Attachment A - LISA-Laser Head -SOW.pdf

Effective Date: Feb 15 2024

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland

LISA-SOW-XXXX, Revision - Draft

Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), Code 440

Laser Head (LH)

Statement of Work (SOW)

LISA LH SOW LISA-SOW-XXXX, Revision - Draft

Effective Date: February 14, 2024

Check FPD BCI Document Management Guidance to verify that this is the correct version prior to use

400-FORM-0002 (4/16/2014)

LISA

Laser Head (LH)

Statement of Work (SOW)

Review/Signature/Approval Page

Prepared by:

Anthony W. Yu

LISA LH Manager

Approved by:

Terence Doiron

NASA LISA Study Manager

Electronic Approval available on-line at:

https://fpdspi.gsfc.nasa.gov/sites/fpdat/BCI/SitePages/Document%20Management%20Guidance i

Preface

This document is a Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) Configuration Management

(CM)-controlled document. Changes to this document require prior approval of the applicable

Configuration Control Board (CCB) Chairperson or designee. Proposed changes shall be submitted to the LISA CM Office (CMO), along with supportive material justifying the proposed change.

Questions or comments concerning this document should be addressed to:

LISA Configuration Management Office

Mail Stop 440

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 ii

Change History Log

Revision Effective Date Description of Changes

(Reference the CCR & CCB/ERB Approval Date)

Draft December 18, 2023 Initial release per LISA-

Revised Draft December 28, 2023 Revisions based on LISA-OTA SOW

Revised Draft January 17, 2024 Updated deliverables quantities to be consistent with RFI iii

Table of TBDs/TBRs/TBSs

Item No. Location Summary Individual/

Organization

Actionee

Due Date iv

1 Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Scope

1.3 Related Documentation

1.3.1 Applicable Documents

1.3.2 Reference Documents

2 REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Management

2.1.1 Project Management

2.1.2 Government Insight

2.1.3 Reviews and Meetings

2.1.3.1 Major Reviews

2.1.3.1.1 LH Reviews

2.1.3.1.2 Mission Level Reviews

2.1.3.2 Engineering Peer Reviews

2.1.3.3 Other Reviews and Meetings

2.1.3.3.1 Scheduled Weekly Teleconferences

2.1.3.3.2 Monthly Project Status Reports and Reviews

2.1.3.3.3 Technical Exchange Meetings and Working Groups

2.1.3.3.4 Status and Planning Meetings

2.1.4 Access to Controlled Facilities

2.1.5 Risk Management

2.1.6 Resource Management

2.1.7 Configuration Management

2.1.8 Pedigree and Inheritance

2.1.9 Lessons Learned Reporting

2.2.1 Requirement Analyses, Derivations, and Allocations

2.2.2 Interface Definition, Verification and Control

2.2.3 Design and Performance Verification

2.2.4 Trending

2.2.5 Models

2.2.5.1 Mechanical Models

2.2.5.2 Finite Element Models

2.2.5.3 Thermal Models

2.2.5.4 Models – General

2.2.6 Units

2.3 Mission Assurance

3 LH DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Design Engineering

3.2 Trade Assessments

3.3 LH Design Updates

3.3.1 LH Electronics and Electrical Systems Design

3.3.2 LH Structure Design

v

3.3.3 LH Mechanisms Design

3.3.4 LH Thermal System Design

3.3.5 This item intentionally left blank

3.3.6 LH Integration and Test Planning

3.4.1 Fabrication, Modification, Assembly, and Test

3.4.2 Integration and Test

3.4.2.1 Integration

3.4.2.2 Environmental and Performance Testing

3.4.2.3 Integration of the LH and LMP

3.5 LH Operations Support

3.5.1 Operational Procedures and Documentation

3.5.2 Command and Telemetry Database Support

3.5.3 Training Support

3.6 Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation

3.7 Delivery, Checkout, and Acceptance

3.8 Ground Support Equipment

3.8.1 Mechanical Ground Support Equipment

3.8.2 Electrical Ground Support Equipment

3.9 Shipping, Storage, and Purge Equipment

3.10 Spares

3.11 Engineering Development Units

4 POST-DELIVERY SUPPORT

5 CONTRACT DELIVERABLES REQUIREMENTS LIST AND GOVERNMENT

FURNISHED EQUIPMENT

APPENDIX A ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

List of Figures

Figure 1. Lasers in the LISA constellation. There will be 12 LHs and 3 FRSs in the constellation.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The measurement of gravitational waves will yield a revolutionary new perspective on our universe, which has been intensely studied using electromagnetic waves in many wavelength bands. Recently, gravitational waves generated by the merger of a pair of roughly 30 solar mass black holes were detected by the ground-based LIGO network, nearly 100 years after Albert

Einstein unveiled the General Theory of Relativity. Ground-based observatories have since released a catalog of almost 100 events from the first three observing runs, and more are expected. Gravitational waves are created during events such as supermassive black hole mergers, collisions between two black holes that are millions, or even billions, of times bigger than our Sun. These collisions are so powerful that they create distortions in spacetime, known as gravitational waves. Gravitational waves could also come from other distant systems including smaller, stellar mass black holes orbiting supermassive black holes, known as Extreme Mass

Ratio Inspirals (EMRIs). A space based gravitational wave observatory will enable access to a rich array of astrophysical sources in the measurement band from 0.1 mHz to 1.0 Hz, and nicely complement observations from ground-based detectors which target higher frequencies. The mission to accomplish this is the European Space Agency’s Laser Interferometry Space Antenna

(LISA). [Danzmann and LISA Consortium, “The Gravitational Universe”, https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5720 (2013), https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/lisa]

There are many astrophysical phenomena that are either very dim or completely invisible in any form of light that astronomy has relied on for 400 years. Gravitational waves are a powerful new probe of the Universe that uses gravity instead of light to take measure of dynamical astrophysical phenomena. Studying gravitational waves gives enormous potential for discovering the parts of the universe that are invisible by other means, such as black holes, the Big Bang, and other, yet unknown, objects. LISA will complement our knowledge about the beginning, evolution, and structure of our universe.

