US
CMS
US | |
CMS | ||
This Management Plan sets forth the specific
plans, organization, responsibilities and systems to be used in
managing the work necessary for successful completion of the US
Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) construction project. The US CMS
construction project is both a DOE Major Systems Acquisition (MSA)
project and an NSF Major Research Equipment (MRE) project, with
the project office located at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
Fermilab will provide management oversight for this project lead
by the Fermilab Deputy Director. This project includes the construction
of elements of the CMS detector for which the US groups collaborating
on CMS take responsibility.
The US groups will participate in the building
of the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment which is designed
to study the collisions of protons on protons at a center of mass
energy of 14 TeV at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
To enable studies of rare phenomena at the TeV scale, the LHC
is designed to operate at a luminosity of 1034
cm-2
s-1.
The physics program includes the study of electroweak symmetry
breaking, investigation of the properties of the top quark, searches
for new heavy gauge bosons, probing quark and lepton substructure,
looking for supersymmetry and exploring for other new phenomena.
The US CMS Group agrees to take
leadership responsibility in the CMS experiment for the endcap
muon system, and for all hadron calorimetry, as well as associated
aspects of the trigger and data acquisition system. The US CMS
Collaboration also plans to work on important areas of electromagnetic
calorimetry, tracking, and common projects. These common projects
will be provided as in kind contributions wherever possible.
Submitted, Accepted, and Approved by:
US CMS Project Manager US CMS Spokesperson
Department of Energy Fermilab
A. Mravca K. C. Stanfield
Fermilab Group Manager Deputy Director
J.R. O'Fallon J. Peoples Jr.
Director, DOE Director
Division of High Energy Physics
National Science Foundation
R. Eisenstein
Director, NSF
Physics Division
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms viii
I. Introduction 1
II. Project Objectives 9
III. Project Organization and Responsibilities 15
IV. Work Plan 41
V. Work Breakdown Structure 45
VI. Project Schedule and Milestones 53
VII. Cost and Labor Estimates 59
VIII. Work Authorization and Project Control System 61
IX. Reporting and Review 69
Appendix A. US CMS Memorandum of Understanding 77
Appendix B. US CMS Statement of Work 89
I-1 US CMS Line Authority 6
II-1 US CMS Project Cost Estimate 14
V-1 US CMS Project - WBS Level 2 Managers 49
VI-1 US CMS Level 1 Schedule
II-1 CMS Construction Schedule 13
III-1 US CMS Project Office 32
AAAP Advance Acquisition or Assistance Plan
ACWP Actual Cost of Work Performed
APP Advance Procurement Plan
BAO Batavia Area Office
BC Budgeted Cost
BCCB Baseline Change Control Board
BCWP Budgeted Cost of Work Performed
BCWS Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled
CCB Configuration Control Board
CD Construction Directive
CDR Conceptual Design Report
CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics
CH Chicago Operations Office
CMS Compact Muon Solenoid
CPR Cost Performance Report
CSCG Cost/Schedule Controls Group
CS2 Cost Schedule Control System
DAQ Data Acquisition
DCC Document Control Center
DHEP Division of High Energy Physics
DOE Department of Energy
EA Environmental Assessment
EAC Estimate at Completion
ECAL Electromagnetic Calorimeter
ECR Engineering Change Request
EMU Endcap Muon System
ER Office of Energy Research
ESAAB Energy System Acquisition Advisory Board
ES&H Environment, Safety and Health
FES Facilities Engineering Services
FIFS Fermilab Integrated Financial System
FNAL Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report
GeV Giga-electron-Volt
HCAL Hadron Calorimeter
HENP High Energy and Nuclear Physics
L2M Level 2 Manger
MAP Mitigation Action Plan
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MRE Major Research Equipment
MSA Major System Acquisition
NSF National Science Foundation
PMG Project Management Group
PMP Project Management Plan
PSAR Preliminary Safety Analysis Report
PSWBS Project Summary Work Breakdown Structure
QA Quality Assurance
QAC Quality Assurance Committee
QAP Quality Assurance Plan
QC Quality Control
R&D Research and Development
SOW Statement of Work
SQIP Specific Quality Implementation Plan
TEC Total Estimated Cost
TeV Tera-electron-Volt
TPC Total Project Cost
URA Universities Research Association
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
This document describes the Project Management
Plan (PMP) that the US CMS Project will follow to meet the technical,
cost, and schedule objectives of the US CMS Project, a Department
of Energy (DOE) Major System Acquisition (MSA) and NSF Major Research
Equipment (MRE) Project. The project will have its management
office at Fermilab, in Batavia, Illinois. Fermilab is a DOE Laboratory
operated under contract DE-AC02-76-CH-03000 by the Universities
Research Association, Inc. (URA). DOE, NSF, Fermilab and the
US CMS Collaboration will work together as a team to accomplish
the US CMS Project. This PMP for construction of US CMS, a project
baseline and execution document, sets forth the plans, organization
and systems that will be used to manage this DOE MSA and NSF MRE
project.
The US CMS Collaboration is part of CMS.
CMS is a collaboration of high energy physicists from many nations
which will conduct an experimental investigation of the interactions
of protons on protons at a center of mass energy of 14 TeV at
the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment planned for the Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
The CMS detector is designed to exploit
the full range of physics at the LHC up to the highest luminosities.
There are two systems where the US has overall
responsibility: the endcap muon (EMU) system and the hadron calorimeter
(HCAL) system. US CMS groups will take construction responsibility
for these and other items. The US will design the endcap steel
which will be constructed as a CMS common project. The hadron
calorimetry is managed by US groups. The US groups will build
the barrel, supply the endcap transducers and front-end electronics,
and build half of the forward system while maintaining complete
HCAL management responsibility. In addition, since the HCAL is
supported by the solenoid cryostat, US groups are involved in
the design of the cryostat and intend to construct elements of
it as a CMS Common Project.
For the other subsystems, the US responsibilities
are not global. However, in every case they are focused on particular
area of US expertise. For example, US groups have overall CMS
trigger management responsibility and will do essentially all
endcap muon level 1 triggers, all calorimeter level 1
triggers, and half of the event builder switch. In EM calorimetry
the US focus is on transducers, front end electronics and monitoring.
In tracking the US groups will build all the endcap silicon pixels.
The PMP presents the top level technical,
cost, and schedule baselines for the US CMS Project, and sets
forth the organization, systems, and plan by which the project
participants will manage the US CMS Project. The line of authority
at the top levels of the US CMS Project is shown in Table I-1.
The management approach described here is
based on ER and NSF experience with projects to construct complex
detectors designed as research tools to advance the frontiers
of knowledge. Three fundamental principles underlie the development
of the organizational structure, the assignment of roles and responsibilities,
and the implementation of management systems to optimize the success
of the project. These principles are:
a. The US CMS Project Manager is nominated
by the US CMS Collaboration, and is jointly appointed by DOE,
NSF, and Fermilab. The US CMS PM has the technical responsibility
for the successful achievement of the performance goals within
the cost and schedule objective.
b. Relevant formal management systems and
requirements are implemented to optimize the project goals and
to account properly for the use of public funds. Fermilab has
management oversight responsibility for the US CMS Project. To
accomplish the oversight function, Fermilab will convene a project
Management Group which will report to DOE and NSF and which will
act as the change control board for the US CMS Project.
c. Project Management incorporates a team
approach involving DOE ER, NSF, Fermilab, and US CMS.
Following this introductory section, Section
II provides an overview of the US CMS Project, the design goals,
scope and objectives. The roles and responsibilities of the major
project participants are defined in Section III. Section IV through
VII describe the work and its organization and the associated
cost, schedule, and technical baselines. A discussion of the
system that will be used to manage and control cost and schedule
and to measure the technical performance of the project is given
in Section VIII. Reporting requirements and review procedures
are described in Section IX.
This plan will be reviewed and revised,
as required, to reflect new project developments and/or other
agreements among the participants. Revisions, as they are issued,
will be signed by all participants, and will supersede in their
entirety previous editions. To the extent that there are inconsistencies
or conflicts between this plan and the terms and conditions of
applicable laws, regulations, and contracts, the provisions of
those documents shall prevail over this plan.
