WFIRST-PROP-SOW-0017-_SSdraft.pdf

Effective Date: <Date>

CHECK https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/

TO VERIFY THAT THIS IS THE CORRECT VERSION PRIOR TO USE.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland

WFIRST-PROP-SOW-0017, Revision [-, A]

Roman Space Telescope (RST), Code 448

Pressure Transducer Statement of Work (SOW)

DRAFT

Month Day, Year https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/

<Document Short Title> WFIRST-XXX-SOW-XXXX, Revision Number i

Pressure Transducer Statement of Work (SOW)

Review/Signature/Approval Page

Prepared by:

Wanyi Ng

Approved by:

Electronic Approval available on-line at: https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Pressure Transducer SOW WFIRST-PROP -SOW-0017, Revision Number ii

Preface This document is a Roman Space Telescope (RST) 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 RST CM Office (CMO), along with supportive material justifying the proposed change.

In this document, a requirement is identified by “shall,” a good practice by “should,” permission by “may” or “can,” expectation by “will,” and descriptive material by “is.”

Questions or comments concerning this document should be addressed to:

RST Configuration Management Office Mail Stop 448 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 iii

Change History Log

Revision Effective Date Description of Changes (Reference the CCR & CCB/ERB Approval Date) iv

Table of TBDs/TBRs/TBSs [optional]

Item No. Location Summary Individual/ Organization

Actionee

Due Date v

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

1.3 Related Documentation

1.3.1 Applicable Documents [and Forms]

1.3.2 Reference Documents

2 MANAGEMENT, REPORTING, REVIEWS, AND DOCUMENTATION

2.1 Program management

2.2 Reporting

2.3 Advanced Notifications

2.4 Reviews and Meetings

2.4.1 Kick-off Meeting

2.4.2 Design Conformance Review (DCR)

2.4.3 Qualification Test Readiness Review (QTRR)

2.4.4 Acceptance Test Readiness Review (ATRR)

2.4.5 Pre-Ship Review (PSR)

2.4.6 Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM)

2.5 Documentation

2.6 Reserved

2.7 Existing Documentation and Analysis

2.8 Qualification By Similarity Report

3 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Interface Control Documentation

3.2 Drawing Package

3.3 Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Models

3.4 Structural Analysis Report

3.5 Structural Finite Element Model

3.6 Thermal Analysis Report

3.7 Thermal Model and Documentation

3.8 Radiation Hardness Analysis Report

3.9 Reliability Analysis Report

3.10 Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) Report

3.11 Worst Case Analysis (WCA)

3.12 Stress and Derating Analysis

3.13 Preliminary Hazard Analysis

3.14 Trend Analysis

3.15 Error Analysis Report

3.16 Reserved

3.17 User/Instruction Manual

4 HARDWARE PROCUREMENT/MANUFACTURING

4.1 General Requirements

4.2 Pressure Transducers

vi

4.3 Connector Savers

4.4 Supporting Hardware

4.5 Reserved

5 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND TEST

5.1 Verification Plan

5.2 Verification Test Procedures

5.3 Verification Test Reports

6 SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE

6.1 General Requirements

6.2 Configuration Management

6.3 Training and Certification of Contractor Personnel

6.4 Surveillance of the Contractor

6.4.1 Government Source Inspection

6.4.2 Contractor Source Inspection

6.4.3 Government Mandatory Inspection Points (MIPs)

6.5 Anomaly Reporting

6.6 Ground Support Equipment Interfaces

6.7 Design Verification Requirements

6.7.1 Verification Requirements

6.7.2 Analysis, Trending, and Reporting of Test Data

6.7.3 Total and Failure-Free Operation hours

6.8 EEE Parts Requirements

6.8.1 General

6.8.2 Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs)

6.8.3 Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Test Coupons

6.8.4 Use of Water Soluble Flux

6.8.5 Lead-Free Control Measures

6.8.6 Radiation

6.8.7 Parts Age Control

6.8.8 Reserved

6.8.9 Reuse of Parts and Materials

6.8.10 Part Notification of Failure

6.9 Materials, Processes Requirements

6.9.1 Materials and Processes Control

6.9.2 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS), Vendor-Designed and Fabricated, and Bilateral

Agreement Furnished Hardware

6.9.3 M&P Usage Documentation

6.9.4 Materials Usage Agreements (MUAs)

6.9.5 Detailed Requirements

6.9.5.1 Flammability, Offgassing, and Compatibility Requirements

6.9.5.1.1 Toxic Offgassing (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.1.2)

6.9.5.1.2 Fluid Compatibility (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.1.3)

6.9.5.1.3 Oxygen Compatibility (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.1.4)

6.9.5.1.4 Electrical Wire Insulation Materials (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.1.5) vii

6.9.5.1.5 Thermal Vacuum Stability (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.3.6)

6.9.5.1.6 Glycols (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.3.9)

6.9.5.2 Processes

6.9.5.2.1 Adhesive Bonding (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.4.5)

6.9.5.2.2 Additive Manufacturing (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.4.11)

6.9.5.3 Material Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE)

6.9.5.3.1 Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Plan (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.5.1) 27