LISA consists of three spacecraft (S/C) that are separated by 2.5 million kilometers in an Earth-trailing orbit. These three spacecraft relay laser beams back and forth between the different spacecraft and the signals are combined to search for gravitational wave signatures that come from distortions of spacetime.

A bit like the objects moving on the surface of a pond produce ripples and waves, merging massive compact binaries in space distort the fabric of spacetime and produce gravitational waves. Some of these gravitational wave events will cause the three LISA S/C to shift slightly with respect to each other, as they "ride the gravitational waves", to produce a characteristic pattern in the combined laser beam signal that depends on the location and physical properties of the source. These signals are extremely small and require a very sensitive instrument to detect.

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/lisa

LISA measures gravitational radiation by precisely monitoring the tiny change in the proper distance between pairs of freely falling proof masses. These masses are separated by millions of kilometers and, using a laser heterodyne interferometric technique, the change in their proper separation is detected to ~ 10 pm over timescales of 1000 seconds, a fractional precision of better than one part in 1020. Lasers are essential for the implementation of this precision displacement measurement.

The gravitational wave spectrum covers a broad span of frequencies. LISA operates in the low frequency range, between 0.1 mHz and 1.0 Hz (compared to LIGO's frequency of 10 Hz to 1000

Hz). The difference means that the waves LISA is looking for have a much longer wavelength, corresponding to objects in much wider orbits and potentially much heavier than those that LIGO is searching for, opening the detection realm to a wider range of gravitational wave sources.

One of NASA’s contributions to the LISA partnership with ESA is to supply the laser head (LH) that transmits the 1.064-micron coherent laser light. To measure picometer-level length change over 2.5-million km with the low received power, the LH must be extremely quiet in terms of noise (intensity, frequency, and phase noise). Also, the LH must be able to operate over a long period to cover the full LISA mission lifetime: over 12 years from ground operations to launching and to potential extended missions.

The LH is based on a master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) architecture that has a nominal output power of ~2 Watts continuous wave operation meeting intensity, frequency, and radio frequency (rf) differential phase noise and lifetime requirements as summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Laser requirements for LISA.

Power (W) (nm) Intensity Noise

(/Hz)

Frequency

Noise (Hz/Hz)

Differential Phase Noise

(rad/Hz) Lifetime (Years in space)

2.0 1064.5 10-4 (at 10-3 Hz) 10-8 (at 107 Hz)

300 (at 10-2 Hz) 5 (at 100 kHz)

6x10-4 (at 10-2 Hz)

Cruise - 1.5 yrs.

Nominal Science Op - 5 yrs.

Extended Science Op - 6 yrs.

Each S/C contains two reference test masses, to which the S/C is controlled by the drag-free control system. Each S/C also contains one (1) laser system (LS), which is composed of two (2) laser assemblies (LAs) and one (1) frequency reference system (FRS), which is a highly stable optical cavity that serves as a laser frequency (thereby length) reference (Figure 1). Each arm is illuminated by the LA, which contains two (2) LHs for redundancy. One of the two LHs in the

LA is a cold spare. As a result, there will be twelve (12) LHs in the whole constellation, while six (6) of them will be active at any given time. There are three (3) FRSs in the constellation.

Only one of them is used as a frequency reference and is frequency-locked to one of the six (6) active LHs at a given time. The other five lasers are offset phase-locked to the reference laser as transponder lasers, acting as an amplifying mirror at the far spacecraft. Each LH consists of a

LOM and a laser electronics module (LEM).

Figure 1. Lasers in the LISA constellation. There will be twelve (12) LHs and three (3)

FRSs in the constellation.

Another requirement for the LISA laser system is to transmit reference clock information between spacecrafts. An electro-optical phase modulator is used to provide clock information within the optical path. A phase-modulation sideband at 2.4 GHz is necessary to transfer the reference clock information to other spacecrafts. Without the clock noise transfer, the tiny gravitational wave signal would be buried in the clock noise on the three spacecraft. In the

MOPA architecture, the phase modulator is used between the Master Oscillator (MO) and the

Power Amplifier (PA). The phase modulator is also used to exchange data and to measure absolute lengths between spacecraft by imprinting PRN code to the outgoing beam. The MO is a solid state laser based on neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet, co-doped with chromium

(Cr:Nd:YAG) for radiation hardness in a monolithic non-planar ring oscillator (NPRO) resonator pumped by 808 nm pump diodes. The output of the NPRO laser is packaged in a hermetically sealed enclosure and coupled to a polarization maintaining fiber. The rest of the LOM architecture is fiber coupled, which includes fiber optic components, the phase modulator and the single-stage power amplifier with output isolator and delivery fiber. This means that the phase modulator must accommodate a high optical power input coming from the MO. If the optical throughput changes in time, the power entering the power amplifier will change in time, which could cause problems and must be avoided, especially in the case of a space mission.

