Project Overview Michael Levi LBNL Project Director M

Project Overview Michael Levi (LBNL) Project Director M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 1

Welcome u Welcome and thank you for participating in this review u Plenary and executive sessions will be here in Bldg 54 Perseverance Hall u Breakouts are here and in Bldg 50 u Lunch for the committee here; reception @ 6 pm / working dinner for committee & speakers @ 7 pm u For assistance with travel or other issues u Masaaki Yamato: 510 -486 -7186 (m_yamato@lbl. gov) u Website for review: u https: //desi. lbl. gov/Doc. DB/cgi-bin/private/Display. Meeting? conferenceid=8 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 2

Agenda • This morning/early PM – plenary: — Project Director, Michael Levi — Science & Survey Overview [BO 5] Risa Wechsler — Instrument Overview, Chris Bebek — Corrector & Mechanical, Focal Plane [BO 1] Joseph Silber — Spectrograph, Fibers, ICS [BO 2] Jerry Edelstein — Data System [BO 3] Stephen Bailey — AI&T, Operations & Commissioning, Brenna Flaugher — NOAO/ Telescope Ops & Support, Lori Allen — Project Management, Henry Heetderks • This afternoon - breakouts: — Breakouts with L 2 Ms & L 3 Ms, Project Management — Reception 6 PM, Dinner 7 PM • Tomorrow — Finish breakouts, Q&A, drill-downs w/ Project Controls • Thursday — Closeout M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 3

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 4

DESI History • History — 2009 Big. BOSS proposed; PASAG (recommends R&D) • “Substantial immediate support is recommended for Big. BOSS R&D” — 2010 Decadal survey recommendations; contingent award 500 nights on Mayall 4 -m telescope • “…would provide revolutionary scientific capabilities include Big. BOSS and is a compelling example of next-generation mid-scale projects” (Astro 2010) — 2011 DESpec proposal for Blanco 4 -m telescope; Big. BOSS DOE R&D review — 2012 • “Rocky-III” report recommends a Stage IV BAO spectroscopic survey • NSF Portfolio review recommends divestment of Mayall • DOE issues Mission Need Statement (CD-0) for MS-DESI, DOE Assignment to LBNL as lead lab for MS-DESI, charged to combine the Big. BOSS and DESpec collaborations into one — 2013 • DOE & NSF Agency Statement of Principles • DESI Science alternatives analysis recommends Mayall telescope • “Director’s Review” for CD-1 of the Conceptual Design Report — 2014 P 5 recommends DESI in all but most austere budget scenario M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 5

P 5 Recommendation Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, a subpanel of HEPAP our field’s Federal Advisory Committee reports on May 2014: “The DESI project provides a major leap forward in the study of dark energy, while also making important contributions to the physics of inflation and neutrinos. An integral part of the comprehensive dark energy program, it can address the key questions with exquisite precision. DESI is technically ready to proceed, arrangements with international partners are well advanced, and it is well timed with an interagency opportunity for the use of the Mayall 4 -meter facility on Kitt Peak. DESI is an important part of the particle physics program and scientifically and programmatically timely. “Recommendation 16 : Build DESI as a major step forward in dark energy science, if funding permits (see Scenarios discussion below). M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 6

CD-0 Mission Need Statement • • CD-0 Mission Need approved Sept. 2012 for a Stage-IV spectroscopic survey to study dark energy & test gravity Will use Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) & Redshift Space Distortion (RSD) techniques — 1. Determine as well as possible whether the accelerating expansion is consistent with a cosmological constant. — 2. Measure as well as possible any time evolution of the dark energy. — 3. Search for a possible failure of general relativity through comparison of the effect of dark energy on cosmic expansion with the effect of dark energy on the growth of cosmological structures like galaxies or galaxy clusters. • • Survey between end of DES (2018) and start of LSST (2022) Option 1: DOE will provide new instrumentation and expanded capabilities to an existing NSF or private ground-based observatory for studying dark energy using a spectroscopic survey. In this Option, DOE is responsible for the required operations of the telescope facility M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 7

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 8

DESI Science Goals • We will observe 14, 000 deg 2 of the night sky • Will study the distribution of ~ 24 M distant galaxies (correlations between them) • Stage IV Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO): precision measure of dark energy — Measure whether the equation of state of the dark energy, w, is constant or dynamical at sub percent precision — will also test gravity • DESI Stage-IV Figure of Merit is better than x 10 Stage-II • Provide a tight constraint on the sum of neutrino masses, which could establish whether neutrinos have a normal or inverted mass hierarchy • The DESI Science Goals echo the CD-0 and P 5 recommendations M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 9