The purpose of the US CMS Project is to
enable US high energy physicists to participate in research at
the high energy frontier available at the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) at CERN.
The US CMS project is described in the US
CMS Letter of Intent of September 8, 1995 and in the US CMS Project
Status Report of October 15,1996, and is outlined below. US responsibilities
within CMS include both management and construction.
US groups have management responsibility
for the endcap muon system, the hadron calorimeter, and the trigger.
Construction responsibilities within the US extend to portions
of all five CMS subsystems: Muon, Hadron Calorimeter, Trigger/DAQ,
Electromagnetic Calorimeter, and Tracking. In addition, there
is US participation in the Common Projects and the costs of the
Project Office at Fermilab are explicitly called out. Hence, there
are seven WBS level 2 categories, as discussed in Section V.
US
CMS responsibilities in the muon system are for construction of
the endcap muon chambers.
US
CMS responsibilities in the HCAL system are for construction of
the entire barrel, the endcap transducers and readout, and roughly
half of the forward system - concentrating on transducers and
readout.
US physicists also have responsibilities within the CMS trigger and data acquisition system . US CMS groups will construct the level 1 calorimeter and endcap muon trigger and elements of the level 2 event builder switch.
US CMS responsibilities in ECAL are
to provide some of the transducers, front end electronics, and
monitoring systems. The US groups involved in CMS tracking will
provide all the forward pixel disks.
[To be completed when the Memorandum of
Understanding with CERN is complete; and following the baseline
review of US CMS by DOE and NSF.]
The key decision points and other milestones
for the project are shown in Fig. II-1. This overall CMS schedule
defines the US CMS Project schedule in that the US groups are
responsible for a subset of the experimental apparatus. Both the
schedule and cost are, of course, dependent on the rate of funding.
This schedule results from discussions between CERN, CMS, DOE/NSF
and US CMS. A more detailed schedule is given in Section VI.
A US CMS level 1 schedule is derived from, and is consistent with,
the overall CMS planning. The level 2 managers then create a
level 2 schedule which is tied to the level 1 milestones.
The Total Project Cost (TPC) for construction
of the US CMS Project is $168,350,000 in then year dollars. The
cost estimate is summarized in Table II-1. Detailed discussion
of the cost estimates, together with obligations and cost profiles
based on schedules described in Section VI, are presented in Section
VII.
The US CMS Project operates within the
context of CMS as an internationally funded experiment located
at CERN. The CERN management has ultimate responsibilities for
CMS and requires that CMS report to it. The executive function
in CMS is provided by the CMS Management Board. The CMS Management
Board is advised on technical matters by the Technical Board and
on financial matters by the Finance Board.
Within CMS, the US CMS Collaboration acts
congruently with a governance which is described in "The
US CMS Constitution", August, 1997. Nevertheless, as a US
Project, US CMS is financially responsible ultimately to DOE and
NSF. In turn, CERN and DOE/NSF will jointly sign a Memorandum
of Understanding covering the financial obligations and deliverables
for the construction of CMS.
The organization of the US CMS Collaboration
is described in a distinct document, the US CMS Constitution of
August, 1997. The organization of the full CMS Collaboration is
described in the CMS Constitution of September 13, 1996.
The Department of Energy and the National
Science Foundation have established the need for the US CMS Project
by considering and responding to advice from their advisory panels,
and in negotiations with CERN. The Department of Energy and the
National Science Foundation provide the majority of the funding
for the US CMS Project . The DOE Division of High Energy Physics
and the NSF Physics Division provide annual program guidance to
US CMS and to the host laboratory as well as annual guidance on
the funding profile for the project. The DOE and NSF exercise
oversight of the project by:
l conducting reviews of the project;
l participating in regularly scheduled Project Management Group (PMG) meetings;
l overseeing operations and fabrication activities;
l monitoring project progress via quarterly progress reports; and
l monitoring
milestones/performance measures.
The crucial partnership between the DOE
and the NSF and their relations with the US CMS Project Office
and the Fermilab Directorate will be handled by a Joint Oversight
Committee (JOC) consisting of the Head of Physics at the NSF
and the Head of High Energy Physics at the DOE and their designees.
Since the two agencies are in partnership for US CMS, such a committee
is mandatory. The US CMS Project Manager reports directly to the
Joint Oversight Committee and to Fermilab. In addition, a key
responsibility of the Project Manager is to provide the budget
request and to recommend to the JOC, with the concurrence of Fermilab,
allocation of the annual budget among the participating institutions.
The PM reports to Fermilab on all matters having to do with managing
the project to the agreed scope, within cost and schedule.
The Fermilab Director has the overall responsibility
to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation
for the management oversight of the US CMS Project. Management
oversight concerns the scrutiny necessary to maintain the cost
and schedule goals to achieve the agreed project scope. The US
CMS Collaboration consults with the Director as part of the procedure
for appointing the US CMS PM. The Project Management Plan, the
cost estimate, the schedule and the financial plan for the project
require the approval of the Director and DOE and NSF with the
concurrence of CMS and CERN. The responsibilities of Fermilab
are further described in a letter of joint appointment from DOE
and NSF to the Fermilab Director. The Fermilab Director will concur
in the MOU between CERN and DOE/NSF and in the MOUs between US
CMS and the collaborating institutions
The Fermilab Director has delegated certain
responsibilities and authorities to the Deputy Director. The
Deputy Director is responsible for management oversight of the
project. The PM reports to the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director
chairs the Project Management Group (PMG) which meets as neessary
to monitor the progress of the project. Oversight of the project
is implemented in part through reviews. Along with providing
routine interactions with project management the PMG will identify
actions and initiatives to be undertaken to achieve the goals
of the project including the allocation of both financial and
human resources. The Project Management Group will also function
as the Baseline Change Control Board for the project.
To implement the work plan for the project,
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) are written assigning responsibilities
and describing the work to be executed. The Deputy Director will
concur in all Memoranda of Understanding. The Deputy Director
advises the Director regarding approval of the PMP, the cost estimate,
the schedule, and the financial plan and concurs with these approvals.
The Department of Energy and the National
Science Foundation request that Fermilab exercise management oversight
for the US CMS detector project. A Project Management Group (PMG),
which reports directly to the DOE and NSF through the Joint Oversight
Committee, will be convened by Fermilab for this purpose. It is
expected that the PMG will include members from Fermilab, DOE,
NSF and US CMS. The PMG also serves as the Change Control Board.
The PMG receives the reports of the US CMS Project Manager. In
turn, it independently reports to the JOC. The US CMS Spokesperson
is a member of the PMG, thus insuring that scientific issues will
be communicated to the US CMS Collaboration.
The US CMS PM has authority and responsibility
for the achievement of the technical, cost, and schedule goals
for this project. The US CMS PM will establish a project organization
which has designated responsibility for the technical, cost, schedule,
procurement, and construction aspects of the project. The US
CMS PM is jointly appointed by DOE and NSF and by Fermilab. The
PM reports to both Fermilab and to DOE and NSF as described above.
Reporting to Fermilab is done through the PMG. The PM directly
reports to DOE and NSF the annual budget request for US CMS and
its annual allocation among the individual US CMS institutions
in order to achieve the goals of the project.
The PM has the responsibility to complete
the Cost and Schedule Plan, and the MOU/Work Plans for the project.
The scope of the project is defined in the CERN -DOE/NSF MOU.
Any change of the scope must be approved by the Fermilab PMG,
in consultation with CERN, the JOC and CMS. The Project Manager
has the responsibility to complete the US CMS Project on the agreed
upon schedule, and within the agreed upon budget.
In addition, the PM is responsible for
preparing the Project Management Plan (PMP) and for updating it
as necessary with the approval of the Deputy Director. The Project
Manager may identify the need for project scope changes. When
there is a need for a change having a significant impact on the
physics capability of the detector the PM must report to the CMS
Management Board and also identify the need to the Director through
the PMG. The PM receives technical advice from Internal Review
Committees. The PM creates such committees as needed and appoints
their members in consultation with the US CMS EB and the CMS MB.
The procedure for modification of the scope of the project is
described in Section VIII of this document.