NASA has, as part of the in-house technology development, built and demonstrated the performance of the laser meeting the LISA mission requirements. The various models of the

LOM, LEM and fully integrated LH built at GSFC includes:

• TRL4 Laser Optical Module (LOM)

• TRL5 Laser Electronics Module (LEM)

• TRL6 LOM

• Engineering Test Unit (ETU) LH

The ETU LH, which consists of both LOM and LEM designs, bill of materials (BOM), and information gained, particularly the lessons learned, during this development program will be provided to the Contractor as reference material. However, the Contractor should not assume that direct access to, or provision of, these units will be available. Exception is GFEs for this contract, e.g. µNPRO models will be available upon request. This procurement will be for the development and build of the following flight unit LHs:

• One (1) Engineering Model (EM)

• One (1) Qualification Unit (QM) (should be capable of becoming Protoflight Units)

• Twelve (12) Flight Model (FM) Units

• Two (2) Flight Spare (FS) Units

• Two (2) Flight Spare (FS) Unassembled Kits that could be used for full LH assembly at a later date.

Another capability that the government will provide to the Contractor is the design, testing procedures and sample performance test data of various ground support equipment (GSEs) that uniquely test and verify the laser performance to meet LISA requirements. Test data could be provided to the laser vendor for references if requested. These specialized GSEs shall include but not limit to the following:

• Relative Intensity Noise (RIN) GSE for frequency spanning mHz to GHz

• Frequency Noise GSE for frequency spanning mHz to MHz

• RF Differential Phase Noise GSE for frequency spanning mHz to Hz

1.2 Scope

The scope of this LH Statement of Work (SOW) includes all efforts and responsibilities for the personnel, services, materials, equipment, and facilities necessary to build and test various LH models during development for environmental qualification, i.e. QM to qualification (Q) levels, FM, and FS to acceptance (A) levels, and performance verification of the LHs to meet LISA requirements. The contractor shall repair, refurbish, and modify all LHs, after delivery, in the event the LH models failed to meet performance. The Contractor shall also provide on-site technical support at NASA GSFC and/or ESA in Europe (location TBD) on an as needed basis.

During the technology development, the Government developed and demonstrated a custom master oscillator named the micro-non-planar ring oscillator (µNPRO). Due to the long lead time, the µNPROs shall be provided to the Contractor as Government Furnished Equipment

(GFE) for all models built during this contract period. The notional quantities of µNPROs for different phases of the contract shall be four (4) for the EM, four (4) for the QM, and fifty (50) for the FM, FS and FS kits. The GFE µNPROs TRL for various models shall be appropriate for all LH models being built.

During the technology development, the Government procured, tested, and qualified components necessary for the LH. The BOM and test procedures developed will also be part of the data package available for the contractor. The Contractor shall review the BOM used in the ETU design. The Contractor shall take responsibility in procuring, testing, and qualifying components that meet or exceed the requirements to the parts in the BOM for the LH build.

The Contractor shall review and modify the ETU design as necessary, fabricate, assemble, test, verify per approved plan and deliver one (1) EM, one (1) QM, twelve (12) FM, two (2) FS, and two (2) FS Kitted LH’s and provide post-delivery support for both the observatory integration and test program for the LISA mission. A design reference concept, i.e. ETU LH, has been created by the government to demonstrate feasibility, however, the contractor can define their own design concept that meets LISA laser requirements and fit within the delivery schedule.

Design details, models, and analysis shall be provided to compare against requirements and tolerances for the LISA program. The final selection of material and design will be made by no later than the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). In addition, the Contractor shall assemble, test, and verify the performance of the Engineering Model (EM) LH by PDR. The Contractor shall develop and demonstrate proficiencies on operating different GSEs to verify and validate laser performance.

The Contractor shall provide all personnel, facilities, equipment, material, and services necessary to produce the flight and spare LHs to meet LISA performance requirements. Prior to building the first flight unit, the contractor shall demonstrate that all the processes are in place to build all

LHs to meet the LISA laser requirements through the completion, environmental qualification and performance verification of the QM LH, and shall have this completed by the critical design review (CDR). The Contractor shall verify and validate all laser requirements by CDR.

Notional schedules for the PDR and CDR shall be twelve (12) and twenty-four (24) months after the start of the contract.

The contractor shall provide a plan for the qualification program of the flight design per XXX document, this plan shall include a test program for the engineering development unit to address any issues carried over from the technology development program.

The Contractor shall support Integration and Testing (I&T) of the LHs at GSFC upon delivery.

This support shall include, but not limited to, integration of the LH in the Laser System configuration for full performance evaluation of the LHs and FRS. Further, I&T of the LHs to the scientific instrumentation is conducted at the European Space Agency’s Prime Contractor facility. The selection and announcement of that Prime Contractor and facility have not been announced. The Contractor shall support observatory level activities including, but not limited to, integration and test, verification and validation, and calibration conducted by the Prime at their facilities. The Contractor shall support the on-orbit commissioning portion of the mission.

Additionally, the contractor shall develop a plan for flight LH production and provide a Life

Cycle Cost (LCC) estimate. This plan should include all required facilities, personnel, materials, services, tests, and equipment to complete the EM, QM, FM, and FS within the required delivery schedule. This plan shall also include a spares philosophy at the LH component level, as required.

The Contractor shall review/or deliver drawings, specifications, reports and plans, optical, electrical, and mechanical models, manuals, and other specified data in accordance with the

Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) as outlined in Attachment (TBD).

