIP-II proposal is the design, construction, and commissioning of a new 800 MeV superconducting proton linac that would entirely replace the current 400 MeV normal-conducting linac, at a new location nearby the Booster. The higher-energy linac would enable delivery of more than 1 MW of beam power from the Main Injector over an energy range from 60 GeV to 120 GeV. This higher performance also requires a number of ancillary upgrades further down the injection chain, including: a new injection straight into the Booster; a higher Booster repetition rate of 20 Hz; radio frequency (RF) upgrades in the Booster, Recycler, and Main Injector; and enhanced (or new) transition-crossing systems in the Booster and Main Injector. The location of the proposed PIP-II linac is adjacent to the Booster and the Wilson Hall high-rise (see Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1. Approximate Location of the PIP-II Linac

2

PIP-II capabilities are designed to conform with the eventual replacement of the Booster, a major upgrade that could have the capability, later, to deliver 2.4 MW to the LBNF/DUNE target, as recommended by P5. The PIP-II platform would also provide the potential for other upgrade possibilities, including an upgrade path for the Muon Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e), through the selection of a design that preserves continuous-waveform (CW) capabilities. The choice of CW-compatibility is also consistent with the desire of major partners in the PIP-II collaboration, funded by the Indian Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), to build a CW linac in India: the Indian Accelerator Driven System (IADS) linac. The proposed Total Project Cost range for PIP-II is $465–650 million, assuming a contribution from Indian and (potentially) European collaborators, equivalent to a direct cost of $108 million. The project nominally runs from FY 2016 until CD-4 in FY 2029. This is consistent with the requirements of the LBNF/DUNE schedule.

3

2. TECHNICAL 2.1 Findings and Comments The design of the superconducting linac is well advanced, including functional specifications, detailed drawings, and fabrication plans—this is a continuation of a seven-plus-year effort to design and demonstrate components for a high intensity proton driver. However, at this stage, the design documentation may be too detailed in some cases if cost and risk reduction strategies are yet to be implemented. The R&D program is well organized in support of the linac effort—the project has so-called “PIP2IT” tests planned for critical subsystems to ensure that they work in PIP-II. In particular, the PIP2IT facility, which is already generating 2 MeV protons, will allow comprehensive tests of the low energy linac systems that address the main technical challenges. The Committee noted, however, that the test of the HB650 cryomodule comes fairly late in the program. Thus far, cavity performance tests are very encouraging. Given the small cavity bandwidth, pulsed power operation is likely to be problematic. The facility may need to run CW (or quasi-CW). Therefore, criteria should be established on how and when such a decision would be made. This will have implications for how the cryoplant is optimized for initial operation. Even CW operation may present problems with the Joule-Thomson valves in the cryomodules: the Linac Coherent Light Source-II experience should provide useful information in this regard. The details of cryogenic system operation were not presented. Upgrades to the Booster, Recycler, and Main Injector rings are needed to accommodate the higher energy and power proton beams. While each of the upgrades appears doable, increasing beam power while keeping beam losses at a manageable level is a difficult task. Subtle collective effects can lead to losses that can be very difficult to control. Adding to the difficulty is the change in the timing system due to the increase in the booster repetition rate. The effort to validate critical aspects of the three-ring transport with low losses is not as well organized as the linac efforts. The project needs a plan, not just to test new hardware for the upgrades, but also to use the existing beam operation to learn as much as possible, in particular to check models of injection, transitions, impedance effects, and slip stacking. This plan should also incorporate lessons learned from 700 kW PIP-I program. The feedback systems for the linac RF and the piezo-electric tuning systems are under development. The 20 Hz specification on the maximum cavity detuning increases the required cavity RF power by about 50%. The feed-forward system envisioned for Lorentz force detuning compensation is based on a well-developed method that characterizes the detuning response to piezo-actuator changes. The feedback system that stabilizes the cavity field uses standard proportional and integral gain algorithms in a well-developed digital platform. Considerable progress has been made with both systems. The Committee suggested that the project consider integrating the piezo and RF feedback systems as soon as possible.

