Host Evaluation for the GDI Central Team

Members of the Host Evaluation Committee are: Sergio Bertolucci, Dilip Bhawalkar, James Brau, Ralph Eichler (chair), Sachio Komamiya, A.J.Stewart Smith.

The charge to the Host Evaluation Committee for the GDI Central Team is to evaluate and compare on equal basis for each proposal in a neutral way:

  • If the proposal meets the required and desired feature of the host institution (letter of M. Tigner dated 7 May 2004 to potential hosts)
  • If not, which is missing
  • List advantages
  • List disadvantages
  • List items that will be provided free of charge
  • List items for which the Central Team will have to reimburse the hosts. List further questions for the offerer
  • Other comments as appropriate

Nine laboratories answered positively and sent detailed answers to the questionnaire. Spreadsheet 1 summarizes the answers. In a first telephone conference, the committee members discussed the proposals and formulated further questions to the nine sites. These questions were:

  • Percentage overhead for procurement
  • Grand total labor rate for a senior RF-engineer
  • Grand total labor rate for a draftsman
  • For those labs which have no in-house civil engineering expertise: give an idea on how you deal with contractual civil engineering (availability, speed, expertise and quality)
  • Indicate, if the office space offered to the central team is scattered over the site or is concentrated in one building
  • What is the cost of housing and its availability off campus?
  • Is there an international school in a reasonable distance?

The feedback to these additional questions is summarized in spreadsheet 2 and was discussed by the committee in a second telephone conference. A set of criteria was formulated on which the different proposals should be judged.

Criteria for an ideal site:

  • The site should offer an intellectual environment in high energy accelerator science and technology
  • The central design team should be located in a single building
  • The designated director of the central design team should be involved in the selection
  • The central team should not be too far away from the local experts to facilitate interactions
  • The amount of overhead charges for procurement and salaries for engineering studies charged by the host should be taken into account
  • The availability of a sophisticated test site for test of parts of the accelerator will not have a heavy weight at the beginning. R&D work should happen at several places worldwide. It could become important at a later stage
  • Availability of expertise in civil engineering on site or through local industry is a must
  • The accessibility of the site for short time visitors should be considered
  • Ease of obtaining multiple entry visa is important
  • Affordable and available housing for long time team members is desired
  • Availability of an international school is desired.

The committee felt that all sites fulfill the criteria. Differences are minor. Details are in spreadsheets 1 and 2. All US American sites have a possible visa problem, especially for multiple entry visa.

Additional comments to the different sites:

KEK: Sophisticated test site offered
Berkeley: none
SLAC: none
Fermilab: none
Brookhaven: none
Cornell: Accessibility for short time visitors not optimal
TRIUMF: Strong engineering on site. Intellectual environment for high energy accelerators weaker. Office space has to be rented
RAL/Daresbury: Accessibility for short time visitors not optimal. 500 k£ offered to the team
DESY: Synergies with XFEL-project may be helpful

January 25, 2005
The Evaluation Team


Spreadsheet 1: Summary of the original answers
Spreadsheet 2: Summary of answers to the questionnaire of the site evaluation team. Personnel costs are given in its original form and converted into US$/hour assuming 2,000 hours per year.