L1_Series COR SOW Rev 11-9-23.docx

Space Weather Next L1 Series (Next L1), Code 493 L1SERIES-COR-SOW-0006, Revision -

SWO Next L1 Series Coronagraph Statement of Work (SOW)

SWO CMO

<Date> Released

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) NOAA Satellite and Information Service (NESDIS) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

L1 Series Coronagraph SOW Review/Signature/Approval Page Prepared by:

Mark Edison SWO L1 Series NASA GSFC, Code 493

Date

Reviewed by:

Charles “Hudson” DeLee SWO L1 Series NASA GSFC, Code 493

Date

Approved by:___________________________ Tim Vansant L1 Series Project Manager NASA/GSFC, Code 493

Date

Approved by:

Electronic Approval available on-line at:

CM FOREWORD

This document is under Space Weather Observations (SWO) Program configuration control. Once this document is approved, SWO approved changes are handled in accordance with Class I and Class II change control requirements as described in the SWO Configuration Management Procedure, and changes to this document shall be made by complete revision.

In this plan, all mandatory actions (i.e., requirements) are denoted by statements containing the term “shall.” The terms “may” or “can” denote discretionary privilege or permission; “should” denotes a good practice and is recommended but not required; “will” denotes expected outcome; and “are/is” denotes descriptive material.

Any questions should be addressed to:

SWO Configuration Management Office

NASA/GSFC

Code 493 Greenbelt, MD 20771

Change History Log

(Reference the CCR & CCB/ERB Approval Date)

Table of Contents

Effective Date: TBD Expiration Date: TBD

L1 Series Coronagraph SOW L1SERIES-COR-SOW-0006, Revision - Effective Date: TBD

Confirm with SWFO CM to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

viii Check the SWO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/documentation/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Introduction Program Scope and Management The L1 Series Mission is a high priority joint undertaking by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of the Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The L1 Series Mission will procure a minimum of two (2) observatories that will provide NOAA with the continuity and resilience of solar wind data and coronal mass ejection (CME) imagery, which is the National Weather Service’s highest priority for space weather observations. The L1 Series Observatories are targeted to launch as individual primary payloads, December 2028, and October 2032.

This Statement of Work (SOW) defines those tasks necessary to design, analyze, develop, and fabricate three (3) flight Coronagraph instruments.

The SOW also defines the tasks necessary to integrate, test, calibrate, evaluate, and support launch and on-orbit check-out of the Coronagraph instruments, supply and maintain the instrument Ground Support Equipment (GSE), Ground Processing Algorithms, and support the Mission Operations Center (MOC) at the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility (NSOF) through mission hand over to NOAA.

The period of performance for the contract is from contract award through fifteen (15) months (TBR) after launch of the second mission. This includes post-delivery support for Observatory level integration, launch, post launch evaluation, calibration, data validation, operational handover to NOAA of the instruments, and on-orbit anomaly investigations. The first flight unit shall be delivered by March 2027, the second by June 2029 and the third unit is a spare flight unit for the first two missions.

The Coronagraph is part of the L1 Series of satellites which have a risk classification of C per NPR 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads.

The Contractor shall provide the personnel, materials, facilities and other resources to design, develop, deliver, provide storage, provide support to spacecraft integration and test, launch, and early mission operations including ground processing algorithm development, under the contract for:

a. Three Coronagraph Flight Model (FM) Instruments, each consisting of a detector, telescope, associated electronics and harnesses, designated Flight Model-1, Flight Model-2 and Flight Model-3 (FM-1, FM-2 and FM-3).

b. One Engineering Development Unit (EDU) Instrument, consisting of a detector, telescope, flight mechanical and electrical interfaces, associated electronics and harnesses.

c. Spares and built up and tested sub-assemblies

d. Three sets of the Electrical System Test Equipment (ESTE)

e. Four Coronagraph Emulators

f. One Ground Processing Development System (GPDS)

g. All additional Coronagraph Instrument Mechanical and Electrical Ground Support Equipment (MGSE and EGSE) called out elsewhere in this document

h. All remaining items and documents specified in contract documents Other Scope The Contractor shall perform special studies relating to the development, implementation, characterization, qualification, and operation of the instruments as authorized by the Government, and in accordance with Clause B.5 RATES FOR NON-STANDARD SERVICES.

Acceptance criteria for non-standard services will be specified in the associated DO or Task Order.

Check the SWO CM tool Server at https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/documentation/ to verify that this is the correct version prior to use.