4

The Committee observed that soon there will be a need to re-organize design and R&D more along project lines, not just for proof-of-principle demonstrations. This will entail:

Creating Physics Requirements Documents, Functional Requirement Documents, and Engineering Specification Documents;

Deciding on which of the components built during the R&D program will be used for PIP-II construction, and deciding if they satisfy the technical specifications;

Conducting an overall availability analysis to set/estimate the mean-time-to-failure and mean-time-to-repair values for the major subsystems in the linac;

Establishing general guidelines that the components must meet in terms of radiation hardness, non-ionizing radiation emissions, pressure vessel safety, electrical safety, magnetization, stay clear, etc.;

Listing major risks and performing a failure modes and effects analysis; Increasing the emphasis on the ring transport studies; and Systematically addressing the CD-1 requirements.

The project scope is sufficiently defined to support preliminary cost and schedule estimates. The Conceptual Design Report, while still in draft form, is sufficiently comprehensive to specify the project scope. In many cases the design is very far advanced with respect to CD-1.

The R&D phase is mitigating technical, cost, and schedule risks. However, many of the presentations were much more focused on the R&D phase as opposed to the production phase. This focus is appropriate at this stage of the project but soon it will need to change. The divisions of responsibilities are defined for the R&D phase, but have not yet been completely defined for the production phase. This presents some risk to cost and schedule. The assignment of responsibilities needs to continue to advance as the project continues. The Committee does not believe that there is any significant cost risk at the component level. More work is required to define the partner deliverables in the production phase of the project and to fully integrate all the pieces of the machine. The path to CD-1 is well defined; however, obtaining it will require significant resources. The project is well advanced towards CD-1 in certain areas and is advancing rapidly. However, certain items required for CD-1, which were defined in the “Path to CD-1” presentation, have not yet been started. It will be important for the project to prioritize and focus efforts to ensure that the CD-1 requirements are fulfilled on the anticipated time scale. The ongoing R&D efforts will continue to reduce the technical risk and provide additional basis of estimate (BOE) support in cost and schedule estimating. Summary slides of high-level decisions and division of responsibilities would have been helpful in explaining the project perspective to reviewers. The Committee judged that the collaboration is indeed meeting the goals as outlined in the joint R&D document with some qualifications.

5

There are many examples of intellectual property and hardware flowing back and forth between the U.S. and India under the aegis of the Indian Institutions Fermilab Collaboration (IIFC), as envisaged in the R&D plan. It is encouraging that the first phase of prototype hardware components has largely met the design specifications. Examples of this are the 650 MHz superconducting radio frequency (SRF) cavities, power amplifiers, and controls. However, there are issues with U.S. export controls impacting the flow of technical components. The collaboration is well aware of these problems and is attempting to devise both a blanket solution and also individual as-required solutions. Obviously, this should be a high priority for the U.S. management team, as these problems will slow the project until they are resolved. The deliverables described in the joint R&D agreement represent a comprehensive sample of the superconducting RF linac hardware and associated systems. Although it is yet to be determined whether this constitutes a successful contribution to the PIP-II project, nonetheless it certainly provides the basis for success in that a win-win scenario for both India and the U.S. is likely. The U.S. intellectual property provides strong support for major component development for the DAE and for the Indian Spallation Neutron Source and IADS concepts. The Indian deliverables for the PIP-II construction phase are not completely defined at this point, although hardware development in the R&D phase is such that many options are available for a major role in PIP-II. Moving from a prototyping stage towards a construction project will involve future challenges for the collaborating institutions. Many details such as Quality Assurance (QA) reporting, Earned Value Management System (EVMS) requirements, and formal acceptance criteria will need to be addressed. 2.2 Recommendations

1. Ensure sufficient time and resources are available to obtain maximum benefit from the existing high power neutrino beam operations as it pertains to the PIP-II program.

2. Finalize the agreements with the partner institutes to fully define the division of

responsibilities by CD-2. The Acquisition Strategy needed for CD-1 may require some of this information.