The PM is responsible for organizing presentations
and at other reviews and for preparing status reports on the
project. The PM will initiate reviews of L2 subprojects to insure
that the subproject is meeting its technical performance, cost,
and schedule milestones. The PM may request a review be organized
by the CMS MB when questions of the adequate technical or physics
performance of a subsystem arise. The PM is a member of the PMG.
Fermilab has agreed to act as host laboratory
to the US CMS Project, and will also serve as the location of
most project reviews. The US CMS Project Office will physically
reside at Fermilab, and will provide administration for DOE funds.
(Administration of NSF funds is provided by the US CMS NSF Office;
see below.) Fermilab will also provide Service Accounts for US
CMS groups, and travel and purchasing support will be available.
Use of Fermilab facilities and services
shall be agreed upon via MOU in the same manner as with the use
of available infrastructure at any US CMS institution. The Project
Manager must report to the Fermilab Director to provide accountability
for all services provided by Fermilab to US CMS which are not
paid for by US CMS Project funds. The provided services may include
services provided to the Fermilab CMS group or may be services
provided to another US CMS Institution. Within the framework of
the MOU specific items shall be negotiated annually by Fermilab
(as host laboratory), by the US CMS Project Manager, and by the
collaborating US CMS institution.
The Project Manager shall hold a management
reserve each fiscal year. That reserve will be committed by the
Project Manager during the course of the year based on performance
and need of the various groups in the US CMS Collaboration. The
reserve will be allocated to individual US CMS institutions in
the same manner as the main fiscal year allocation.
The organization of the US CMS Project Office
is shown schematically in Fig. III-1. This office is headed
by the US CMS Project Manager
. Allocations of project funds are the purview
of the Project Manager with the scientific advice of the US CMS
Executive Board and the concurrence of the Fermilab PMG.
All costs of the Project Office (exclusive
of physicist salaries) shall be explicitly borne by the US CMS
Project and are called out in the US CMS WBS.
The US CMS NSF Coordinator shall maintain
an office responsible for the administration of NSF funds. The
NSF Coordinator is appointed by the NSF upon the recommendation
of the NSF-funded CMS institutions, and serves as the NSF Liaison
on the CMS Finance Board and to the CMS Resource Review Board.
The NSF Coordinator is a member of the PMG.
The allocation of funds to US CMS institutions
is annually determined by the Project Manager with the concurrence
of the PMG. Subsequently, funding is provided to those institutions
(including Fermilab as a US CMS collaborating institution). Explicit
arrangements are defined in the US CMS MOU and annual SOW, which
appear in Appendices A and B.
The US CMS PM will appoint a
Deputy Project Manager who will assist in the tasks of the PM.
The PM will be primarily concerned with the overall management
and its interface with CMS and CERN, with the negotiation of MOU
and SOWs with US CMS institutions, with the PMP and with reporting
to CMS, the PMG and the JOC.
By comparison, more technical
aspects of formal project management will devolve to the Deputy
PM. The creation and maintenance of the Cost and Schedule Plan,
tracking and reporting, and the organization of technical presentations
will be largely the province of the Deputy PM. The Deputy PM is
a member of the PMG.
The WBS level 2 managers are appointed
by the US CMS PM with the concurrence of the PMG, and report directly
to the US CMS Project Manager and Deputy Project Manager. The
L2 managers are members of the PMG. They have the specific responsibilities
listed below:
Perform control account management at the second level of the WBS consistent with management responsibilities, organization structure, and commonly accepted practices.
Ensure that the control account and the schedule status are recorded on a timely basis to maintain current period, cumulative-to-date and at-completion records.
The WBS level 2 managers are responsible
for the particular subsystems of the US CMS as defined in the
work breakdown structure (WBS).
The US CMS Project Manager will draw on
Fermilab resources as agreed by the Fermilab Director. The use
of these resources will follow procedures consistent with the
Laboratory's current accounting, budgeting, human resources, and
procurement department policies.
The Project will obtain support to the
extent agreed from the Laboratory's indirect support group, including:
Accounting
Budget
Environment, Safety and Health
Human Resources
Legal
Material
Facilities Management
Quality Assurance and Value Engineering Office
Information Services
All support functions will be provided
through the Laboratory matrix organizational lines of authority
and responsibility. The US CMS Project Manager will direct all
questions of priority need for Laboratory support assistance not
satisfied through normal lines of authority to the Laboratory
Director.
Internal Review Committees provide a means
for the PM to review technical, cost, and schedule issues for
L2 subprojects. These committees may also be charged with reviewing
the physics performance of the subsystem or recommending scope
changes. Internal Review Committees are appointed from the CMS
membership as required by the PM. The PM charges them, in consultation
with the PMG. Reports and recommendations from internal review
committees are transmitted to the L2 Managers and are in general
made available to the entire US CMS collaboration.
There may be technical committees associated
with a subsystem and separate from the US CMS internal review
boards discussed above. These are appointed by the L2 manager
as needed. Members of such technical committees advise the subsystem
L2 managers on technical directions, alternatives, and methods
of performance. The members of the committee would include scientists
responsible for the design and fabrication of the subsystem or
of major tasks within it. Other technical experts may also be
included. The members of sub-project technical committees are
appointed by the L2 manager. These committees act in an advisory
capacity. Decision authority remains in the hands of the L2 manager
consistent with the line responsibility described above.
The US CMS Project necessarily entails
coordination between CERN, Fermilab, DOE and NSF. At the experiment
level, CMS must coordinate with the US CMS collaboration.
The US CMS Project is conducted as a team
effort involving DOE, NSF, CERN, Fermilab, CMS and US CMS. For
the Project to progress, all parties need to be fully informed
of progress, plans, issues, problems, solutions, and achievements
in real time.
Communication among participants is free
and informal to the maximum extent feasible. Notes, "drafts,"
phone calls, electronic mail, and informal discussions are exchanged
frequently among the participants to accomplish information flow,
raise issues for mutual resolution, and explore the viability
of plans and solutions. Distribution of copies of informal correspondence
to all participants is desirable to keep them fully apprised of
these communications. Each organizational participant will designate
an individual to coordinate informal communications and assure
their proper distribution within that organization. Formal communication
of project business flows along the line authority.
In this chapter, the work to be performed
in the US CMS Project is described in Section IV.B, and the methodology
to be used in the execution of the work is described in Section
IV.C. The research and development (R&D) program connected
with the US CMS Project is described in Section IV.D. System
tests and commissioning are discussed in Section IV.E. The final
two sections of this chapter describe the programs to be utilized
by the US CMS Project for Quality Assurance (Section IV.F) and
for Safety Analysis and Compliance and Environmental Compliance
(Section IV.G).
This project provides for the construction
of elements of an experiment to be performed at CERN, designated
the US CMS Project. The purpose of the project is described in
Section II.A. The salient features of the work that needs to
be done are briefly described in Section II of this plan, and
in considerable detail in the CMS Technical Design Reports.
[to be completed after full project scope
is known]
Design and Engineering
Construction, Fabrication, Assembly, and Installation
Inspection and Acceptance
A program of R&D in support of the
US CMS construction project has already been initiated. This
program will provide for the design and development of new detector
components and for the fabrication and testing of prototypes.
R&D directed towards the optimization of performance and
cost will continue through the early years of construction. The
DOE funded efforts in R&D will be done largely in FY96 and
FY97. The NSF funded efforts will occur largely FY96, FY97, and
FY98. The scope of the FY96 efforts in R&D undertaken by
the US CMS collaboration are discussed in the US CMS Project Status
Report, (October, 1996). The R&D program has been developed
to interface with the construction project milestones.
The R&D effort will be managed by the
US CMS Project Manager. Coordination of the R&D work with
the construction schedule will be the responsibility of the US
CMS Project Manager .
E. System Tests and Commissioning
[to be completed after full project scope
is known]
Quality assurance is an integral part of
the design, procurement, fabrication, and construction phases
of the US CMS Project. Special attention is being devoted to
items that will affect the performance capability and operation
of the CMS detectors.
It is the policy of the US CMS project
that all activities shall be performed at a level of quality appropriate
to achieving the technical, cost, and schedule objectives of the
project. To implement this policy, the US CMS project will develop
a SQIP that is based on the QA criteria established by DOE and
NSF. The responsible person for the QAP for the US CMS is the
US CMS Project Manager.