6.9.5.4 Special Materials Requirements

6.9.5.4.1 Fastener Installation (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.6)

6.9.5.4.1.1 Liquid Locking Compounds (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.6.1) . 27

6.9.5.4.2 Silver-Plated Fasteners (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.6.2)

6.9.5.4.3 Contamination Control (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.7)

6.9.5.4.4 Packaging (NASA-STD-6016A Section 4.2.6.8)

6.9.5.4.5 Shelf-Life Items

6.9.5.5 Verification

6.9.5.5.1 Printed Wiring Boards (PWBs)

6.9.5.5.2 Solder Flux

6.9.5.5.3 Fasteners with Longitudinal Locking Elements

6.9.6 Materials Procurement Requirements

6.9.7 Welding

6.10 Contamination Control Requirements

6.10.1 Contamination Control Plan

6.10.2 Surface Cleanliness

6.10.3 Thermal Vacuum Bakeouts

6.10.4 Foreign Object Debris Program

6.11 System Safety Requirements

6.11.1 System Safety Program Plan

6.11.2 Safety Requirements Compliance Checklist

6.11.3 Hazard Analyses

6.11.3.1 Operations Hazard Analysis (OHA) and Hazard Verification Tracking Log

(VTL) 31

6.11.4 Verification Tracking Log (VTL)

6.12 Reliability Requirements

6.12.1 Reliability Program Plan (RPP)

6.12.2 Limited Life Items

7 HANDLING, STORAGE, PACKAGING, PRESERVATION, AND DELIVERY

APPENDIX A GSFC PCB SUBMITTAL AND MATERIAL SELECTION FORMS

APPENDIX B ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The Roman Space Telescope (RST) is a mission responding to the 2010 National Research Council New Worlds, New Horizons (NWNH) Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey top priority recommendation in the large space mission category. The science program includes two dedicated investigations to tackle outstanding questions in dark energy research and exoplanet exploration, and includes a substantial General Observer program to enable targeted investigations of astrophysical phenomena to advance other goals from the Decadal Survey. A coronagraph instrument is included in the payload for purposes of advancing the present state of the art of coronagraph technology. This document defines the work to be performed by the Contractor in the design, development, fabrication, and delivery of the Roman SpaceTelescope (RST) pressure transducers.

1.2 Scope

This Statement of Work (SOW) defines requirements that govern the management, development, testing, and delivery of the RST pressure transducers. It defines the contractor tasks, deliverables, responsibilities, and schedule, either within this document or by reference. More details for the Deliverable Items List and Schedule (DILS) are contained in WFIRST-PROP-

LIST-0019

1.3 Related Documentation

In the event of a conflict between the SOW and the specification, the SOW shall take precedence.

The latest versions of all documents below shall be used unless otherwise specified in this SOW.

RST documents can be obtained from URL: https://ipdtdms.gsfc.nasa.gov/.

1.3.1 Applicable Documents [and Forms]

The following documents are referenced within this document and are directly applicable or contain policies or other directive matters that are binding for the contents of this document. In the event of conflict between an Applicable Document and the content of this document, the RST Project Configuration Change Board has the final authority for conflict resolution.

Document Number Title WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053 RST Pressure Transducer Specification WFIRST-PROP-LIST-0019 RST Propulsion Subsystem Pressure Transducer Deliverable

Items List and Schedule (DILS)

WFIRST-SMA-REQ-0032 RST Mission Assurance Requirements

541-PG-8072.1.2C Goddard Space Flight Center Fastener Integrity Requirements

NASA-STD-6016A Standard Materials and Processes Requirements for Spacecraft

GSFC EEE-INST-002 Instructions for EEE Parts Selection, Screening, Qualification, and Derating

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

GSFC-STD-8002 GSFC Standard Quality Assurance Requirements for the Use of Water Soluble Flux

NASA-STD-6008 NASA Fastener Procurement, Receiving Inspection, and Storage Practices for Spaceflight Hardware

NAS 412 Foreign Object Damage (FOD) Prevention Guidance Document Standard Practice

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

WFIRST-SMA-LIST-0027 RST MAR Applicability Matrix

ASTM E-595-15 Standard test method for total mass loss and collected volatile condensable materials from outgassing in a vacuum environment

MSFC-SPEC-445A Adhesive Bonding, Process and Inspection, Requirements for

NASA-STD-5005 NASA Technical Standards System

2 MANAGEMENT, REPORTING, REVIEWS, AND DOCUMENTATION

2.1 Program management

The contractor shall provide the facilities, personnel, services, tools, equipment, and materials necessary to design, analyze, manufacture, test, and deliver the hardware and data in accordance with the requirements of this SOW and the documents referenced herein.

The contractor shall generate a matrix listing each section in this statement of work reflecting either compliance or non-compliance. (DIL #1) Areas of non-compliance need to be addressed by the contractor showing how they plan to meet the requirement(s) or why it will remain non-compliant.

The contractor shall designate a single individual who will be given full responsibility and authority to manage and administer all phases of the work specified by the contract and ensure that all objectives are accomplished within schedule constraints.

The contractor shall designate and identify by name a single individual to serve as a point of contact with the NASA/GSFC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for all technical aspects of the pressure transducer contract.

The contractor shall establish and apply a program control system for managing all resources, controlling schedules, managing all engineering, manufacturing and procurement activities, configuration management, Quality Assurance, and documentation control.

