Enclosure 2 - L10 Observatory Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Rev A.pdf

Landsat 10 Spacecraft & Observatory QASP L10-SMA-PLAN-0133 Revision A ii

Landsat 10 Spacecraft and Observatory Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Signature/Approval Page

Prepared by:

Electronic Signature in TDMS Approval Date in TDMS Michael Silber Date Landsat 10 Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer

NASA/GSFC, Code 383

Approved by:

Cagatay Aymergen Date Landsat 10 Deputy Project Manager / Acting Observatory Manager

NASA/GSFC, Code 426

Approved by:

Evan Webb Date Landsat 10 Mission System Manager NASA/GSFC, Code 533 iii

CM Foreword This document is a Landsat 10 Project Configuration Management (CM)-controlled document.

Note: Prior to February 2026, the project name was Landsat Next (LNext).

For the purposes of configuration management, the prefixes “LNEXT” and “L10” are completely interchangeable. For example, LNEXT-MGMT-PLAN-0004 is the same as L10-MGMT-PLAN- 0004.

Changes to this document require prior approval of the applicable Configuration Control Board (CCB) Chairperson or designee. Proposed changes shall be submitted to the Landsat 10 CM Office (CMO), along with supportive material justifying the proposed change. Changes to this document will be made by complete revision.

Questions or comments concerning this document should be addressed to:

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Landsat 10 Project Office, Code 426 Attention: Configuration Management Office Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 iv

Change History Log Revision Effective Date Description of Changes

(Reference the CCR/SCoRe Approval Date)

- 03/24/2026 LNEXT-CCR-0128 - Initial Release A 07/01/2026 L10-CCR-0175 – Updated the Lexicon term

“Nonconformance” v

Table of Contents SIGNATURE/APPROVAL PAGE ................................................................................................ II

CM FOREWORD ..........................................................................................................................III

CHANGE HISTORY LOG .......................................................................................................... IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ V

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ V

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... V

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

2.0 SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY

2.1 Surveillance Approach Definition

2.1.1 Oversight

2.1.2 Insight

2.1.3 Hybrid Surveillance Approach

2.2 Surveillance Team

3.0 TYPICAL SURVEILLANCE METHODS

3.1 Audits

3.2 Sampling

3.3 Direct Observation

3.4 Inspection

4.0 SURVEILLANCE

4.1 Phase I

4.2 Phase II

5.0 SUMMARY

APPENDIX A. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

APPENDIX B. DEFINITIONS

List of Figures

No table of contents entries found.

List of Tables Table 4.2-1 Surveillance Comparison Between Phase I and Phase II

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Government 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’s performance under Landsat 10 Spacecraft Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract. This FFP contract provides for the Government to obtain a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) spacecraft bus, integration of the spacecraft bus with the Landsat Instrument Suite (LandIS) instrument and early on-orbit checkout.

The QASP is developed in accordance with President Executive Order (EO) 14271, Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracts, issued by the White House and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Part 12 and is based on a tailored approach of NPR

8735.2 Rev. C, Hardware Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Program and Projects.

The QASP is to be a living document over the life cycle of the Landsat 10 Spacecraft contract. It is subject to review on a regular basis (at a minimum annually) by the Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer (CSO) in consultation with the Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) team and the Project management and will be updated as required.

1.2 SCOPE

This QASP has been developed to evaluate contractor actions while implementing the Landsat 10 Spacecraft Statement of Work (SOW). It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring contractor performance, services, processes, and products provided under subject contract. This QASP defines the process the Government expects to follow to obtain data, evaluate the contractor, and determine if contract performance conforms to contract requirements. The contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract.

The role of the Government is quality assurance to ensure contract standards are achieved. In this contract the quality control program is the driver for product quality. The Contractor is required to develop a comprehensive program of inspections and monitoring actions. The first major step to ensuring a “self-correcting” contract is to ensure that the quality control program approved at the beginning of the contract provides the measures needed to lead the Contractor to success.

Once the quality control program is approved, careful application of the process and standards presented in the remainder of this document will ensure a robust quality assurance program.

This plan is applicable to all services performed or products provided by the Landsat 10 Spacecraft Contractor(s). Throughout this QASP, the term “Contractor” is used. In terms of this plan, it should be known that unless explicitly stated, the term “Contractor” is applicable to both the Landsat 10 Spacecraft Contractor and any and all of its subcontractors.