The US CMS project SQIP will define the
management policies in regard to 1) QA program, 2) Personnel Training
and Qualification, 3) Quality Improvement, 4) Documents and Records,
5) Work Processes, 6) Design, 7) Procurement, 8) Inspection and
Acceptance Testing, 9) Management Assessment, and 10) Independent
Verification.
Vendors will implement quality assurance
programs appropriate to the services being furnished. As specified
in the MOU, US CMS activities done at each institution will use
the implemented quality assurance programs. All these programs,
as well as implementing procedures, are subject to review and
audit by the US CMS Project Office at Fermilab.
Implementation of the project ES&H
program is the responsibility of the US CMS Project Manager and
the line managers in the US CMS organization. The US CMS Project
Manager has appointed the US CMS Project Mechanical Engineer to
be the US CMS ES&H Supervisor with the responsibility to monitor
the implementation of the total US CMS project ES&H program
to ensure conformance and to be responsible for coordination of
the project-wide ES&H program.
All project activities will be conducted
in compliance with the applicable DOE and NSF ES&H directives.
CERN requirements will be addressed through consultation with
the CMS group leader in matters of safety (GLIMOS).
All work required for successful completion
of the US CMS Project is organized into a WBS. The WBS contains
a complete definition of the scope of the project and forms the
basis for planning, execution, and control of the US CMS Project.
The US CMS WBS is continued to a sufficiently low level to make
each deliverable and its provider unique and trackable. Specifically,
the WBS provides the framework for the following activities:
Budgeting
Each element of the WBS at the lowest level
is assigned a budgeted cost (BC). The budgeted cost of the project
can be seen at any level by performing a sum over contributing
lower levels.
Cost Estimating
The WBS supports a systematic approach
to preparation of the cost estimate for the project. The WBS
structure is extended to a level sufficient to allow definition
of individual components for which a cost can be reasonably estimated.
The BC and cost estimate are equal for the lowest level in each
branch of the WBS.
Scheduling
The WBS also supports a systematic approach
to preparation of the project schedule. Again each WBS element
at the lowest level of the structure is assigned a schedule duration.
The project schedule is created by establishing the interdependencies
between the various elements.
Support Requirements
The WBS, in conjunction with the associated
schedule and cost estimates, provides the framework over the life
of the project for projecting funding and manpower requirements
over the life of the project.
Configuration Control
The detailed scope of the project is contained
within the WBS. Proposed changes to the scope can readily evaluated
within the WBS framework.
Performance Measurement
The WBS supports the monitoring, control,
and reporting of cost and schedule performance. Since each element
of the WBS, and by association each work element, has a well defined
BC and schedule a view of the progress of the project at any level
is available at any time.
The levels of the WBS reflect the logical
breakdown of the work required to complete the project with lower
levels providing progressively higher levels of detailed description.
The number of levels is established by extending the description
down to a level at which individual components can be identified
and associated into a well defined piece of equipment or structure.
The Project Summary WBS is a consolidation
of the top three levels of the US CMS Construction Project WBS,
and the top two levels associated with Other Project Costs - R&D.
The specific Project Summary WBS is given below.
1. US CMS Construction Project
1.2 Hadron Calorimeter
1.2.3 Endcap Hadron Calorimeter
1.2.4
Endcap Outer Calorimeter
1.2.5 Forward Calorimeter
1.3 Trigger/DAQ
1.3.1 Level 1 Trigger
1.3.2 Data Acquisition
1.4 Electromagnetic Calorimeter
1.4.1 Photodetectors
1.4.4 Monitoring Light Source
1.4.5 Crystal Development
1.6 Common Projects
1.7 Project Management
2. Other Project Costs - R&D
The highest levels of the Project Summary
WBS are shown in Table V-1.
The WBS Level 2 Managers are shown in Table
V-1. The L2 managers are required to provide the PM a detailed
WBS dictionary of their subsystem. This document and the Basis
of Estimate provides the documentation which defines the quality
of the estimated costs for the project.
The schedule baseline sets forth the major
activities, decision points and activity interfaces essential
for completion of the US CMS Project.
The baseline schedule includes interpretation
and optimization of activities related to the design, procurement,
fabrication, assembly, testing, installation and checkout of detector
elements. The Project Master Schedule will be developed to include
major activities and decision points. It is composed of major
WBS level 3 elements with significant milestones included. This
schedule will be the top level project schedule and is the basis
for baseline development in all lower level project schedules.
Work package schedules at the lowest WBS
level (L7) will be assembled into an interconnected activity logic
diagram by integrating construction activities within each respective
WBS element. Schedule interfaces with other WBS elements will
be made. This integrated schedule provides a total project critical
path. Summarization of these lower level activities allows status
to be rolled up through the various WBS levels to provide intermediate
level and master level working schedules. These working schedule
dates are compared to the established baseline dates and any variances
addressed in the Progress Reports. Consistency of data from work
packages through intermediate schedules to the master schedule
will be traced through control and event milestones. All milestones
contained in the Project Master Schedule are reflected in the
lower level schedules.
The schedule management and monitoring
system will be developed using Microsoft Project a software tool
available at Fermilab and one adopted by CMS. The schedule status
is summarized at the various WBS levels, to provide project schedule
reporting at the master, intermediate, and detailed levels by
WBS and across functional organizations. The master level schedule
will also include a critical path, defined by the PM by considering
the critical paths of each of the L2 efforts.
The present highest level schedule for
CMS is given in Fig. II-1.
A set of project milestones for L1 schedule has been defined by the US CMS Collaboration, in consultation with the CERN LHC experiments Committee (LHCC).
The L1 schedule for US CMS is given in Table
VI-1. The corresponding CMS milestones appear in the CMS Interim
MOU. The L2 managers provide subsystem schedules which are then
linked to the L1 milestones. This linked US CMS schedule is then
resource loaded in order to provide a US CMS cost profile. CMS
has adopted Microsoft Project as the management software, and
US CMS has followed that decision.
The cost baseline will be established when the Project Plan is
reviewed. The project cost baseline is
equal to the sum of the budgeted costs for each element of the
Work Breakdown Structure described in Section V. Changes in cost,
technical requirements, schedules, and plans are to be treated
as variances to the baseline.
The TPC is $168.32 M which includes $7.5M of R&D and $18.8 M of escalation. This total will not be exceeded. The TEC of the US CMS project is $142.05M in then-year dollars. Included in the TEC are procurement, assembly, and installation of all technical components, engineering design, inspection, and project management required to assure successful completion of the project. Contingency funds in the amount of 32% of the base cost, excluding common projects, are also included in the TEC.
Uncertainty in the amount of US common
project contribution is reflected in the ?? % effective contingency
assigned to common projects. The US fraction of the common project
costs is about 20% of the total CMS costs.
The construction cost estimate is maintained
in fixed year (FY 1997) dollars. The TEC in FY 1997 dollars is
$142M.
Escalation
rates are based upon an assumed annual escalation rate given by
guidance from OMB.
The project baseline schedule, obligations
and cost plan will be based on the best estimate of the funding
profile. The obligation plan will be derived from the baseline
schedule and cost plans given in this Project Management Plan.
Similarly, application of the escalation rates given in C above
will result in the cost plan.
Labor
requirements have been estimated for each work package in the
US CMS project. These estimates include the required EDIA and
Fermilab-based project management, as well as manufacturing labor.
This section summarizes the techniques
that the US CMS Project Manager will use to manage the cost and
schedule performance and the technical accomplishments of the
Project relative to this PMP. The significant interfaces that
exist among the various management systems are noted in the individual
narrative descriptions below. Although these systems are described
separately they are mutually supportive and will be employed in
an integrated manner in order to achieve the project objectives.
As conditions change during the evolution of the project, the
management systems will be modified appropriately so as to remain
responsive to the needs for project control and reporting. Consequently,
while the policy and objectives of each management system will
remain fixed, the methods, techniques, and procedures that will
be employed by the US CMS Project are expected to change as conditions
dictate, over the life of the project.
The Work Authorization and Contingency
Management System and the Project Control System described in
this chapter defines the management and control procedures which
are needed to comply with the requirements of DOE and NSF and
Fermilab.