2.2 Reporting

The contractor shall prepare and present to the NASA/GSFC COR weekly technical status reports via telecon and monthly written reports. (DIL #2) The report shall be a summary presentation of the period's progress to include topics such as schedule overview, accomplishments, technical performance measures (e.g. mass and power), status of key milestones, risks, problem areas, challenges/issues, quality assurance issues/status, and activities on-going and planned.

The contractor shall generate a list of significant milestones that will enable the NASA/GSFC COR to ascertain program progress. (DIL #3)

2.3 Advanced Notifications

The contractor shall notify the NASA/GSFC COR at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of all mandatory hardware inspections, test activities, Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM’s), and deliveries at either the contractor’s or a subcontractor’s facility to allow timely participation by the NASA/GSFC Quality Assurance representative. (DIL #4) Event specific notification requirements (such as failures, anomalies, etc.) are included in the appropriate sections.

2.4 Reviews and Meetings

2.4.1 Kick-off Meeting

The Contractor shall organize and hold a Kick-off Meeting at the Contractor’s facility prior to any activity identified in this SOW. (DIL #5)

The Contractor shall provide to the NASA/GSFC COR a Kick-off Presentation Package and all other required deliverables. (DIL #6) The Kick-off Meeting shall address program management and quality assurance activities outlined in this SOW, as well as the performance and environmental requirements outlined in the Pressure Transducer Specification (WFIRST-PROP- SPEC-0053) in sufficient detail to demonstrate understanding of contract requirements. At a minimum, the presentation package should cover the following areas:

• Program Management

• Quality Assurance

• Pressure Transducer Design Description

• Preliminary Interface Control Documents

• Flight Heritage

• Facilities

• Qualification Verification Plan and Procedure

• Mechanical Analysis with Boundary Conditions

• Any long-lead items that need to be ordered prior to the Design Conformance Review

Review minutes shall be prepared and delivered to the NASA/GSFC COR within three (3) working days after the meeting. The minutes shall include at a minimum, attendance, action items, action item accomplishment responsibility and agreements. (DIL #74)

2.4.2 Design Conformance Review (DCR)

The contractor shall organize and present a Design Conformance Review to a GSFC Review Team at the contractor’s facility prior to the manufacturing program. (DIL #7)

The contractor shall provide to the NASA/GSFC COR a Design Conformance Review Presentation Package and all other required deliverable data prior to the review. (DIL #8) The Design Conformance Review shall address all program management, design, drawings, analysis, manufacturing, test, and quality assurance activities outlined in this SOW and the RST Pressure Transducer Specification (WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053) in sufficient detail to ensure that the proposed design conforms to all requirements and is ready for fabrication to begin. At a minimum, the design package should cover the following areas:

• Program Management

• Quality Assurance

• Electrical, Mechanical, and Environmental specifications

• Parts, including stress analysis and radiation hardness assessment

• Detailed architectural block diagrams for the different deliverable units

• Fabrication, Assembly, and Inspection Flow plan with customer Mandatory Inspection

Points (MIPs) identified

• Facilities

• Verification Test Plan (Including Performance Test Description)

• Qualification plans (if applicable)

• Qualification by similarity (if applicable)

• Materials and Processes (as-designed)

• Contamination Control (for items sensitive to contamination or with explicit surface cleanliness or outgassing requirements)

• Mechanical/Structural analyses

• Thermal analysis

• Electrical Worst-Case analyses

• Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis

• Flight Heritage

• Specification Verification Matrix (per Section 6.7.1)

• Accuracy Analysis (preliminary)

• Pressure transducer operational constraints document (preliminary)

Review minutes shall be prepared and delivered to the NASA/GSFC COR within three (3) action item accomplishment responsibility and agreements. (DIL #9)

2.4.3 Qualification Test Readiness Review (QTRR)

The supplier shall hold a Qualification Test Readiness Review (QTRR) at the supplier's facility prior to starting qualification testing, if applicable (DIL #75). The supplier shall demonstrate that all qualification hardware manufacturing steps are complete, show that all analysis verifications are complete, show readiness of all activities required for testing, and describe in detail any activities that are not yet ready with a completion schedule for each. All measurement and test equipment used shall comply with Section 13, Metrology and Calibration, of the MAR (WFIRST- SMA-REQ-0032). In particular, the supplier shall present the updated specification verification matrix and all test procedures. The NASA/GSFC COR and customer technical team will attend the QTRR.

The QTRR package shall be delivered to the COR two (2) weeks prior to QTRR, unless otherwise stated (DIL #76). All Qualification Test Procedures shall be submitted to the COR for review four

(4) weeks prior to ATRR (DIL #77).

At a minimum, the QTRR package shall address:

• Summary of qualification hardware manufacturing results

• Any non-conformances and problem reports

• Risk Reduction Report

• Manufacturing lessons learned (for incorporation into flight build)

• As-built materials and processes, including as-built material certifications

• Specification verification matrix

• All procedures required for the qualification tests

• The list of tests to be conducted as part of the overall procedure

• Availability of facilities and personnel

• Special test equipment, e.g., for hot and cold tests

• Accuracy of instruments used to record test data

• How the tests are monitored and signed off

• Accept / reject criteria for each test

• How the data results are recorded and transmitted to the customer

• Any risks associated with each test including safety risks, risks in not obtaining accurate data, or any other risk which it is appropriate to discuss

Review minutes shall be prepared and delivered to the NASA/GSFC COR within three (3) action item accomplishment responsibility and agreements. (DIL #79).