Documents

Applicable Documents The documents listed in this section apply directly to the performance of the Coronagraph contract. These documents establish detailed specifications, requirements, and interface information necessary for the performance of the contract.

Coronagraph Requirements Specification, L1SERIES-COR-REQ-0018 Coronagraph Mission Assurance Requirements, L1SERIES-COR-REQ-0019 Coronagraph Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL), L1SERIES-COR-CDRL-0002 NASA-STD-8719.13C NASA Software Safety Standard NPR 7150.2B NASA Software Engineering Requirements NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8705.4, Risk Classification for NASA Payloads

Reference Documents GOLD Rules, GSFC-STD-1000 (Rev H)

Requirement Definitions Requirements Precedence In the event of a conflict in requirements between this SOW and other documentation, the order of precedence shall be: SOW, Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL), Coronagraph Requirements Specification, Coronagraph Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR), and any other Applicable Documents.

The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer of any inconsistencies in this SOW, including all attachments and applicable documents. Upon notification of an inconsistency, the Contracting Officer will clarify which requirement takes precedence, and may modify the contract as deemed appropriate.

Terms and Definitions For the purposes of the L1 Series Coronagraph contract attachments, the following terms and definitions apply.

A requirement is identified by “shall”, a good practice by “should”, permission by “may” or “can”, expected outcome or action by “will” and descriptive material by “is” or “are” (or other verb form of “to be”).

The term “TBS” (To Be Supplied) means that the Government will clarify or supply the missing information during the course of the contract. “TBR” (To Be Reviewed) means that the stated information will be reviewed for appropriateness by the Contractor and the Government and the value may be changed prior to final definition by the Government during the course of the contract. Until the value is changed or the “TBR” removed, the Contractor shall comply with the requirement as if the "TBR" notation did not exist. “TBD” (To Be Determined) indicates further research or analysis is needed to determine the information, during the course of the contract, with the final determination to be made by the Government. “TBP” (To Be Proposed) means the Contractor proposes the information with the Offer submission for Government review and approval. All changes to resolve these “TBX” items will be done through a formal process of configuration change review, approval, and contract modification.

The terms “Observatory” refers to the spacecraft (or Spacecraft) bus fully or partially integrated with one or more flight instruments and is equivalent to the term “Observatory” used in the Rapid IV Contract.

The term “Government” represents the appropriate NASA and/or NOAA L1 Series management office or, where “the Government” is indicated as providing a function for or interface to the Spacecraft Contractor, the function or interface may be provided by Government or Government L1 Series or support service contractors.

The terms “L1 Series Project Office”, “L1 Series Project”, and “Project” refers to the Government L1 Series Project Office.

The terms “instrument team”, “instrument provider”, “instrument developer”, “instrument supplier”, and “instrument vendor” refer to the various instrument contractors and/or to Government civil servant and Government support contractors interfacing with and or providing the instrument or data for the various instruments (to be revised based on instrument vendor selection).

The terms “Coronagraph”, “instrument”, “instruments”, refer to all flight model units of the Coronagraph instrument, unless a shall statement specifically limits the requirement to certain Flight Model units (i.e. FM-1, FM-2).

Work Performed by the Contractor Program Management Office The Contractor shall establish a Program Management Office (PMO) responsible for the leadership and overall direction of all phases of the work specified in this SOW.

The Contractor shall establish effective communication with the Government Project Office through the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) that includes, but is not limited to, e-mail and telephone contact as necessary, weekly telecons with the Government Coronagraph team, and one-on-one contact between NASA and Contractor discipline engineers, to be coordinated by the COR.

The Contractor shall prepare, lead, and provide minutes for weekly teleconferences with the Government to discuss status, risks, issues, schedule and other business-related activities.

Once instrument integration and test (I&T) begins, the Contractor shall include the Government team in the Contractor’s regularly scheduled I&T meetings.

The Contractor shall establish a Subcontract Management and Control System to provide technical direction and effective sub-contract management utilizing schedule milestone controls.

The Contractor shall develop and maintain a Master Action Item Database (MAID), or spreadsheet, listing all Request for Actions (RFA) or Action Items from formal reviews, Government status reviews, internal technical reviews, peer reviews, all other reviews required by the contract, technical meetings, telecons, etc., listing author and origin (PDR, telecon, etc.) of the RFA, person responsible for closure, wording of the RFA, response, persons(s) authorizing final closure, due date, date closed, and a column for Government concurrence and comment.

The Contractor shall not delete closed action items from the MAID.

The Contractor shall retain all documents and test data for the life of the contract.

