[Alma_na] Please distribute as Dr. Lo requests.

[Billie Rodriguez]

Dear Marc,

Please compile a list of all such issues within the NA ALMA Project so we can resolve them ASAP.

KYL



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Cryostat Interlock
Date: 	Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:22:16 -0400
From: 	Marc D. Rafal <mrafal at nrao.edu>
Organization: 	NRAO
To: 	'Fred K. Y. Lo' <flo at nrao.edu>, 'David Hubbard' 
<dhubbard at nrao.edu>, 'Bill Porter' <bporter at nrao.edu>



Dear Fred,

I want to make sure you understand that the issue of the interlock is not a
clear cut Scope Increase. While it was left out of the SOW for RAL, that is
an ESO issue. ESO is responsible for providing to the project a working and
usable cryostat. The interlock is a required part of the cryostat. 

In my opinion, we should not agree with labeling this a scope increase for
which we will pay half. Had this omission been discovered earlier, there
would have been no discussion of us paying for it. Just because it was found
late does not make it partially our responsibility. Recall that the SOW to
RAL only covers the first eight cryostats. The SOW for the remaining
cryostats has not been drafted. 

If we agree to this as a precedent, then there are a number of similar
issues on our side that could be "shared." For example, a number of the
requirements for the Back End modules have changed and require redesign or
increased production costs. Do we declare these as scope increases and
charge ESO for half of the increased costs? 

We should talk about this.

Regards,
Marc