DESI Conceptual Design • Optimizing the DESI Instrument to meet the science requirements involves an interplay of instrument performance and throughput, and observing plan • We have created a conceptual design based on a 4 -meter telescope and a 8 deg 2 instrumented field-of-view • This design is the anchor point for our trade-studies and assessments • The parameter set for this conceptual design is internally self-consistent, achievable, and will reduce risk M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 10

Alternatives Analysis (Site Selection) • First task of the DESI collaboration: Conduct alternatives analysis for DOE to determine optimal telescope site — Received charge (DESI-doc-394) from DOE on 2/14/2013 to compare science reach for 4 -m telescopes at Kitt Peak, AZ and Cerro Tololo, Chile (CTIO) — Also received a letter-of-intent from the 3. 5 -m Canada-France. Hawaii-Telescope (CFHT). — Final report was submitted to DOE on April 5 (DESI-doc-375) • DOE requested Mayall site from NSF — Mayall available with up to 100% of dark time, provides greater scientific potential • DOE/NSF working on new agreement: see DESI-doc-390 (current agency statement of principles) M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 11

Mayall 4 m Telescope Mayall Telescope, Kitt Peak AZ, built in 1973 Existing corrector has 0. 5 deg. 2 Fo. V M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 12

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 13

MIE Project Scope • The DESI project will build: Build a new instrument to study dark energy Will be installed at the Mayall Telescope on Kitt Peak, AZ A new corrector and top-ring for the telescope (creating an 8 deg 2 FOV) 5000 fiber positioners (robots) to gather light from galaxies A fiber optic system to transport the light to spectrographs Ten 3 -arm spectrographs of medium resolution based upon the BOSS design Instrument controls and data processing Construction project ends when equipment is delivered to Mayall Assumes current Mayall performance (Valdes & Dey) • Heritage — Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) — Baryon Oscillation Sky Survey (BOSS) — DECam M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 14

MIE Project Scope 15 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope 16 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope 17 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope 18 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope 19 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope 20 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope 21 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope Ring Cage & Hexapods Fiber System Ten Spectrographs 22 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope Ring Cage & Hexapods Fiber System Ten Spectrographs 23 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

MIE Project Scope Focal Plane System 10 Petals Barrel 6 Lenses (off-project) M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 25

DESI WBS 1. 2 Corrector 1. 3 Cage & Barrel 1. 9 AI&T 1. 4 Focal Plate 1. 5 Fiber System 1. 7 Instrument Control System 1. 8 Data System 1. 6 Spectrograph M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 26

DOE Deliverables WBS TEC Base 1. 1 $3, 049 K 1. 2 $30 K 1. 3 $2, 130 K 1. 4 $2, 965 K 1. 5 $230 K 1. 6 $8, 206 K 1. 7 $967 K 1. 8 $1, 639 K 1. 9 $435 K* M. Levi 9/9/14 Deliverables Documentation of systems, acceptance test reviews. Optical corrector design and schematics. Corrector barrel, cage, and ring: the support structure for the lenses (corrector barrel) first delivered to University College London for installation of the lenses and then delivered to Kitt Peak; the mechanical interface to the telescope (prime focus cage) and barrel alignment system (hexapod); and the interface to the telescope trusses (ring). Focal plane design and schematics, fiber actuators, electronics and power, cooling, mechanical support and alignment. Fiber view camera. Fiber system design and schematics, spools and harnesses, fiber bundles spliced to actuators and slit-heads and fully assembled. Spectrograph design and schematics, Spectrograph cameras, Volume Phase Holographic gratings, dichroics, calibration, optical bench assembly. CCD sensors, CCD electronic readout and power supplies. Observation control software and databases; and data acquisition hardware. Data system. Pipeline software and infrastructure capable of delivering redshifts from CCD data. Includes target catalog. Assembly of subsystems, quality assurance, interface definition, preparations for installation. CD-1 Review PEP Table 3 & 6 27