Resource Management The Contractor shall establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive Resources Management System (RMS) for planning, authorizing, and controlling the total resource effort for each Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) element, by instrument, and for providing timely and adequate visibility into manpower, materials, cost, schedule, travel, and subcontract performance.

The RMS shall be consistent with the contract WBS and provide timely and traceable incorporation of contract changes and document the effect on the resource management baseline.

The contractor shall maintain and provide the WBS to the Government once it is baselined and after any significant changes due to project changes or contract modifications.

The contractor shall establish, maintain, and use in the performance of this contract, an Earned Value Management System (EVMS).

The correlation and integration of these systems and processes shall provide for early indication of cost and schedule problems, and their relation to technical achievement. (DRD IPMR) The Contractor shall use Microsoft Project (latest version) as the scheduling tool for the generation and reporting of project schedules.

The Contractor shall define and implement a parts program for all flight and GSE parts that minimizes the risk of a schedule delay, in the event of a part or component failure, inadvertent damage, contamination, or by other plausible events or conditions and based on the Contractor’s historical experience, current practices, and lessons learned from similar Class C missions.

The Contractor shall provide private office space with a locking door, furniture, copier(s), facsimile machine(s), phones and high-speed internet access in the vicinity of the PMO for one Government resident and one visiting representative.

The Contractor shall provide property management of NASA Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and GSE.

Any major Sub-contractor that may be providing one or more of the Coronagraph Subassemblies shall provide private office space, furniture, copier(s), facsimile machine(s), phones and high-speed internet access in the vicinity of the project office for one Government representative.

Visitor Badging The Contractor shall accommodate facility access and badging for L1 Series Project representatives throughout the life of the contract. L1 Series Project representatives may be Government or support contractors.

This shall include short term visitor badging for all Contractor-hosted meetings, Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs), Working Groups (WGs), and reviews, as well as long-term, unescorted badging for up to 6 Project representatives in order to accommodate long-duration visits (e.g. during integration and test [I&T]) and resident personnel.

If the Contractor requires training for entry into any facilities, the Contractor shall provide the necessary training to Project representatives. This training shall be provided in a timely manner.

The Contractor shall coordinate with the Government for badging of Contractor personnel for access to NASA and NOAA facilities as required for support of the contract.

The Contractor shall coordinate with the Spacecraft vendor for badging of Contractor personnel for access to Spacecraft facilities as required for support of the contract.

Configuration and Information Management The Contractor shall oversee and manage the generation, configuration control and distribution of all documents required by the contract.

The Contractor shall establish, implement, and maintain a Government approved Configuration Management System that provides Configuration Management control of configured items including all flight hardware and software, all GSE hardware and software, and all documentation developed under this contract, including drawings, procedures, plans, CDRLs, and program review materials.

The Contractor shall provide all documents called out in the CDRL plus all updates and revisions in accordance with the CDRL.

The Contractor shall produce, control, and maintain contract documentation in accordance with the CDRL. The Government will establish and maintain a secure website, called the L1 Series Portal. The Government will maintain a folder on the portal for Coronagraph only, accessible by the Contractor and selected Government personnel, for document delivery and the exchange of information only.

The Contractor shall develop, implement, and maintain a document and drawing tree.

The Contractor shall develop, implement, and maintain a Software Configuration Management System that provides baseline management and control of software requirements, design, source code, data and documentation.

The Contractor shall employ a source code version control tool to check in/check out current or previous versions of a source file.

The Contractor shall establish a Configuration Control Board(s) to review and approve changes to the flight design documentation, software, GSE and all controlled documents.

The Contractor shall submit Class I changes to the Government for approval before implementation of the change. (Class I changes affect an item’s fit, form or function.)

The Contractor shall submit Class II changes to the Government for concurrence with the classification. (Class II changes are changes to correct documentation or changes to hardware not otherwise defined as a Class I change.)

If GSFC determines that a Class II classification is incorrect the Contractor shall resubmit the change as a Class I change.

Documentation The Contractor shall develop, produce, deliver, and maintain all documentation required by and in accordance with the L1 Series Coronagraph Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL).

The Contractor shall comply with applicable export control protocols: Export Administration Regulation (EAR) or International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), as determined by the NASA GSFC Export Control Office. The Contractor shall appropriately mark information provided to the L1 Series Project that is subject to export control restrictions and shall leave information unmarked that is not.

All efforts, including the performance of tests and analyses not otherwise explicitly stated in other parts of the SOW, but determined jointly by the Contractor and the Government to be mission critical, shall be performed and documented by the Contractor.

