Final Attachment N - QASP.pdf

Effective Date: July 15, 2022 418-XO-PLN-0109 Expiration Date: Five years from date of last signature Version 1.0 Responsible Organization: GeoXO Flight Project/Code 418 ii

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

Geostationary eXtended Observations (GeoXO) Flight Project

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Signature page

Prepared by:

Electronically approved by: 07/06/2022

Joseph M. Spector Date GeoXO Flight Project, Chief Safety & Mission Assurance Officer NASA GSFC, Code 418

Reviewed by:

Electronically approved by: 06/30/2022

Syed F. Aziz Date GeoXO Program, Chief Safety & Mission Assurance Officer NASA GSFC, Code 410

Approved by:

Monica Todirita electronically approved for: 07/15/2022

Candace C. Carlisle Date GeoXO Flight Project, Project Manager NASA GSFC, Code 418

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

Preface This document is a GeoXO Project signature-controlled document. Changes to this document require prior approval by the GeoXO Configuration Control Board (CCB) Chairperson or designee. Proposed changes will be submitted in the GeoXO Configuration Management system along with supportive material justifying the proposed change. Changes to this document will be made by complete revision.

All the requirements in this document assume the use of the word "will" unless otherwise stated.

Questions or comments concerning this document should be addressed to:

GeoXO Configuration Management Office Mail Stop: 418 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland 20771

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

Table of Contents PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................. III

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

1.2 SCOPE

1.3 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

2. SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY

2.1 SURVEILLANCE APPROACH DEFINITIONS

2.2 SPACECRAFT AND INSTRUMENTS HYBRID SURVEILLANCE

2.3 FORM OF SURVEILLANCE

2.4 RELIABILITY ENGINEERING SURVEILLANCE

2.5 SYSTEM SAFETY SURVEILLANCE

2.6 SOFTWARE ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

2.7 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION

2.8 SUPPLIER CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT

3. RESOURCES

3.1 GENERAL

3.2 GEOXO SURVEILLANCE TEAM

3.3 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY (DCMA) AND/OR SAFETY & MISSION

ASSURANCE, AUDITS ASSESSMENTS AND ANALYSIS (SA3)

4. MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTROL PROCESS

4.1 GOVERNMENT ACCESS

5. METRICS

5.1 DATA REVIEW AND VALIDATION

6. END ITEM DATA PACAKAGE

APPENDIX A GOVERNMENT MANDATORY INSPECTIONS POINTS (GMIPS) UNDER

CONSIDERATION

APPENDIX B APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX C ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Geostationary Extended Observations (GeoXO) Flight Project Surveillance Plan is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NPR 8735.2B Chapter 3. The GeoXO Flight Project Surveillance Plan applies to all out-of-house developers i.e., Spacecraft, instruments and their subcontractors and suppliers.

The mission of the GeoXO series satellites is to provide continuous, near real-time meteorological and oceanographic data. The GeoXO satellite series is the follow-on to the GOES R series to meet user requirements validated through a rigorous NOAA screening and verification process. It presents an opportunity to explore new instruments, satellite design, and system architectures utilizing improved communication and instrument technologies. GeoXO represents improved Imager and Lightning Mapping capability and the addition of Infrared (IR) Sounder, Atmospheric Composition and Ocean Color instruments to the Geostationary constellation, resulting in more products, increased data flow, better spatial resolution, and improved refresh rates. Details on the GeoXO mission and concept of operations are provided in the GeoXO Mission Requirements Document (MRD), 410-XO-MRD-0008, and the GeoXO Series Concept of Operations (CONOPS), 410-XO-CONOPS-0004.

The word “developer” in this document, refers to [TBD] for the Spacecraft and systems integration including shipment to launch site and launch support, [TBD] for GeoXO Imager (GXI), [TBD] for GeoXO Sounder (GXS), [TBD] for GeoXO Atmospheric Composition (ACX), [TBD] for GeoXO Ocean Color (OCX), and [TBD] for GeoXO Lightning Mapper (LMX).

The spacecraft and the GXI instrument are Risk Class B, all other instruments are Risk Class C per NPR 8705.4.

Risk Class B: Low risk tolerance that is driven more by technical objectives. This would normally represent a high priority mission with high complexity. See appendix of NPR 8705.4 for more detail.

Risk Class C: Higher risk tolerance. This would normally represent a lower priority mission with medium complexity. See appendix of NPR 8705.4 for more detail.

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to establish a Flight Project Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) as required per NPR 8735.2B, Management of Government Quality Assurance Functions for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Contracts, Chapter 3.

This plan defines the overall approach that the NASA/GSFC intends to use to monitor and survey developer performance under all GeoXO flight project contracts and subcontracts. This plan also defines the process that the Government expects to follow to obtain data and information, evaluate the developer, and determine if contract performance is acceptable. This document will also define Government activities, resources, review and control processes, surveillance strategy and metrics for the continuous performance measurement of the developer.