6

3. COST and SCHEDULE 3.1 Findings

PROJECT STATUS as of October 2016

Project Type Line Item

CD-1 Planned: Q4 FY18 Actual: TBD

CD-2 Planned: Q1 FY20 Actual: TBD

CD-3 Planned: Q4 FY21 Actual: TBD

CD-4 Planned: Q1 FY29 Actual: TBD

TPC Percent Complete Planned: 2.1% Actual: 2.1%

TPC Cost to Date $13.8M

TPC Committed to Date $15.4M

TPC $516M (Range $465M - $650M)

TEC $421M (Range $421M - $532M)

Contingency Cost (w/Mgmt Reserve) $134M (Range $134M - $168M) 35% on to go

Contingency Schedule on CD-4 30 months 21% on to go

CPI Cumulative N/A SPI Cumulative N/A

The PIP-II Total Project Cost (TPC) cost range proposed at the establishment of Mission Need, CD-0, was $465 to $650 million. The project’s current TPC range is estimated as $465 to $650 million, representing only the DOE/High Energy Physics funded scope. There is a planned international in-kind contribution in the amount of $108 million, which is not included in the TPC, nor in the contingency assessments represented within this report. The project cost is currently based on a point estimate of $516 million for the DOE/HEP scope, and $108 million for international in-kind scope. Of the $516 million, $95 million is indicated as Other Project Costs (OPC) and $421 million as Total Estimated Cost (TEC). This has neither been changed nor updated since the CD-0 review in June 2015. The overall project cost contingency is 35% on to go—the DOE scope of work has $134 million contingency and international in-kind contribution has none. The project established a schedule contingency of 30 months between the planned CD-4 and the CD-4 Level 1 DOE milestone. The project’s presented values are still within the cost and schedule range proposed at CD-0. The project presented a proposed funding profile but was unable to present an obligation and budget profile by fiscal year and quarter, because they are still developing the Resource Loaded Schedule. The project is budgeting to the top end of the cost range but the funding profile has not been finalized or formally accepted. Four alternative delivery models to meet the Mission Need were evaluated within the alternatives analysis. The alternatives were screened for viability. The four alternatives were compared

7

across ten different evaluation criteria such as: operating costs, technical risk, and reliability. No extensive attempt was made to optimize the alternatives outside of alternative 1 (the reference design). The selected alternative coincided with the lowest construction point estimate and annual operating costs. A full life cycle cost analysis was not performed and the status quo alternative was not analyzed. The Threshold and Objective Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) for the project are shown in Table 3-1. The point estimate of $516 million is representative of the Threshold and Objective KPPs where applicable. These are in support of the CD-0 Mission Need for the project.

# Description of Scope Threshold KPP Objective KPP 1 SRF Linac Beam delivered through the linac,

to the Booster Injection Region 800 MeV beam delivered to Booster Injection Region

2 Booster/RR/MI Upgrades Components capable of delivering 1.2 MW to external beamline installed and beam accelerated in the Booster

3 Cryogenic Infrastructure Cryogenic plant and distribution ready to support beam operations and cooled to operating temperature

4 Civil Construction Tunnel enclosures and service buildings ready to support 700 MeV SRF linac and transfer line to the Booster

Tunnel enclosure and service buildings to support 1 GeV SRF linac and transfer line to the Booster

Figure 3-1. Key Performance Parameters

The project’s BOE has not been updated since the CD-0 review and approval. The project identified missing scope elements such as commissioning and various design updates. Estimates are based on labor and material estimates for each of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) elements. Cost and schedule estimate traces were not appropriate to be performed given the current state of the estimate development. The vast majority of the estimate is based on a P5 FY 2013 estimate with minor modifications for scope differences since that time. The BOEs do not contain contingency (estimate uncertainty/maturity), which is typically applied by the Level 3 subsystem managers. Instead, contingency is applied in a top-down manner at this stage. Additionally, the project assessed the point estimate class as between a Class 3 and 4, per DOE Guide 413.3-21. This was based upon the project definition related to design, fabrication, and testing in the R&D phase. Based on this assessment, the project determined the range as -10% and +26% for the low and high percentages, applied to the point estimate. This generates the $465 to $650 million range that was presented. The project presented a plan for completion of CD-1 requirements, including the Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PPEP), and Resource Loaded Schedule, but did not have information related to missing information for this review, such as the WBS dictionary, risk register, interface documentation, or scope requirements mapping. The project’s Acquisition Strategy has not been completed to date.