All documentation, data, and analyses generated for or applicable to the contract effort, whether formal or informal, deliverable or non-deliverable shall be made available to the Government and Government support Contractor’s upon request. This information shall be provided electronically through a Contractor provided web portal that provides Government document download capability.

Program Review Requirements The Contractor shall provide the technical and administrative support for all program reviews and meetings.

The Contractor shall provide technical support to Observatory system-level reviews, Observatory integration and test reviews and mission operations reviews.

Unless otherwise stipulated, all reviews and meetings will be held at the Contractor's facility.

Kick-off Meeting Approximately one month after award the Contractor shall prepare and conduct a Kick-Off Meeting covering a line-by-line review of the contract schedule and clauses, SOW, Coronagraph Requirements Specification, COR MAR, and COR CDRLs.

The Contractor shall provide their interpretation of each line item (“shall”).

The Contractor shall plan for a two-day review.

Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBR) The contractor shall present its performance measurement baseline plan to the Government within six months after contract award, and subsequently, when required, following major changes to the baseline.

The Government will verify during the IBR, and follow-on IBRs when required that the contractor has established and maintains a reliable performance measurement baseline.

The contractor shall ensure that the baseline includes the entire contract technical scope of work consistent with contract schedule requirements, and has adequate resources assigned.

The contractor shall assure the Government that effective earned value methods are used to accurately status contract cost, schedule, and technical performance.

The contractor shall perform a self-assessment of the cost and schedule risk for the IBR. The IBR will be used to achieve a mutual understanding of the baseline plan, cost and schedule risk, and the underlying management processes used for planning and controlling the project.

Peer Reviews The Contractor shall work with the Government to implement a program of periodic tabletop engineering and risk mitigation reviews (peer reviews) throughout the life cycle to identify and resolve concerns as they arise, and prior to formal, system level reviews.

Peer review teams shall be comprised of technical experts from the Contractor and the Government with significant practical experience relevant to the technology and requirements to be reviewed.

The Contractor shall provide Government notification ten business days prior to all peer reviews so that Government representatives can prepare and be present.

Instrument Design Reviews The Contractor shall prepare and conduct Instrument Design Reviews for the Independent Integrated Review Team that will be chaired by the Government. The reviews shall cover all aspects of flight and ground hardware, software, and operations for which the Contractor has responsibility.

The Contractor shall conduct a dry-run chart flip-through via a telecon and/or video conferencing with online collaboration tools for each design review, with the government Coronagraph team, 2 weeks prior to the review.

After each formal review, the Contractor shall document all RFA's with planned closure date in the MAID within 1 week of receipt.

Each dry-run and design review, (PDR, CDR, etc.) is not considered complete until approved by the Government. If the Government determines that a delta review is necessary, the Contractor shall conduct such review at a time to be mutually agreed-upon with the Government.

System Definition Review (SDR) /Systems Requirements Review (SRR) The Contractor shall prepare and conduct an SDR/SRR after all requirements have been allocated to the subsystem level.

The Contractor shall plan for a two-day review, not including resolution of RFAs.

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The Contractor shall prepare and conduct a PDR at the conclusion of the preliminary design efforts and after testing the breadboard or brass board models of critical subassemblies/assemblies.

The Contractor shall plan for a two-day review, not including resolution of RFAs.

Critical Design Review (CDR) The Contractor shall prepare and conduct a CDR prior to the start of manufacture of the FM hardware unless the Contractor requests and the Government concurs with an earlier start.

The Contractor shall plan for a two-day review, not including resolution of RFAs.

The contractor shall prepare and conduct a Delta-CDR for each flight model after the first unit. The Government may waive the requirement for a Delta-CDR if no changes have occurred.

Pre-Environmental Review (PER) The Contractor shall prepare and conduct a PER prior to the start of environmental testing of each FM to establish the readiness of the system and to evaluate the environmental test plans and procedures.

The Contractor shall plan for a two-day review, not including resolution of RFAs.

Pre-Storage/Pre-Shipment Review The Contractor shall prepare and conduct a pre-storage review prior to placement of each Flight Model into storage at the Contractor's facilities.

The Contractor shall plan for a two-day pre-storage review, not including resolution of RFAs.

The Contractor shall prepare and conduct a pre-ship review prior to the shipment of instrument.

The Contractor shall plan for a two-day pre-ship review, not including resolution of RFAs.

Observatory Level Reviews The Contractor shall provide technical support to all Observatory level and Mission reviews for each FM. The Observatory and Mission reviews, their estimated length, and location is provided in Table 1 Formal Observatory and Mission Reviews.