The Work Authorization and Contingency
Management System and the Project Control System employed by the
US CMS Project will be consistent with DOE and NSF guidelines
.
The following policies are applicable for
the US CMS:
All Project work is organized in accordance
with the WBS.
Formal (and informal) reviews by experts
are used to establish specifications and designs.
Established cost, schedule, and technical
baselines are used for measuring project performance.
Changes to the approved cost, schedule,
and technical baselines proceed via a Change Request (CR) process
described below.
A project management system, which features
performance measurement and critical-path scheduling, is used
to control the project and to provide forecast and feedback information
to management.
The decision making apparatus employs
regular meetings among the US CMS organizational elements. These
meetings will serve to identify and resolve interface issues within
the project.
Quality assurance, safety analysis and
review, and environment assessment are integral parts of the Work
Authorization and Project Control.
Funds will be made available by the DOE
and NSF for support of the US CMS project on an annual basis.
Requests for specific amounts, identified at level 3 of the WBS,
will be prepared by the US CMS Project Manager. Each such request
will include a description of the work to be performed, the requested
funds, the forecast cost of the work, and the currently projected
contingency requirement at WBS level 3, over the life of the project.
Funds will then be released to the institutions who are part
of the US CMS Collaboration. A management reserve will be held
by the Project Manager and will be applied during the fiscal year
on the basis of performance and need, following the principles
of change control outlined below.
The PMG, chaired by the Fermilab Deputy
Director, will act as the Change Control Board for the US CMS
Project. The PMG will have as its purview assignment of contingency
funds and any change of the scope of the project. Scope changes
arise should projected costs of any L2 subsystem exceed the assigned
contingency .
At any time the project contingency is
the difference between the project TEC and the sum of the current
Estimates at Completion (EAC) at level 3 of the WBS. The contingency
is held by the PM. The contingency funds are allocated through
the project change control. The PM and the PMG would jointly either
descope the effort in question or assign contingency funds from
another portion of the full US CMS Project should costs exceed
contingency allocations. To that end, each L2 manager will provide
the PM a scope contingency scenario to reduce the scope of the
relevant US CMS subsystem.
The principles of contingency management
that the US CMS project will follow are as follows:
The cost estimate for each L2 subsystem
will include contingency funds based on an assessment of uncertainties
and risks associated with the budgeted cost.
The actual expenditure of contingency
will be reflected in a revised EAC, updated annually.
The Fermilab US CMS PMG will consider
and approve all Change Requests (CRs) that will require future
utilization of contingency. A log of such approved requests will
be maintained by the US CMS project office and the PMG.
The initial funding request of each fiscal
year may, with the concurrence of the US CMS Fermilab PMG, assign
25% of the contingency available in that year to US CMS for application.
The US CMS Project Manager may adjust
the budgeted cost of any WBS level 3 package by 10% or $100K,
which ever is less, as long as the L2 Project TEC is not exceeded.
All cost changes to the baseline costs
shall be traceable.
The PM with the concurrence of the PMG
must give prior approval to all procurements requiring the use
of contingency.
The funds included in each funding request
are under the authority of the US CMS Project Manager. Subject
to the above conditions the US CMS Project Manager can request
the PMG to authorize change requests which, if approved, will
then be implemented without further DOE or NSF approval.
The Project Control System includes the
three categories listed below:
Baseline Development: This includes management
actions necessary to define initial project scope and responsibilities,
establish baselines, and plan the project.
Project Performance: This includes management
actions after work commences that are necessary to monitor project
status, report and analyze performance, and manage risk.
Change Management: This includes management
actions necessary to ensure adequate control of project baselines,
including the performance measurement baseline.
Each L2 subsystem manager prepares a formal
cost estimate and schedule. All necessary resources assumed in
this cost estimate are identified in the MOUs of member institutions,
who agree to a best effort contribution.
Standard accounting practices and the Project Control System will collect costs for completed work. Performance analysis of costs, schedule, and work scope performance will provide a determination of project status. Each year the PM and L2 managers adjust the schedule and distribute the allocated funding in order to utilize the available resources as effectively as possible.
These actions are reflected in the collection
of annual SOW with the member institutions.
The cost of the project is captured in
the Laboratory's General Ledger and is tracked by work packages
based on the Work Breakdown Structure. In general, work packages
are assigned to WBS Level 7 elements for cost collection. The
L2 managers are responsible for obtaining reporting from their
respective contributing institutions to track costs at that level.
The mechanism for tracking and reporting is defined in detail
in the MOU template (Appendix A of this document).
Summary and detailed cost reports are prepared
quarterly by the Project Management. Reports of costs and obligations
for capital equipment funds are submitted to Laboratory management
and the Department of Energy and NSF.
The principal functions of performance
measurement and analysis are to identify, quantify, analyze, evaluate
and rectify significant deviation from the
baseline plan as early as possible.
Schedule
Variance
At the end of each quarter, the milestone
list and critical path tasks will be evaluated to identify deviations
from the baseline schedule. Any deviations that have a significant
impact on the project, either by delaying completion or by affecting
the cost or labor plan of the project will be identified. A plan
to rectify any delays will be developed and may include either
alteration of the project schedule to optimize work and reduce
delay or allocation of additional resources to shorten the time
required to perform the tasks involved.
Any change that would alter the schedule,
cost or required labor resources will be subject to change control
as described in this plan.
Cost Variance
Quarterly cost variance will be determined
by comparing the actual cost of work performed at WBS level 2
with the budgeted cost of work performed as represented in the
current EAC. Cost variances that exceed the established thresholds
are formally reported as required in this plan.
Resource Variance
A quarterly analysis of the resources available
(labor and funds) will be performed by the project office to
ensure that shortfalls in either which could lead to schedule
and/or cost variances are identified in a timely manner and brought
to the attention of the PMG.
The US CMS Fermilab PM will control changes
in requirements, cost, and schedule in consultation and agreement
with the US CMS PMG. Any change that affects the interaction between
detector subsystems or that significantly impacts the performance,
schedule, or safety of the detector must also be referred to the
CMS Management Board by the PM.
Scope Changes
If the costs of any L2 subsystem
were projected to exceed the base estimate plus contigency, remedial
action must be taken by the PM. Following the change control procedures
defined above, the PM may propose modification of the L2 scope
or adjustments to the estimated costs, so long as the TEC is not
exceeded. If such adjustment is not possible, the situation must
be reported by the PM and the PMG to the CMS MB and the JOC respectively.
Reducing the scope of the US CMS Project so as to remain within
the TEC is the only allowable action. That scope reduction must
be formulated to DOE, NSF and the PMG by the PM with the advice
of the CMS MB.
Baseline Changes
Any change to the US CMS Project that does
not trigger scope change as defined above does not require a
new proposal to be submitted.
Although the project scope is not affected,
changes resulting in cost variations, changes of personnel assignments
or schedule impact are considered baseline changes.
Baseline changes must have the approval
of the US CMS PM.
Baseline changes that result in increases
in the US CMS Project Estimate at Completion (EAC) must be initiated
by a Change Request. Changes that result in increases in any level
2 WBS element, must be initiated by a Change Request (CR) form
presented at the US CMS PMG. Such requests will require the approval
of the Deputy Director and/or Director as indicated below.
The US CMS PMG functions as the Change
Control Board for the project. The US CMS Project Manager will
maintain current records of all CRs and their disposition.
Notes
The record of US CMS Project documentation revision status is maintained by the PM.
The record of US CMS Project Management Group meetings will be maintained by the Fermilab Directorate.
A record of all CRs will be maintained by the US CMS Project Manager.
All changes from baseline cost shall be
traceable.
The CMS experiment reports to CERN as the
responsible host of the experiment. In turn, the US CMS collaboration
reports on technical progress to the full CMS collaboration. The
US CMS PM is the point of contact with CERN and CMS concerning
US CMS finances.
Tracking and reporting begins with a report
by the individual US CMS institution to the relevant L2 manager.
The reporting is passed to the PM and the project office which
is responsible for tracking all US CMS funds. Each institution
will provide monthly financial information to the Project Manager
in a specified format, see Appendix A and Appendix B, which provides
cost and commitment information at the lowest level of the WBS.