8

Primavera (P6) is being used for establishing and updating the base units and schedule going forward. Cobra is not used for rating the base units from P6 at this time. Instead, a separate series of Excel tabs in a large spreadsheet is being used. The project stated that Cobra will be used as they approach CD-2, but is unlikely to be used for the CD-1 review. The project stated and the Committee confirmed that the critical path could not be displayed at this time. The partially developed P6 schedule with time-phased project scope was presented along with the methodology for fully planning the remaining scope in the schedule. The Resource Loaded Schedule is expected to be funding profile constrained, although the project team is building a technically driven schedule first, then applying constraints as needed for funding. At this time, the project is considering a tailored approach of a CD-2/3a for Long Lead Procurement of conventional facilities, site preparation, and niobium procurements for SRF cavity fabrication, in order to mitigate risks. The project is working toward a goal of 70% design maturity for CD-2; however, R&D is not expected to be fully complete until FY 2020. The project presented an organization structure with “to-be-determined” designations for some staff positions that need to be filled prior to CD-1, including Project Controls; Environment, Safety and Health and Quality Assurance; Procurement Manager; and Superconducting Linac Lead Engineer. A project risk registry is not in place. There are five high-level risks discussed within the PPEP but neither a formal risk register nor a risk management plan has been created. The project does not plan to have a standalone Risk Management Plan, but will rather use the Fermi Risk Management Procedure for projects, tailored as needed. The CD-0 recommendations have been assessed by the project and they have marked those items as closed. 3.2 Comments As the estimate is still unchanged from the June 2015 DOE/SC CD-0 review, a detailed assessment by the Committee on the appropriateness of the estimate based on the current state of design maturity could not be fully determined. Based on information that was reviewed and presented by the project team, there are elements (scope and costs) missing from the estimates presented. Other improvements such as the application of escalation and assessment of uncertainty and risk within the project also need to be incorporated into the estimate. An updated estimate with more current quotes would be appropriate, to better establish the cost base. The creation and update of BOE supporting documents and estimates would be appropriate prior to CD-1, given the pending Independent Cost Review (ICR). After the incorporation of missing scope elements, updating costs for FY 2016, and assessing risk/uncertainty, it is probable that the point estimate and TPC range will have values outside those established at CD-0. The project needs to be prepared for the level of detailed information required for an ICR.

9

Thought should be given to the presentation of this material and dynamic capabilities of data provided not only to the review team, but also to the project team for internal quality reviews. These reviews are typically performed with teams reviewing data weeks prior to arrival onsite. A dynamic ability to review and communicate the cost estimates is recommended. The project should ensure that the project cost in the Acquisition Strategy, PPEP, and Alternative Analysis reflect the same updated point estimate. The four options reviewed within the Alternatives Analysis did not include keeping the status quo, or the “do nothing” alternative. Additionally, the criteria used for assessment of the four options did not appear to fully assess the life cycle costs associated with the options versus an annual operating cost. The project should ensure that the Alternatives Analysis addresses the Government Accountability Office (GAO) best practices guide for Alternatives Analysis, or should provide justifications for the deviations. While the project is funding constrained and is operating in an uncertain environment, the team is taking advantage of the resources they have available, and is attempting to focus those resource on key scope areas to move the project forward where possible. Progress has been made to further develop the schedule in P6 since the CD-0 review. However, additional development is needed. The schedule was only developed at 70% of the R&D scope, which is approximately $33 million (direct cost) of the total project budget. The information that is developed thus far, and which was presented, is very detailed. The project’s presentation on the plan for taking a high-level schedule and detail planning into P6 with each of the lower-level managers is commendable. This high-level schedule includes integration milestones that are internal and external to the project. These milestones will help to clearly define the project boundaries and will aid in managing and providing visibility to key handoffs between the subsystems and control accounts. However, care should be taken to not over-plan future activities, given the current R&D phase of the project. The use of planning packages is encouraged. The planned number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) within the project office seem to be low at this stage of the project, given the amount of work that remains to be completed prior to CD-1. Some of the staffing for the project is fractionally assigned. The use of the Fermi Risk Management Procedure for the primary process related to risk is an acceptable practice in principle. However, to meet the intent of a Risk Management Plan within DOE Order 413.3b, the project needs to document deviations from the FNAL procedure within the Project Management Plan, and/or in the PPEP, including specifics that are related to the project’s risk scoring, and the frequency of reviewing risks. The project should make clearer the use of the FNAL procedure in lieu of a Risk Management Plan—many reviewers will be looking for that information at CD-1. The project urgently needs to develop a risk register, and to assess the threats and opportunities within that register. This needs to be developed well prior to CD-1, in order to ensure that the expected values for risks are assessed and included in the validation of the contingency needs.