This QASP activities will be performed in the following two phases:

• Phase I: This phase begins with spacecraft development and continues through spacecraft bus integration and testing. It concludes when the spacecraft successfully completes the final Comprehensive Performance Testing (CPT) and is ready for instrument integration.

• Phase II: This phase begins when spacecraft bus is ready for instrument integration and ends at spacecraft acceptance on orbit.

The specifics of surveillance activities for each phase are provided in the Section 4.0.

2.0 SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY

There exists a wide-ranging spectrum associated with surveillance, ranging from oversight to insight. The strategy and approach to surveillance by GSFC for the Landsat 10 Spacecraft contract, as detailed in this plan, is one that concentrates primarily on insight as opposed to oversight. However, NASA reserves the right to request in Phase I and initiate in Phase II additional surveillance activities (insight or oversight) on an ‘as-needed’ basis, based upon circumstances and data collected (i.e adverse trends, negative data points, lack of corrective action, etc.) via the surveillance activities defined in this plan.

2.1 SURVEILLANCE APPROACH DEFINITION

2.1.1 Oversight

Oversight as applied to this contract will result in higher levels of Government surveillance. The Government will gather information pertaining to the Contractor's process through involvement and/or inspection in the process and will monitor the process itself. The Government's involvement in the Contractor's performance, through oversight, will be determined with approval by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

The Government may use a variety of surveillance methods to evaluate the Contractor's performance, including Mandatory Inspection Points (MIPs), with review and approval authority implicit to the degree necessary to assure that’s requirements conformance is achieved.

Government surveillance will be conducted on a non-interference basis and in a manner that will not unduly delay work being performed by the Contractor.

2.1.2 Insight

Insight is an assurance process that uses data collection and, if definable, performance metrics to ensure process capability, product quality and end-item effectiveness. Insight relies on gathering a minimum set of product or process data that provides adequate visibility into the integrity of the product or process. The data may be acquired from Contractor records, usually in a non-intrusive parallel method.

Insight as applied to this contract will result in lower levels of Government surveillance and allow the Contractor to assume increased responsibility and accountability for the integrity of processes. Insight will rely heavily on evaluating planned contract deliverables, performance standards, and existing Contractor procedures and working documents, if available.

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 monthly and quarterly reports, to high intensity, such as performing surveys and reviews.

2.1.3 Hybrid Surveillance Approach

Hybrid surveillance approach uses a combination of both insight and oversight surveillance methods. This approach will be instituted at a contractor’s facility to ensure a high level of confidence exists regarding the contractor’s ability to identify, manage and control programmatic risks, including when new technology is acquired or unproven processes are employed by a contractor or their subcontractors and suppliers. In this situation, oversight surveillance is used until the Government is satisfied that the contractor and its supplier have all critical processes under control. The oversight activities usually impose Government MIPs in-series with the contractor’s development and manufacturing processes. Only after the contractor’s demonstration of sufficient risk mitigation capabilities will NASA consider transitioning to insight activities that rely predominantly on internal contractor data. The transition period from oversight to insight activities is generally accomplished gradually, depending on contractor performance.

The type of surveillance to be applied to an element of the work effort depends on the perceived level of risk and the potential impact. The below are the three types of surveillance Landsat 10 will use:

• Oversight will be used if the perceived risk or the potential impact is high or if it is required by the contract.

• Insight will be used if the perceived risk or potential impact is low.

• A hybrid approach will be used for an element of the work effort for which the perceived risk and potential impact may be mitigated by supplier performance.

2.2 SURVEILLANCE TEAM

All surveillance activities will be implemented using NASA and NASA support contractor personnel. The surveillance team may be composed of:

• GSFC Project Management (e.g., Project Manager, Observatory Manager, Contracting Officer Representative, etc.)

• GSFC Procurement Personnel (e.g., Contracting Officer, Contract Specialist, etc.)

• GSFC Safety and Mission Assurance (Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer, Hardware Quality Engineers, Resident SMA personnel, etc.)

• GSFC Engineering (e.g., Mission Systems Engineer, Systems Lead, Resident Engineering personnel, etc.)