Substantial non-DOE Investment DOE Charge: “LBNL will be responsible for arranging for in-kind contributions to MS-DESI in consultation with HEP. ” WBS 1. 2 1. 4. 2 Deliverables Lens fabrication and coating, design and fabrication of lens cells, installation of lenses in the barrel Focal plate manufacture (10 machined and drilled petals) 1. 4. 4 Fiber positioner subassemblies 1. 4. 6 Guide focus arrays 1. 4. 7 Focal plane fiducials 1. 5. 4 5, 000 fibers with ferrules, 3 m long pigtails 1. 6. 7 Ten approximately 33 -meter long fiber optic cables each with 500 fibers Ten spectrograph slitheads for science, plus three calibration slitheads Spectrograph testing 1. 6. 8 30 Cryostats 1. 5. 6 1. 5. 7 M. Levi 9/9/14 Funding Source UK: Science and Technology Facilities Council Spanish Ministry of Sciences, Education and Sports Swiss National Foundation, Spanish Ministry of Sciences, Education and Sports University of Barcelona Spanish Ministry of Sciences, Education and Sports Science and Technology Facilities Council France: Aix Etoile Marseille, CNRS CEA, Saclay (France) CD-1 Review PEP Table 5 28

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 29

Performance Requirements Flow from Science • Science objective: Stage-IV BAO Survey — Mission Need Statement, DESI-doc-316 — community studies (Rocky-III, Snowmass) — P 5 • Level 1 requirements: BAO science precision — Other science will flow from survey designed for BAO, any significant additions captured as goals • Level 2: Survey data set requirements — Number, density of objects — Redshift precision • Level 3: High level technical requirements — Field of view, number of fibers, spectrograph bandpass and resolution M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 30

Key Performance Parameters for CD-4 (Threshold) Threshold parameters meet definition of Stage-IV Description of Scope Corrector support systems Focal plane system Spectrograph system Instrument control system Offline system infrastructure Delivery and installation M. Levi 9/9/14 Threshold KPP Corrector barrel, cage, and hexapods delivered to the Kitt Peak site. Hexapods tested for functionality, optics aligned. 3, 000 fiber positioners capable of <10 μm accuracy assembled into a focal plane and delivered to the Kitt Peak site and tested for functionality. Six units, 3 -arm spectrographs with resolution 1500 < R < 5100 delivered to the Kitt Peak site and test verified Data acquisition hardware & software, observation control system and database, delivered to Kitt Peak site and verified operational DESI Pipeline demonstrated with Monte Carlo Simulation (MOC) data Hardware delivered to Kitt Peak site and tested CD-1 Review PEP Table 1 31

Key Performance Parameters for CD-4 (Objective) Parameters flow from requirements, objective parameters exceed Stage-IV Description of Scope Corrector support systems Focal plane system Spectrograph system Instrument control system Offline system infrastructure Delivery and installation Objective KPP Corrector barrel, cage, and hexapods delivered to the Kitt Peak site. Hexapods tested for functionality, optics aligned. 5, 000 fiber positioners capable of <10 μm accuracy assembled into a focal plane and delivered to the Kitt Peak site and tested for functionality. Ten units, 3 -arm spectrographs with resolution 1500 < R < 5100 delivered to the Kitt Peak site and test verified Data acquisition hardware & software, observation control system and database, delivered to Kitt Peak site and verified operational DESI Pipeline demonstrated with Monte Carlo Simulation data and test bench data Hardware delivered to the Kitt Peak site and tested, installation and commissioning of key components on to the Mayall Telescope. Installation is not included in base cost, we would not initiate installation until DOE and foreign sourced components arrive at Kitt Peak and NOAO is ready for us. M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review PEP Table 1 32

Technical Performance M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 33

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 34

Lessons Learned Lessons learned became organization… — SDSS (similar spectrograph) • Daniel Eisenstein (co-spokesperson) — BOSS (same science) • David Schlegel (co-project scientist) • Stephen Bailey (L 2 computing) — DECam (also DOE/NSF with NOAO, similar big optics) • Brenna Flaugher (co-project scientist) • Peter Doel (L 2 corrector), Gaston Gutierrez (L 2 cage & barrel) — MSL (same sensors) • Chris Bebek (instrument scientist) — Daya Bay & BELLA (similar sized LBL projects) • Kathy Johnescu (Federal Project Director) M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 35

DESI Project Organization PEP Fig. 2 36

DESI Project Organization PEP Fig. 2 37

DESI Science Collaboration PROJECT SCIENCE OPERATIONS 38

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 39

DESI Collaboration • LBNL named lead lab in December 2012 and charged to bring Big. BOSS and DESpec together, bring in international partners — successfully merged into DESI collaboration • Strong non-US participation and corresponding contributions • Community voting with their feet: responding enthusiastically by forming broad and capable collaboration — # collaborators = 200, # HEP-funded = 72 — # institutions = 42, # HEP-funded = 18 — # countries = 12 — DOE Labs = LBNL (lead), FNAL, SLAC, BNL, ANL M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 40