The Government intends to apply the amount, degree, and depth of surveillance in proportion to the level of risk in any areas.

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

This surveillance plan is to be a living document over the life cycle of the GeoXO Flight Project contract. It is subject to review on a regular basis (at a minimum annually) and will be updated as required.

1.2 SCOPE

This document describes the GeoXO Flight Project surveillance plan which addresses all elements and aspects of the spacecraft and instruments contracts. This includes (but is not limited

to) the spacecraft and instruments management and program office, systems management and engineering, flight hardware and software, data systems, external interfaces, spacecraft interface, systems verification, and Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) activities at developer and its subcontractors and suppliers. This plan is also applicable to any subcontractors, suppliers or vendors used in the fabrication and validation of GeoXO Flight Project hardware and software.

Additionally, it applies to the formulation, implementation, and operational phases of GeoXO including the instrument integration, test, shipment, deployment, launch support, and on-orbit checkout.

1.3 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

See Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Parts 46.103, 46.104, 46.202-2, 46.4, and 46.5 for government quality assurance requirements at contractor facilities. See FAR Part 52.246 for inspection clauses by contract type.

The documents listed in this section apply directly to the performance of GeoXO Project contracts. These documents establish detailed requirements information necessary for the performance of the contract. The developer will use the current revision of the applicable documents unless otherwise specified.

• NPR 8735.2B Management of Government Quality Assurance Functions for NASA Contracts

• 418-XO-SCMAR-0083 GeoXO Spacecraft Mission Assurance Requirements

(SCMAR)

• 418-XO-IMAR-0026 GeoXO Instrument Mission Assurance Requirements (IMAR)

• 418-XO-SCSOW-0052 GeoXO Spacecraft Statement of Work (SOW), Formulation

Phase

• 418-XO-SCSOW-0122 GeoXO Spacecraft Statement of Work (SOW), Implementation Phase

• 418-XO-GXISOW-0027 GXI Statement of Work (SOW), Formulation Phase

• 418-XO-GXISOW-0112 GXI Statement of Work (SOW), Implementation Phase

• 418-XO-GXSSOW-0057 GXS Statement of Work (SOW), Formulation Phase

• 418-XO-GXSSOW-0113 GXS Statement of Work (SOW), Implementation Phase

• 418-XO-OCXSOW-0060 OCX Statement of Work (SOW), Formulation Phase

• 418-XO-OCXSOW-0114 OCX Statement of Work (SOW), Implementation Phase

• 418-XO-LMXSOW-0065 LMX Statement of Work (SOW), Formulation Phase

• 418-XO-LMXSOW-0116 LMX Statement of Work (SOW), Implementation Phase

• 418-XO-ACXSOW-0070 ACX Statement of Work (SOW), Formulation Phase

• 418-XO-ACXSOW-0115 ACX Statement of Work (SOW), Implementation Phase

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

2. SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY

2.1 SURVEILLANCE APPROACH DEFINITIONS

a. OVERSIGHT: an assurance process that uses Government-imposed/Government approved specifications, process controls and inspections to direct the development and production of the product.

b. INSIGHT: an assurance process that uses performance requirements and performance metrics to ensure process capability, product quality and end-item effectiveness. Insight relies on gathering a minimum set of product or process data that provides adequate visibility into the integrity of the product or process.

c. HYBRID SURVEILLANCE APPROACH: a combination of both insight and oversight surveillance methods.

The level of risk and the impact of failure/defect rates are major determinants in helping define the type and frequency of surveillance to be conducted. If the impact of failure is minor and the level of risk is low, only a small amount of insight-driven surveillance would normally be needed. Conversely, if the impact of failure could be significant and the level of risk is high, surveillance that is more extensive is warranted, such as oversight.

2.2 SPACECRAFT AND INSTRUMENTS HYBRID SURVEILLANCE

For the Spacecraft and Instruments, a hybrid surveillance approach will be instituted at the developer. Insight will be used in those areas where the risk is low, and the developer clearly demonstrates understanding and compliance of mandated requirements. Oversight will be used when the tolerance for risk is low, where the developer has limited experience or has not demonstrated acceptable performance.

Oversight will be used at the Government’s discretion, including when one or more of the following conditions exists:

a. When oversight is required per contractual documents (i.e., the Spacecraft Statement of Work (SOW) or Instruments SOW as applicable), Spacecraft and Instruments Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs), and the SCMAR and the IMAR

b. The government assumes the liability

c. The government has determined that oversight is an effective method to mitigate risk

d. The developer has limited experience

e. The developer has not demonstrated acceptable performance, or

f. Full access to the developer data and documentation is lacking

This approach is to ensure a high level of confidence exists regarding developer ability to identify, manage, and control programmatic risks, including when new technology or unproven processes are used by the developer.

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

The Government may transition from oversight to insight surveillance methods gradually when the developer demonstrated performance and Government access to developer data and identified risks and mitigation plans warrant such a transition.

