Enclosure 2 -418-XO-PLN-0109 GeoXO QASP FINAL V2.0 RO.pdf

Effective Date: January 05, 2023 418-XO-PLN-0109

Expiration Date : Five years from date of last signature Version 2.0

Responsible Organization: GeoXO Flight Project/Code 418 ii

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

Geostationary eXtended Observations (GeoXO)

Flight Project Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Signature page

Prepared by:

Electronically approved 12/22/2022

Kuiana E. Carson Date

GeoXO Flight Project, Deputy Chief Safety & Mission

Assurance Officer

NASA GSFC, Code 383

Reviewed by:

Electronically approved 01/05/2023

Gerd M. Fischer Date

GeoXO Flight Project, Chief Safety & Mission Assurance Officer

NASA GSFC, Code 410

Approved by:

Monica Todirita electronically approved for: 01/05/2023

Candace C. Carlisle Date

GeoXO Flight Project, Project Manager

NASA GSFC, Code 418 iii

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

Preface

This document is a GeoXO Flight Project Office signature-controlled document. Changes to this document require prior approval by the GeoXO Flight Project Configuration Control Board

(CCB) Chairperson or designee. Proposed changes will be submitted in the GeoXO Flight

Project Configuration Management system along with supportive material justifying the proposed change. Changes to this document will be made by complete revision.

This QASP provides the approach and practices GeoXO Flight Project will use for contract management tasks that concern mission hardware product and process quality conformance and software products. This QASP does not include provision for program management (e.g., financial, schedule management) or the work in other technical discipline areas covered by the statement of work (e.g., systems engineering, reliability, safety engineering) except where hardware quality controls or software assurance controls have an overlapping interest (e.g., safety reviews, procurement, logistics).

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

Questions or comments concerning this document should be addressed to:

GeoXO Configuration Management Office

Mail Stop: 418

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 iv

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

Table of Contents

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................... III

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

1.2 SCOPE

1.3 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

2. SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY

2.1 SURVEILLANCE APPROACH DEFINITIONS

2.2 SPACECRAFT AND INSTRUMENTS HYBRID SURVEILLANCE

2.3 FORMS OF SURVEILLANCE

2.4 SOFTWARE ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

2.5 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION

2.6 SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT

3. RESOURCES

3.1 GENERAL

3.2 GEOXO SURVEILLANCE TEAM

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

ASSURANCE, AUDITS ASSESSMENTS AND ANALYSIS (SA3)

4. MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTROL PROCESS

4.1 GOVERNMENT ACCESS

5. METRICS

5.1 DATA REVIEW AND VALIDATION

APPENDIX A: GOVERNMENT MANDATORY INSPECTIONS POINTS (GMIPS) AND

NOTIFICATION ONLY

APPENDIX B APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX C ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

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

1. INTRODUCTION

The GeoXO project is a joint undertaking of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to continue earth observations from geostationary orbit currently provided by GOES-R series observatories. The mission of the GeoXO constellation is to provide continuous, near real-time meteorological and oceanographic data to meet NOAA and NASA’s Level 1 requirements, validated through a rigorous NOAA screening and review process. The GeoXO constellation will consist of the two identical GeoWest and GeoEast observatories and a GeoCentral observatory with different configuration, as well as the backup satellites. The GeoXO satellite series presents an opportunity to explore a satellite design for geostationary observations, new instruments, and a system architecture utilizing improved communication and instrument technologies. The GeoXO instruments consist of the GeoXO Imager (GXI), the GeoXO Infrared

Sounder (GXS), the GeoXO Lightning Mapper (LMX), the GeoXO Atmospheric Composition

Instrument (ACX), and the GeoXO Ocean Color Instrument (OCX). They will provide more products, increased data flow, better spatial resolution, and improved refresh rates than are currently being provided. Details on the GeoXO mission and concept of operations are provided in the GeoXO Mission Requirements Document (MRD), 410-XO-MRD-0008, and the GeoXO

Series Concept of Operations (CONOPS), 410-XO-CONOPS-0004.

The Spacecraft and the GXI instrument have a Risk Classification of Class B, and all other instruments have a Risk Classification of Class C per NPR 8705.4.

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

Risk Class C: Moderate risk tolerance that is driven more by technical objectives. This would normally represent a medium priority mission with medium complexity. See Appendix C of NPR

8705.4 for more detail.