The Contractor shall provide documentation and perform other tasks in accordance with the requirements of this SOW and the applicable documentation referenced herein.

This LH SOW specifies the Contractor requirements for performing all development activities through launch and on-orbit verification, validation, and calibration. In the event of any differences between this document, the LH SOW, and other contractual documents, including in the LH Specification (LHS, LISA-SPEC-XXXX), the LH Contract Data Requirements List (LH

CDRL), and the LISA Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR), the LH SOW will take precedence. The overall hierarchy is (1) LH SOW, (2) LHS, (3) LH CDRL, and (4) LISA MAR.

The work described in this SOW is not all of equal importance or weight. The term "shall" designates the most important weighting level; that is, mandatory. Any deviations from these contractually imposed mandatory items require the approval of the Contracting Officer. A lesser term, "should", designates attributes that the Government values, but which are subject to tradeoff decisions. Such attributes may render the deliverable item more valuable to the

Government, but the absence of such attributes does not render the item unacceptable.

“shall” statement Must complete, meet, or exceed the task, requirement, or specification.

“will” statements Actions the Government must complete or deliver.

“should” statements Non-mandatory provision or goal subject to tradeoff decisions. No deliverable items and not subject to verification.

This document, the LH SOW, is specifically for Phase B/C/D, including on-orbit commissioning.

The “shall” and “should” statements in this document only, LH-SOW, are compliance requirements, and not verifiable requirements.

1.3 Related Documentation

The latest versions of all documents below should be used. LISA documents can be obtained from the LISA TDMS System.

1.3.1 Applicable Documents

The following documents are referenced within this document and are directly applicable or contain policies or other directive matters that are binding for the performance of the contract.

These documents establish detailed specifications, requirements, and interface information necessary for the performance of the contract. In the event of conflicting requirements between this SOW and the Applicable Documents, the Contractor shall immediately notify the GSFC

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) that there is such a conflict and request direction from the Government as to how to proceed.

For traceability, the Contractor shall trace down only one level for each Applicable Document:

any applicable documents within the documents listed are considered as applying directly to the performance of the LH contract. For example, the LISA MAR (LISA-RQMT-XXXX) lists

NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7150.2 as an applicable document. Therefore, NPR

7150.2 is an applicable document with respect to this SOW. However, the documents listed in

Section P.4 of NPR 7150.2 are not considered Applicable Documents for the purposes of this

SOW.

Document Number Title

LISA-LIST-XXXX LH Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

LISA-SMA-REQ-0010 LISA Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR)

LISA-SOW-XXXX LH Statement of Work (SOW)

LISA-RQMT-XXXX LH Requirement (LHR)

1.3.2 Reference Documents

The following documents are referenced herein and amplify or clarify the information presented in this document. These documents are not binding on the content of this document.

Document Number Title

MIL-HDBK-217 Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment

NASA-STD-5001B Structural Design and Test Factors of Safety for Spaceflight

Hardware

NASA-STD-5020 Requirements for Threaded Fastening Systems in Spaceflight

Hardware

NPD 7120.4 NASA Engineering and Program/Project Management Policy

NPR 7120.5 NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements

GPR 7120.3 Management of Principal Investigator Mode Missions

GPR 7120.4 Risk Management

GPR 7123.1 Systems Engineering

GSFC-STD-1000G Rules for the Design, Development, Verification and Operation of

Flight Systems

GSFC-STD-1001A Criteria for Flight and Flight Support System Lifecycle Review

GSFC-STD-7000A General Environmental Verification Standard (GEVS) for GSFC

Flight Project Programs and Projects

540-PG-8700.2.1.C Design of Dollies, Stands, and Spacecraft Shipping Containers LISA Laser Technology Readiness Assessment and Development

Plan

LISA Laser Contamination Control Plan (CCP)

LISA Laser Materials and Processes Implementation Plan (MPIP)

LISA Laser System Interface Requirements Document (IRD)

2 REQUIREMENTS

2.0-A The Contractor shall design, develop, fabricate, modify, assemble, integrate, and test the hardware described in this SOW in compliance with the applicable documents listed in Section 1.4.1.

2.0-B For non-hardware support aspects of this SOW, the Contractor shall provide the following necessary to accomplish the described support:

• systems and discipline engineering

• expert personnel

• travel

• reports and documentation

• software or software changes

• ground support equipment

• operations

2.0-C The Contractor shall deliver to the Government one (1) Engineering Model (EM), one

(1) Qualification Model (QM), Twelve (12) Fight Models (FMs), two (2) Flight

Spares (FSs) and two (2) Flight Spare (FS) Kits that are fully verified and characterized to be compliant with the requirements of this contract.

2.0-D The Contractor shall seek advanced written authorization from GSFC in accordance with CDRL No.: SE-1 Title: Configuration Change Requests, Deviations, and

Waivers for deviations from this SOW (including requirements contained in

Applicable Documents of Section 1.4.1).

2.0-E The Contractor should utilize industry-standard practices and methodologies for design, fabrication, assembly, integration, and testing when appropriate and applicable with the intent of cost or schedule savings to the Government. In areas where the Contractor proposes to implement an industry-standard practice or methodology that deviates from this SOW, or the supporting applicable documents, the Contractor shall document the pragmatic savings and seek concurrence at the time of the contract award and only act upon when approved by the

Government.