2.4.4 Acceptance Test Readiness Review (ATRR)

The supplier shall hold an Acceptance Test Readiness Review (ATRR) at the supplier's facility prior to the beginning of the acceptance test campaign. (DIL #80) This presentation shall demonstrate overall conformance of the requirements specified in the RST Pressure Transducer Specification (WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053) and this Statement of Work for this phase of the procurement. The supplier shall demonstrate that all hardware manufacturing steps are complete, show that all analysis verifications are complete, show readiness of all activities required for testing, and describe in detail any activities that are not yet ready with a completion schedule for each. In particular, the supplier shall present the updated Specification Verification Matrix and all test procedures. The COR and customer technical team will attend the ATRR.

The ATRR package shall be delivered to the COR two (2) weeks prior to ATRR, unless otherwise stated (DIL #81). All Acceptance Test Procedures shall be submitted to the COR for review four

(4) weeks prior to ATRR (DIL #82)

The specific pre-acceptance testing data shall also be provided at the ATRR.

The ATRR package shall address:

• Summary of hardware manufacturing results

• Any non-conformances and problem reports

• Manufacturing lessons learned

• As-built materials and processes, including as-built material certifications

• Specification verification matrices

• All procedures required for the tests

• Availability of facilities and personnel

• The list of tests to be conducted as part of the overall procedure

• Special test equipment, e.g., for hot and cold tests

• Accuracy of instruments used to record test data

• How the tests are monitored and signed off

• Accept / reject criteria for each test

• How the data is recorded and transmitted to the customer

• Current hardware status, including build paperwork

• Any risks associated with each test, including safety risks, risks in not obtaining accurate data, or any other risk which it is appropriate to discuss

Review minutes shall be prepared following the review and, as a minimum, contain meeting notice, agenda, review meeting minutes described above and responses to all recommendations and action items (DIL #83).

2.4.5 Pre-Ship Review (PSR)

The contractor shall hold a Pre-Ship Review at the contractor's facility at the completion of verification tests and prior to the shipment of each hardware item to NASA/GSFC. (DIL #12) This presentation shall demonstrate completion of all activities required for delivery of any hardware deliverable item to NASA/GSFC, and note any activities that are incomplete. In particular, the contractor shall present the completed verification matrix that shows verification of all requirements and presents actual data (results of tests or analyses) where applicable. (DIL #13) Any requirements that are not met shall be identified in the Deviations/Waivers etc. list and discussed with NASA/GSFC during the review.

An End Item Data Package (EIDP) shall be made available for review during pre-ship reviews for each of the different hardware deliverables. (DIL #14, MAR DID 15-1) This package shall also be delivered with each end item with the level of detail required of that item. The package should be comprised of, but not limited to, the following data:

• The deliverable pressure transducer, serial number, part number, and classification status (e.g., flight, non-flight, ground support).

• Appropriate approval signatures (e.g., contractor’s quality representative, product design lead, government Representative)

• Work orders for the final assembly and associated tests

• As-Built vs. As Designed Parts List, (EEE parts, includes serialization/revisions)

• As-Built Final Drawing Package (including rework instructions, if any)

• Problem/anomaly reporting (complete copies of report)

• Deviations/Waivers/shortages/open items/non-conformances and their dispositions, with supporting rationale

• Status of all action items from previous reviews

• Class I Material Review Boards (MRBs) (complete copies of reports)

• List of As-Built Materials and Processes used

• Achieved surface cleanliness and outgassing rate data (when applicable)

• Log of total operating time and failure-free operation, separated by primary/redundant sides, if any

• Accuracy analysis (final)

• Pressure transducer operational constraints document (final)

• List and status of all identified Life-Limited Items

• Trended Critical Parameters Data (when applicable)

• Specification verification matrix (including environmental), test data and reports

• Acceptance test results

• Photograph Documentation (Pre and Post conformal coating, Pre-Closure and Closed)

• Certificate of Conformance, with management signature

• End Item Inspection Report

• As-Built Configuration List

• Mate/Demate log

• Printed circuit board coupon results

• Storage and Transportation Plans and Requirements

2.4.6 Technical Interchange Meetings (TIM)

The contractor shall plan for and facilitate up to three (3) informal, face-to-face technical interchange meetings to be held at the contractor facilities. (DIL #15) These TIMs shall support review and coordination of technical issues including, but not limited to, parts, test plans, test procedures, software changes, design modifications, and design analyses.

2.5 Documentation

The contractor shall ensure the generation and delivery of all documentation as called for in the contract (Section B Table) and listed in the DILS document, WFIRST-PROP-LIST-0019.

In addition to that documentation specifically called for in the contract, upon request by the NASA/GSFC COR, the contractor shall make available a copy of any document or data generated during this contract performance for review by GSFC at either the contractor's facility or via the internet. This includes, but is not limited to, technical reports and memorandums, drawings, schematics, studies, analyses, parts and materials data, test data, alerts, etc.

2.6 Reserved

2.7 Existing Documentation and Analysis

If analysis or documentation exists already for the flight unit that satisfies the requirements within the Pressure Transducer Specification (WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053) and the descriptions in Section 3, then the analysis or documentation may not need to be redone, and the requirement can be satisfied by similarity and with the delivery of the previous analysis/documentation to the

NASA/GSFC COR.