Currently, the Flight Software (FSW) Classification for Spacecraft and all Instruments is Class

B. When more information becomes available it is expected that the FSW Classification for the

Spacecraft and the GXI instrument stays Class B, while the FSW Classification for most CSCIs of the GXS, OCX, ACX and LMX instruments will be Class C in accordance with NPR 7150.2

(TBR).

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this GeoXO Flight Project Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is to define the overall approach that the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) intends to use to monitor and survey Contractor performance under all GeoXO Flight Project contracts and subcontracts. This plan also defines the process that the Government expects to follow to obtain data and information, evaluate the Contractor, and determine if contract performance is acceptable. This document will also define Government activities, resources, review and control processes, surveillance strategy and metrics for the continuous performance measurement of the

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

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

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) provides contract surveillance for the GeoXO Flight

Project and maintains a cooperative relationship with NOAA to facilitate the flow of surveillance information to the non-NASA hardware and software user. NOAA will participate in all major reviews for the flight project, observatory, spacecraft, and instruments.

1.2 SCOPE

This QASP identifies program requirements, strategies, resources, review and control processes, surveillance activities, and metrics for the continuous measurement of Contractor performance under those GeoXO Flight contracts and subcontracts. It is intended to be a living document over the life cycle of the GeoXO Flight Project. It will be reviewed on a regular basis (at a minimum annually) and will be updated as required. Project specific deviations will be identified herein.

This QASP provides a part of the Project’s integrated supplier surveillance program whose scope is broader than quality assurance (i.e., includes business, software, and systems engineering requirements). The scope of surveillance included herein is limited to processes, work and results that have a significant impact on mission hardware and quality conformance, software assurance, or can drive threats to mission success due to hardware product or process quality problems or software development problems. This plan is applicable to software development processes, and hardware planning processes that impact hardware manufacturability and the ability for the finished item to demonstrate compliance with the contract requirements. This QASP applies to work being performed by the Contractors and their supply chains (i.e., sub-tier suppliers).

The QASP addresses all elements and aspects of the Flight project contracts including (but not limited to) the management and project/program office, systems management and engineering, flight hardware and software, data systems and ground interface, systems verification, safety and mission assurance, emergency services and studies, and ground support equipment hardware and software.

This QASP applies to the formulation and implementation phases of GeoXO Flight Project including observatory integration, test, shipment, deployment, launch support, and on-orbit checkout.

This QASP has been prepared in accordance with NPR 8735.2C, NASA-STD-8739.8B and 372-

PG-7120.2.1A.

1.3 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

For Government quality assurance requirements at Contractor facilities, see Federal Acquisition

Regulations (FAR), if included in the contracts:

• 46.103, Contracting office responsibilities,

• 46.104, Contract administration office responsibilities,

• 46.202-2, Government reliance on inspection by Contractor, To verify the correct version of this document, please contact the GeoXO Series Configuration Management Office.

• 46.4, Government Contract Quality Assurance, and

• 46.5 Acceptance

For inspection clauses by contract type, see FAR 52.246-1 to 52.246-26.

The documents listed in this section apply directly to the performance of GeoXO Flight Project.

These documents establish GeoXO project requirements applicable to the quality assurance surveillance of the contracts.

• NPR 8735.2C Hardware Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Programs and

Projects (Updated w/Change 1)

• NASA-STD-8739.8B, Software Assurance and Software Safety

• 372-PG-7120.2.1A Procedure for Planning and Implementing Software Assurance and Software Safety Programs

• (TBD) Mission Operations Assurance Plan

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

(SCMAR)

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

• (TBD) GeoXO Flight Project Software Assurance Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (TBD) GeoXO Letter of Delegation to DCMA

1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

The documents listed in this section may contain information pertinent to the performance of

GeoXO Project contracts and should be referred to for clarification purposes only. Government-produced contract documentation will take precedence over the reference documentation. Unless otherwise specified, the document version in effect at the time each contract is executed shall apply, unless specifically changed in contract updates.