2.3 FORM OF SURVEILLANCE

Surveillance of the developer will occur in various forms, including (but not limited to):

a. Communications:

1. Both formal and informal teleconferences, videoconferences, in-person meetings and discussions held at regularly scheduled times and ad hoc as necessary

2. Electronic Mail (E-mail)

3. Correspondence, including letters, forms, memos, etc.

4. Other communication methods as needed

b. Computer Applications:

1. Developer computer applications/databases including databases for product (e.g., hardware, software, and ground support equipment) non-conformances (including root cause, corrective actions, and implementation of corrective actions), quality records, requirements verification database, test plans, assembly, and test procedures, etc. This will require government’s electronic access to the developer databases

2. Other applications as identified by the developer

c. Progress reviews and meetings:

1. Program/Project Monthly Status Reviews (PMSRs)

2. Major reviews: System Requirements Review (SRR), Preliminary Design

Reviews (PDR), Critical Design Reviews (CDR), Pre-Environmental Reviews (PER), Systems Integration Review (SIR), Pre-Ship Review (PSR), and Launch Readiness Review (LRR)

3. Engineering Peer Reviews (EPRs), Manufacturing Readiness Reviews (MRRs), and Test Readiness Review (TRRs),

4. Technical meetings/teleconferences/videoconferences (e.g., Technical Interchange Meetings, Parts Control Board (PCB), Materials and Processes Control Board (MPCB), Engineering Review Board (ERB), Software Change Control Board (SCCB), Test Configuration Break meetings, Weekly SMA and Systems Engineering teleconferences with developer Mission Assurance and Systems Engineering, respectively)

d. Business and Finance Reviews:

1. Weekly Project/developer Management Teleconference

e. Evaluation and Reporting:

1. Review and approve deliverables from the related GeoXO Spacecraft and Instrument CDRLs.

2. Review documentation of problems, issues and concerns including problem/failure/anomaly reports and their resolutions per the requirements of the

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

GeoXO SCMAR and IMAR and the associated Mission Assurance Compliance Matrices produced by the developer.

3. Review and validate milestone achievements as described in the spacecraft and payload contracts

4. Generate weekly and/or monthly activity reports

5. General and required reporting of each discipline on the Project

f. Other methods:

1. Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs): The Government/GSFC or its SMA representative such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Safety & Mission Assurance Services SMAS-II, or Safety & Mission Assurance, Audits Assessments, and Analysis (SA3) contracts onsite SMA representatives or visiting GSFC Quality Assurance (QA) representative will perform GMIPs per their Letter of Delegation (LOD), and/or Task order, and/or SOW, and/or MAR from the GSFC GeoXO Project Office as applicable. Specific GMIPs are listed in Appendix A. The intent is to perform 100% GMIPs as the baseline; however, based on the risk of each contractor/subcontractor, the frequency of the GMIPs may be tailored at the discretion of the CSO in coordination with flight project management. In the case that the frequency of GMIPs is tailored, it will be documented and provided to the vendor.

a. When a GMIP is designated as “Verify,” it requires that the Government or its representative inspects a component, sub-assembly, or assembly in accordance with NASA, Industry or other Government standards as defined in the SCMAR/IMAR and/or LOD and/or SOW or Government approved standards, prior to further processing unless otherwise agreed to by the Government.

b. When a GMIP is designated as “Witness,” it requires that the Government or its representative be present to observe the conditions and compliance to procedures when an activity is being executed by the developer. Witnessing is typically employed on production operations when oversight is required, but verification cannot be performed adequately after production operations are completed.

c. When a GMIP is designated as “Monitor,” it requires that Government or its representative performs periodic status checking, witnessing of testing execution and performance of specified procedures.

d. The Government or its representative may sub-delegate GMIP responsibility to DCMA, SMAS or SA3 offices local to the subcontractor or supplier.

2. Readiness Reviews: A Readiness Review is held several days before an activity is scheduled to occur. The Government attendance at the developer Manufacturing and Test Readiness Reviews provides the Government an opportunity to ensure the developer are ready to manufacture or process components, sub-assemblies, assemblies, etc., and that all engineering and process documentation have been

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

reviewed for compliance to specifications and released. Readiness Reviews also ensure that all nonconformance’s and/or risks have been identified, reported, and mitigated prior to proceeding. The Government invitees would include, as a minimum, the GSFC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), GSFC Mission Systems Engineer (SE), GeoXO Flight Project Chief Safety & Mission Assurance Officer (CSO), GSFC Quality Engineer, DCMA/SMAS II/SA3 Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) if contracted, and GSFC Engineering personnel. The developer’ attendees will include, as a minimum, Mission Assurance Managers as applicable, Hardware and/or Software Quality Engineers, Subject Matter Experts, appropriate discipline or Manufacturing Engineers, Materials & Process (M&P) and/or Parts Engineers, and other functional group representatives.

