1
Department of Energy and National Science Foundation
Status M/National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mini-Review of theVERITASGLAST Large Area Telescope (LAT) Project
WHEN:November 30 – December 1October 12, 2004
WHERE:Amado, ArizonaU.S. Department of Energy, Germantown, Maryland
REVIEW COMMITTEE:
This review Ccommittee is shown below.
DOE / NSFASA / ConsultantsObserversDan Lehman (observer), Chairperson / Pat BautzKevin Grady / Ken JohnsAesook Byon-Wagner
Kathy TurnerSteve Tkaczyk / Vernon PankoninDan Blackwood / Paul La eMarcheKathy Turner
Jack LeibeeMark Goans / Ev Valle
Bernie Graf
Al Vernacchio
SUMMARY:
The VERITAS project appears to be on cost and schedule and is progressing well. No technical issues exist. However, a quantitative assessment of project status was not made. The Committee recommended that a risk analysis be performed to ensure completion of the project on schedule and within the available funding. A number of recommendations were also made involving project management tools and planning.
INTRODUCTION:
The Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) is a gamma ray telescope array under construction on Kitt Peak, near Tucson, AZ. VERITAS will provide the ground-based capability to study extremely energetic gamma-rays, ranging in energy from 50 GeV to 50 TeV, potentially produced from a variety of astrophysical sources. The gamma-rays are observed from the light they induce as they interact with the Earth’s atmosphere.
REVIEW PURPOSE:
The LAT will be the principal scientific instrument to be flown on the NASA Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) mission, scheduled for launch in 2007. LAT is being jointly developed by DOE and NASA, along with participation from foreign partners, including France, Italy, Japan, and Sweden. The LAT is designed to measure the energy and direction of gamma-rays incident from space in the energy range of approximately 20 MeV to greater than 300 GeV.
The charge for the review was to determine the status of the project relative to the baseline and the progress since the February 2004 review. In particular, the review was to address the technical, cost, schedule and management aspects of the project to the subproject level and including subaward performance. The project’s risk assessment was reviewed along with the plans for the scientific operating phase. There were tours of the VERITAS site on Kitt Peak and telescope #1 at the Whipple Observatory base camp.
and progress of the project since the
March 2004 DOE/NASA review. In particular, the Committee was asked to review technical, cost, and schedule issues and to assess the project’s plans for their resolution.
PROJECT STATUS (as of September 30, 2004)::
Total EstimatedProject Cost (TEPC)...... $13.145136.0 million
DOE...... $4.79942.0 million
NSFASA...... $6.643$93.4 million
SAO...... $1.079 million
ForeignJapan...... $0.624 million
Other Contributions are in-kind
Percent Complete in terms of Cost (as of August 31, 2004)...... 3980 percent
Percent Complete in terms of Schedule...... 33 percent
Remaining Management Reserve...... $1.155 million
Remaining Management Reserve as % ofContingency on Costs To Goat Risk (as of August 31, 2004) 165 percent
Schedule:
Critical Decision (CD) Approvals
CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline Approved ...... JuneNovember2, 20042
Project Completion (planned)CD-3, Approve Start of Construction...... September 30, 20063
CD-4, Approve Start of Operations (planned)...... March 2006
TECHNICAL:
The team has made a lot of progress since the last review. There are no outstanding technical hurdles. Telescope #1 has been erected at the Whipple base camp and will be operated there for the next year before it moves to the permanent site on Kitt Peak. The tour of telescope #1 was impressive and provides strong evidence that the project faces no outstanding technical problems. Good technical progress was exhibited by all subprojects. The facility at Kitt Peak appears to be progressing well. It may be a month or so behind schedule, but this shouldn’t affect the project. A few critical areas such as the flash analog to digital converter (FADC) system and focus boxes would greatly benefit from additional manpower from the collaboration. Management reserve may need to be used for these activities.
The Committee recommended that the project office perform a contingency analysis and take into account the available management reserve versus time before making a decision to add sleeping quarters at Kitt Peak to the project scope.
Overall technical progress is good. All subsystems have begun flight production and the LAT grid is now complete. The first flight Calorimeter module is currently in environmental testing. The tracker delamination problem is solved and flight trays have started production in Italy. The flight tower electronics modules (TEM) and TEM power supplies are in production.
Anomalies uncovered in first flight unit production have been resolved. Integration and test at SLAC is ready and the staff is trained. Preparations for ground systems have made significant
progress in the last six months.