• 410-XO-PLN-0006 GeoXO Program Risk Management Plan

• 410-XO-PLN-0016 GeoXO Program Safety and Mission Assurance Plan

• 410-XO-PLN-0128 GeoXO Program Systems Safety Program Plan

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

2. SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY

2.1 SURVEILLANCE APPROACH DEFINITIONS

a. OVERSIGHT: The use of second party supplier surveillance techniques that occur in line with the Contractor's processes and must be executed at a specified point in the process for the process to be executed correctly and completely. Oversight provides the

Government the right to concur or non-concur with the Contractor’s decisions affecting product conformity and to require that non-concurrence is resolved before the Contractor can proceed. Oversight is a continuum that can range from low intensity, such as quality system audits, or Government concurrence in reviews (e.g., preliminary design review or critical design review), to high intensity in which the Government has day-to-day involvement in the Contractor’s production flow and decision-making process (e.g., mandatory hardware inspections or mandatory process witnessing)

b. INSIGHT: The use of monitoring of Contractor quality data, Government identified metrics and contracted milestones, work procedures, and records for second-party quality assurance. Insight is a continuum that can range from low intensity, such as reviewing quarterly reports, to high intensity, such as performing surveys and reviews.

c. HYBRID SURVEILLANCE APPROACH: a combination of both INSIGHT and

OVERSIGHT surveillance methods.

d. Government Mandatory Inspection Point (GMIP): GMIPs are NASA-mandated product assurance actions that are performed at, or prior to, a specific point in the product’s manufacturing phase by NASA or a delegated agent of NASA.

e. Notification Only (Refer to Appendix A): Notification by the Contractor to NASA of a specific activity, e.g., Contractor or subcontractor GMIP, critical lift, etc. This does NOT require the Contractor to stop the production for NASA’s surveillance to take place.

NASA will use its discretion and may or may not surveil the activity.

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

2.2 SPACECRAFT AND INSTRUMENTS HYBRID SURVEILLANCE

For the Spacecraft and Instruments, a hybrid surveillance approach will be instituted at the

Contractor. Insight will be used in those areas where the risk is low, and the Contractor clearly demonstrates understanding of and compliance with mandated requirements. Oversight will be used when the tolerance for risk is low, where the Contractor has limited experience or has not demonstrated acceptable performance.

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

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

a. The government assumes the liability

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

c. The Contractor has limited experience

d. The Contractor has not demonstrated acceptable performance

e. The likelihood and the consequence of a non-conformance are high

f. Full access to the Contractor data and documentation is lacking, except if the

Government has determined that the Contractor has a proven track record of repeatedly providing high quality, high reliability products using proven processes.

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

The Government will transition from OVERSIGHT to INSIGHT surveillance methods gradually when the Contractor demonstrated performance and Government access to Contractor data, identified risks and mitigation plans allow such a transition.

2.3 FORMS OF SURVEILLANCE

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

a. Communications:

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

2. Electronic Mail (E-mail).

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

4. Other communication methods as needed.

b. Computer Applications:

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

Contractor’s databases.

2. Other applications as identified by the Contractor.

c. Progress reviews and meetings:

1. Program/Project Monthly Status Reviews (PMSRs).

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

Reviews (PDR), Critical Design Reviews (CDR), Pre-Environmental Reviews

(PER), Systems Integration Review (SIR), Pre-Ship Review (PSR), and Launch

Readiness Review (LRR).

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

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

4. Technical meetings/teleconferences/videoconferences (e.g., Technical

Interchange Meetings (TIMs), EEE Parts Control Board (EPCB), Material

Review Boards (MRB), Failure Review Boards (FRB), Engineering Review

Board (ERB), and Test Configuration Break meetings.

d. Evaluation and Reporting:

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

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

GeoXO SCMAR and IMAR and the associated Mission Assurance Compliance

Matrices produced by the Contractor.

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

4. Generate weekly and/or monthly activity reports

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

e. Other methods:

1. Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs): The Government/GSFC or its

SMA representative such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Safety & Mission Assurance Services SMAS-II, or Safety & Mission Assurance, Audits Assessments, and Analysis (SA3) contracts onsite SMA representatives or visiting GSFC Quality Assurance (QA) representative will perform GMIPs per their Letter of Delegation (LOD), and/or Task order, and/or SOW, and/or MAR from the GSFC GeoXO Flight Project Office as applicable. Specific GMIPs are listed in Appendix A. The intent is to perform 100% GMIPs as outlined in

Appendix A as the baseline; however, based on the risk classification for

Spacecraft and each Instrument, the frequency of the GMIPs may be tailored at the discretion of the GSFC GeoXO Flight Project Chief Safety & Mission

Assurance Officer (CSO), GSFC GeoXO Deputy (CSO), in coordination with

Flight Project management. In the case that the frequency of GMIPs is tailored, it will be documented and provided to the Contractor.

a. When a GMIP is designated as “Verify,” it requires that the Government or its representative inspects a component, sub-assembly, or assembly in accordance with NASA, Industry or other Government standards as defined in the

SCMAR/IMAR and/or LOD and/or SOW or Government approved standards, prior to further processing unless otherwise agreed to by the Government.

