Completing Pre–Phase A (Concept Studies) Activities and Preparing for Phase A (Concept and

Technology Development)

4.3.2.1 Finalizing Plans for Phase A

As the project FAD is being developed at Headquarters, the project concur- rently begins to develop its project Formulation Agreement. (See “Formula- tion Agreement” box for additional information.)

In preparation for completing the Pre–Phase A activities, the project docu- ments the results of its efforts in this period. The project team generates the documentation specified in NPR 7123.1 and the product Tables I-4 and I-5 in NPR 7120.5E and Tables 4-6 and 4-7 at the end of this chapter. Most of these documents have been described above. Inclusion of information in the Formulation Agreement, the basis of cost and schedule estimates, draft and preliminary versions of project documents and plans, and/or the Mission Concept Review (MCR) briefing package may satisfy some of the documen- tation.

4.3 Project Formulation

4.3.2.2 Project Pre–Phase A Reporting Activities and Preparing for Major Milestones

4.3.2.2.1 Project Reporting

The project reports to the Center, as requested by the Center, to enable the Center Director to evaluate whether engineering, SMA, health and medical, and management best practices (e.g., project management, resource manage- ment, procurement, and institutional best practices) are being followed, and whether Center resources support project requirements. The project also provides project risks and the status and progress of activities so the Center can identify and report trends and provide guidance to the Agency and affected programs and projects. The CMC (or equivalent) provides its findings and recommendations to project managers and to the appropriate PMCs regarding the performance and technical and management viability

Formulation Agreement

The Formulation Agreement serves as a tool for communicating and negotiating the project’s schedule and funding requirements during Phase A and Phase B with the Mission Directorate. It identifies and prioritizes the technical and acquisition activities that will have the most value during Formulation and informs follow-on plans. The Formulation Agreement focuses on the work necessary to accurately characterize the complexity and scope of the project; increase understanding of requirements; identify and mitigate safety, technical, cost, and schedule risks, and develop high quality cost and schedule estimates. (For projects with a LCC greater than $250 million, this work enables the project to develop high-fidelity cost and schedule range estimates and associated confidence levels at KDP B, and high-fidelity cost and schedule commitments and associated JCL at KDP C, and to commit to a successful plan for Implementation at KDP C.) These activities include establishing the internal management control functions that will be used throughout the life of the project. The Agree- ment is approved and signed at KDP A (baselined for Phase A and preliminary for Phase B). The Agreement is updated in preparation for the System Definition Review (SDR)/Mission Definition Review (MDR) and resub- mitted for signature at KDP B (baselined for Phase B). The Formulation Agreement for KDP A includes detailed Phase A information, preliminary Phase B information, and the Formulation Cost, which is based on the esti- mated costs for Phase A and Phase B. The Formulation Agreement for KDP B identifies the progress made during Phase A, updates and details Phase B information, and updates the Formulation Cost, which is based on the actual cost for Phase A and an updated cost for Phase B. The Formulation Cost at KDP B is the total autho- rized cost for Formulation activities required to get to KDP C. In practice, the FAD and the Formulation Agree- ment are developed concurrently so that both documents can be approved at KDP A. Documentation prod- ucts developed as part of, or as a result of, the Formulation Agreement may be incorporated into the Project Plan, if appropriate, as the Project Plan is developed during Formulation.

4.3 Project Formulation

Aside from the Center and Agency reporting already mentioned, many stakeholders are interested in the status of the project from Congress on down. The project manager supports the program executive in reporting the status of project Formulation at many other forums, including Mission Directorate monthly status meetings and the Agency’s monthly BPR. See Section 4.2.5 for more information on BPRs and Section 5.12 for more infor- mation on external reporting.