DESI Collaboration (May 2014) M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 41

U. S. Institutions • • • • Argonne National Laboratory University of Arizona Brookhaven National Laboratory University of Calif, Berkeley University of Calif, Irvine University of Calif, Santa Cruz Carnegie Mellon University Cornell University Fermi National Accelerator Lab Harvard University of Kansas State University Lawrence Berkeley National Lab University of Michigan State University National Optical Astronomy Obs. • • • New York University The Ohio State University of Pittsburgh Siena College Southern Methodist University SLAC National Accelerator Lab Texas A&M University of Utah Washington University at St. Louis University of Wyoming Yale University … 21 US Universities … 5 DOE Laboratories … plus 19 foreign institutions 180 collaborators Add foreign inst. Esp. UCL, Saclay, etc… M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 42

Collaboration Funds • • • Collaboration “head tax” is $200 K (cash or in-kind) for non-DOE Common Fund is managed by UCB on behalf of the collaboration. (MOU between LBNL & UCB in place) Foundation sources: — $2. 1 M funded from Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF) — Invited proposal to Heising-Simons Foundation (pending) • Total Collaboration Funds = $6, 600 K (incl. foundation) likely for project — Purchasing optics boules and polishing, now • Very significant foreign in-kind contributions — UK: optics, fibers — France: cryostats, spectrograph I&T — Spain/Switzerland: fiber positioner components M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 43

Fabrication Funding Sources All values in $M Spain, 2, 4 Swiss, 0, 9 France, 3, 3 UK, 4, 648 DOE Collaboration UK France Spain Swiss Collaboration, 6, 6 DOE, 40 M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 44

Non-federal Funds • Have reduced or eliminated need for long-lead procurements – transformational ! • No CD-3 a • Can decouple very long optics manufacturing cycle from vagaries of US federal construction approvals • Enables a shorter construction period (CD 3 -4) • Commissioning of new optics w/ telescope much sooner • Delays when DESI must obtain construction approval — We assume a CR in FY 15 — We assume a construction start in FY 16 • Long-leads: — Optics — Spectrograph M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 45

Corrector Optics C 1, C 2, C 3, C 4 are in manufacturing — C 1, C 2, C 3, C 4 boules are being made (GBMF) — C 2, C 3 polishing about to be awarded — C 1, C 4 is at RFP stage — ADC boules are at RFP stage C 4 C 3 C 2 C 1 ADCs M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 46

Spectrograph prototype awarded to Winlight Optics Work was initiated by GBMF grant M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 47

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 48

Level 1 Milestones + L 2 F denotes a foreign sourced milestone (Corrector is shipped from UCL). M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 49

Level 1 Costs & Range • • DOE TPC (TY$): 40. 4 M Cost estimate assumes requested funding profile Foreign participation at expected level Cost range $38. 5 – $46. 5 M, largely accounting for possible foreign funding scenarios OPC Base OPC contingency FY 15 5. 8 FY 16 3. 1 1. 2 0. 6 9. 5 8. 8 1. 4 1. 8 19. 7 2. 0 15. 2 5. 4 15. 2 1. 8 3. 2 9. 2 40. 6 TEC Base TEC contingency TPC M. Levi 9/9/14 7. 0 FY 17 1. 0 CD-1 Review FY 18 Total 9. 9 TY$M PEP Table 11 50

MIE Funding • OPC (Other Project Costs) — Includes all FY 15 and Q 1 -FY 16 DOE effort and materials — Includes $500 K (FY 16) and $1000 K (FY 17) for Mayall preparatory work by Kitt Peak employees as “pass-through” (DOE $ LBNL NOAO) — Excludes R&D work in FY 14 • TEC (Total Estimated Costs) — Includes Q 2 -FY 16 and thereafter until equipment delivery • TPC = OPC + TEC — Contingency is $11 M (37% of TPC) • Includes risk from shortfall in UK, France, Spain… funding — Descope options total $5 M (10 spectrographs + 10 petals 6) • Operating costs (from research budget) — $3. 4 M (pass-through to NOAO) + $3. 0 M (instrument/pipeline) in FY 14 dollars. To start in FY 18, includes installation. M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 51

Proto. DESI M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 52

Outline • • • History, P 5 & CD-0 Science Goals Project Scope Project Deliverables Science & Key Performance Parameters Organization Collaboration and Funding Model MIE Cost & Schedule Review Checklist Conclusions M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 53

