• A schedule of critical peer reviews between now and the FDR was presented by Wayne and Brad. The list was pared down from earlier versions in order to fit the tight schedule. Apart from some minor corrections, the list was adopted as being at about the right level and will be tracked from now to the FDR. The peer review schedule will be refined this week with the addition of Art Brooks’ tasks and input from the engineering team.  A pared-down list of FDR deliverables has also been developed.
• A schedule of Level III milestones for tracking over the next 6-9 months was issued by Ron. This too was well received. The peer review and Level III milestone schedule will be checked for consistency where they overlap.  Action: Wayne and Ron update and issue peer review and Level III milestone schedule to the team and Greg Pitonak.
• The VV port configuration peer review last week was a success but follow-up tasks must be cleaned up expeditiously. The most significant open issue is the RF port interface with the vacuum vessel.  Tom Brown is following up on some possible solutions. Action: Wayne follow up with Tom Brown.
• An issue needing management attention is to ensure that all the key engineers are fully engaged in their NCSX tasks and are receiving adequate support. Follow up discussions are planned.  Action: Wayne and Hutch identify and conduct follow-up planning discussions.
• Certain critical tasks have been in progress or under discussion for a long time and need to be resolved soon. The following were highlighted:
  
  • Planar racetrack coil test- G. Gettelfinger
  • Materials property testing- T. Kozub, J. Chrzanowski
  • Electrical design- S. Ramakrishnan
    

A push may be needed to get these finished.  Action: Wayne and Hutch identify and conduct follow-up discussions.

• We continue to make progress in closing out critical issues. Defining the scope of FDR preparations as described in Item 1 was an important step forward. Action: Wayne post an updated critical issues list.
• Expediting the lingering critical tasks, as discussed above, was highlighted as a critical issue needing SIT attention.
  

• Ron issued a cost performance analysis based on the February performance data. Highlighted issues needing SIT attention:
  
  • Schedule variance of -$200k and cost variance of -$400k.  In both cases, the main contributor is modular coil final design.
  • The latest estimates to complete project an additional $230k contingency drawdown if not reduced or offset. The main contributor is cost increases in R&D, both procured and in-house.
  • A strong effort is needed to secure the manpower needed to support the schedule.  We are working the issue with PPPL Engineering management.
  • The project will have to significantly increase its spend rate, at least at PPPL, to accomplish this year’s plans.
  • The management reserve balance is higher than needed at this point in the fiscal year.  We need to be sure critical path problems are being addressed and opportunities to accelerate work are being exploited.
    
• A chart displaying various measures of remaining contingency was presented. It was agreed that this would be useful for management tracking and presentation at Lehman reviews.