The Contractor shall support the Observatory level reviews, as required, by presentations and/or documentation; for example, an instrument overview or design summary, test and data evaluation summaries, etc.

Table 1 Formal Observatory and Mission Reviews

Post Launch Assessment Review (PLAR)/Handover Readiness Review

(HRR)

Project Management Reviews The Contractor shall prepare and hold once every two months Project Management Status Reviews (PMSR).

The status reviews shall be held at the Contractor's facility through successful completion of the CDR, then alternate between a Government designated facility and the Contractor's facility. Specific agenda items may be required by the Government.

Test Data Reviews The Contractor shall prepare and conduct table-top test data reviews with Government personnel on the overall instrument status and performance for each FM.

The Contractor shall conduct data reviews prior to the shipment of deliverable GSE.

The Contractor shall prepare and conduct reviews of the interim data following any instrument or system level performance verification or calibration test prior to the breakdown of any test setup to ensure collection of good data, and prior to the Pre-Storage and Pre-Shipment Reviews to determine readiness.

The Government reserves the right to attend all Test Data Reviews and requires 10 business days of advance notification.

Technical Meetings The Contractor shall support technical interface meetings (TIMs) and Working Group meetings with the Government and the spacecraft vendor for the purpose of discussing and/or resolving problems or items of interest.

Subcontract Subsystem and Instrument Reviews The Contractor shall plan a series of subsystem reviews and document that plan as part of the Program Management Plan.

The Contractor shall conduct PDR and CDR reviews of all major sub-systems whether these subsystems are provided by the Contractor or by a subcontractor.

Whether internal or external, sub-system reviews shall be chaired by the Contractor and conducted by personnel not directly responsible for design or procurement of the hardware under review. The Government reserves the right to attend these reviews and requires 10 business days of advance notification.

The Contractor shall document the minutes and action items that result from these reviews and make them available on the Government website.

The Contractor shall conduct internal software reviews.

The Contractor shall conduct tabletop code walkthroughs; the Government reserves the right to attend and requires three business days advance notice.

Schedule Management The Contractor shall establish, implement, and maintain a Coronagraph Instrument Schedule (CORIS). Each FM development and delivery shall be tracked in the schedule. The Contractor shall present schedule status at the Program Management Status Reviews.

The Contractor shall obtain Government approval for Coronagraph Instrument Schedule changes that impact Deliverable Items or GFE delivery dates as defined in contract.

Risk Management The Contractor shall implement and maintain a Risk Management Program addressing all programmatic, performance and reliability risks.

The Contractor shall evaluate, classify, and prioritize all identified performance, reliability and quality risks and assess their potential impact on cost and schedule.

The Contractor shall develop and implement risk management strategies, actions (mitigate, watch or research), and assign tasks and appropriate resources to manage and control the risks for each instrument.

The Contractor shall track all risks being mitigated on an ongoing basis; capture risk attributes and mitigation information by collecting data; establish performance metrics; examine trends, deviations and anomalies; and writing risk mitigation plans as necessary.

SYSTEMS Engineering The Contractor shall establish and maintain a Systems Engineering Program for directing, specifying and overseeing the design and technical development of the Coronagraph instrument, GSE, and ground algorithms.

The Contractor shall generate a Coronagraph System Specification that includes derived requirements from the Coronagraph Requirements Specification, the CoronagraphMAR, and the Coronagraph SOW.

The Contractor shall use a requirements traceability tool to demonstrate that the Coronagraph design meets all requirements.

Systems Management and Engineering The Contractor shall perform all system studies, trades, risk assessments, and fault management strategy necessary to develop an instrument system design that meets the system performance specifications.

The Contractor shall flow-down the Coronagraph performance requirements into engineering functional requirements, detailed equipment and end item design requirements.

The Contractor shall ensure that all subsystems, both individually and in combination, meet the intended design and performance specifications and that the design specifications are sufficient to meet the mission life requirements.

The Contractor shall establish and maintain a System Performance and Environmental Verification Program that demonstrates that the FM meets all mandated and derived performance requirements, and that the GSE meets all design and interface requirements and is safe to use with the flight hardware.

Observatory Interface and Accommodation The Contractor shall coordinate with the Observatory contractor and support technical interchange meetings to define the instrument accommodations and interfaces between instrument and Observatory as well as instrument GSE to Observatory GSE interfaces, and instrument GSE to NOAA GSE interfaces.

The Contractor shall assist in the development of the Coronagraph to Spacecraft (S/C) Interface Control Documents (ICDs) and MICD specified in the Coronagraph specification.