a. Manufacturing Readiness Reviews require that resources, safety requirements, risks, manufacturing process controls, in-process quality controls/inspections, mandatory Government inspections, Government alerts, internal mission assurance bulletins, etc., have been identified and resolved and/or accommodated prior to manufacturing commencement and personnel are properly certified to perform manufacturing operations.

b. Test Readiness Reviews are like Manufacturing Readiness Reviews in that they occur prior to the testing activity. Their purpose is to ensure that test requirements are understood, test conditions are per Government and developer internal requirements, performance standards are understood and documented, all previous operations/documentations are complete and verified, all non-conformances are resolved, tooling is complete and validated, Pass/Fail criteria are clear, GMIPs are identified and contained in the certification log, safety requirements are addressed, risks identified and mitigated, and personnel involved are properly trained and certified as necessary.

c. Test Configuration Break meetings ensure that all required data have been collected, reviewed, and accepted, all issues have been resolved, and there are no liens against proceeding forward.

3. The Government or its representatives will monitor developer activities during the design, development, fabrication, integration, and testing of the flight hardware and software. The CSO will determine what the level of onsite resident SMA representative’s presence will be on the developer I&T floor to ensure all processes and procedures are being followed.

4. Process and Product Audits, Assessments, or Surveys: Per the GeoXO SCMAR and IMAR, the Government or its representatives will perform process audits, assessments, or surveys periodically to ensure that the processes and products used to develop Engineering Models (EMs), flight hardware and flight software, simulators, ground test scripts, etc. by the developer are adequate to meet the requirements and performance specifications. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Tier suppliers for

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

the GeoXO Project are within scope for Audits, Assessments, or Surveys by the Government. Audits, Assessments or Surveys may be performed by the GSFC Code 382 survey teams, the GeoXO Flight Project CSO, the GeoXO Project Safety Manager (PSM), GSFC Hardware Quality Engineer (HQE), DCMA SMA Representative, SMAS II, or SA3 SMA Representative when the LOD/LOI allows (independent of GSFC Code 382, GSFC Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), and the GSFC GeoXO Project Office. Audits will be performed to ensure that the approved processes are being followed in practice. Audits will be used to show compliance in areas including, but not limited to, SMA, Configuration Management (CM) resources and Spacecraft and Instruments performance.

a. The requirement for Process and Product Audits by the Government and/or its representatives at the developer’s subcontractors and suppliers must be flowed down to the subcontractors/suppliers via developers’ purchasing or other contractual documents. The Government will work with the developer to coordinate audit/survey activities at the subcontractors’/suppliers’ facilities.

The developer has the option of providing a representative to accompany GSFC personnel (or representative) on these occasions to assist with the subcontractor/supplier audit when feasible.

b. As a minimum, implementation of the processes documented in Appendix B are subject to auditing by GSFC and its representatives.

2.4 RELIABILITY ENGINEERING SURVEILLANCE

The GeoXO Project Reliability Engineer (PRE) will:

a. Participate in reviews, audits, teleconferences, and other meetings, as requested by Project Management and/or the GeoXO CSO, to provide support of reliability and risk management related activities as defined by the GeoXO SCMAR, IMAR, and Spacecraft and Instruments SOW.

b. Review and evaluate all applicable Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) included in the related Spacecraft and Instrument CDRLs and provide guidance and review documentation provided by the developer as described in the CDRLs and provide feedback whether these documents are acceptable, when requested by GeoXO Project Management and/or the GeoXO CSO.

c. Form a Reliability Working Group with the developer reliability engineering personnel to evaluate reliability design, related analyses, assessments, databases, and the need to reduce program risk.

2.5 SYSTEM SAFETY SURVEILLANCE

The GeoXO Project Safety Manager (PSM) and Safety Engineer will:

a. Participate in reviews, audits, teleconferences, and other meetings, as requested by Project Management and/or the GeoXO CSO, to provide support of systems safety

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

related activities as defined by the GeoXO SCMAR, IMAR, and Spacecraft and Instruments SOW.

b. Review and evaluate all applicable DIDs identified in the related Spacecraft and Instruments CDRLs and provide guidance and review documentation provided by the developer as described in the CDRLs and provide feedback whether these documents are acceptable, when, when requested by GeoXO Project Management and/or the GeoXO

CSO.

c. Form a Safety Team to participate in Launch Services Program (LSP) Payload Safety Working Group (PSWG) with developer systems safety engineering personnel to evaluate NASA-STD-8719.24 described safety design, related analyses, assessments, databases, and the need to reduce risks and safety hazards.

2.6 Software Assurance Surveillance

The GeoXO Project Software Assurance Engineer (SAE) will:

a. Participate in code reviews, end-to-end software testing include regression testing, SCCB, teleconferences, and other meetings, as requested by Project Management and/or the GeoXO CSO, to provide support of software assurance related activities as defined by the GeoXO SCMAR, IMAR, and Spacecraft and Instruments SOW.

b. Review and evaluate all applicable Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) included in the related Spacecraft and Instrument CDRLs and provide guidance and review documentation provided by the developer as described in the CDRLs and provide feedback whether these documents are acceptable, when, when requested by GeoXO Project Management and/or the GeoXO CSO.

c. Perform software process audits and assessments, verification and validation for software requirements and surveil disposition of non-conformances tickets.