• GSFC Safety, Health and Security Personnel (both physical and Information Technology (IT) Security)

3.0 TYPICAL SURVEILLANCE METHODS

3.1 AUDITS

The audits are performed through scheduled and unscheduled reviews, including examination of objective evidence such as documentation, records, and process controls; onsite inspections of facilities, equipment, and operations; interview with personnel; and verification of corrective actions from previous findings. GSFC audits utilize a risk-based approach to focus on high-priority areas while maintaining coverage across all critical processes. This structured approach provides objective evidence of performance, identifies risks or systematic issues, and verifies that products and services conform to established standards.

3.2 SAMPLING

Sampling involves statistically based checks of the supplier data or work performance. The purpose ensures that requirements are being met. Sampling also provides an indication of the capability and stability of a supplier process. Process capability is the ability to produce results that fall within defined project specifications or contractual requirements. A statically sound sampling strategy ensures that results are valid and reliable. Findings from the sample is used to assess overall performance, identify trends, and determine whether additional surveillance or corrective action is necessary.

3.3 DIRECT OBSERVATION

Direct observation of an activity is a real-time function used to evaluate supplier performance for work that presents a significant risk. The observer does not sign supplier documentation regarding the observation.

3.4 INSPECTION

Inspection is an in-line function in which performance of a specific activity is observed or reviewed by an inspector, with the inspector signing supplier documentation that the work was performed as required. The signature requirement constrains the supplier’s authority to proceed.

Inspection is generally used when there is significant risk involved in the activity.

4.0 SURVEILLANCE

4.1 PHASE I

During Phase I, the government will apply an insight-based surveillance approach with very limited involvement for spacecraft hardware with non-critical interfaces, implementing a hand-off style of surveillance. The contractor will retain primary responsibility for quality and compliance, while the government maintains only a minimal monitoring role. For spacecraft hardware with critical interfaces, the government will use oversight-based surveillance. The following will apply:

1. Phase I Kickoff Meeting - A formal meeting with the Spacecraft Contractor to review expectations for insight of non-critical spacecraft elements and oversight of critical spacecraft interfaces. The meeting will assist with identification of Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs) for critical interfaces, scope of surveillance, etc.

2. Contractor-Managed Quality System- The contractor will establish and operate its own quality management system. The government will not prescribe specific processes, procedures, or methods. Instead, the government will rely on the contractor’s existing practices, internal controls, and quality assurance framework. The contractor will be expected to demonstrate that its system provides adequate visibility, traceability, and assurance of compliance with contractual requirements. The contractor will submit conformance to documents listed in Spacecraft Contractor Standards, L10-SC-LIST-0022, or alternatives for those documents at 30 days after award of contract.

3. Minimal Government Touchpoints- The government’s role for spacecraft hardware with non-critical interfaces will be limited periodic data requests, attendance at Monthly Project Status Reviews (MPSRs), participation in Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) and Working Groups (WGs), and review of Contractual Data Requirements List (CDRL) deliverables. Direct intervention in day-to-day activities will not occur unless:

a. Significant risks or deficiencies are identified, or

b. The quality of the critical interfaces defined in the Spacecraft SOW is compromised (for example, ARBs).

For spacecraft hardware with critical interfaces, the government will conduct the following additional actions for spacecraft hardware with critical interfaces:

a. Limited GMIPs

b. Product and Process Audit. This includes but not limited to shop floor controls, inspection methods, tool calibration, etc.

c. Hands-On Government Authority. The government may withhold approval of GMIPs and/or major ARBs/MRBs, or request corrective actions if systemic weaknesses, performance shortfalls, or risks to mission success are identified.

d. Transparency and Corrective Action Oversight. While the contractor will continue to operate its own quality management system, the government will require full transparency into processes, metrics, nonconformance reports, and corrective action activities related to critical interfaces. Government concurrence will be required to close major issues or systemic deficiencies.

4. Contractor Accountability with Government Backstop- This hand-off approach places full responsibility for quality on the contractor, reinforcing accountability while allowing maximum flexibility in executing its internal processes. The government reserves the right to elevate its level of surveillance only if:

a. Performance issues arise,

b. Systemic weaknesses are observed, or

c. Unacceptable risk trends emerge

In summary, during Phase I, the government will observe for spacecraft hardware with non-critical interfaces. Surveillance will remain passive and insight-driven, with intervention occurring only if risks surface. For critical interfaces, the government will use a more oversight-driven approach.