2.8 Qualification By Similarity Report

Any requirements that are verified through Qualification By Similarity (QBS) shall be approved by the NASA/GSFC COR, and the qualification reports for any similarity items shall be made available to the NASA/GSFC COR. Any design differences to referenced QBS items shall be documented in this report. Any QBS items that are not accepted by the NASA/GSFC COR shall be re-verified through qualification testing. The QBS report shall contain detailed rationale for acceptance of each verification proposed for QBS, including test methods, data as supporting evidence of compliance, and any risks identified in the QBS approach. Any differences to referenced QBS items shall be documented in this report. The QBS report shall be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR at DCR. (DIL #49)

3 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

The contractor shall perform analyses of the technical and environmental requirements specified in the RST Pressure Transducer Specification (WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053) to ensure compliance of the hardware fabrication and to assemble the documentation necessary to ensure its usability by NASA/GSFC users. Previous analyses may be submitted for the items below per Section 2.7.

3.1 Interface Control Documentation

The Contractor shall provide the following documents (DIL #16):

• Mechanical Interface Control Document (MICD), including physical characteristics, mounting interface, outline drawing, thermal coatings on surfaces

• Electrical Interface Control Document (EICD), including connector identification, connector pinouts, detailed description of each signal, interface circuits, command description, command sequencing/timing, data (telemetry) description (Data Interface Control Document could be a part of this EICD or a standalone document)

3.2 Drawing Package

The contractor shall provide a drawing package that includes, but is not limited to: (DIL #17)

ELECTRICAL: assembly and interface drawings (board level schematics available on request) MECHANICAL: assembly and interface drawings

3.3 Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Models

The contractor shall deliver the following computer models (DIL #18)

a) A native Computer-Aided Design (CAD) file for the pressure transducers

b) A Mechanical Model in STEP file format

3.4 Structural Analysis Report

The purpose of the structural analyses is to demonstrate compliance with the mechanical/structural design and test requirements. Structural analyses verify the structural integrity of the flight hardware by assessing the size and location of applied loads, load paths, and critical failure modes. A Structural Analysis shall be provided for the Flight Unit structure to ensure the capability to withstand and survive launch and ascent loads. (DIL #19) The analysis shall also address loads on any lift points as well. The effects of any thermal inputs shall be reflected in the analyses as appropriate. This analysis shall include a Venting analyses for applicable flight components (such as thermal blankets and contamination enclosures) susceptible to pressure loadings to verify that positive strength margins exist at loads equal to the maximum pressure differential during launch. Electronics boxes which meet the design requirements of Electronic Box Minimum Vent Area need not perform additional venting analysis. The results of these analyses shall be summarized in a contractor format Structural Analyses Report that will be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

3.5 Structural Finite Element Model

Contractors shall submit a finite element model that supports the conclusions in their structural analysis report. (DIL #20)

3.6 Thermal Analysis Report

The contractor shall provide a worst case thermal analysis that illustrates that the device and/or the electronic parts junction temperatures are within the Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) EEE-INST-002 (DIL #21) de-rated operational temperature limits when subjected to the boundary conditions specified in the Item Name Specification (WFIRST- PROP-SPEC-0053 This analysis shall be performed with the components operating at their maximum expected power dissipations. All analysis results shall be summarized in a thermal analyses report, to be provided for review as per the contract schedule. This report shall contain a comprehensive list of each component’s maximum expected power dissipation, maximum case temperature, theta JC, maximum junction temperature, and de-rated operational temperature limit. Additionally, this report shall contain a thorough description of the computer models (or reference to the documentation required from section 3.7 (Thermal Model and Documentation) of this document) and the assumptions that were used to perform the analysis including boundary conditions, surface finish thermo-optical properties, interface conductances.

3.7 Thermal Model and Documentation

The contractor shall provide reduced Thermal Math Models (TMMs) for the pressure transducers with less than 50 nodes per box, in Thermal Desktop/SINDA format or another format pre-approved by the RST Thermal group (DIL #22).

The Thermal model documentation shall include:

• Labeled figures (drawings, cross-sections, etc) in sufficient detail to show all critical components and their relative locations within the pressure transducers

• List of all critical components, their material composition and relevant properties (density, specific heat, conductivity, etc).

• Listing of other relevant modeling assumptions (boundary conditions, interface conductances, thermo-optical properties, etc)

• Listing of component thermal dissipations for all operational and survival modes over which the hardware is intended to operate

If the contractor does not have the project-compatible software to create TMMs, then the contractor shall provide sufficient detailed information such that GSFC can create the TMMs. Documentation shall be provided including detailed descriptions of all aspects of the model necessary for GSFC to run and/or recreate the TMMs.

3.8 Radiation Hardness Analysis Report

The contractor shall perform a Radiation Hardness Analysis on the pressure transducer design to determine the effects of Total Ionizing Dose (TID), Displacement Damage Dose (DDD) and Single Event Effects (SEE) on performance. (DIL #23) The analysis shall address all the requirements contained in WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053. The results of these analyses shall be summarized in a Contractor format Radiation Hardness Analyses Report that will be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

3.9 Reliability Analysis Report

The developer shall perform comparative numerical reliability assessment and reliability predictions (DIL #50 / MAR DID 6-6) to:

a. Evaluate alternative design concepts, redundancy, cross-strapping approaches, and part substitutions

b. Identify the elements of the design that are the greatest detractors of system reliability

c. Identify those potential mission limiting elements and components that will require special attention in part selection, testing, environmental isolation, and/or special operations

d. Assist in evaluating the ability of the design to achieve the mission life requirement and other reliability goals and requirements as applicable

e. Evaluate the impact of proposed engineering change and waiver requests on reliability

f. Assure that the specified reliability (probability of success) is achieved in accordance with the Mission Requirements Document (WFIRST-SYS-REQ-0011, MRD-389).