2.7 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION

Performance verification for the Spacecraft and Instruments refers to the testing of components, integration of spacecraft subsystems, instruments and their subsystems, integration of the overall Observatory as well as ground support equipment. Activities typically employed by the surveillance team for performance verification are contained in Section 2.3 of this document.

2.8 SUPPLIER CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT

The Contractor will consider subcontractor quality and develop an industrial base and Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Strategy per NPR 8735.2 during design and product selection.

Subcontractors determined to be high risk by this process will have increased surveillance as well as any other mitigations implemented dependent on the type of risk.

To determine supplier criticality for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM), the Flight Project and Ground Segment teams in coordination with the Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

(CSO) and Supply Chain Quality Lead will determine mission objectives and Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) to assist with determining the criticality of each component, e.g., instrument.

The Flight Project and Ground Segment will also assist with determining the complexity and Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of each component. The Program Safety Manager (PSM) and the Project Reliability Engineer will assist with taking safety and reliability into consideration in the determination of the criticality of each component. The Supply Chain Quality Lead, CSOs, Contracting Officer (CO), Observatory Manager, and Instrument Managers will then review government databases, to determine the risk level of each critical supplier and then prioritize them as far as implementing mitigations to reduce each supplier’s respective risk.

Examples of government databases which may be used to determine supplier risk are Meta - Supply Chain Insight Central (SCIC), Corrective Action Reports (CAR), Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) databases. The intent is to perform 100% inspections as the baseline; however, based on the risk of each contractor/subcontractor, the frequency of the inspections may be tailored at the discretion of the CSO in coordination with flight project management. In the case that the frequency of inspection is tailored, it will be documented and provided to the vendor.

In addition, SCRM is the process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks associated with the distributed and interconnected nature of IT products and service supply chains.

Supply chain risks may include insertion of counterfeits, unauthorized production, tampering, theft, insertion of malicious software and hardware, as well as poor manufacturing and development practices in the supply chain. When these risks are realized, it may lead to loss of sensitive information or cause unsafe situations that could compromise NASA’s missions, personnel, or reputation.

The NASA Headquarters Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is responsible for performing these assessments in consultation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

NASA’s OCIO has implemented measures to ensure Agency compliance with the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act.

This law requires NASA, before acquiring any IT systems, to assess the vulnerability of the IT systems to cyber-espionage and sabotage.

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

3. RESOURCES

3.1 GENERAL

All surveillance activities will be implemented using Government personnel and/or Government support contractor personnel and resources from/at GSFC or at the developer facility including personnel who are resident in the facility in either a Resident Office (including NASA SA3 representatives) or a DCMA Office. In the case of the subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors, the use of Government personnel or support personnel will most likely be temporary, based on the activity being performed. The surveillance team may be composed of resident or visiting GSFC personnel, and civil servant or contractor personnel, which may include:

a. The COR, the Contracting Officer (CO), and/or the Contract Specialist

b. GeoXO Project Office personnel, GeoXO Resident Office personnel, or GeoXO support service contractor personnel

c. GeoXO management personnel or other GSFC management personnel and/or their designated representative(s)

d. GSFC Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate (SMA-D) and Engineering and Technical Directorate (ETD) technical and support personnel including the GSFC Supply Chain Quality Representatives, the GeoXO CSO, the GeoXO PSM, Hardware and Software Quality Engineers, Reliability Engineers, Parts Engineers, Materials and Processes Engineers, Parts & Radiation Assurance Engineers (PRAEs), Materials & Processes Assurance Engineer (MPAE), Commodity Risk Assessment Engineers (CRAE), Risk Management Engineers, and DCMA, SMAS II, and/or SA3 representatives

e. GSFC Engineering and Technology Directorate (AETD) technical and support personnel

3.2 GeoXO SURVEILLANCE TEAM

The GSFC GeoXO Surveillance Team will be composed of key GSFC personnel, including GeoXO Project discipline engineers and non-Project SMEs when appropriate. Their primary purpose, under the cognizance of the COR, will be to provide direction for contract surveillance activities and to serve as the Government’s focal point in reviewing and evaluating overall developer performance. Information will be obtained by surveillance personnel from various sources, including developer contractually deliverable documents (i.e., CDRL items), supplier assessments, communications with developer personnel, both formally and informally, and other personnel who interact with developer personnel or representatives which may include:

a. GeoXO Project Manager (PM): The PM is responsible to the GSFC Director of Flight Programs for managing the GeoXO project life cycle. The PM is the senior official

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

responsible for providing overall direction for surveillance activities as they pertain to this plan. The PM consults with partners as necessary to ensure coordination of priorities and schedules.