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

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

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

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

2. Readiness Reviews: A Readiness Review is held several days before an activity is scheduled to occur. The Government attendance at the Contractor Manufacturing and Test Readiness Reviews provides the Government an opportunity to ensure the Contractor is ready to manufacture or process components, sub-assemblies, assemblies, etc., and that all engineering and process documentation have been reviewed for compliance to specifications and released. Readiness Reviews also ensure that all nonconformance’s and/or risks have been identified, reported, and mitigated prior to proceeding. The Government invitees would include, as a minimum, the GSFC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), GeoXO Flight

Project Mission Systems Engineer (SE), GSFC GeoXO Flight Project Chief

Safety & Mission Assurance Officer (CSO), GSFC GeoXO Flight Project Deputy

CSO, GSFC Quality Engineer, DCMA/SMAS II/SMA3 Quality Assurance

Representative (QAR) if contracted, and GSFC Engineering personnel. The

Contractors’ attendees will include, as a minimum, Mission Assurance Managers as applicable, Hardware and/or Software Assurance Engineers, Subject Matter

Experts, appropriate discipline or Manufacturing Engineers, Materials & Process

(M&P) and/or EEE Parts Engineers, and other functional group representatives.

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

b. Test Readiness Reviews are like Manufacturing Readiness Reviews in that they occur prior to the testing activity. Their purpose is to ensure that test requirements are understood, test conditions are per Government and

Contractor internal requirements, performance standards are understood and documented, all previous operations/documentations are complete and verified, all non-conformances are resolved, tooling is complete and validated, Pass/Fail criteria are clear, GMIPs are identified and contained in the certification log, safety requirements are addressed, risks identified and mitigated, and personnel involved are properly trained and certified as necessary.

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

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

3. The Government or its representatives will monitor Contractor activities during the design, development, fabrication, integration, and testing of the flight hardware and software. The GeoXO CSO or GeoXO Deputy CSO will determine what the level of onsite resident SMA representative’s presence will be on the

Contractor I&T or manufacturing floor to ensure all processes and procedures are being followed.

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

Surveys by the Government. Audits, Assessments or Surveys may be performed by the GSFC Code 382 assessment teams, the GeoXO Flight Project CSO, the

GeoXO Flight Project Deputy CSO, the GeoXO Flight Project Safety Manager

(PSM), GSFC GeoXO Flight Project Hardware Quality Engineer (HQE), SMAS

II, or SA3 SMA or DCMA Representative when the SOW/LOD/LOI allows

(independent of GSFC Code 382) GSFC Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), and the

GSFC GeoXO Flight Project Office. Assessments will be performed to ensure that the approved processes are being followed in practice. Assessments will be used to verify compliance in areas including, but not limited to, SMA, Configuration Management (CM), Spacecraft, and Instruments performance.

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

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

2.4 SOFTWARE ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

The GeoXO Project Software Assurance Engineer (SAE) will:

a. Participate in code reviews, end-to-end software testing include regression testing, teleconferences, and other meetings as requested by Project Management, the GeoXO

Flight Project CSO and/or GeoXO Flight Project Deputy CSO, to provide support of

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

software assurance related activities as defined by the GeoXO Flight Project SCMAR, IMAR, and Spacecraft and Instrument SOWs.

b. Review and evaluate all applicable Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) included in the related

Spacecraft and Instrument CDRLs and provide guidance and review documentation provided by the Contractor as described in the CDRLs and provide feedback whether these documents are acceptable, when, when requested by GeoXO Project Management, and/or the GeoXO Flight Project CSO or GeoXO Flight Project Deputy CSO.

c. Perform software process audits and assessments, verification and validation for software requirements and surveil disposition of non-conformances tickets. The SAE will observe/monitor the formal and acceptance software testing process from the pre-test, testing, and post-test phases to verify satisfactory completion and outcome. This entails assuring that all tests, including pre / post-test and dry runs, are conducted using:

a. approved test procedures and appropriate test tools,

b. version controls,

c. documented CM processes, and that test anomalies are identified, documented, addressed, and tracked to closure.