2.1 Management

2.1-A The Contractor shall manage all aspects of this contract effort to ensure that the contract requirements, including technical and programmatic, are met or exceeded. In further detail, this includes management of the administrative and technical direction, schedule control and reporting, financial control and reporting, Government property reporting and control, subcontract performance, configuration management and documentation, and other required reporting efforts.

2.1-B The Contractor shall coordinate, schedule, and document the activities of the pertinent engineering groups contributing to the SOW tasks.

2.1-C The Contractor shall be responsible for traceability and reporting of all its subcontractors’ cost, schedule, and technical performance.

2.1-D The Contractor shall analyze the LH functional, performance, interface, mission assurance, and verification requirements as specified in the LH Specification (LISA-

SPEC-XXXX) and referenced documents, in the context of the above assumptions, and define subsystem requirements and design concepts to the degree required to proceed with design, build, test, and delivery of the EM, QM, flight and flight spare laser heads.

2.1-E The verification of requirements shall not invalidate previously verified requirements.

2.1.1 Project Management

2.1.1-A The Contractor shall maintain a project office to manage the technical activities and resources of the project.

2.1.1-B The Contractor shall appoint a Project Manager (PM) to direct and manage the LH project. The Contractor’s Project Manager is responsible for the overall technical performance, resource management, and schedule management of the contractual effort and all subcontracts. The Contractor’s designated Project Manager will report to a level of company management appropriate to ensure prompt resolution of all problems. For costing purposes, the duration of Project Management should be until on-orbit checkout and commissioning.

2.1.1-C The Contractor shall prepare a Project Management Plan, and a Final Report in accordance with items CDRL No.: PM-12 Title: Project Management Plan, and

CDRL No.: PM-5 Title: Final Report, respectively.

2.1.1-D The Contractor shall prepare a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Dictionary in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-14 Title: Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Dictionary in which the Contractor shall define how the Contractor plans to organize, plan, and report on the work being conducted.

2.1.1-E The PM shall be the principal point of contact for GSFC in matters pertaining to the contract effort.

2.1.2 Government Insight

2.1.2-A The Contractor shall open to Government attendance all Contractor and subcontractor internal data, reviews, audits, meetings, fabrication, integration, tests, and other activities within the scope of the contract. For access and insight activity, “Government” includes Government personnel and Government Contractor personnel. The intended duration is nominally short and would tie to single events yet could span multiple events or an entire phase. The Government intends to provide an on-site representative from Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) or other Government quality representatives. The contractor shall provide office space and the necessary support for the Government on-site representatives, as required.

2.1.2-B The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer when applicable and the

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) of the activities in 2.1.2-A in sufficient time (nominally five working days) to permit meaningful Government participation. The size and attendance of those activities should be proportional to the notification time.

2.1.2-C The Contractor shall allow and enable the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements

(NDA) with Government contractors where appropriate.

2.1.2-D It is the understanding of the Government that a few essential internal documents and procedures are highly proprietary. In some cases, the Contractor can withhold the methodology in an individual step of the design, fabrication, assembly, or test in benign and low risk situations. The withholding of information of a methodology will be handled on a case-by-case basis, which defines the size of an individual step, and access may involve a subset of the individuals listed above as

“Government”. The Contractor cannot withhold information related to the output or result of a methodology or procedure. The Contractor cannot withhold methodology or procedural information from a Failure Review Board (FRB).

2.1.2-E The Contractor shall report technical information in compliance with CDRL No.:

SE-2 Title: Contractor-Generated Internal Technical Information.

2.1.3 Reviews and Meetings

The reviews listed in this section should not be considered a comprehensive set of reviews for the Contractor’s program. Additional reviews that the Contractor deems necessary to successfully execute the program may be conducted at the Contractor’s discretion.

2.1.3-A The Contractor shall notify the Government at least ten working days in advance of lower-level Contractor subsystem reviews and Contractor-initiated TEMs to allow the Government time to attend the review as part of its insight activities.

2.1.3.1 Major Reviews

All major Mission-level reviews will be convened and review boards appointed and chaired by the Government.

2.1.3.1-A At all reviews, including LH, Payload, and Mission-level, the Contractor shall support and demonstrate compliance with the review as stated in the LH-CDRL.

The LH-CDRL references the GSFC success criteria for reviews, Criteria for

Project Flight Critical Milestone Reviews (GSFC-STD-1001), as applicable to spaceflight systems, with some tailoring as appropriate.

2.1.3.1-B The Contractor shall respond as required to action items assigned by the

Government.

2.1.3.1-C The Contractor shall prepare and present their portion of these reviews, as appropriate, ensuring that content is complete and accurate.

2.1.3.1-D When the Contractor is hosting, the Contractor shall provide space, high-speed data connections to the Internet, and facility services for personnel with-in the scope of the review or meeting.

2.1.3.1.1 LH Reviews

2.1.3.1.1-A The Contractor shall host, prepare and present the following reviews and provide review packages in accordance with the CDRL and GSFC-STD-

1001A:

LH - System Requirements Review (LH-SRR) – CDRL No.: RE-1 Title: LH-

System Requirements Review (LH-SRR) Data Package

LH - Preliminary Design Review (LH-PDR) - CDRL No.: RE-2 Title: LH-

Preliminary Design Review (LH-PDR) Data Package

LH - Critical Design Review (LH-CDR) - CDRL No.: RE-3 Title: LH-Critical

Design Review (LH-CDR) Data Package

LH – Manufacturing Readiness Review (LH-MRR) - (CDRL No.: REX-

Title: LH-Manufacturing Readiness Review (LH-MRR) Data Package)

LH – Test Readiness Review (LH-TRR) - CDRL No.: RE-X Title: LH-Pre-

Environmental Review (LH-TRR) Data Package

LH - Pre-Environmental Review (LH-PER) - CDRL No.: RE-4 Title: LH-Pre-

Environmental Review (LH-PER) Data Package

LH - Pre-Shipment Review (LH-PSR) - CDRL No.: RE-5 Title: LH-Pre-

Shipment Review (LH-PSR) Data Package

2.1.3.1.1-B The Government will convene and appoint the review board for all major LH-level reviews.