b. GeoXO Deputy Project Manager (DPM): The DPM leads a team of technical specialists who support the GeoXO development and production effort. The DPM assumes full responsibility for directing the surveillance program in the absence of the PM.

c. GeoXO Deputy Project Manager for Resources (DPMR): The DPMR leads a team of resources and financial specialists who support the GeoXO by monitoring and controlling the application of financial and human resources to the project.

d. GeoXO Finance Manager (FM): The Finance Manager in collaboration with the GeoXO PM, GeoXO DPM-R, and GeoXO CO is responsible for managing all aspects of the GeoXO Project finances including contract payments, Earned Value Management (EVM), budget variances and contract change requests CCR’s).

e. GeoXO Resource Analyst (RA): The Resource Analyst is responsible for planning and budgeting for contract funding, accruing, and tracking contract cost and disbursements, and reviewing and analyzing and summarizing developer cost proposals for changes in contract value.

f. GeoXO Observatory Manager (OM)/COR: The GeoXO OM is the COR on the spacecraft/Observatory contract and is designated in writing by the CO to act as the authorized technical representative to assist in administering the contract. The COR monitors the technical work performed under the contract, evaluates developer performance, serves as the primary interface for the developer and the CO for all technical matters, reports on contract status to Program/Project Management, and recommends corrective action when necessary. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments, authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf, or in any way direct the developer to operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions. Any changes that the developer deems may affect the contract value, terms, or conditions will be referred to the CO for action. The COR’s limitations of authority are contained in the NASA Form 1634 COR Delegation. The COR assumes full responsibility for directing the surveillance activities identified in this plan. The COR will assist the CO in the completion of the contract’s annual performance assessment report using Contract Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS).

g. GeoXO Instrument Manager (IM)/COR: The GeoXO IM works closely with the Instruments developer in managing requirements tracking and acceptance, managing peer reviews, managing instruments risks, and monitoring instruments development. The IM draws upon support of the GSFC discipline engineers for these activities. The GeoXO IM is the COR for the instrument contract and is designated in writing by the CO to act as the authorized technical representative to assist in administering the contract. The COR monitors the technical work performed under the contract, evaluates developer performance, serves as the primary interface for the developer and the CO for all

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

technical matters, reports on contract status to Program/Project Management, and recommends corrective action when necessary. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments, authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf, or in any way direct the developer to operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions. Any changes that the developer deems may affect the contract value, terms, or conditions will be referred to the CO for action. The COR’s limitations of authority are contained in the NASA Form 1634 COR Delegation. The COR assumes full responsibility for directing the surveillance activities identified in this plan. The COR will assist the CO in the completion of the contract’s annual performance assessment report using Contract Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS).

h. GeoXO Project Office: The GeoXO Project Office, including the Systems Manager, supported by other Government and support contractor personnel, is responsible for executive management of project objectives within guidelines and controls prescribed by NASA Headquarters and GSFC management. Technical assistance and support will be available as needed through the project office for development and production of the GeoXO.

i. GeoXO CSO: The CSO is responsible to the PM for implementing the activities of the Project Surveillance Plan. The CSO will manage and coordinate support as required from the GeoXO Project, the various GSFC Code 300 divisions and matrixed personnel from other GSFC organizations.

j. GSFC Quality Engineers (QEs): GSFC QEs are responsible for providing technical, manufacturing, assembly, mandatory inspections, integration and testing, quality engineering and quality assurance support to the CSO in support of the Spacecraft and Instruments development, systems integration, and testing, and launch site activities as required.

k. GSFC GeoXO Supply Chain Quality Lead (SCQL): The SCQL is responsible for advising the CSO and project on supplier-related inquiries regarding performance and/or capabilities, supporting discussions related to suppliers and vendors that may provide hardware and software services to the Project, provide data and briefings to Project on past performance of suppliers to aid in risk management across the life-cycle of the mission development, assist in developing the level of effort for surveillance (audits, assessment, or surveys), and coordinating and conducting supplier assessments.

l. GSFC Discipline Engineers: GSFC discipline engineers are discipline experts who provide technical support and guidance to the GeoXO Project Office. The discipline engineers participate in technical reviews of GeoXO and other insight activities to help identify and resolve technical issues and ensure mission success.

m. GeoXO Resident Engineers and On-site Representatives: Resident Engineers and on-site SMA representatives located at GeoXO developer facilities provide in-house support to the GeoXO Project Office and GeoXO CSO, respectively. The Resident Engineers and on-site SMA representatives will participate in various developer technical and

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

management meetings, product inspections/mandatory inspections, monitoring and/or witnessing of tests, and assessing processes to facilitate decision-making and clear lines of communication between the developer and the GeoXO Project Office and the GeoXO CSO, respectively. The Resident Engineers and the on-site SMA Representative will also have responsibilities to participate in product verification and performance verification activities, supervise and coordinate integration and test activities with the developer I&T personnel, review and approve developer Integration and Test Plan as well as other related documents.

n. GeoXO CO: The GeoXO CO is responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships. Within the surveillance area the CO takes inputs from the Program/Project managers, COR, Safety, Health, GSFC Safety and Mission Assurance Office, Spacecraft and Performance Evaluation Board, and others to establish the detailed surveillance requirements to be performed by NASA personnel, delegated to another Federal agency via a GSFC Letter of Delegation, or to be performed under contract by a surveillance support contractor.