10

The current contingency level presented (35% to go) appears generally acceptable for this type of project, but is pending further analysis based on the issues stated above. A critical and near-critical path schedule and analysis needs to be performed by CD-1. For example, it appears that there is no schedule contingency for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) completion, which is needed by CD-2. The NEPA completion work is funding constrained but can be accelerated by reallocating project funds. The plan to achieve CD-1 appears to be aggressive, based on the current level of available resources and items remaining for creation, optimization, and review of the schedule, cost, risk, uncertainty, and scope. The project should continue the process of benchmarking similar projects, in terms of cost estimating, schedule development, project risks, and resource requirements. The project’s scope is not currently sufficiently defined to support the preliminary cost and schedule estimates. The project identified the major components of project scope and critical project interfaces, particularly for the R&D phase, but the cost estimates need to be updated. The preliminary project schedule needs to be completed to integrate the entire scope prior to CD-1. However, the project appears to be on track to sufficiently define this by CD-1. The cost and schedule estimates are not currently sufficiently defined nor of adequate maturity to support the forecasted critical decision milestones and cost range. The cost estimate and cost range should be updated. The schedule development needs to be completed to confirm milestones dates against the preliminary funding profile. Again, the project does appear to be on track to sufficiently define this in support of CD-1. 3.3 Recommendations

3. The project needs to complete the CD-1 planning related to the schedule, risk, and

uncertainty analysis, cost, and identification of needed scope to validate the ability to meet the planned critical milestones and funding profile.

4. Prior to the CD-1 ICR, ensure that the Alternatives Analysis addresses the GAO best

practices guide for Alternatives Analysis or provide justifications for deviations. 5. In the next three months, evaluate the remaining work and resource needs to ensure a

successful CD-1 and ICR can be accomplished within the project’s proposed dates. 6. Complete all documentation required for the ICR and CD-1 review, such as the

Acquisition Strategy, PPEP, and RMP.

11

4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT 4.1 Findings A project management team is in place managing a staff of approximately 53 FTEs. That effort is spread over 151 individuals, with approximately 30 individuals charging greater than 75% of their time to PIP-II. The project recently added an Associate Project Manager for Planning and Reporting. Staffing requirements have been developed for both R&D and construction phases. The project is heavily matrixed out of FNAL Divisions, and is not the highest priority in those divisions. However, the project has received the large majority of the support requested to date. Of the $13.8 million costed in FY 2016 (after the start of project accounting in January 2016) and the $21.0 million planned for FY 2017, approximately 70% is labor and 30% M&S each year. The OPC/TEC split for the $516 million point estimate presented at CD-0 is $95 million OPC and $421 million TEC. The project modified the R&D program in response to receiving $18.2 million in FY 2017 as compared to the $31.5 million requested in June 2015, and the $19.5 million included in the Mission Need Statement. Laboratory safety policies and procedures are governing beam operations at PIP2IT. The NEPA strategy has been developed and is being implemented. The wetlands delineation is complete. The environmental review form has been drafted. The collaboration with India/DAE is in the R&D phase. DOE and DAE deliverables are defined in the joint R&D document. The scope is aligned with potential DAE contributions to the construction phase. A preliminary table of responsibilities was provided to the Committee, organized by technical system and section of project, by FNAL. There is potential for Italy/INFN and/or UK/STFC contributions in the construction phase. Contributions from international partners are “in-kind”, such that PIP-II bears a schedule risk on the deliverable but does not directly include a cost risk associated with that contribution in contingency. Milestones are being used to delineate the delivery of international contributions to PIP-II. The initial R&D-phase components received from DAE laboratories at FNAL have met most specifications, and have been technically successful. There have been some schedule slips