Each L2 manager will provide quarterly reports on technical progress
to the PM and the PMG.
The US CMS Project Office is responsible
for tracking and reporting all US CMS Project activities. The
project office shall prepare and issue periodic reports of earned
value and cost and schedule variance for the US CMS Project.
The US CMS PM reports both to the US CMS
Fermilab PMG on the status of the US CMS Project, and in addition
reports to the US funding agencies, DOE and NSF. The US CMS PM
also reports to the CMS MB, TB and FB on the status of the project.
In turn, the CMS Management Board reports to the CERN Resource
Review Board, whose members include DOE and NSF representatives.
The PMG reports directly to the JOC.
Memoranda of Understanding will exist both
within the CMS collaboration as a whole, and for the US CMS collaboration.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to
be negotiated between CERN as the host laboratory, the collaborating
CMS institutions (represented by the CMS Collaboration Board)
and their funding agencies (DOE and NSF in the US). A draft of
an Interim MOU covering the initial phase of the CMS experiment
has been signed for the 1996 and 1997 period of R&D.
Within the US CMS Project, a US MOU will
be executed. A draft version of this MOU and of the annual SOW
have been written, and appear here as Appendices A and B. The
signatories of this MOU are threefold: Fermilab as host laboratory,
the US CMS collaborating institution, and the US CMS PM. By means
of the MOU agreement the L2 managers and the US CMS Project Manager
will identify the work to be done at each member institution of
US CMS, together with the necessary resources. It will also establish
reporting to be done by each institution of both financial and
schedule milestones.
Tracking and reporting and the record of
performance will form the basis for continuing annual authorization
of funds to a particular institution by the Project Manager with
the scientific advice of the US CMS Executive Board and the CMS
MB and with the concurrence of the US CMS Fermilab PMG within
the framework of the US CMS MOU.
In turn, the US CMS Project reports cost,
labor, schedule, and performance data to the US CMS Fermilab PMG.
The objective of the reporting and review activity is to provide
for the collection and integration of essential technical, cost,
schedule, and performance progress data into the reports and reviews
needed for managing and monitoring the US CMS Project. The following
paragraphs describe the status and technical reports that will
be provided.
Project reporting and review will be divided
into external and internal categories.
Status Reports will be prepared on a periodic
basis. These reports are designed to portray the technical, cost,
and schedule status of the Project at that particular point in
time. In general, the reports will contain the following: Project
cost trends; schedule accomplishments; critical items; commitment
status; status of major procurements; budget versus cost projections;
management assessments; variance analysis results and planned
corrective action. The US CMS Project Manager will report at
level 3 of the WBS. Reporting will be to the US CMS Fermilab
PMG as the change control board and the group charged by DOE and
NSF with management oversight.
Design reports will be prepared and updated
at the completion of a major system or component. The major phases
are the Conceptual Design, Title I design, Title II Design, and
as-built. The design reports will be prepared by the responsible
level 2 manager and approved by the US CMS Project Manager. Technical
reviews in addition to the Technical Design Report (TDR) required
by CERN for subsystem approval will be organized by the PMG.
The project office will be the central depository of the drawings
and appropriate documentation.
The US CMS PM and L2 managers will meet regularly with the US CMS
Executive Committee to assess the current
status of the prooject, management issues, and proposed major
changes. Communication with the US CMS collaboration at large
is done at the biennial US CMS full collaboration meetings.
Monthly Meeting
A monthly meeting will be held between
the PMG and the US CMS Project Manger and L2 managers to review
the current status of Project work, to discuss outstanding issues,
and to update previously identified action items. It is assumed
that local representatives of both DOE and NSF will be members
of the PMG.
Annual Review
Approximately every twelve months, a comprehensive
review of the Project's cost, schedule, and technical status will
be held by ER and NSF. Presentations by key US CMS Project personnel
will address issues on an agenda agreed to in advance by ER, NSF,
and the US CMS Project Manager.
1. Introduction
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) describes
the collaboration by members of <Institution> in the Compact
Muon Solenoid (CMS) Project in the United States. The purpose
of this collaboration is the design, fabrication, operation and
scientific exploitation of the CMS Detector. The detector is
described in the CMS Technical Proposal, December 15, 1994, the
Technical Design Reports, and subsequent technical documents elaborating
that design. The contribution of the US CMS Collaboration to the
CMS Detector Project is defined by the scope of work set out in
the US CMS WBS and accepted as the baseline set of deliverables
by DOE and NSF. This scope of work forms the basis of the MOU
between CERN and DOE/NSF.
The US CMS project management infrastructure
(US CMS Project Office) resides at Fermilab, and the responsibility
for US CMS project management resides in the US CMS PM who reports
to the US CMS Fermilab Project Management Group (PMG) and to DOE
and NSF. The US CMS PM has appointed level two (L2) managers
who are responsible to him for subsystems of the US CMS project.
This Memorandum of Understanding describes
the long-term contributions of <Institution> to the design,
construction and operation of the CMS Detector. It is understood
that these contributions of <Institution> may later be modified
or that additional responsibilities may be added.
An annual Statement of Work (SOW) will detail
the contributions of <Institution> as the detector construction
proceeds and will contain the specific activities, deliverables
and funding required. The normal period of performance will be
the US fiscal year (October 1-September 30). A separate SOW will
be written for each L2 subsystem, while the MOU will be a single
document for each US CMS Institution.
This Memorandum of Understanding is made
between <Institution> , the US CMS Project Manager and Fermilab
as part of its role in management oversight. It does not constitute
a legal contractual obligation on the part of any of the parties.
It reflects an arrangement that is currently satisfactory to
the parties involved. The parties agree to negotiate amendments
to this memorandum as required to meet the evolving requirements
of the CMS detector construction program.
2. Personnel
2.1. List of Scientific Personnel
Participating scientists committed to CMS
over the full project period are listed below. No scientific personnel
will be funded by US CMS project funds.
| Name |
| Other Research
Commitments/Comments |
*Time devoted to CMS over and above the
indicated CMS research fraction is considered to be <Institution>
service effort in support of CMS.
2.2. Collaboration Board Representative
<Name> is the present representative of <Institution> to the US CMS Collaboration Board.
2.3. List of Technical Personnel
Participating technical staff members foreseen
to participate over the full project period are:
Engineers
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Designers
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support | ||
Technical Specialists
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Programmers
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Others
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
2.4. Other Key Personnel
The Environment, Safety and Health officer
for <Institution> responsible for compliance with applicable
ES&H policies associated with CMS participation by this institution
is currently <name> of <Institution>. The Quality
Assurance officer for <Institution> responsible for QA compliance
of tasks performed by this institution is currently <name>
of <Institution>.
3. Design, Fabrication and Installation
Responsibilities
3.1. Design and Fabrication Responsibilities
- Construction Period
The US CMS Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) contains a detailed cost estimate of the items needed to
complete the US CMS project. By this MOU <Institution> agrees
to make a best effort to provide the following items at a cost
not to exceed the WBS base cost estimate. Procedures to be followed
in the event of a necessary variation of cost from the base cost
are described in section 3.3 below.
| WBS Cost
-Base, k$ | WBS (L7) | Description |
3.1.2 Transportation
Unless specifically indicated otherwise
here, items produced by <Institution> for use in the CMS
detector or subsystems shall be transported by the providing institution
to the agreed upon point of delivery. <Institution> shall
be responsible for safe transport of all items to these delivery
points. The method of transport and packaging are to be authorized
by the US CMS Project Engineer.
3.1.3 Installation and Commissioning
<Institution> will participate in
the installation and commissioning of their contributed items
at CERN as listed. The <Institution> will also participate
in the maintenance and operation of these items.
<Item 1>
<Item 2>...
3.2. Coordination and Reporting
The US CMS L2 manager for the <subsystem>
subsystem is <name1>. The institution contact person for
<subsystem> activities at <Institution> is <name2>.
The task managers for <subsystem> activities carried out
at <Institution> are as follows
The progress of the design, fabrication,
and testing of these components will be reported by the above-named
task managers on a quarterly basis, by WBS element to L3 in detail,
to the US CMS L2 Manager, who in turn will report subsystem progress
to the US CMS PM. The PM will, in turn, report to the Fermilab
PMG.