The CO will also assure that the developer receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the developer’s performance. The CO will complete an annual developer’s performance assessment report using the CPARS that will also be reviewed by the developer and become a part of the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

o. GeoXO Systems Engineers (MSE): The GeoXO Mission and Instrument SEs are responsible for coordinating GSFC/Project systems and instrument engineering resources with the developer’ engineering resources to ensure that the GeoXO elements meet the design parameters of the mission while working within the budget and schedule constraints. The SE participates in system/subsystem peer reviews held by the developer and reviews/approves system engineering documentation as required per the GeoXO CDRLs.

p. GeoXO Project and Instrument Scientist: The GeoXO Project and Instrument Scientists works with instrument developer to monitor component, subsystem, and system performance, characterization, and calibration of the instrument and spacecraft to ensure that GeoXO performance and data quality requirements are met. These scientists participate in all of the surveillance methods including participate in system/subsystem reviews, technical interchanges, review of analysis and reports, and monitoring/witnessing performance verification tests.

q. GeoXO Project Scheduler: The GeoXO Project Scheduler works with the developer’s respective program offices to generate and maintain the master schedule for the GeoXO GSFC Project Office. This information is provided to Project Management and senior staff.

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

3.3 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY (DCMA) AND/OR SAFETY &

MISSION ASSURANCE, AUDITS ASSESSMENTS AND ANALYSIS (SA3)

DCMA Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) and/or SA3 personnel may be collocated at the developer with GSFC SMA and project personnel. The DCMA/SMAS II/SA3 representatives will support the GeoXO CSO and GeoXO Mission Assurance effort in accordance with the provisions of the GSFC LOD and/or SOW and/or Task Order and this Surveillance Plan. If DCMA or other contract support personnel are required on-site at the developer, every effort will be made to use their local (collocated or itinerant) DCMA/SMAS II/SA3 support if available.

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

4. MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTROL PROCESS

4.1 GOVERNMENT ACCESS

Government access to, and/or participation in, the following management review processes will be used to guide and direct surveillance activities at the developer and its subcontractors and suppliers (as warranted). This list is intended to provide a representative example and is not all-inclusive. The Government may request access to additional meetings and reviews as the effort progresses:

a. Developer status meetings; weekly and monthly

b. Developer ad hoc technical and programmatic meetings

c. Developer planning meetings

d. Weekly Program Management meetings

e. Monthly Financial Reports

f. Contracts/Business Meetings

g. Monthly Technical and Management Reviews

h. Preliminary and Critical Design Reviews and other System and Integrated Independent Reviews

i. Manufacturing, Test and Flight Readiness Reviews

j. Test configuration break meetings

k. Audits, Surveys and Assessments (Prime-led, Instrument developer-led or Government-led)

l. Peer Reviews, Technical Interchange Meetings, and Technical Working Group meetings

m. Parts Control Board, Anomaly/Failure Review Board, Materials Review Boards, Materials and Processes Control Board, Risk Management Reviews, Payload Safety Working Group and Reliability Working Group meetings; all related activities and documentation

n. Program relevant meetings, teleconferences and discussions not already identified above

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

5. METRICS

5.1 DATA REVIEW AND VALIDATION

Surveillance team members are responsible for collecting production, integration, test, and product assurance data, and for facilitating overall surveillance activities. Surveillance team activities include determining that acceptable limits, data ranges, pass/fail criteria and goals have been established and flowed down to the developer project teams and their subcontractors and suppliers as applicable. Data that are subject to surveillance team review will be provided by multiple organizations involved with the project, including (but not limited to) DCMA, SMAS II/SA3 and the developer, their subcontractors, and suppliers. Data generating activities include contract deliverable document submissions, developer self-assessment and Government assessment programs, DCMA/SMAS II/SA3 monitoring, scheduled and unscheduled reviews (e.g. monthly status reviews, peer reviews, readiness reviews, and formal reviews), meetings and teleconferences. Below are performance metrics subject to surveillance team review for which data is being generated. This list is intended to provide a representative example and is not all-inclusive.