The Contractor shall support the Observatory implementation contractor in design and test of all instrument to Observatory interfaces: mechanical, including the location of the Coronagraph instrument on the Observatory, electrical, and thermal.

The Contractor shall support, at the Spacecraft Contractor’s or the instrument facility (TBR), pre-delivery data and electrical power interface testing with the instrument emulator or EDU in coordination with the spacecraft vendor using a spacecraft vendor provided Spacecraft to Instrument Interface Simulator.

System Analysis and Allocations The Contractor shall conduct complete analyses of the technical requirements that fully establish and define budget allocations for all required performance and design parameters, including but not limited to, mass, power and volume allocations, alignment, magnetic cleanliness, contamination control, thermal, radiation, on-board processing resources, and data timeliness.

The Contractor shall maintain and control budgets (i.e. allocations and margins) for all instrument resources.

The Contractor shall conduct the analyses required to confirm the integrity of the instrument design, and to ensure that the performance of each instrument will be compliant with specifications over the operational design life.

The Contractor shall conduct analyses and simulations required to assure the combined subsystems function properly as an integrated unit.

The Contractor shall conduct data analysis and trending and maintain a trend database during instrument level testing, Observatory level testing, post-launch operations, and mission operations to ensure stability of the performance of each instrument.

The Contractor shall conduct end-to-end analyses of the instruments to demonstrate the designs will meet all performance requirements.

The Contractor shall develop and maintain over the duration of the contract, a computer simulation(s) and models for these end-to-end Coronagraph system analyses.

The Contractor shall provide the export of requirements and traceability linkages in a mutually agreed upon Excel formatted file or in the ReqIF (Requirements Interchange Format) https://www.omg.org/reqif/.” (CDRL SE-3).

Contamination Control and Analysis The Contractor shall establish a Contamination Control Program (CCP) and provide the resources necessary to assure that appropriate contamination control is exercised through all phases of instrument manufacture, build-up/assembly, integration and test, and Observatory integration and test, launch site processing, and on-orbit operation. This includes assuring that the Coronagraph will not produce contamination that degrades companion instruments and spacecraft subsystem performance.

Supplemental CCP documents shall be developed for cleanroom operations, contamination protocols, cleaning procedures, monitoring plans, vacuum bake out plans, I&T plans, launch site processing, and any contamination-related plans for the on-orbit phase.

The Contractor shall establish and document contamination allowances and budgets for performance degradation of sensitive surfaces, components, and thermal contamination-sensitive hardware such that, even when degraded by contamination within the stated allowance, the hardware will meet its end-of-life mission objectives.

The Contractor shall provide a mass transport analysis and a particle generation and redistribution analysis for the instrument.

For molecular contaminants, the contractor begins by choosing low Total Mass Loss (TML)/ Volatile Condensable Mass (VCM) materials, schedules bake-outs of parts, components, harnesses, etc., and performs a mass transport analysis for molecular contamination demonstrating that the Coronagraph is not a contamination source for the other instruments.

For particulates, the contractor shall demonstrate that the instruments are not a source of particulate contamination. This would generally include choosing low particulate-generating, non-shedding materials and coatings, performing particulate testing and monitoring during each mission phase, and scheduling frequent cleaning/verification of Coronagraph surfaces.

The Contractor shall perform all cleaning that is required to maintain contamination at defined levels.

The Contractor shall report the status of all contamination control activities at Instrument Design Reviews, technical meetings and PMSRs.

Magnetic Control Plan The Contractor shall implement a magnetic control and verification program to track, manage/report and test to ensure that the instrument-generated magnetic fields do not exceed the field limits during each instrument operation.

The Contractor shall participate in the Government led magnetics control program.

Special Engineering Analysis The Contractor shall conduct special engineering tasks and/or analyses relating to the development, implementation, integration and operation of the Coronagraph instruments, and ground systems as required and authorized by the appropriate contract clauses.

Flight MOdel (FM) The Contractor shall develop three Coronagraph Flight Models designated as FM-1, FM-2 and FM-3 to fly on the L1 series and potentially other missions.

The effort shall include fabrication, assembly, test, calibration, ground processing algorithm development, maintenance, storage (including cleaning and calibration verification after a TBD timeframe), delivery, and post-delivery support through the end of the contract.

The first FM shall be functionally tested and environmentally tested to proto-flight qualification levels and durations as defined in the Coronagraph Requirements Specification to qualify the designs and procedures. After successful qualification of the first FM, subsequent units may be tested at acceptance levels if they are exact duplicates of the first flight instrument.