The SAE will assure that assumptions, constraints, and test results are accurately recorded to substantiate the requirements verification/validation status.

2.5 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION

Performance verification for the Spacecraft and Instruments refers to the testing of components, integration of spacecraft subsystems, instruments and their subsystems, integration of the overall

Observatory as well as ground support equipment. Activities typically employed by the surveillance team for performance verification are contained in Section 2.3 of this document.

SMA focus during this activity is compliance to the procedures for verification and proper documentation of any non-compliances.

2.6 SUPPLY CHAIN RISK MANAGEMENT

The Contractor will consider subcontractor quality and develop an industrial base and Supply

Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Strategy per NPR 8735.2 during design and product selection.

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

To determine supplier criticality for Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM), the Flight Project teams in coordination with the GeoXO Flight Project CSO and/or GeoXO Flight Project Deputy

CSO, and Supply Chain Quality Lead will ensure the Contractor follows their technology development plans / Risk Management Plan, including technology maturity efforts for achieving

TRL 6 by PDR and subcontractor technical performance. The PSM and the Project Reliability

Engineer will assist with taking safety and reliability into consideration in the determination of the criticality of each component. The Supply Chain Quality Lead, CSOs, Contracting Officer

(CO), Observatory Manager, and Instrument Managers will then review government databases, to determine the risk level of each critical supplier and then prioritize them as far as implementing mitigations to reduce each supplier’s respective risk. Examples of government

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

databases which may be used to determine supplier risk are Meta - Supply Chain Insight Central

(SCIC), Corrective Action Reports (CAR), NASA Supplier Assessment System (SAS), Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), and Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA) databases. The intent is to perform 100% inspections as the baseline; however, based on the risk of each Contractor/subcontractor, the frequency of the inspections may be tailored at the discretion of the GeoXO Flight Project CSO and/or GeoXO

Flight Project Deputy CSO in coordination with Flight Project management. In the case that the frequency of inspection is tailored, it will be documented and provided to the vendor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. RESOURCES

3.1 GENERAL

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

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

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

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

d. GSFC Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate (SMA-D) and Engineering and

Technical Directorate (ETD) technical and support personnel including the GSFC

Supply Chain Quality Representatives, the GeoXO Flight Project CSO and/or the

GeoXO Flight Project Deputy CSO, the GeoXO PSM, Hardware and Software

Quality Engineers, Reliability Engineers, Parts Engineers, Materials and Processes

Engineers, Parts & Radiation Assurance Engineers (PRAEs), Materials & Processes

Assurance Engineer (MPAE), Commodity Risk Assessment Engineers (CRAE), Risk

Management Engineers, and SMA representatives from DCMA, SMAS II, and SA3 contracts

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

3.2 GeoXO SURVEILLANCE TEAM

The GSFC GeoXO Surveillance Team will be composed of key GSFC personnel, including

GeoXO Project discipline engineers and non-Project SMEs when appropriate. Their primary purpose, under the cognizance of the COR, will be to provide direction for contract surveillance activities and to serve as the Government’s focal point in reviewing and evaluating overall

Contractor performance. Information will be obtained by surveillance personnel from various sources, including Contractor contractually deliverable documents (i.e., CDRL items), supplier assessments, communications with Contractor personnel, both formally and informally, and other personnel who interact with Contractor personnel or representatives which may include:

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

a. GeoXO Flight Project Manager (PM): The PM is responsible to the GSFC Director of

Flight Programs for managing the GeoXO Flight Project life cycle. The PM is the senior official responsible for providing overall direction for surveillance activities as they pertain to this plan. The PM consults with partners as necessary to ensure coordination of priorities and schedules.

b. GeoXO Flight Project Deputy Project Manager (DPM): The DPM leads a team of technical specialists who support the GeoXO development and production effort. The

DPM assumes full responsibility for directing the surveillance program in the absence of the PM.