a. Financial performance

1. Payment schedules

2. Cost variances – budgeted versus actual cost for work performed

3. Payment schedules to subcontractors and suppliers

4. Earned Value Management Metrics

b. Schedule performance

1. Schedule variances – planned versus actual

2. Critical path item status

3. Critical path “slack time” trending

4. Planning package to work package conversions

c. Systems/subsystems engineering, fabrication, and test

1. Key Technical Parameters (KTP) status

2. Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) status

3. Verification planning and “buy-off” status, including calibration

4. Specification development status

5. Subsystem development, including but not limited to

a. Electrical subsystems development, peer reviews and outcomes

b. Mechanical subsystems development, peer reviews and outcomes

c. Optical subsystems development, peer reviews and outcomes

d. Software development, peer reviews and outcomes

e. Thermal subsystems development, peer reviews and outcomes

f. Simulator development, peer reviews and outcomes

g. Schedules

6. Systems engineering risks, including cost, probability, schedule impact and mitigation plans.

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

7. Integration and Test (I&T)

a. Ground support equipment fabrication and test status

b. Mechanical assembly and test status

c. Electrical assembly and test status

d. I&T procedures list

e. Characterization and Calibration planning, execution, and result evaluation

f. Schedules

g. Peer reviews and outcomes

8. Safety and Mission Assurance

a. Safety analysis, controls, and mitigation plans

b. Contamination analysis, risks, and mitigation plans

c. Reliability analysis, risks, and mitigation plans

d. Materials and process control program status

e. Quality assurance program status including, program requirements, flow-down to subcontractors, Material review board (MRB)/failure review board (FRB) activity status

f. Parts program status including PCB activity, Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP)/NASA alerts/advisories/problem status, number of parts approved, approved with risk, rejected and pending deviation/waiver status

9. Contract deliverables

a. Percent completed early/on-time/late

b. Percent approved/rejected

c. Percent requirements satisfied

10. Supplier Audits, Assessments, or Surveys

a. Assessments performed

b. # of findings (non-conformances)

c. Status of corrective actions

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

6. END ITEM DATA PACAKAGE

The developer will submit an End Item Acceptance Data Package (EIDP) in accordance with the GeoXO SCMAR.

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

integration and test and will provide for Government’s review upon request

Flight Circuit Card Assemblies (CCAs)- Insertions/Mates √ √

Inspection Government or its delegee will witness CCA insertions and mates

Polymeric Applications- Bonding, Staking, Encapsulation and Conformal Coating for Electronic Assemblies

Inspection NASA-STD- 8739.1

Solder Joints

Inspection IPC- J-STD- 001GS, Joint Industry Standard, Space Applications Electronic Hardware Addendum (except Chapter 10 of IPC-

J-STD-001G)

Fiber Optics

Inspection NASA-STD- 8739.5

Flight Units, Pre-Closure

Inspection/ Verification

Developer Documentation

Government or its delegee will verify configuration, including records of

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

all serialized parts, installation of circuit boards, condition of slides, connector integrity, cleanliness and general workmanship

Flight Units, Cover Installation/Fastener Torques

Witness/Verify

Developer

Government or its delegee will witness final installation of covers, and witness or verify fastener torques

PWB Coupons- Obtain and Submit for GSFC Approval

Verify Refer to MAR, Section 6.4 for PWBs

Government or it’s delegee will verify that the relevant PWB coupons have been accepted and approved by

GSFC

All Flight Assemblies Rework and repair – all assemblies with previous GMIP requirements

Inspect

Applicable Standard for initial

GMIP

Notify CSO of all repairs and rework

Mechanical Critical Fasteners

Verify Developer

Developer will keep a record of critical fastener torques of flight

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

hardware and critical GSE, including tool identification, calibration data and final torque value.

The government or its delegee will review documentation

Bonding for Mechanical Assemblies

Take a representative sample (10- 20%), not all bonds need to be inspected

Inspect/Witness (when inspection cannot be performed post operation)

Developer Documentation

Developer’s work instructions and procedures will be made available for Government’s review upon request including any witnessing of bonding coupons preparation and application

Packaging, Packing, Shipping and Storage

Flight Products Pre-shipment

Inspect NPR

6000.1 or Project approved developer documentation

Flight hardware final assemblies and subassemblies

Government Furnished Property/Equipment

(GFP/GFE)

Receiving

Inspect Documentation, Calibration Requirements

Developer to notify GSFC resident HQE or delegee of the arrival of the GFP/GFE

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

Government Furnished Property/Equipment (GFP/GFE) and Simulators

Flight GFP/GFE Installation and Removal

Witness

Non-Flight GFP/GFE Installation and Removal

Flight GFP/GFE Acceptance (or qualification) testing.

Verify test set up and power application

Witness Project approved Test Procedures

May be reduced to monitor for long duration tests

Non-Flight GFP/GFE Acceptance (or qualification) testing.

Verify test set up and power application

Simulators not being connected to flight hardware.

Flight Hardware

Acceptance or Qualification testing.

Verify test set up and power application

Witness Project approved Test Procedures

May be reduced to monitor for long duration tests

Welding/Brazing

Inspection NASA-STD-5006 or Project approved developer documentation

Including auditing of Developers processes and verification of operator certification.

CSO will use discretion and may decide in

To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

1) Critical Flight Hardware can be located in the TBD (Single Point Failures list) and Spacecraft and…