4.2 PHASE II

During Phase II, the government will implement a full oversight approach, applying a hands-on style of surveillance with direct and continuous involvement of the Resident Government Quality Engineers and Project Representatives at the contractor facility and through remotely engagement by project personnel. The following will apply:

1. Kick-off Meeting (SMA/QA Focus)- A formal meeting with the Spacecraft Contractor to review critical interfaces and operations for identification of Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs), scope of surveillance, etc. This meeting will occur before the official start of Phase II to make certain of the level of oversight expected for the duration of Phase II. In addition, the meeting will at least start the discussion on dates/scope of the actions listed below.

2. Initial Quality System Assessment- Conduct an early evaluation of the contractors’ quality management system and documentation. This assessment will occur before the official start of Phase II to allow government insight ahead of integration and testing.

3. Periodic Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs)- Scheduled sessions between both SMA organization to review QA status, risk items, NCRs, and planned improvement.

4. Product and Process Audit- Conduct audit of products and processes utilized in Phase II. This includes but not limited to shop floor controls, inspection methods, tool calibration, etc.

5. Expanded Government Oversight- The government will increase its level of oversight into the contractor’s quality management system. This may include data reviews, audits, on-site presence, floor surveillance, and participation in significant technical and quality meetings, including Observatory-level Failure Review Boards (FRBs) and Material Review Boards (MRBs). The government will exercise approval authority where necessary to ensure mission assurance requirements are met.

6. Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs)- GMIPs will be imposed at all critical interfaces, and activities, including spacecraft-to-instrument electrical and mechanical integration, spacecraft-to-launch vehicle integration and Observatory environmental testing.

These inspections points will require direct government approval before work can proceed. The contractor will be required to coordinate with the government in identifying and adding these inspections in its workflow.

7. Resident Government Engineers Presence- The government resident engineers will maintain a continuous presence at the contractor facility during Integration and Testing (I&T) and through final preparation for shipment to the launch site. No critical activity such as instrument’s electrical and mechanical integration to the spacecraft, safety critical lifts and moves, environmental test set up, etc., will occur without government visibility and participation.

8. Contractor Notification Requirement- The contractor must notify the government in advance of all critical floor activities. Government Resident Engineers will participate in these activities directly, and the contractor work will not proceed in the absence of required government involvement.

9. Transparency and Corrective Action Oversight- While the contractor will continue to operate its own quality management system, the government will require full transparency into processes, metrics, nonconformance reports, and corrective action activities related to critical activities. Government concurrence will be required to close major issues or systemic deficiencies.

10. Hands-On Government Authority- Government surveillance in Phase II will be active. The government may withhold approval of GMIPs and/or major MRBs/ARBs, or request corrective actions if systemic weaknesses, performance shortfalls, or risks to mission success are identified.

In summary, Phase II oversight is characterized by increased government involvement, increased mandatory inspection points, and direct participation in contractor activities. The government will observe, approve, and when necessary, intervene to ensure mission assurance is fully achieved.

The table below shows side-by-side comparison of Phase I and Phase II activities.

Table 4.2-1 Surveillance Comparison Between Phase I and Phase II

Area of Interest Phase I Phase II Contractor Responsibility

Contractor holds full responsibility for quality and contractual obligations

Contractor holds full responsibility for quality and contractual obligations

Government Role Minimal involvement; relies on contractor’s internal processes and controls for non-critical interface hardware; increased participation in critical interface activities

Increased involvement; direct and participation in critical contractor activities

Surveillance Type Insight-based, data review, limited meetings, and passive observation for non-critical interface hardware;

oversight-based for critical interfaces

Oversight-based, periodic audits, floor surveillance, and direct involvement

Inspection Points Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs) at critical interfaces

GMIPs imposed at all critical interfaces;

work cannot proceed without government approval

Government Presence Limited to periodic reviews (MPSRs, TIMs, WGs, etc.)