4.3.2.2.2 Project Internal Reviews

Prior to life-cycle reviews, projects conduct internal reviews in accordance with NPR 7123.1, Center practices, and NPR 7120.5. These internal reviews are the decisional meetings wherein the projects solidify their plans, tech- nical approaches, and programmatic commitments. This is accomplished as part of the normal systems engineering work processes as defined in NPR 7123.1 wherein major technical and programmatic requirements are assessed along with the system design and other implementation plans. For both robotic and human space flight projects, these internal reviews are typically lower level system and subsystem reviews that lead to and precede the life-cycle review. Major technical and programmatic performance metrics are reported and assessed against predictions.

Non-SRB project technical reviews are divided into several categories: major systems reviews (one or two levels down from the project), Engineering Peer Reviews (EPRs), internal reviews, and tabletop reviews. Project systems reviews are major technical milestones of the project that typically precede the life-cycle review, covering major systems milestones. The technical progress of the project is assessed at key milestones such as these systems reviews to ensure that the project’s maturity is progressing as required. In many cases, these reviews are conducted by the project in coordination with a Center-sponsored independent review panel if the Center is using these reviews as one means to oversee the project’s work. In these cases, the project manager works with the Center to ensure that there is a suit- able independent review panel in place for each such review and works with systems engineering to ensure that clear technical criteria and an agreed agenda have been established well in advance of each such review. System engineering collects and reviews the documentation that demon- strates the technical progress planned for the major systems review and submits the materials as a data package to the review team prior to the review. This allows the selected technical representatives to identify prob- lems and issues that can be discussed at the review. Systems engineering is responsible for the agenda, organization, and conduct of the systems review as well as obtaining closure on any action items and corrective actions.

4.3 Project Formulation

Systems engineering acts as recorder, noting all comments and questions that are not adequately addressed during the presentations. At the conclu- sion of a major systems review, the independent review panel, if in place, makes a determination as to whether or not the predetermined criteria for a successful review have been met and makes a recommendation on whether or not the system is ready to proceed into the next phase of its development. An EPR is a focused, in-depth technical review of a subsystem, lower level of assembly, or a component. An EPR can address an entire system or subsystem, but more typically addresses a lower level. The EPR adds value and reduces risk through expert knowledge infusion, confirmation of approach, and specific recommendations. The key distinction between an EPR and a major subsystem review is that the review panel is selected by personnel supporting the project, and not by the Center. The mission systems engineer works with the respective product manager (project manager, project formulation manager, instrument manager, or Principal Investigator) to ensure that the EPR review panel is comprised of technical experts with significant practical experience relevant to the technology and requirements of the subsystem, lower level of assembly, or component to be reviewed. They also work together to produce an EPR plan, which lists the subsystems, lower levels of assembly, and components to be reviewed and the associated life-cycle milestones for the reviews. A summary of results of the EPRs is presented at each major subsystem review and/or at each life- cycle review.

Additional informal project technical reviews, sometimes called “table top reviews,” are conducted by project team members as necessary and are one of their primary mechanisms for internal technical project control. These reviews follow the general protocols described above for subsystem reviews and EPRs.

4.3.2.3 Preparing for Approval to Enter Formulation (Phase A) Projects support the Mission Concept Review (MCR) life-cycle review in accordance with NPR 7123.1, Center practices, and NPR 7120.5, including ensuring that the life-cycle review objectives and expected maturity states defined in NPR 7120.5 have been satisfactorily met. Life-cycle review entrance and success criteria in Appendix G of NPR 7123.1 and the expected maturity states in Appendix E of this handbook provide specifics for addressing the six assessment criteria required to demonstrate that the project has met its expected maturity state. MCRs are generally conducted by the Center, but the Decision Authority may request an SRB to perform this review. If this is the case, Section 5.10 of this handbook and the NASA

4.3 Project Formulation

Projects plan prepare for and support the governing PMC review prior to KDP A and provide or obtain the KDP readiness products listed in Section 4.2.3.

Once the KDP has been completed and the Decision Memorandum signed, the project updates its documents and plans as required to reflect the deci- sions made and actions assigned at the KDP.