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

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

Contractor and the CO for all technical matters, reports on contract status to

Program/Project Management, and recommends corrective action when necessary. The

COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments, authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf, or in any way direct the Contractor to operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect the contract value, terms, or conditions will be referred to the CO for action.

The COR’s limitations of authority are contained in the NASA Form 1634 COR

Delegation. The COR assumes full responsibility for directing the surveillance activities identified in this plan. The COR will assist the CO in the completion of the contract’s annual performance assessment report using Contract Performance Assessment Reporting

Systems (CPARS).

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

e. GeoXO Flight Project Office: The GeoXO Flight Project Office, with support from the

GeoXO Flight Project Mission Systems Engineer and assisted by other Government and support Contractor personnel, is responsible for executive management of project objectives within guidelines and controls prescribed by NASA Headquarters and GSFC management. Technical assistance and support will be available as needed through the project office for development and production of the GeoXO.

f. GeoXO Flight Project CSO and Deputy GeoXO Flight Project CSO: The CSO is responsible to the PM for implementing the activities of the Project Surveillance Plan.

The CSO will manage and coordinate support as required from the GeoXO Flight Project, the various GSFC Code 300 divisions, and matrixed personnel from other GSFC organizations.

g. GSFC Quality Engineers (QEs): GSFC QEs are responsible for providing technical, manufacturing, assembly, mandatory inspections, integration and testing, quality engineering and quality assurance support to the GeoXO Flight Project CSO and/or

GeoXO Flight Project Deputy CSO in support of the Spacecraft and Instruments development, systems integration, and testing, and launch site activities as required.

h. GSFC Software Assurance Engineers (SAEs): The SAE ensures development and maintenance of the software’s classification and criticality, ensures the flow down of requirements per the Software Assurance and Software Safety Standards, develops and maintains the project’s Software Assurance Plan, generates and maintains a schedule of software assurance activities that cover the life cycle of the project, conducts periodic assessments of software processes and associated work products, perform test witnessing and supports test activities, collaborates with Safety, Reliability, and IV&V personnel on software assurance activities performed per GPR7150.4, Software Safety and Software

Reliability Process, and identifies/reports findings, observations, and risks from software assurance related activities

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

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

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

k. GeoXO Flight Project Resident Engineers and On-site Representatives: Resident

Engineers and on-site SMA representatives located at GeoXO Flight Project Contractor facilities provide in-house support to the GeoXO Flight Project Office and GeoXO Flight

Project CSO, respectively. The Resident Engineers and on-site SMA representatives will participate in various Contractor technical and management meetings, product inspections/mandatory inspections, monitoring and/or witnessing of tests, and assessing processes to facilitate decision-making and clear lines of communication between the

Contractor and the GeoXO Flight Project Office and the GeoXO CSO, respectively. The

Resident Engineers and the on-site SMA Representative will also have responsibilities to participate in product verification and performance verification activities, supervise and coordinate integration and test activities with the Contractor I&T personnel, review and approve Contractor Integration and Test Plan as well as other related documents.

l. GeoXO Flight Project CO: The GeoXO Flight Project CO is responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships. Within the surveillance area the Flight Project CO takes inputs from the GeoXO Program Director and Flight Project Manager, COR, Safety, Health, GSFC Safety and Mission Assurance Office, Spacecraft and Instrument Performance

Evaluation Board, and others to establish the requirements for the detailed surveillance to be performed by NASA personnel, delegated to another Federal agency via a GSFC

Letter of Delegation, or to be performed under contract by a surveillance support contractor. The CO will also assure that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance. The CO will complete an annual Contractor’s performance assessment report using the CPARS that will also be reviewed by the Contractor and become a part of the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS).

m. GeoXO Flight Project Mission Systems Engineer (MSE)/Instrument Systems Engineer

(ISE): The GeoXO Flight Project MSE and ISE are responsible for coordinating

GSFC/Flight Project systems and instrument engineering resources with the Contractor’s engineering resources to ensure that the GeoXO elements meet the design parameters of the mission while working within the budget and schedule constraints. The MSE and ISE participate in system/subsystem peer reviews held by the Contractor and review system engineering documentation delivered per the GeoXO CDRL requirements.

n. GeoXO Flight Project and Instrument Scientist: The GeoXO Flight Project and

Instrument Scientists work with the Instrument Contractor to monitor component, subsystem, and system performance, characterization, and calibration of the instrument and spacecraft to ensure that GeoXO performance and data quality requirements are met.

