Powered by Indico
v3.2.9
Summary of the discussion
a) Introduction
1) It is urgent to indentify few people to draft the MoU, as requested by the IB chair. See the first slide by Gemma.
Names of the candidates should be communicated to Giuliana within Tuesday October 18th
b) Acrylic procurement
Some progresses in the definition of the funding scheme have been achieved. See the material in this indico page indicating that we will use funds from NSF, Canada and IHEP (table from Graham)
Open points
1) funds for Gd PMMA for the mockup are not yet identified
2) the quotation from DonChamp (attcd in this indico page) only refers to Gd loaded PMMA for Ds20k, pure acrylic and the mockup are not included
3) the cost of the thin acrylic plates for the reflector cage has still to be quantified
4) Gemma: the possibility to avoid VAT should be checked and confirmed. The LNGS site is not VAT free everywhere: only the undergound lab. is VAT free. PMMA and Gd loaded PMMA will stay a long periodo in CR2 and then, by default, we cannot skip VAT . Experts should be consultated to handle this complex matter given that the object will be a mixed properties (USA, Canada and China). This is a source of concern (VAT will contribuite to more than 20% of additional costs)
5) Bianca observes that no spares pieces are included in the cost estimation, while the inner detector group was suggesting to have 2 spares pieces of the barrel walls
6) IHEP money for Gd are available while the ones for the PMMA have still to requested. NSF money are in part available through the granted midscale and in part possibly to some of the contingency that must be "unfrozen" (details to be handled by the NSF group). CFI money are available.
5) CG underlines that we need a document with detailed specification of all the PMMA pieces ( pure and Gd loaded, for the mockup and Ds20k).
6) Concerns about the time scale of this procurement process (both for the mockup and the Ds20k ) and its impact on the schedule are expressed by Alessio and shared by others.
Action items
1) We kindly ask Yi to urgently write and share a document with full specifications (pure acrylic, Gd loaded acrylic, thin panel, Ds20k and mockup). Specifications should include all the relevant technical, physical and mechanical parameters
2) A complete quotation to DonChamp, following the above specs, will be required
3) in parallel a quotation, for pure acrylic only, will be required to other companies in order to have a fair comparison of the cost. Gd PMMA quotations cannot be compared as the production procedure is proprietary,
c) Items to inserted or identified in the cost book
Gemma: the goal of this discussion is to present items needed for the work about the mockup and inner detector assembly that are not explicitely present in the cost book. The purpouse is
Bianca presents a table (attcd to this indico page) listing the needs as they emerged during the meetings of the last months. Most of the listed items have no an identified funding source and this is a source of concern.
Action items
d) Follow up of past discussions about contracts and items out of the primary scope of an Institutions
1) Two few month contracts necessary to bridge the time between the end of a regular INFN contract and the start of a new one will be issued by Princeton Univ. They are needed for 2 people for about 10 kEuro in total. 20kEuro were used in June 2022 by Princeton for the same reason related to two different people. As Princetom wants the cash back and INFN cannot reimburse invoices without a MoU in place, we adopt an ad-hoc solution. Namely, Princeton will send invoices to UK and INFN will buy hardware material (expected to be paid by UK) for the corresponding amount of money.
Finally, the people will receive a contract by Princeton. In the reality INFN is paying their salary.
The procedure started from the Princeton side.
2) as result of discussions in previous meetings, the hypothesis to compensate the above expenses using money anticipated in the past by INFN to cover items from UCLA (with mutual agreement at that time and approval of the INFN referees) and listed in the cost book, was found not viable. Also no mechanism is expected for a compensation in the future.
We agreed to solve the administrative issue by listing that items as true INFN contributions and not "Loan to UCLA...". INFN needs to communicate this decision to the CSN2 referees and get approval.