Design and Analysis

Instrument Design The Contractor shall design the instrument to meet the performance and interface requirements.

To support and gain confidence in the design of critical and high-risk systems the Contractor shall perform subassembly/assembly level design and testing to verify expected performance prior to start of FM instrument fabrication.

The Contractor shall develop and maintain Assembly and Integration Procedures and Drawings.

The Contractor shall develop an Engineering Development Unit (EDU) to reduce, mitigate or retire critical subassembly or assembly risk. The EDU shall include fully functional parts and assemblies, fabrication, assembly, flight mechanical and electrical interfaces, test, calibration, ground processing algorithms development and verification, maintenance, storage (including cleaning and calibration verification after a TBD timeframe) plans, and techniques.

The EDU shall be functionally tested as defined in the Coronagraph Requirements Specification to qualify the designs, procedures, planning, and verify requirements, and demonstrate ground processing algorithms.

The EDU shall be designed such that it is portable.

The Contractor shall conduct life tests of all mechanisms and other critical assemblies as specified in the Coronagraph Requirements Specification.

The Contractor shall verify the expected performance of any design change before proceeding with fabrication of the changed article.

The Contractor shall ensure that all Coronagraph technologies achieve a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 by PDR.

The Contractor shall provide a list of any Coronagraph technologies that are below TRL 6 at the time of award.

Flight and Ground Test Software Development and Maintenance The Contractor shall update and maintain all flight software, ground test software, processes, procedures, and software tools required for support of the FM integration, test and verification program, and on-orbit operations in accordance with the Software Maintenance Plan.

The Contractor shall establish and maintain a Software Management Program to plan and document software development processes and procedures, software tools, reviews, resources, schedules, and deliverables.

The contractor shall document and maintain under configuration control all software requirements in the Coronagraph Requirements Specification.

The contractor shall identify the person responsible for directing and managing the software assurance program and interfacing with Government assurance personnel.

The contractor shall identify safety critical software per Appendix A of NASA-STD-8719.13 Software Safety Standard, or equivalent, and obtain NASA/GSFC COR approval for any deviations.

The Contractor shall assist the Government's software Independent Assessments, assess all review findings and recommendations, and implement corrective actions to address such findings and recommendations. Detailed justification and rationale shall be provided for any instances where the Contractor decided not to take corrective action on specific software design findings and recommendations.

The Contractor shall document the test approach and methodology in the Software Management Plan for the software Verification and Validation in accordance with the Coronagraph MAR and deliver Acceptance Test Reports within 30 days of software release or within 30 days of test (whichever is sooner).

The Contractor shall design, develop, test, and implement flight software and GSE ground test software for the FM.

The Contractor shall specify, design, review, develop, configuration control, and test the software component of firmware, consisting of computer programs and data loaded into a class of memory not dynamically modifiable by the computer during processing (e.g., Programmable Read Only Memories, Programmable Logic Arrays, Digital Signal Processors, Field Programmable Gate Arrays, etc.), in the same rigorous manner as the flight software.

The Contractor shall develop and maintain one Flight Software Development Environment (FSDE), including hardware, software, procedures, and associated documentation, to be used for the life cycle management, development, and verification of the flight software at the Contractor's facility.

As needed, the Contractor shall develop and maintain a GSE Ground Test Software Development System to be used for the life cycle management of the ground test software at the Contractor's facility.

The Contractor shall classify each Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI) in accordance with the software classifications definitions for Class A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in Appendix D of NPR 7150.2B.

The Contractor shall maintain a Government approved tailoring compliance matrix against NPR 7150.2B requirements, including those accomplished by subcontracts, for each software classification/CSCI.

The Contractor shall implement the safety requirements of NASA-STD-8719.13C when a system or subsystem is determined to have safety critical software.

The Contractor shall provide Government insight into software design, development and test activities including monitoring integration and verification adequacy, trade study data, auditing the software design and development process, and participation in all software peer reviews and technical interchange meetings.

The contractor shall perform an analysis of unnecessary and/or unreachable code, as defined per GSFC-STD-1000 (Rev G) Table 3.02-1, on the intended flight load for launch. The analysis shall identify all instances (areas) of unnecessary/unreachable code, the general functionality associated with the code, the reason each is intended to be left within the flight load, and the justification (e.g., mitigating action) that explains why the included code does not provide a risk to the mission.

The contractor shall ensure that SW functional/requirements and comprehensive performance verification/validation testing is performed by qualified testers that are independent of the SW designers and developers.