Technical reporting to CMS project management
will be performed by the US CMS Subsystem Coordinator. Financial
reporting to CMS will be made by the US CMS PM.
3.3. Procurement Authorization
The authorized financial officer at <Institution> is <name>. The US CMS PM delegates expenditure authority regarding the designated WBS items in the SOW to the authorized financial officer subject to the following requirements. The base cost of the WBS items are given in section 3.1.1 without contingency. The officer agrees that these cost ceiling cannot be exceeded without the authorization the PM and the relevant L2 manager. In addition, the officer agrees that item purchases exceeding the delegated limit (currently <$xxK>) must be authorized by the US CMS L2 manager. Major procurements (currently <$xxK>) must in addition have the written authorization of the US CMS PM. Items purchased as CMS Common Project items (WBS category 6) must be explicitly authorized by the US CMS PM and approved by the CMS Finance Board Chair, regardless of the cost. Items purchased for Project Office items (WBS category 7) must be authorized by the PM.
3.4. Reporting to US CMS Project Management
<Institution> will report all CMS
related expenditures and labor charges together with associated
technical progress in each item of work by Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) category (Level 7) on a quarterly basis through the appropriate
US L2 Manager(s) to the US CMS PM. Cost reporting will apply to
US CMS Project funds related to detector fabrication. Other,
non-DOE and non-NSF costs will be reported in a manner that is
agreed to by the L2 Manager(s), the US PM and <Institution>.
Any request for variance from the base cost must be immediately
reported to the appropriate L2 manager.
Technical progress will be reported
by WBS element L3 to the L2 Manager and the PM on a quarterly
basis and will cover all items covered in this Statement of Work
regardless of the specific nature of the funding support.
The institution agrees to furnish
complete documentation of the quality control and performance
checks which are carried out for US CMS. Further, the institution
agrees to furnish full documentation of all equipment and services
which it provides for the US CMS project. This will include engineering
drawings of equipment, full schematics of electronics, and documentation
of all software. Where relevant, an acceptable level of spares
(~10%) will be provided and maintained by the institution.
Each Institution agrees, with
this document, to set up and maintain a ledger, of a form specified
by US CMS Project Management. This ledger will contain information
on cost items at L7 of the US CMS WBS. A draft of the information
to be contained in this ledger is given in Appendix I of this
document. Each Institution agrees to provide and maintain this
ledger so as to provide timely information to the L2 Manager and
the US CMS PM.
3.5. Collaboration with Other Groups
and Institutions
Design, construction and installation related
to the <subsystem> subsystem will be carried out in close
communication and collaboration with other groups working on this
and related subsystems.
WBS / Task (L3) | Collab.
Group | Responsibility with <Institution> |
4. Contribution of Effort, Services and
Facilities
4.1. Effort
Subject to funding by DOE or NSF, <Institution>
will provide support for the scientific and technical personnel
as indicated in section 2. This contribution refers only to support
provided outside the US CMS Project.
4.2. Services
The services of the <Institution>
Purchasing, Expediting, and Receiving Departments and the Administrative
Staff will be available to the CMS project to the degree required
to carry out the fabrication responsibilities of <Institution>.
By this MOU, <Institution> agrees to provide the services
of the responsible financial officer.
4.3. Facilities and Equipment
The following <Institution> facilities
and equipment will be made available to the CMS project to the
degree necessary to carry out the design and fabrication responsibilities
of the group:
4.4. Operating Costs
<Institution>, subject to the availability
of funds from DOE or NSF, will support the normal research operating
expenses (such as physicists' salaries, travel expenses, miscellaneous
supplies, administrative support, etc.) of the <Institution>
group working on the CMS project. These normal operating expenses
are not considered as part of the CMS detector cost estimate nor
will they be borne by the US CMS project.
5. Expected Fermilab (as host institution)
Effort, Services and Facilities
Subject to agreement, to be negotiated annually
with the Fermilab Director, <Institution> expects the following
Fermilab resources to be available in support of <Institution's>
design, fabrication, and installation responsibilities:
5.1. Administrative and Technical Personnel
Participating Fermilab staff members foreseen
to be available to the project are:
Administrative Staff
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Engineers
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Designers
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Technical Specialists
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Programmers
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Others
| Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Administrative and technical staff salary
support may be paid by the US CMS Project, or may be provided
by Fermilab as project host. The salary support of Fermilab staff
contributing to <Institution's> responsibilities must be
negotiated annually with the Fermilab Director as part of the
SOW. Support provided by Fermilab will be tracked and reported
by the <institutional> representative to the Fermilab Director
and the PMG.
5.2. Services
The services of the Fermilab Purchasing,
Expediting, and Receiving Departments are expected to be available
to <Institution> for the procurement of the following items:
<Item 1>
<Item 2>...
5.3. Facilities and Equipment
<Institution> expects that the following
Fermilab facilities, equipment, and laboratory space will be available
during the course of the project:
6. Costs and Funding
6.1. Expected Sources of Funding
The cost of the detector elements covered
under the US CMS WBS are taken in detail from the current US CMS
Cost Estimate (<Date>). DOE (NSF) Funds indicate the project
funds to be provided. <Institute> agrees to not exceed the
costs shown above, estimated cost less contingency, subject to
the procedures given in section 3.3.
6.2. Management Reserve
Each year, a SOW will be written with each
US CMS Institution for each L2 subsystem which is relevant. The
allocation of funds for the fiscal year will be in two parts.
The first will cover work for the first six months. The remaining
funds needed to complete the tasks described in the SOW will be
provided subject to availability of funding and performance during
the first half year. Tight management control requires the review
and concurrence of the L2 Manager and the PM, as needed, for major
expenditures, as defined above. The release of funds above the
given thresholds by the responsible financial officer as named
above will be contingent upon this concurrence.
7.
Method of Funding Transfers
The expenditures by <Institution>
are to be covered by funds provided by DOE or NSF, upon the allocation
decision of the US CMS PM with the concurrence of the US CMS Fermilab
PMG.
Funds
to cover work or expendituresdescribed in this document may be
provided directly to <Institution> by DOE or NSF, or by
subcontract from the US CMS Project Office at Fermilab. The choice
of funding method shall be at the option of <Institution>,
provided the arrangement is satisfactory to the US CMS PM.
All equipment items bought or fabricated
using DOE or NSF funds will be properly marked as the property
of DOE or NSF. Any other equipment furnished by <Institution>
as part of the detector will remain <Institution> property.
In either case, the equipment will remain part of the CMS detector
until it is dismantled or the detector element in question is
replaced.
8. General Considerations
8.1. Safety and Engineering Practices
The experimenters from <Institution>
agree to familiarize themselves with DOE and NSF safety policies
and to adhere to them. All detector components must be designed,
fabricated, installed and operated in conformity with DOE, NSF
and CERN safety policies and practices as well as DOE, NSF and
CERN engineering standards. All engineering, design, quality assurance,
safety, and other activities shall be in compliance with ISO standards.
All major components will undergo appropriate design, safety,
and engineering reviews.
8.2. Operations
<Institution> agrees to maintain,
to the best of their ability, equipment provided for the CMS detector
as long as <Institution> is a member of the CMS collaboration.
9. Schedules and Milestones
<Institution> will make every effort
to carry out their institutional responsibilities consistent with
the schedule for the fabrication of the CMS detector. These schedules
may have to be changed as the project progresses. Changes that
affect <Institution> will be noted in the annual SOW.
">Name | CMS Fraction | Source of Support |
Responsibility with <Institution> |
10. Makers and Concurrence
The following persons concur in the terms
of this Memorandum of Understanding. These terms will be updated
as appropriate in Amendments to this Memorandum.
Makers of this Memorandum:
<Name> date Administrative Officer date
US CMS PM <title>
<Institution>
<Name> date Institution Representative date
US L2 Manager <Name>
<Subsystem> Subsystem <Institution>
Concurrence:
<Name> date <Name> date
Deputy Director CMS Technical Representative
Fermilab
Appendix I: Responsibility of Institutions
for Reporting
The US CMS Project requires that an Excel
template/worksheet be set up and used at all participating institutions.
Each institution will then be responsible for entering accurate
and timely data relating to their part of the project at L7 of
the WBS. This file/ledger would reside on a local server and made
accessible to the appropriate L2 Manager(s) and the US CMS PM.