COST AND SCHEDULE:
The project appeared to be on schedule, within budget and progressing well, although the lack of the usual project management tools (such as an earned value management system) made it difficult to quantitatively evaluate the project performance in detail. The Committee felt that the project office would benefit from producing and analyzing data on actual versus scheduled technical progress, costs and manpower. In particular, the manpower required to complete the project versus that scheduled should be examined in detail. This assessment should include the manpower required to carry out the tasks in the subprojects that are contained in the subawards.
Due to the tracker delaminationunforeseen technical problemss with delamination (the latest of a number of unforeseen issues) and no available schedule contingency, it is obvious that the project will not meet the current schedule. The project has experienced cost increases in most subsystems that are dominated by schedule delays. The primary drivers for the schedule delays are unforeseen anomalies and underplanned work.
The project has the required staff in place with a current burn rate of $4.5 million per month. The schedule slip from the baseline to the current plan is 2.25 months, with no schedule contingency. A total slip in schedule of up to four months is likely.The primary drivers for the schedule delays are unforeseen anomalies and underplanned work.
The Committee found that the remaining work is planned and the project is working on critical path and near critical path items. It was apparent that the project will not be able to meet its cost and schedule objectives without an increase in funding and/or a descope exercise.
The instrument and mission management are reviewing the additional resources required to have adequate cost and schedule contingency. The project has done a rough-order-of-magnitudefirst estimate and found d a need of $14 million without schedule contingency and $20 million with schedule contingency. More will be known about the schedule when the first flight tower fabrication has been completed. The project will need to be rebaselined.
MANAGEMENT:
The team made progress such as completing the prototype and telescope #1 and the start of the facility at Kitt Peak. The project office is oriented towards getting the job done. The collaboration works together cooperatively and seems to be functioning well. There is good communication between the project office, subgroups and the overall collaboration.
A plan must be developed for demonstrating how the technical capabilities of the telescope which are associated with project completion will be achieved.
It appeared to the Committee that the financial and schedule information is not being utilized by management as much as it could be while making key decisions.
The contingency held by the project office appears to be sufficient to complete the project and only a few large cost items remain to be purchased. Most of this contingency is assigned to individual WBS subsystems. The Committee encouraged the project office to centralize the remaining contingency funds and use these funds to help support critical areas, thereby ensuring successful project completion.
RISK:
Risks and critical path items were identified and discussed. The Committee was concerned about risks in terms of cost and schedule.
The Committee recommended that a quantitative risk analysis be developed which addresses scope, cost and schedule and includes decision points. This would be useful in helping the project take actions and have backup plans in hand before problems arise.
RISK:
OPERATING PHASE PLANS:
The scientific program including key observation goals and maintenance was presented. The science of VERITAS is excellent and complementary to other telescopes.
The Committee recommended that a high priority for the project office should be the development of a detailed operations plan (e.g. resource loaded schedule) including both operations and observation manpower. Adequate spares of key components should also be considered.
The LAT Project Management organization is strong, stable, and well structured. The SLAC Directorate oversight of the LAT project continues to be significant and is of great value to the LAT project.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
- Develop a plan for the project to go forward from the start of FY 2005 through the end of FY 2006 by March 15, 2005. This should be done in terms of technical scope, cost, schedule, and resources (manpower & funds). This plan must include the definition of completion of the construction phase of the project and the means of verifying successful completion.
- Develop a more detailed operations concept by March 15, 2005.
- Develop a risk assessment and mitigation plan by March 15, 2005.
- Submit a corrected 4th quarter FY 2004 quarterly report to the agencies. Future reports should show performance metrics for each subproject as well as for the overall project.
ACTION ITEMS:
The agencies should conduct a follow-up review in the Washington, D.C. area by
March 31, 2005.
SUMMARY:
The project has a strong staff. The design is complete and reviewed, and all major anomalies have been resolved. Integration and test is on schedule to begin integration and has a trained staff in place.
The project does not have adequate funding or schedule contingency. The project plans to manage aggressively to mitigate any further schedule slips; pursue descope options that have minimum impact on the science objectives and accept higher risk in selected areas; and to work with the sponsoring agencies to obtain additional funding. The project will need to be rebaselined.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Conduct a DOE/NASA/SLAC conference call on October 22, 2004 to obtain an update on the status of the project and the potential magnitude of the additional funding requirements.
2.A rebaseline review is tentatively scheduled for December 8, 2004.