Review Checklist • Assess whether the acquisition strategy has considered the full range of alternatives to achieve the mission need in the most effective, economical, and timely manner. Were the life-cycle cost and benefit of the alternatives developed and are they realistic and appropriate? — Extensive set of studies documented (see Besuner BO 4. 2) • Assumptions—assess that the assumptions (technical, cost— escalation, shift work, learning curve, schedule, funding, regulatory, resource availability, etc. ) are realistic. — Well grounded resource loaded schedule, basis of estimates, expert work force; preliminary resource leveling • Ensure that scope and preliminary KPPs are clearly defined and achievable. — Yes, and basis for CDR and SRD development and requirements flow-down • Design Review—was an independent conceptual design review conducted? — Done, and passed, plus plenty of subsystem reviews • Conceptual Design (~30% design)—is the conceptual design sufficiently mature for this stage of the project? — At 44% of design complete M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 54

Review Checklist • Has a Work Breakdown Structure and dictionary been developed at the appropriate level for CD-1? — Yes, see Heetderks BO 4. 1 • Have the risk management approach/plan been developed? Assess whether the key risks for the recommended alternative have been identified. — L 2’s deeply involved in development of Risk Registry, see Anderssen BO 4. 5 • Is the funding profile consistent with the proposed schedule and are the funds (Other Project Cost versus Total Estimated Cost, Project Engineering and Design, Major Item of Equipment, etc. ) appropriately used? — Yes, see Project Controls talk Morgan BO 4. 4 • Project Team—Number and skill mix of full and part-time members, organizational structure, division of roles/responsibilities, lines of communication and authority established. — Yes, project has been around for a while! • Are appropriate members with needed experience (budget, legal, real estate, ES&H, procurement, QA, etc. ) included as part of IPT? — Yes, IPT is up and running M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 55

Conclusions • Science: High value robust science —Stage-IV Dark Energy experiment based on proven method • Concept: Have developed a self-consistent, optimized, conceptual design that meets the science requirements. Design well developed • DESI has extensive heritage —Experiment based on proven techniques – hardware, software, & analysis —Collaboration is world-class in BAO science, includes experts from BOSS and DES —Very strong institutional support & organization, team is in place • CD-1 Checklist —All required documentation in hand, meets expectations for CD-1 • We appreciate input and advice from committee —Thank you for your time and expertise ! M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 56

END M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 57

Response to the DR’s • DECals survey will Risa cover? M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 58

Review Charge 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Does the conceptual design meet the scientific goals? Is the conceptual design achievable and meets the flow-down requirements? Are the cost and schedule estimate credible for this stage of the project? Is there a capable team in place to effectively manage? Is ES&H being properly addressed given the Project’s current stage of development? 6. Has the Project met all the CD-1 prerequisites? We will address the charge… M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 59

1. Does the conceptual design meet the scientific goals? • Compelling performance: — We have made a detailed analysis of the science reach <See Padmanabhan, Eisenstein, Reid> — The science requirements flowdown to performance requirements <See Mc. Donald> • Feasible: — The performance requirements are low risk <See Heetderks> — We have simulated the performance <See Bolton & Bailey> — There is margin in the specifications <See Sholl> • Justified: — Implementation approach is based on heritage <See Jelinsky, Doel, Flaugher> — The conceptual design meets the performance requirements. <See Bebek> M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 60

2. Is the conceptual design achievable and meets the flow-down requirements? • Management understands the requirements and the scope of the activities • The conceptual design and cost estimate is a product of an experienced integrated project team that understand the objectives • Well defined requirements and conceptual design • The cost estimate is a bottom-up engineered estimate • The number and scope of tasks is well-defined • The program can be managed within the schedule and funding constraints – good contingency and float • The conceptual design is supported by technical documentation < see SC 1 Heetderks> M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 61

3. Are the cost and schedule estimate credible for this stage of the project? M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 62

4. Is there a capable team in place to effectively manage? • Strong commitment from Laboratory Directorate at LBNL • Project Director, Project Manager, Level 2 Managers have extensive experience • Expert scientific collaboration with experience from BOSS and DECam • Team has experience from the prior R&D program • Project controls supported by the Project Management Office at LBNL M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 63

5. Is ES&H being properly addressed given the Project’s current stage of development? • Preliminary Hazards and Analysis Report identifies hazards that might be applicable to DESI <See M. White> • The LBNL ISMS is the basis for safety and work practices at LBNL M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 64

6. Has the Project met all the CD-1 prerequisites? Yes! All documents are ready for review <See Heetderks> M. Levi 9/9/14 CD-1 Review 65