12

relative to the 2015 plan. The reasons for these slips, and other issues associated with the growth of the collaboration, are discussed at semi-annual IIFC meetings. At the July 2016 meeting, ten issues were raised, eight of which have been closed out, and the remaining two are in process. PIP-II presented a plan for the R&D program leading to CD-1 at the end of FY 2017; CD-2/3a in FY 2019, and CD-3 at the end of FY 2020 (Tier 1 milestones). The plan includes all R&D being complete before CD-3. The project focused on technical risk reduction since CD-0, and is starting to develop a full Resource Loaded Schedule in just the past seven months. The project has developed a draft PPEP. Initial KPPs, milestone development methodology, and reporting methods are under discussion. Monthly reports have been sent to the program since December 2015. An Alternatives Analysis has been submitted to HEP. The program office concurs with PIP-II developing alternative 1, the superconducting linac option. The project team was strengthened with the identification of a Project Engineer/Electrical, APM/Planning, and two divisional coordinators. PIP-II has plans to continue to populate the project office before CD-1. The scope of the conceptual design for the conventional facilities is well defined to support the preliminary cost and schedule estimates. The cost estimate will be refined in the coming month as part of the early tasking of the architect/engineer (A/E). To date, the conventional facilities portion has been accomplished by a combination of in-house staff supplemented with consultants. This effort will continue with an A/E firm in FY 2017. A sketch of the site plan is shown in Figure 4-1. 4.2 Comments The project team is very experienced and appears adequate to successfully deliver the project. Staffing appears to be appropriate for this phase of the project. However, competition for resources with other FNAL projects will require careful coordination at the laboratory level. Project controls may need to be augmented. The project team can be ready for CD-1 in a year. However, there is considerable work to do not just in completing the requirements but also in continuing to formally establish and operate as a project on a daily basis. The project does not have a risk registry. A risk registry is a critical item for the development of a project mindset. PIP-II should start constructing the risk table immediately, and use it to make decisions on how to best move the project forward. The risk registry will help to balance hard technical risks with softer, but very real, project risks, and to inform choices and use of contingency. The current staffing plan does not include a Risk Manager. The project should consider identifying a project Risk Manager prior to CD-1.

13

Figure 4-1. Site Plan

The risk table, and the updated BOEs, will need to be used to defend the contingency assumed for the project at CD-1. International collaborations are a critical component leading to the success of PIP-II. As implemented, the deliverables are in-kind contributions, with small cost risk but real schedule risks. To date, the quality of deliverables has been good, and the long-term visits of Indian engineers to FNAL has had a significant positive influence on the ability to work through “on the ground” issues as they arise. The current agreement is being updated based on the experience of the past 18 months, with a revision that is expected to be signed in early CY 2017. To ensure that the collaboration continues to grow successfully, a method for transparently tracking deliverables on a regular basis should be implemented, so that the appropriate level of collaboration management can address issues that are factually identified. Neither an assumptions document nor a PIP-II/FNAL Memorandum of Understanding has yet been developed (these could be one document). Writing these documents will help to clearly define the scope of the project. The IIFC joint R&D document will be updated in January 2017 to include R&D through 2020.

14

4.3 Recommendations 7. As soon as possible establish a risk management tool to strengthen the risk

management process to ensure that risks are reported consistently (cost slip, in-kinds to be included). Use the tool!

8. Actively address issues that arise in the international collaborations. 9. Use the risk registry to re-evaluate the project and R&D program such that the project

reaches major milestones (CD milestones) as fast as possible. 10. Agree with the program the appropriate level of risk assumed at each CD step.

Present a plan for this at the next review. 11. Develop a key assumptions document prior to CD-1. 12. Develop a MOU with FNAL leadership that outlines the projects needs prior to CD-1. 13. Contingency development should be informed and verified by BOE and risk analysis

at CD-1. 14. Revise the IIFC joint R&D document prior to January 31, 2017.

15. Consider leading the export licensing and intellectual properties right issues and make

it a standard part of the in-kind collaboration strategy to ensure uniformity during execution of contracts. Establish overall coordination support (regulatory issues, logistics) for in-kind contracts by the project.