The Project Office will be responsible for consolidating and rolling
up these numbers to a higher level in order to provide overall
project reporting. The Project Office will provide help in setting
up this system.
Below is an extract from the EMU
WBS showing ME2/1 breakdown to level 7. Nothing would be charged
directly to 1.1.4 or 1.1.1.4.2 because they each have components
at a lower level. 1.1.1.4.1, 2 & 3 on the other hand must
be charged directly even though they are a higher level because
they have no lower level components. Nothing would ever be charged
directly to any WBS # unless there is no further breakdown of
that category.
EMU WBS
| 1.1.4 | ME2/1 |
| 1.1.1.4.1 | Design and documentation |
| 1.1.1.4.2 | Materials |
| 1.1.1.4.2.1 | Anode wire |
| 1.1.1.4.2.2 | Gap frames |
| 1.1.1.4.2.3 | Anode wire fixation bars |
| 1.1.1.4.2.4 | Anode signal distribution boards |
| 1.1.1.4.2.5 | HV distribution bars |
| 1.1.1.4.2.6 | Guard strips |
| 1.1.1.4.2.7 | HV insulating strips |
| 1.1.1.4.2.8 | Standard electrical components |
| 1.1.1.4.2.9 | Non-standard electrical components |
| 1.1.1.4.2.10 | Mechanical components |
| 1.1.1.4.2.11 | External frame |
| 1.1.1.4.2.12 | Misc. (epoxy, RTV, solder, tape) |
| 1.1.1.4.3 | Chamber assembly in Russia |
| 1.1.1.4.4 | Shipping materials |
The table below is an example of the Excel
template/worksheet that contains the MINIMUM information required.
WBS#: This is the prime essential identifier of the system, as discussed above this is what we are reporting on.
PO#: This may vary from institution to institution but it is necessary to record commitments/obligations. The semantics may vary but when something is on order it needs to be recorded. The source document # is needed for a adequate trail. The PO numbers shown are for example only and will be whatever identifier the member institution uses.
PO Date: This is required because it's necessary to record everything in the correct period i.e. an order placed in March must be recorded in March.
PO $Amt: Self Evident.
Invoice # Required for audit trail.
Invoice Date: As with the PO Date, the proper period is needed.
Invoice $Amt: Self Evident.
| WBS# | PO# | Description | PO Date | PO $Amt | Invoice# | Invoice Date | Invoice $Amt | Inst | Fund
Source |
| 1.1.1.4.1 | w11141 | 11/25/97 | 125,650.00 | ||||||
| 1.1.1.4.2.1 | w111421 | 12/2/97 | 25,300.00 | ||||||
| 1.1.1.4.2.10 | w1114210 | 12/5/97 | 3,625.00 | ||||||
| 1.1.1.4.2.1 | w111421 | 15258 | 1/15/98 | 18,350.00 | |||||
| 1.1.1.4.1 | w11141 | 18254 | 1/20/98 | 82,540.00 | |||||
| 1.1.1.4.4 | w11144 | 1/15/98 | 15,200.00 | ||||||
| 1.1.1.4.2.9 | w111449 | 1/10/98 | 22,650.00 | ||||||
| 1.1.1.4.2.10 | w1114210 | 869851 | 1/16/98 | 3,625.00 | |||||
| 1.1.1.4.2.9 | w111429 | 856543 | 1/20/98 | 22,650.00 | |||||
| 1.1.1.4.2.1 | w111421 | 869852 | 1/17/98 | 2,250.00 |
It should be noted that once a PO is entered
and the $Amt recorded that the PO $Amt field is left blank when
the subsequent invoice transactions are recorded. Only if there
is a change to the PO either increasing or decreasing the order
amount should additional $ amounts be entered with the same PO#.
The Form Entry should be used to enter the information.
This reduces the potential for error. An example of the form for
this worksheet/database is shown below.
Entry form PO Entry Entry form Invoice Entry
The institution is a constant for each file and can be identified easily. The funding source field will be required in the case of all universities that have two sources of funding or who wish to have base program costs tracked..
1. Introduction
This Statement of Work (SOW) is made to
provide the yearly details of the work agreed to in the Memorandum
of Understanding between US CMS and <Institution> dated
<xxxx>. It covers the specific period of performance from
October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998. It is subject to
all the points of agreement and conditions in the current version
of the US CMS Project Management Plan.
2. Personnel
2.1. List of Scientific Personnel
Participating scientists with anticipated
fraction of their research time committed to CMS during this
period of performance are listed below. No support for these individuals
comes from project funds.
| Name | CMS
Fraction* | Other Research
Commitments/Comments |
*Time devoted to CMS over and above the
indicated CMS research fraction is considered to be <Institution>
service effort in support of CMS.
2.2. List of Technical Personnel
Participating technical personnel with the
anticipated fraction of their time committed to CMS during this
period of performance and their source(s) of support are:
Engineers
Name |
CMS
Fraction | Source of Support |
Designers
Name |
CMS
Fraction | Source of Support |
Technical Specialists
Name |
CMS
Fraction | Source of Support |
Programmers
Name |
CMS
Fraction | Source of Support |
Others
Name |
CMS
Fraction | Source of Support |
2.3. Other Key Personnel
The Environment, Safety and Health officer
for <Institution> currently responsible for compliance with
applicable ES&H policies associated with CMS participation
by this institution is <ES&H Name> of <Institution>.
The Quality Assurance officer for <Institution> currently
responsible for QA compliance of tasks performed by this institution
is <QA Name> of <Institution>.
3.1 WBS Items at L7, Estimated Cost and
Deliverable
During this period of performance
<Institution> agrees to supply the following deliverables
at a cost not to exceed the estimated base cost given in the US
CMS WBS. The following itemized list describes the items (or partial
completion of items) provided in this period (Statements of Work).
| WBS (L7) | Task - Deliverable | WBS Cost - Base k$ | DOE (NSF) Funds - k$ |
3.2. Coordination and Reporting
The US CMS L2 Manager for the <subsystem>
subsystem is <name1>. The institution contact person for
<subsystem> activities at <Institution> is <name2>.
The task managers for <subsystem> activities carried out
at <Institution> are as follows:
3.3. Procurement Authorization
Item purchases exceeding the delegated limit
(currently <$xxK>) must be authorized in advance of obligation
by the US CMS L2 manager. Major procurements (currently <$xxK>)
must in addition have the written authorization of the US CMS
PM. Items purchased as CMS Common Project items must be explicitly
authorized by the US CMS PM and approved by the CMS Finance Board
Chair, regardless of the cost.
3.4. Reporting to US CMS Project Management
As described in the MOU between US CMS and
<Institution>, the <Institution> will report all CMS
related expenditures and labor charges together with associated
technical progress in each item of work by Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) category (Level 7) .
Technical progress will be reported
by WBS element L3 to the L2 Manager and the PM on a quarterly
basis and will cover all items covered in this Statement of Work
regardless of the specific nature of the funding support.
As described in the MOU, the
<institution> agrees to furnish complete documentation of
the quality control and performance checks which are carried out
for US CMS in the performance of this work.
As described in Appendix I of the MOU, <Institution> agrees to maintain a ledger of a form specified by US CMS Project Management.
3.5. Collaboration with Other Groups
and Institutions
Design, construction and installation related
to the <subsystem> subsystem will be carried out in close
communication and collaboration with other groups working on this
and related subsystems.
WBS / Task (L3) | Collab.
Group | Responsibility with <Institution> |
4. Contribution of Effort, Services and
Equipment
Subject to adequate funding by DOE or NSF,
<Institution> will provide support for the scientific and
technical personnel as indicated in section 2 during this period
of performance. This contribution refers only to support provided
outside the US CMS Project.
5. Fermilab (as host institution) Effort,
Services and Facilities
Tracking of Fermilab CMS support, whether
provided by Fermilab or paid by the US CMS Project, will be done
using appropriate effort reporting codes. The costs incurred will
be reported to the Fermilab Director.
Contributing Fermilab personnel with the
anticipated fraction of their time committed to CMS during this
period of performance and their source(s) of support are:
5.1. Administrative Staff