The numerical reliability assessment and reliability predictions shall use reliability data from historical on-orbit performance, life-testing, or data books, such as MIL-HDBK-217F. The results of this analysis shall be summarized in a contractor format Reliability Analysis Report that will be provided to the NASA/GSFC COR for review.

3.10 Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) Report The vendor shall identify pressure transducer failure modes for a Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) in accordance with MIL-STD-1629, Task 101. (DIL #51 / MAR DID 6-2) In addition to Task 101, the vendor shall rate the failure mode probability from 1 to 5, with 1 being the most probable and 5 being the least probable (see MIL-STD-1629 for details).

The FMECA shall only identify failure modes and identify how these failures can be detected, but not address system-level consequences. The failure modes shall be summarized in a vendor-format FMECA Report that will be provided to the COR for review.

3.11 Worst Case Analysis (WCA)

The developer shall perform Worst-Case Analyses (WCAs) (DIL #52, MAR DID 6-5) on performance critical or functional critical components for which excessive operating variations could compromise mission performance to assure the design meets critical performance and life requirements.

Elements that may warrant worst case analysis may include: resets, clocks, interfaces, power phase and gain margins, control loops that require adequate phase and gain margin to operate properly, sensitive analog circuitry, power supply or switching circuitry, motor and actuator systems, electro-mechanical elements that require torque margin to operate over life and environmental variations.

Adequate margins in electronic circuits and electro-mechanical devices can be verified by analysis, testing or both.

When verification by analysis is used, the analyses shall consider all parameters at worst-case limits and worst-case environmental conditions for the parameter or operation being evaluated.

Similarly, when verification by testing is used, the testing shall be conducted to provide as direct a measure as possible of the critical performance or function while the element is subjected to worst-case parameter variations.

This analysis shall be made available at the NASA facility for the RST Project review.

The results of any analyses shall be presented at all design reviews starting with CDR.

3.12 Stress and Derating Analysis

The developer shall perform parts stress and derating analyses for electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) parts in accordance with GSFC EEE-INST-002 Instructions for EEE Parts Selection, Screening, Qualification, and Derating (DILS #57 / MAR DID 6-4).

The analyses shall be performed at the most stressful values that result from specified performance and environmental requirements (e.g., temperature and voltage) on the assembly or component. IF, alternate derating guidelines are requested to be used, they must be submitted to the RST Parts Control Board for approval.

3.13 Preliminary Hazard Analysis

The developer shall perform a Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) to obtain an initial risk assessment and to identify safety critical areas of a concept or system. (DIL #69 / DID 5-4) The developer shall evaluate hazards associated with the proposed design or function for severity, control approach (fault tolerance or design for minimum risk), and operational constraints. The developer shall identify safety provisions and alternatives that are needed to eliminate hazards or reduce their associated risk to an acceptable level.

3.14 Trend Analysis

The developer shall prepare and maintain a list of subsystem and components to be assessed, parameters to be monitored, and trend analysis reports as defined in the Reliability Program Plan.

The developer shall begin the monitoring, collection, and analysis at component acceptance testing and continue through the system integration and test phases.

Trend data shall be recorded and maintained (DILS #72, MAR DID 15-1). The developer shall prepare a report that includes the trending data.

3.15 Error Analysis Report

An Error Analysis shall be performed on the Flight Unit Pressure Transducer Design that identifies all the factors that introduce error into the accuracy of the pressure transducers, and shows that the system can meet its performance requirements in spite of the errors. Errors may include, but not be limited to: Alignment error, radiation effects, electronic noise, degradation of parts, optical distortions, thermal distortions, quaternion algorithm calculations, etc. An Error Tree shall be generated documenting ALL the sources of error, along with an Error Analyses Report and provided to NASA/GSFC COR for review. (DIL #24)

3.16 Reserved

3.17 User/Instruction Manual

The contractor shall provide an operational constraints document for the transducer design, which describes constraints on handling and operation to prevent unintentional damage to the flight hardware. At a minimum, the operational constraints document shall cover the following items:

• Maximum voltage application duration to avoid damaging electronics (results of worst-case thermal analysis)

• Maximum and minimum storage temperature and humidity

• Maximum exposure temperature and pressure limits without affecting transducer performance

• Compatible fluids The supplier shall deliver this document prior to the DCR. (DIL #26)

4 HARDWARE PROCUREMENT/MANUFACTURING

4.1 General Requirements

The contractor shall either procure or manufacture all components required to assemble, integrate, and test the pressure transducers to support the delivery dates as called for in the contract (Section B Table) and listed in the DILS document, WFIRST-PROP-LIST-0019.

The contractor shall assemble the quantities of pressure transducer hardware described below.

The contractor shall provide a Fabrication, Assembly, and Inspection Flow plan at the DCR that includes a step-by-step procedure that describes the method of fabrication, assembly, and inspection from piece parts to the completely assembled pressure transducers.