2.1.3.1.1-C The Contractor shall invite the Government to all LH reviews that are chaired by the Contractor.

2.1.3.1.1-D The Contractor shall assume that each LH review requires three days to complete with roughly 35 people from the Government.

2.1.3.1.1-E The Contractor shall conduct one dry-run of all LH Reviews with the

Government approximately four weeks in advance of the review to allow for sufficient feedback to the review.

2.1.3.1.1-F The Contractor shall be prepared to host and work with the Government project and review team an additional day following all reviews to discuss and address issues raised and actions assigned at the reviews.

2.1.3.1.2 Mission Level Reviews

2.1.3.1.2-A The Contractor shall prepare and present in person material at each of the following Mission Level reviews:

Mission Preliminary Design Review (MPDR)

Mission Critical Design Review (MCDR)

MOSA Preliminary Design Review

MOSA Critical Design Review

Mission SIR

2.1.3.1.2-B The Contractor can assume four (4) supporting Mission Level Engineering

Peer Reviews per Mission-Level Review.

2.1.3.1.2-C The Contractor shall prepare their portion of the above Mission Level reviews in accordance with CDRL No.: RE-6 Title: Inputs to Mission Level Reviews

Data Package. The Government leads the Mission Level reviews and presents the majority of the material.

2.1.3.1.2-D The Contractor shall respond to action items as requested by the Government with-in 30 calendar days.

2.1.3.1.2-E The Contractor shall participate in dry runs of all Mission-Level Reviews and supporting Peer Reviews with the Government approximately three weeks in advance of the review(s). The Contractor can assume one dry-run per

Mission-Level Review and one dry-run for supporting Peer Reviews. The

Contractor can assume that the Mission-level reviews will take four days and that dry-runs will take two days of Contractor support. The Contractor can assume all Mission Level Reviews will take place at ESA or ESA Prime

Contractor site. The Contractor may support dry runs in person or by teleconference and electronic web interface for presentation materials, assuming that the Contractor has electronic services compatible with those of the Government. For estimating purposes, the Contractor should assume five people attending each Mission Level review.

2.1.3.2 Engineering Peer Reviews

2.1.3.2-A The Contractor shall define and implement a set of robust and comprehensive

Engineering Peer Reviews (EPRs) for the hardware and software subsystems of the LH commensurate with the scope, complexity and acceptable risk of the product, the maturity of the LH design, and the extent of and risk associated with any differences from the original assembly.

2.1.3.2-B The Contractor shall submit the Engineering Peer Review Plan in accordance with

CDRL No.: PM-6 Title: Engineering Peer Review Plan.

2.1.3.2-C The Contractor shall conduct the peer reviews in accordance of the plan and the

CDRL No.: RE-7 Title: Engineering Peer Reviews and Data Packages. The

Contractor should assume this to be on order with the number of engineering disciplines supporting the LH for each phase.

2.1.3.3 Other Reviews and Meetings

2.1.3.3-A In addition to the established meetings required in this section, the Contractor shall support routine informal meetings and telecons with the Government as necessary and outlined below.

2.1.3.3.1 Scheduled Weekly Teleconferences

2.1.3.3.1-A The Contractor shall participate in a weekly management telecon with the

LISA Project Office to communicate programmatic and technical progress and plans of the overall contract effort. The Contractor and Government should share meeting minutes, including the action item log, and other documentation as required. The minimum Contractor attendance will consist of the Contractor Project Manager and Systems Manager, or the appropriate technical lead managers as required based on the agenda.

2.1.3.3.1-B The Contractor shall provide detailed status, description of issues, and schedule updates for each major element of the contract.

2.1.3.3.2 Monthly Project Status Reports and Reviews

2.1.3.3.2-A This item intentionally left blank.

2.1.3.3.2-B The Contractor shall support the Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSRs), including a presentation package, in accordance with CDRL-PM-1: LH

Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSR) - Monthly Technical Exchange

Meetings (MTEM) and CDRL-PM-2: LISA Monthly Project Status Review

(MPSR).

2.1.3.3.2-C The Government will conduct the MPSR at the Government Project Office, and it can be supported remotely by the Contractor.

2.1.3.3.3 Technical Exchange Meetings and Working Groups

2.1.3.3.3-A The Contractor shall host and participate in an LH Monthly Technical

Exchange Meetings (MTEM) to discuss technical, programmatic, or other LH work. The MTEM is nominally a two-day face-to-face meeting with the

Government LH Management Team and other project personnel as needed at the Contractor’s facility and/or the Government facility.

2.1.3.3.3-B The Contractor shall coordinate with the LH Management Team to set the agenda.

2.1.3.3.3-C The Contractor shall support the MTEM, including a presentation package, in accordance with CDRL-PM-1: LH Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSR) -

Monthly Technical Exchange Meetings (MTEM).