Ground Processing Algorithms (GPA) The Contractor shall provide Ground Processing Algorithms (GPAs) to produce data to be compliant with the requirements specified in the Coronagraph Requirements Specification. The algorithms shall be documented in a Ground Processing Algorithm Document (GPAD).

The Contractor shall develop, maintain, and update GPAs for processing. It is strongly recommended that the source code should be in a language on NOAA’s operational baseline (e.g., Python is preferred) and should not depend on libraries or routines that are not in NOAA’s operational baseline.

The Contractor shall conduct a comprehensive test and validation program of the GPAs and demonstrate that their algorithms can produce data that meets the requirements of the Coronagraph Requirements Specification, all within the required data latency period.

The Contractor shall provide a copy of the GPA source code "as-run", and as-updated, for validation.

The Contractor shall participate in Technical Interchange Meetings with the Government to define sensor attributes, algorithm format, testing and other required support.

The Contractor shall provide algorithm test data input and output files, including at least 24 hours of contiguous test data that contain at least one event to be specified by the Government, and shall support the implementation and testing of the GPA by the Government.

The Contractor shall support Government analysis and validation of operational and retrospective algorithm data products and product anomaly resolution.

Parts Procurement, Fabrication and Subassembly Testing The Contractor shall procure all parts required for the EDU, all FM units, spares and all GSE.

If it is necessary to procure parts due to long lead times or potential parts obsolescence prior to the CDR, the Contractor shall obtain the Government's consent prior to doing so.

The Contractor shall procure, build-up, test, and maintain a supply of spare parts and tested subassemblies sufficient for at least one spare flight instrument to minimize cost, mitigate schedule and performance risks caused by the launch schedule, part and sub-assemblies damage or shortages.

The Contractor shall provide and maintain assembled and tested spares of sub-assemblies to mitigate against and minimize schedule delays.

The Contractor shall procure and deliver to the Observatory contractor, mating flight connectors for all electrical interfaces to the Observatory for the FMs.

The Contractor shall perform fabrication and assembly/subassembly testing of all flight hardware, life test items (if required) and needed spares.

The Contractor shall provide all harnesses between instrument subassemblies.

The Contractor shall provide all instrument mounting hardware (i.e., all kinematic mounts and any vibration isolation hardware) and thermal isolation hardware, if required.

The Contractor shall provide one flight and flight spare set of thermal blankets per FM.

The Contractor shall provide and install the passive temperature sensors.

The Contractor shall perform safe-to-mate and signal characterization tests on all instruments and GSE prior to electrical mating. The Signal characterization tests shall include as a minimum, polarity verification, pin out verification, continuity and other identifications needed to ensure proper harnessing/connections for the mate operation in questions. This definition is used multiple times in following sections.

Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) Design and Development FPGAs and similar logic devices (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC), Programmable Logic Devices (PLD), etc.,) that are new or modified from a heritage application shall be developed in accordance with design guidelines and development methodology contained in 500-PG-8700.2.7.A, Design of Space Flight Field Programmable Gate Arrays and 500-PG-8700.2.8, Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) Development Methodology. Re-used (i.e., unmodified) FPGAs may be evaluated under the Inherited Item Risk Assessment process (COR CDRL MA 1-1, COR CRDL FW-1, COR CRDL FW-2).

Re-used FPGAs shall provide verification to the Government that each re-used FPGA will work within its operating conditions (i.e., temperature range, voltage range(s) and total ionizing dose for the Coronagraph).

The Contractor shall develop the FPGA Development Plan (CDRL FW-1) for FPGA activities/processes for new or modified FPGAs.

The Contractor shall provide for the Government insight into verification, trade studies, auditing of the FPGA design and development process, and analyses methods and results for new or modified FPGAs.

The Contractor shall provide a FPGA Design Data Package (FW-2) for each new, modified, or re-used FPGA. At points determined by the Contractor in the approved FPGA Development Plan, the vendor supplies the Government with one or more FPGA Design Data Packages for review to facilitate timely identification of any concerns. This normally occurs concurrent with simulations or testing when portions or all of the FPGA are mature enough to benefit from independent review. The final FPGA Design Data Package contains the flight versions of all files relevant to making and analyzing the FPGA, but preceding packages may contain subsets of relevant files.

The Contractor shall provide for one NASA independent peer review, prior to programming the flight parts (pre-burn review) for each new, modified, or re-used FPGA design.

The Contractor shall provide for at least one additional NASA independent peer review per revision of each modified FPGA. This review may be concurrent with testing of the flight candidate design, but sufficiently prior to programming the flight design to accommodate possible design revision and re-test, based on the review results.