The developer shall direct the suspension of any work activity that presents a hazard, or imminent danger, or future hazard to personnel, property, or mission operations resulting from unsafe acts or conditions that are identified by inspection, test, or analysis.

4.2 Pressure Transducers

The contractor shall provide the following hardware to meet the requirements of the RST Pressure Transducer Specification (WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053).

a) Four (4) Pressure Transducer Flight Unit(s) with operating range 0-400 psia, plus one (1) spare unit (DIL #44)

The contractor shall include in the proposal the cost to purchase all hardware including all supporting hardware.

4.3 Connector Savers

Flight Units shall be tested with connector savers to minimize mates and de-mates. Flight-like connector savers shall be delivered with each Flight Unit. (DIL # 45)

4.4 Supporting Hardware

The Contractor shall provide the following supporting hardware:

• Four (4) mating connectors (DIL #46)

• Two (2) additional mating connectors (DIL #46)

• Four (4) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) protective caps (DIL #46)

4.5 Reserved

5 PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION AND TEST

5.1 Verification Plan

A Verification Plan shall be generated by the contractor to describe the details of how the analyses, inspections, and verification tests identified in the RST Pressure Transducer Specification WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053 will be performed. (DIL #28) Verification tests shall demonstrate the item meets all of the specified performance requirements over the specified range of environments, measure performance parameters and reveal inadequacies in manufacturing and assembly such as workmanship or material problems. Any requirement that exceeds previous qualification test data shall be presented to the NASA/GSFC COR as part of the planning process for evaluation and a possible delta qualification test.

The plan shall state the purpose of each test, state acceptance criteria, describe in detail the test method, set up, instrumentation, data analysis methods (if applicable), and give the sequence of the tests. The plan shall include a verification matrix summarizing how all requirements are verified (analysis, inspection, test, per the definitions in the Spec.), and listing all tests that will be performed on the pressure transducers.

This plan shall be a contractor controlled document and indicate all changes made after the initial approval by the NASA/GSFC COR. After Verification Plan approval, no changes shall be made without written NASA/GSFC COR approval.

If any individual test plans are created in addition to the master Verification Plan, such as for Thermal Vacuum testing, those plans shall also be provided. (DIL #29)

5.2 Verification Test Procedures

The contractor shall generate Verification Test Procedures and provide them to the NASA/GSFC COR. (DIL #30) The verification procedures shall be step-by-step instructions for performing tests outlined by the Verification Test Plan. The procedures shall define the environmental conditions for the tests, required equipment and facilities, test constraints, use of diagnostic or performance test software, operating conditions, tolerance on all input stimuli, data to be recorded and pass/fail limits. All measurement and test equipment used shall comply with Section 13, Metrology and Calibration, of the MAR (WFIRST-SMA-REQ-0032).

Verification Test Procedures shall be contractor controlled documents and indicate all changes made after the initial release for review to NASA. The Thermal Vacuum Test Procedure shall include the contents listed in Section 6.10.3 for the Chamber Configuration.

5.3 Verification Test Reports

The contractor shall generate Verification Test Reports. (DIL #31) These reports shall document the results of each test that was performed, what test levels were achieved, what performance requirements were verified, what anomalies were seen, and how they were resolved. The Thermal Vacuum Test Report may include the Bakeout results (see Section 6.10.3) if it can be delivered by the delivery date for Bakeout Test Results.

6 SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE

6.1 General Requirements

The Contractor shall comply with the applicable safety and mission assurance requirements documented in the RST Mission Assurance Requirements (MAR) (WFIRST-SMA-REQ-0032).

All corresponding deliverables shall be delivered as described in MAR Data Item Descriptions (DIDs).

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 apply in their entirety.

Section 5 applies with the exception of:

Section 5.3.3.3 does not apply Section 5.3.3.4 does not apply Section 5.3.4 does not apply Section 5.3.6 does not apply Section 5.3.7 does not apply Section 5.3.8 does not apply Section 5.3.10 does not apply

Section 6 applies with the exception of:

Section 6.3 does not apply Section 6.4 does not apply Section 6.5 MAR #082, #086, and #090 do not apply Section 6.6 does not apply Section 6.14 does not apply

Section 7 does not apply.

Section 8 does not apply.

Sections 9 and 10 apply in their entirety.

Section 11 applies with the exception of:

Section 11.4 does not apply

Sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 apply in their entirety.

The Contractor’s plan for compliance with the MAR shall be documented in the RST-specific Mission Assurance Implementation Plan (MAIP) or Quality Assurance Plan. (DIL #32 / MAR DID 3-1) The MAIP or Quality Assurance Plan shall include a mission assurance requirements compliance matrix that identifies variances and acceptance rationale for processes, procedures, and standards that are proposed as alternatives to those specified by the Appendix C of the MAR, “Mission Assurance Compliance Matrix,” and delivered for acceptance. The MAIP or QA Plan shall include a list of key sub-tier suppliers.

While the MAIP or Quality Assurance Plan represents how the developer will meet the MAR requirements using their internal documentation; it does not supersede the MAR requirements.

The work activities and operations of the contractor, subcontractors, and suppliers are subject to evaluation, review, survey, audit, and inspection by NASA/GSFC representative.