2.1.3.3.3-D The Contractor shall participate in Government-led working groups. Planned

Government-led working groups requiring LH Contractor participation include, but are not limited to, a (1) Calibration and Characterization group,

(2) a systems engineering group, (3) an LH-to-instruments interface group, (4) an LH-to-Spacecraft interface group, (5) an Observatory Integration and Test

(I&T) group, (6) a mission operations group, (7) launch and early orbit planning group, (8) integrated mission timeline group, (9) mission readiness test group, (10) simulation/rehearsal group, (11) a safety working group, (12) a reliability working group, and various mission assurance working groups as specified in the MAR. The level of activities of each group would follow the project life cycle with-in their area of the project.

2.1.3.3.4 Status and Planning Meetings

2.1.3.3.4-A The Contractor shall notify and allow the Government access to Contractor status and planning meetings, including daily stand-ups and tag-ups.

2.1.4 Access to Controlled Facilities

2.1.4-A The Contractor shall obtain all required access authorizations and submit any paperwork required for the Contractor to access Government controlled facilities, such as the Mission Operation Center (MOC), and other facilities, which may require the Contractor to obtain necessary NDAs.

2.1.4-B The Contractor shall allow access by the Government, or its representatives, to all

Contractor facilities used by LH, subject to and in accordance with appropriate security controls. All NASA personnel will be U.S. persons with the understanding that certain facilities are limited to U.S. citizens only.

2.1.5 Risk Management

2.1.5-A The Contractor shall implement a risk management program in support of the LH.

As per NASA applicable documents.

2.1.5-B As part of the risk management program, the Contractor shall prepare and submit a plan in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-13 Title: Risk Management Plan, for comparison and inclusion in the LISA Risk Management Plan.

2.1.5-C The Contractor shall summarize and present the top LH risks in accordance with

CDRL No.: PM-1 Title: LH Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSR) - Monthly

Technical Exchange Meetings (MTEM) and Presentation Materials, that can be included as part of the Monthly Status Review Presentation.

2.1.6 Resource Management

2.1.6-A The Contractor shall establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive resource management system for planning, authorizing, and controlling the LHl resources effort for each task and for providing timely and adequate visibility into manpower and schedule performance.

2.1.6-B The Contractor shall adhere to the Contractor’s standards for the resource management system in accordance with CDRL NO.: PM-9 Title: Integrated

Program Management Report (IPMR).

2.1.6-C The Contractor shall implement an Earned Value Measurement System (EVMS).

2.1.6-D The Contractor shall provide an Earned Value System Management Plan in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-7 Title: Earned Value Management System

(EVMS) Plan, CDRL No.: PM-8 Title: Financial Reports, and CDRL NO.: PM-9

Title: Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR). The EVMS may be implemented in accordance with the Contractor’s standard plans and policies, provided it includes use of the Monthly Contractor Financial Management Report

NASA Form (NF533).

2.1.6-E The Contractor shall provide Financial Reports and Integrated Program

Management Reports (IPMRs) to the Government in accordance with the CDRL

No.: PM-1: Title: LH Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSR) - Monthly

Technical Exchange Meetings (MTEM), and the Contractor’s standard policies and procedures.

2.1.6-F The Contractor shall conduct an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) at the

Contractor facility and present data in accordance with CDRL No.: RE-9 Title: LH

Integrated Baseline Review. The IBR occurs within the first 180 days after contract award and as needed after the significant exercise of contract options or 60 calendar days after a substantive funding or work scope realignment.

2.1.6-G The Contractor shall obtain approval from the Government prior to changing the

EVMS baseline and provide all approved Budget Change Requests (BCRs) and

Baseline Control Logs upon request from the GSFC project office.

2.1.6-H The Contractor shall provide technical data to support the Government’s development and updating of the Project Cost Analysis Data Requirement

(CADRe) in accordance with CDRL NO.: PM-4 Title: CADRe Data.

2.1.6-I The Contractor shall establish, implement, and maintain an integrated scheduling system consistent with their corporate procedures and documented in a schedule management plan. This plan shall explain the schedule reserve strategy and burn down approach.

2.1.6-J The Contractor shall provide and maintain an IMS in accordance with CDRL No.:

PM-3 Title: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), and CDRL NO.: PM-9 Title:

Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR).

2.1.6-K The Contractor shall identify critical procurements of long lead materials and items that must be procured in order to support the LH schedule.

2.1.7 Configuration Management

2.1.7-A The Contractor shall perform configuration management (CM) in support of the LH project.

2.1.7-B The Contractor shall develop and deliver the Hardware and Software Configuration

Management Plan in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-11 Title: Hardware and

Software Configuration Management Plan.

2.1.7-C The Contractor shall notify the Government of Configuration Control Board (CCB) meetings and allow Government participation at all CCB meetings.

2.1.7-D The Contractor shall maintain configuration of flight hardware and software throughout all phases of the Contract.

2.1.7-E The Contractor shall perform and document configuration verification as parts and assemblies are incorporated into higher-level assemblies and at major Project milestones.

2.1.7-F The CM system shall have a change classification and impact assessment process that results in Class I and Class II Configuration Change Requests (CCRs) being forwarded to the LISA Project in accordance with CDRL No.: SE-1 Title:

Configuration Change Requests, Deviations, and Waivers and CDRL No.: SE-8

Title: Configuration Item (CI) Identification List and Computer Software

Configuration Items (CSCI).

