REVISED Summary of NCSX SIT Meeting of 11/19/02

Revised to correct typo's and expand on the re-baselining discussion in 1.e. to address the CR impacts.

Ron issued a cost and schedule performance report based on the first month's status reporting. Some concerns raised by this report were discussed:

a. There is a large peak in the planned spending profile in Jan-Mar, followed by a sharp drop-off. The effect is particularly pronounced at ORNL, and is viewed as unrealistic. ACTION: Ron work with Brad to identify ways to smooth the resource profile.

b. Spending at ORNL was well below plan in October. What are the implications? ACTION: Brad.

c. Who is procuring the conductor for the prototype windings? I do not see it in the WAFs. ACTION: Ron.

d. Do the WAFs adequately reflect the plan, in terms of logic and deliverables? The consensus is that the WAFs provide an adequate basis for authorization of the near-term FY03 work, but there is room for further improvement. Improvements should be pursued as part of monthly statusing meetings until the WAFs are deemed good enough. ACTION: Wayne, on an ongoing basis, identify where improvements are needed and direct affected WBS managers accordingly.

e. Have we established an initial baseline? Or will the PDR baseline be the initial baseline? Will an ECP be needed to move to the PDR baseline?

Discussion: The project needs to be working off a baseline. The CDR design is our technical baseline. We should double check to make sure that we have documented it as we stated in our CMP (e.g., stored the CAD model and accompanying specs, i.e. the GRD). ACTION: Bob.

The C&S baseline is the $73.5M/June-07 plan as documented in the PEP. The WAFs, our performance measurement baseline, were derived from the baseline schedule though some modest inconsistencies have opened up. They can be reconciled when we re-baseline for the PDR. We have not yet documented the project-level milestones which are needed to provide adequate control. ACTION: Ron, with help from John.

In summary: we have a baseline but we may need to complete the documentation. We will need to re-baseline sometime before the PDR to capture technical changes, recognize cost and schedule impacts that we know about, and do a reset to account for the change in project schedule brought about by the continuing resolution. It may require an ECP; Bob is reported to be compiling a list of the changes.

Critical issues were documented in a Nov. 8 memo by Wayne. A status update issued on Nov. 18 showed progress in resolving the issues. Solutions have been proposed but in most cases require confirmation via design studies or R&D. Diagnostic port integration is highlighted as an area in need of attention.

Agenda topics will include a discussion of what Bob has learned about the EIR and its relationship to the PVR, and an update on CD-2 items.