[Moller_L2] FW: Update: ESAAB Questions: MOLLER (TJNAF) Project CD-3A

[James Fast]

All,
I just wanted to share with you the questions from the ESAAB panel and the responses developed by me, Bryan, Elizabeth and Paul.

Some items to pay particular attention too are the CD-3A scope tracking (Q2)  and QA question (Q4).  We need to follow through with the actions we have spelled out here.

Jim


James Fast
MOLLER Project Manager
Jefferson Lab
757-230-6833 (cell)
757-269-5324 (office)


From: Mantica, Paul <Paul.Mantica at science.doe.gov>
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 at 12:49 PM
To: Foley, Bryan <bryan.foley at science.doe.gov>, James Fast <jfast at jlab.org>, Bartosz, Elizabeth <elizabeth.bartosz at science.doe.gov>
Cc: Mantica, Paul <paul.mantica at science.doe.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Update: ESAAB Questions: MOLLER (TJNAF) Project CD-3A
Hi all,
  Updated response to ESAAB questions. Any other edits and/or comments?
Paul


  *   Are the WBS elements in the CD-3a scope also control accounts to easily monitor and control performance, cost, and schedule?
No.  To facilitate tracking we will have dedicated work packages (cost accounts) to which only these procurements are charged.  The CD-3A activities are all flagged in P6 and Cobra so we can readily look at performance of only those activities. Finally, we have an overall CD-3A scope complete milestone for tracking schedule performance at a rolled-up level.

  *   While there is an overall CD-3a schedule in the slides, has the project developed a detailed CD-3a specific milestone schedule that will be used to track performance? What milestones will be tracked at FPD level?
The project has not established detailed CD-3A specific milestones.  There are a limited number of procurements (~35) and the project intends to monitor each procurement, so in that sense the procurement ACCEPT activities are each considered a milestone activity by the project. The project reports status of significant contracts and contracting issues at monthly IPT meetings.  This has been practiced through prototyping and will continue for CD-3A scope elements.  Roughly 1/3 of the procurements for CD-3A are considered significant (based on cost and/or technical risk and/or schedule risk).

  *   How is the CD-3a performance going to be reported to stakeholders including Program Office and other DOE leadership?
Monthly reporting to the Program Office will happen through monthly calls, monthly reports and the monthly IPT meetings. The FPD holds monthly project reviews with the Site Office management at TJNAF that include the MOLLER project and which provides an avenue for sharing information with DOE leadership. OPA status review outcomes are also shared with SC-3, SC-4, and the Site Office. In terms of other stakeholders, JLab leadership will continue to be informed through existing reporting channels such as the monthly Planning and Coordination meetings and the MOLLER collaboration through a variety of routine weekly meetings involving both project and collaboration members, as well as monthly leadership meetings and biannual collaboration meetings.

  *   How will the project ensure QA when the scope elements are delivered by the vendors – what acceptance criteria will be used?
Each scope item has an associated Statement Of Work and drawing package that define the acceptance criteria.  Routine QA includes:

  *   Factory acceptance test data are acceptable (when applicable, typically required prior to shipment to JLab)
  *   Verification that all items and required documentation are delivered
  *   Verification of materials certification where applicable
  *   Visual inspection (for damage, weld quality, directly observable characteristics or defects etc.)
  *   Dimensional checks – these will typically be a subset to check critical tolerances and dimensions
  *   Test fit with mating parts (in many cases the CD-3A scope elements couple to one another so many interfaces can be checked this way)
  *   For vacuum vessels, required pressure safety system inspections, including weld inspections
  *   For vacuum vessels, pump down and leak test (this will have been done as part factory acceptance testing already)
Any non-conformance identified by the vendor will require an approved non-conformance report prior to delivery to JLab (and similarly for any deviation request from the vendor).
Any non-conformance identified during receipt inspection and testing will be documented in a non-conformance report.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/moller_l2/attachments/20230324/8f8db5ee/attachment-0001.html>