15

Appendix A Charge Memo

16

17

Appendix B Review Committee

DOE/SC Status Review of the Proton Improvement Plan II (PIP-II) at FNAL

November 15-16, 2016

REVIEW COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS

DOE Chairperson

Kurt Fisher, DOE/SC

Review Committee SC 1—Technical *Mike Harrison, BNL Chris Adolphsen, SLAC Mike Blaskiewicz, BNL Matt Howell, ORNL SC 2—Cost and Schedule *Jennifer Fortner, ANL Jerry Gao, DOE/ASO Ethan Merrill, DOE/OPA SC 3—Management and ES&H *Jim Kerby, ANL Jeff Sims, SLAC Matti Tiirakari, CERN *Lead

Observers Mike Procario, DOE/SC Steve Peggs, DOE/SC Adam Bihary, DOE/FSO Pepin Carolan, DOE/FSO Michael Weis, DOE/FSO Ranajit Kumar, DAE, India Ivan Graff, DOE/PM

18

Appendix C Review Agenda

DOE/SC Review of the Proton Improvement Plan II (PIP-II) at FNAL

November 15-16, 2016

AGENDA   

Tuesday, November 15, 2016—Wilson Hall, the Comitium 8:00 am DOE Full Committee Executive Session .................................................................................... K. Fisher 8:30 am Welcome and Laboratory Strategy .................................................................................... N. Lockyer 8:40 am DAE Strategy ........................................................................................... S.C. Joshi/S. Krishnagopal 9:00 am PIP-II Goals, Status and Strategy ....................................................................................... S. Holmes 9:25 am PIP-II Conceptual Design ................................................................................................ V. Lebedev 9:50 am PIP-II R&D Program ........................................................................................................ P. Derwent 10:10 am Break 10:25 am International Collaborations ................................................................................................ S. Mishra 10:45 am Conventional Facilities ......................................................................................................... S. Dixon 11:05 am Resource Loaded Schedule ...................................................................................................... L. Lari 11:30 am ES&H ................................................................................................................................ V. Kuchler 11:50 am Engineering Organization .................................................................................................D. Mitchell 12:05 pm Discussion 12:15 pm Lunch Breakout Session - R&D Program 1:15 pm Warm Front End and PIP-II IT Status .......................................................................... A. Shemyakin 1:40 pm HWR Status ...................................................................................................................... Z. Conway 2:00 pm SSRI Status ..................................................................................................................... D. Passarelli 2:20 pm SSR2 Status ............................................................................................................... S. Krishnagopal 2:40 pm LB650 Status .......................................................................................................................... T. Nicol 3:00 pm HB650 Status .......................................................................................................................... .V. Jain 3:20 pm Break 3:35 pm Resonance Control of Cavities ...................................................................................... W. Schappert 3:55 pm RF Sources ....................................................................................................................... D. Peterson 4:15 pm RF Controls .......................................................................................................................... B. Chase 4:35 pm Booster/Recycler/Main Injector .................................................................................................. TBD 4:50 pm Discussion Breakout Session - Management 3:35 pm Current Cost Estimate ...................................................................................................... C. Jacobsen 3:55 pm Plan to CD-1 ..................................................................................................................... P. Derwent 4:15 pm PIP-II Perspective on IIFC ................................................................................................. S. Holmes 4:35 pm Organization and Management Plan; Wrap-up .................................................................. S. Holmes 4:50 pm Discussion 5:00 pm DOE Full Committee Executive Session ............................................................................. K. Fisher 6:30 pm Adjourn

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

8:00 am Executive Session ................................................................................................................ K. Fisher 9:00 am PIP-II Response to Questions 9:30 am Full Committee Executive Session/Working Session ....................................................... Committee 12:00 pm Committee Working Lunch 1:00 pm Full Committee Executive Session/Dry Run .................................................................... Committee

3:00 pm Closeout 4:00 pm Adjourn

19

Appendix D PIP-II Funding Table

Funding Table

Cost Table

20

Appendix E PIP-II Schedule Chart

21

Appendix F PIP-II Organization Chart