Continuous presence through Resident Engineers supporting meetings, reviews, etc., during I&T and launch preparation

Notification Requirements

Contractor must notify government of GMIPs, but not mandatory for all activities

Contractor must notify government in advance of all critical activities;

government must participate

Intervention Threshold Government intervenes if systemic risks or deficiencies are identified and approves work via GMIPs

Government approves, and halts work related to critical interfaces and activities to ensure mission assurance

Summary The government will observe only for non-critical interface hardware, providing more oversight for critical interfaces

The government reserves the right to participate and approve activities deemed critical based on commonly agreed risk assessments.

5.0 SUMMARY

This QASP establishes the Government’s structured approach to monitoring and evaluating contractor performance in support of the Landsat 10 spacecraft and observatory. This QASP is designed to be a living document, adaptable to risk posture during the contract life cycle. It enables the Government to verify contractor compliance with requirements while allowing the contract the flexibility to manage its internal quality control processes.

Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms Acronym/Abbreviation Definition CDRL Contract Data Requirements List COTS Commercial-Off-the-Shelf CPT Comprehensive Performance Test CSO Chief Safety Mission Assurance Officer EO Executive Order FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FFP Firm Fixed Price FRB Failure Review Board GMIPs Government Mandatory Inspection Points GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center I&T Integration and Test IT Information Technology LandIS Landsat Instrument Suite MAR Mission Assurance Requirement MIPs Mandatory Inspection Points MPSRs Monthly Project Status Reviews MRB Material Review Board NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCRs Non-Conformance Reports NPR NASA Procedural Requirement PLA Payload Adapter QA Quality Assurance QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan SMA Safety and Mission Assurance SOW Statement of Work TIMs Technical Interchange Meetings WG Working Group This Acronyms List was generated from the Landsat 10 Common Acronyms List (L10-MGMT-DESC-0006) Draft Rev E.

Appendix B. Definitions Term Definition Audit A review of a developer’s, contractor's, or subcontractor's documentation, software, firmware or hardware to verify that it complies with project requirements.

Demonstrate To show that the current knowledge of one or more system parameters is correct and accurate by collecting and processing test data using current calibration parameters and analyzing the performance of the processed results.

Failure A departure from specification that is discovered in the functioning or operation of the hardware or software.

Hardware As used in this document, there are two major categories of hardware.

· Prototype Hardware (See Prototype Hardware)

· Flight Hardware (See Flight Hardware)

Measure Provide a value for a particular system parameter or performance characteristic by direct observation

Nonconformance A condition of any hardware, software, material, or service in which one or more characteristics do not conform to specified requirements or procedures or result in hardware or software damage.

Nonconformances are grouped into two categories:

· Major nonconformances (Class I) – Those that impact functional, operational, or performance requirements, system safety, schedule, single point failures, and external interfaces

· Those that can be corrected without affecting Class I critical factors.

*Class I – Factors that impact functional, operational, or performance requirements, system safety, schedule, single point failures, and external interfaces.

*Class II – Factors not included within Class I.

Observatory The spacecraft plus LandIS, that are flown as part of the Landsat 10 mission.

Risk The combination of the likelihood that a project will experience an undesired event and the consequences of the event. Likelihood can be expressed as the probability (qualitative or quantitative). The undesired event may be a cost overrun, schedule slippage, safety mishap, or technical impact such as failure to achieve a needed technological breakthrough. The consequences are expressed in terms of the impact or severity of the undesired event, should it occur.

Note (1): The concept of risk is used to describe a future uncertain event, the outcome of which, if it did occur, would be negative for the enterprise in question (see Note 2 below). Any estimate of the probability of the risk (event) occurring is referred to as a measure of the risk’s likelihood. The significance to the project if the risk does happen is referred to as its consequence (or impact). A risk’s impact must, in general, be evaluated as a combination of cost impact, schedule impact, technical or performance impact, and/or safety impact. The basic concept of risk is completed with the idea of a risk’s priority or exposure that is conceived in qualitative terms as a function of the risk’s likelihood and impact measures.

Note (2): Positive-outcome events can similarly be considered. For simplicity, only the more typical negative-outcome events are considered in these definitions.

Verification The process of ensuring mission/segment requirements are satisfied. Verification occurs using one or more of these methods: analysis, test, demonstration, or inspection.

These Definitions were generated from the Landsat 10 Common Lexicon (L10-SYS-DESC-0004) Draft Rev E.