6.2 Configuration Management

The contractor’s Configuration Management (CM) system (available for review on request) shall control the design and hardware/software by means of drawings, specifications, and other documents and ensure all applicable changes are reviewed in a systematic manner to determine the validity and impact on performance, schedule and cost. The contractor’s Configuration Management system shall have a change classification and impact assessment process that ensures Class I changes are forwarded to the CO for approval prior to release/incorporation.

(DIL #33) Class I changes are defined as changes that affect form, fit, function, external interfaces, or requirements as stated within this document and the Pressure Transducer Specification (WFIRST-PROP-SPEC-0053).

All other changes are considered to be Class II changes and shall be controlled and dispositioned by the contractor. All Class II changes shall be provided monthly to the NASA/GSFC COR for review purposes. (DIL #34) NASA/GSFC reserves the right to review all Class II changes for technical content to ensure the proper classification has been assigned. Any flight item that is found to be non-compliant with the quality, workmanship and performance requirements of the contract shall be dispositioned via a waiver or Materials Review Board (MRB), unless the affected item is reworked to restore compliance or is replaced with a fully compliant item. The contractor shall submit Waivers and MRBs to the NASA/GSFC COR for final approval.

A contractor QA representative shall be a member of the Configuration Control Board. The QA activities shall be defined in the Configuration Management Plan and described in detail in the QA Plan. Related portions of the plans shall be cross-referenced.

6.3 Training and Certification of Contractor Personnel

All personnel performing work on flight hardware requiring a prerequisite set of skills and competency shall be certified as having completed the required training, appropriate to their involvement.

6.4 Surveillance of the Contractor

The work activities and operations of the contractor, and all subsequent sub-tier suppliers shall be subject to evaluation, review, survey, and inspection by a customer representative, as covered by the RST Project Surveillance Plan.

The contractor shall provide the customer representative with access to documents, records, equipment, and working areas within their facilities that are required by the representative to perform their overview activities.

6.4.1 Government Source Inspection

The COR may elect to perform inspections at a contractor’s facilities. The following statement shall be included on all procurement documents: “All work on this order is subject to inspection and test by the Government in accordance with the inspection clauses in the contract.”

The quality representative who has been delegated customer quality assurance functions on this procurement shall be notified immediately upon contractor receipt of any sub-tier suppliers’ orders. The customer representative shall also be notified 48 hours in advance of the time that articles or materials are ready for inspection or test.

6.4.2 Contractor Source Inspection

The contractor shall ensure that its procurement documents impose the applicable requirements on all its suppliers, and ensure those requirements are flowed down to all subsequent sub-tier suppliers.

The contractor shall perform source inspection at their suppliers’ or sub-tier suppliers’ facilities in accordance with the procurement documentation or when one or more of the following conditions exist:

• In process, end item controls, or tests that are destructive in nature prevent the supplier from verifying quality after delivery to the supplier facility.

• It is not feasible or economical for the suppler to determine the quality of procured articles solely by inspections or tests performed at the supplier’s facility.

• Qualification tests are to be performed by the sub-tier supplier or supplier.

• Products are shipped directly from the source to the Government, bypassing the supplier’s inspection facilities.

6.4.3 Government Mandatory Inspection Points (MIPs)

The required MIPs are outlined in this section. The COR may request additional MIPs, as required. In the event that proper notification has been made and 48 hours have elapsed without the MIP being accomplished, the supplier may waive the MIP after receiving COR approval.

MIPs shall be reviewed during fabrication flow discussions at the major reviews as described in Section

2.4. Completed and upcoming MIPs shall be included in monthly status reports to ensure clear communication of MIP status.

At a minimum, the following activities shall be considered MIPs for the pressure transducer contract:

• Staking

• All weld nondestructive evaluation (NDE)

• Soldering inspection

• Polarity inspection

• Crimping inspection

• Inspection prior to any case closeout

• Pre-ship review

At a MIP, the vendor shall make available for review/inspection the hardware, waivers, non-conformance reports (NCRs), non-destructive evaluation (NDE) results, or any other documentation that will enable the COR to evaluate the completeness of the hardware at the MIP. The COR may choose to be present for the MIP event, may choose to review documents remotely, or may waive the MIP entirely.

6.5 Anomaly Reporting

The developer shall have a documented closed loop system per DID 4-1, for identifying, reporting, and correcting product nonconformance and anomalies. (DIL #53 / MAR DID 4-1)

The Mission Assurance Implementation Plan (MAIP) shall include a documented process for the establishment and operation of an Anomaly Review Board (ARB) to process nonconformances, including the definitions of major and minor nonconformances (DIL #32 / MAR DID 3-1).

Major nonconformances (Class I) are those that affect form, fit or function, critical path schedule, cost, performance or interfaces, safety, reliability or contract requirements. These processes shall ensure that positive corrective action has been taken to preclude recurrence and that appropriate audits and tests are performed to verify the implementation of the corrective action.

The developer shall appoint an ARB chairperson who is responsible for implementing the ARB process, and functional and project representatives as ARB members. Anomaly Review Boards (ARBs) shall include the Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer (CSO) or delegate and other government representatives who will be voting members on all major nonconformance's involving procured hardware.

ARBs include Material Review Boards (MRBs) and Failure Review Boards (FRBs). The supplier’s anomaly reporting document shall describe the members of the Material Review Board (MRB) and Failure…