2.1.7-G For any flight item that is found to be non-compliant with the requirements of the contract, and is not reworked to be compliant, or is not replaced with a compliant item, the Contractor shall disposition as described in the MAR.

2.1.7-H The Contractor shall prepare and provide, as a minimum, the following documents under configuration control:

1. CCB status, reported at the MPSR in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-11 Title:

Hardware and Software Configuration Management Plan.

2. Engineering Drawings in accordance with CDRL No.: SE-5 Title: Engineering

Drawings.

3. The Configuration Item Identification List (CIIL) and the Computer Software

Configuration Items (CSCIs) in accordance with CDRL No.: PM-11 Title:

Hardware and Software Configuration Management Plan. For configuration control, computer software includes: files that define firmware (i.e. VHDL), Ground Support Equipment (GSE) software, analysis software or scripts used in hardware verification, and similarly related software.

2.1.7-I The Contractor shall quantify substantive potential cost impacts of requirements changes at the LH level, and as appropriate, qualify substantive potential cost impacts at the Payload level. The Contractor is encouraged to propose alternative approaches to defining the performance requirements or other requirements modifications at the LH-IBR or other MTEM meetings preceding LH-SRR/SDR, CCRs, or sooner to allow the Government time to analyze the proposed requirement modifications and provide feedback at the review.

2.1.8 Pedigree and Inheritance

The Government recognizes that the LH in large part includes existing design, documentation, material, and hardware from an earlier development. The pedigree process provides the project with detailed understanding of the history and state of the existing material and hardware. The inheritance is the process of incorporating the existing hardware into the LISA Mission, and is encapsulated in the standard development and project life-cycle review process. The Government recognizes the state of the hardware and GSE being supplied to the Contractor and deems it applicable for use on LISA, based on agreed upon conditions with the Contractor. These agreements are made during the LH Pedigree and Inheritance Review process for the inherited hardware.

2.1.8-A The Contractor shall work with the Government’s Project LH-Pedigree Review

Board (PLH-PRB), and their recommendations and liens for the development of

LH. Remediation by the Contractor of the Government Furnished Equipment

(GFE) supplied inherited hardware to the requirements of this contract is considered in-scope to this contract.

2.1.8-B The Contractor shall report on items, including inherited hardware, that are expected to experience degraded performance within 120 months of on-orbit operation.

2.1.8-C The Contractor shall qualify, and calibrate, if necessary, all inherited GSE and/or

System Test Equipment (STE) to support the LH.

2.1.8-D If re-qualification of inherited GSE is not possible, the Contractor shall inform the

Government to jointly determine an alternative solution.

2.1.8-E The Contractor shall inform the Government when the inherited hardware requires remediation for the LISA project as a method to mitigate cost and schedule impacts.

2.1.9 Lessons Learned Reporting

2.1.9-A The Contractor shall report lessons learned throughout the project life-cycle.

2.1.9-B The Contractor shall report lessons learned at each of the reviews defined in

Section 2.1.3 and consistent with GSFC-STD-1001A or an equivalent system approved by the Government.

2.1.9-C The Contractor shall participate in a 1-hour lessons learned meeting with the

Government within 1 month after each of the following milestone reviews: LH-

CDR, LH-PER, and LH-PSR. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss and capture lessons learned since the last meeting, lesson context and driving events/decisions, and recommendations. The Government will facilitate these lessons learned meetings and the Government will compile an interim lessons learned report following each meeting.

2.1.9-D The Contractor shall review and provide comments/edits to the Government-generated lessons learned interim reports.

2.2 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

2.2-A The Contractor shall perform systems engineering to support all LH-related activities during all stages of development.

2.2-A.1For costing purposes, the Contractor shall consider the duration of Systems

Engineering to be until on-orbit checkout and commissioning, with reduced support after the delivery and acceptance to GSFC.

2.2-B The Systems Engineering effort shall include, but is not limited to, analysis of technical requirements, functional and performance allocation of derived requirements, traceability, definition and maintenance of all interfaces, verification of all defined, allocated, and derived requirements, systems analyses, risk management support, tradeoff analyses and trade studies, hold peer reviews, and management of systems budgets.

2.2-C This effort shall include but not be limited to the following specific activities:

1. Providing technical direction and oversight throughout all phases of the program.

2. Leading and supporting all peer reviews, project milestones, gateway and launch reviews, and program status reviews as defined in Section 2.1.3.

3. Performing all necessary LH-level trades and risk assessments necessary to ensure the success of any design or manufacturing changes as a result of parts obsolescence, parts or materials aging, Government Industry Data Exchange

Program (GIDEP) or other known parts reliability issues, or any other changes made to the original LH design.

4. Performing all necessary coordination and analyses required to interface the LH to a simulated S/C LISA laser mounting platform (LMP) subject to the Interface

Control Document (ICD) documents above, as described in the CDRL No.: SE-11

Title: Inputs to the Interface Control Document(s).

5. Preparing documentation and providing necessary support for reviews defined in

Section 2.1.3.

6. Performing systems engineering and analysis prior to LH delivery and in support of LH and instrument tests at the Observatory level, the launch site, and

Observatory commissioning.

7. Supporting system level technical exchange meetings as defined in Section

2.1.3.3.3, including technical issue resolution, performance verification plan buy-offs, pending CCRs, CDRL data submission review/approval status, test data review, anomaly resolution activities, and test support planning.

8. Support closing of all Government- and Contractor-assigned actions, nonconformance reports, and problem failure reports.

2.2-D The Contractor shall…