These scientists participate in all of the surveillance methods including participate in system/subsystem reviews, technical interchanges, review of analysis and reports, and monitoring/witnessing performance verification tests.

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

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

MISSION ASSURANCE, AUDITS ASSESSMENTS AND ANALYSIS (SA3)

DCMA Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) and/or SA3 personnel may be collocated at the

Contractor with GSFC SMA and project personnel. The DCMA/SMAS II/SA3 representatives will support the GeoXO CSO and GeoXO Mission Assurance effort in accordance with the provisions of the GSFC LOD and/or SOW and/or Task Order and this Surveillance Plan. If

DCMA or other contract support personnel are required on-site at the Contractor facility, every effort will be made to use their local (collocated or itinerant) DCMA/SMAS II/SA3 support if available.

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

4. MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTROL PROCESS

4.1 GOVERNMENT ACCESS

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

a. Kick-off Meeting

b. Contractor status meetings; weekly and monthly

c. Contractor ad hoc technical and programmatic meetings

d. Contractor planning meetings

e. Weekly Program Management meetings

f. Monthly Financial Reports

g. Contracts/Business Meetings

h. Monthly Technical and Management Reviews

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

Reviews

j. Manufacturing, Test and Flight Readiness Reviews

k. Test configuration break meetings

l. Audits, Pre-Shipment, Surveys and Assessments (Observatory/Spacecraft Contractor-led, Instrument Contractor-led or Government-led)

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

n. Parts Control Board, Anomaly/Failure Review Board, Materials Review Boards, Materials and Processes Control Board, Risk Management Reviews, Payload Safety

Working Group and Reliability Working Group meetings; all related activities and documentation

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

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

5. METRICS

5.1 DATA REVIEW AND VALIDATION

Surveillance team members are responsible for collecting production, integration, test, and product assurance data, and for facilitating overall surveillance activities. Surveillance team activities include determining that acceptable limits, data ranges, pass/fail criteria and goals have been established and flowed down to the Contractor project teams and their subcontractors and suppliers as applicable. Data that are subject to surveillance team review will be provided by multiple organizations involved with the project, including (but not limited to) DCMA, SMAS

II/SA3 and the Contractor, their subcontractors, and suppliers. Data generating activities include contract deliverable document submissions, Contractor self-assessment and Government assessment programs, DCMA/SMAS II/SA3 monitoring, scheduled and unscheduled reviews

(e.g., monthly status reviews, peer reviews, readiness reviews, and formal reviews), meetings and teleconferences. Below are performance metrics subject to surveillance team review for which data is being generated. This list is intended to provide a representative example and is not all-inclusive.

1. Safety and Mission Assurance

a. Safety analysis, controls, and mitigation plans

b. Contamination analysis, risks, and mitigation plans

c. Reliability analysis, risks, and mitigation plans

d. Materials and process control program status

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

f. Parts program status including EPCB activity, Government Industry Data

Exchange Program (GIDEP)/NASA alerts/advisories/problem status, number of parts approved, approved with risk, rejected and pending deviation/waiver status

g. Software Safety and Software Assurance status

2. Supplier Audits, Assessments, or Surveys

a. Assessments performed

b. # of findings (non-conformances)

c. Status of corrective actions

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

Office.

418-R-PLN-0109

Document Change Record (DCR)

CCR:X00098 GeoXO Rev: Title: 418-XO-PLN-0109: baseline the GeoXO Flight Project Quality Assurance Surveillance

Plan (QASP) Contract # N/A GeoXO S/C: GeoXO Effectivity: Instruments CCB Status: Approved Doc #: 418-XO-PLN-0109 CCB Date: 07/15/2022 Doc Version: 1.0 Contract Mod#: N/A DOORs Version: N/A Doc Change Date: July 15, 2022 DOORs ID #: N/A

CCR:X00151 GeoXO Rev: Title: QASP: Updated few changes to document Contract # N/A GeoXO S/C: GeoXO Effectivity: Instruments

CCB Status: Approved Doc #: 418-XO-PLN-0109 CCB Date: 01/05/2023 Doc Version: 2.0 Contract Mod#: N/A DOORs Version: N/A Doc Change Date: Jan. 05, 2023 DOORs ID #: N/A