# FY2009 RESEARCH INITIATIVE PROPOSAL for the NASA OSMA SARP

**Program Statement**

The Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) Software Assurance
Research Program (SARP) exists to serve NASA by providing the applicable
tools and techniques to improve the Agency's software development and
software assurance practices. The goal of this program is to transition
research into practice within NASA.

***Please complete this form. Limit proposal to 9 pages. If you want to
attach supporting documentation, include it as an appendix but be aware
that it may not be read.***

***Submit an electronic copy to <research@ivv.nasa.gov> by
11-April-2008, 5:00 PM EST***

(Please do not modify the format of this document, including the
headers/footers.)

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  **Initiative   |                                                 |
|     Title:**       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 2.  **Research     |                                                 |
|     Topics and     |                                                 |
|     Needs (List    |                                                 |
|     those that     |                                                 |
|     apply):**[^1]  |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 3.  **Start        |                                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|    Date**[^2]**:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 4.  **End          |                                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|    Date**[^3]**:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 5.  **Identify the | Existing Contract/Grant/Co-op Agreement Number  |
|     existing       | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                        |
|     contract       |                                                 |
|     vehicle this   | Expiration Date                                 |
|     would be       | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_          |
|     funded under.  |                                                 |
|     No new         |                                                 |
|     contract       |                                                 |
|     vehicles will  |                                                 |
|     be established |                                                 |
|     under this     |                                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|    solicitation.** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 6.  **NASA Point   |                                                 |
|     of Contact     |                                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|   (POC)**[^4]**:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 7.  **POC's NASA   |                                                 |
|     Center:**      |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 8.  **POC's        |                                                 |
|     Phone:**       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 9.  **POC's Email  |                                                 |
|     address:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 10. **Principal    |                                                 |
|     Investigator   |                                                 |
|     (PI):**        |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 11. **United       | \_\_ Yes \_\_\_ No                              |
|     States         |                                                 |
|     Citizen?:**    |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 12. **PI's         |                                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|    Organization:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 13. **PI's         |                                                 |
|     Phone:**       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 14. **PI's Email   |                                                 |
|     address:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 15. **PI's surface |                                                 |
|     mail           |                                                 |
|     address:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 16. **PI's         |                                                 |
|     organization's |                                                 |
|     Authorizing    |                                                 |
|     Official's     |                                                 |
|                    |                                                 |
|    name**[^5]**:** |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 17. **Authorizing  |                                                 |
|     Official's     |                                                 |
|     Phone:**       |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 18. **Authorizing  |                                                 |
|     Official's     |                                                 |
|     Email          |                                                 |
|     address:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 19. **Authorizing  |                                                 |
|     Official's     |                                                 |
|     surface mail   |                                                 |
|     address:**     |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

20. **Research problem and justification**

Describe the problem you propose to solve and explain why solving it is
important. (Example: Various tools and modeling approaches such as Model
Driven Architecture, Object Oriented Analysis and Design, Unified
Modeling Language, System Reference Models and the Department of Defense
Architecture Framework (DoDAF) that are being adopted for Orion flight
software may have gaps, overlaps or incompatibilities that may lead to
missing requirements or validation failure.) (See [Evaluation Criterion
1](#_Criterion_1:_Relevance) and [Evaluation Criterion
4](#_Criterion_4:_Relationship).)

21. **Research Goal**

The goal should be a single clear statement of intent. (Examples: 1) the
goal is to provide techniques to improve static code analysis; 2) the
goal is to provide an approach to, and supporting tool, for meeting the
NASA standards related to legacy systems.) (See [Evaluation Criterion
2](#_Criterion_2:_Clarity) and [Evaluation Criterion
4](#_Criterion_4:_Relationship).)

22. **Approach**

Describe what you will do to achieve your goal. List your objectives,
success criteria and the measures that you will use to prove that you
have succeeded. List the tasks that you will perform and the methods and
procedures that you will employ. Describe the accomplishments that will
justify your receiving funding increments each year if you propose a
multi-year initiative. It is this response by which the evaluators will
judge the extent to which the proposal meets the center-identified
needs. (See [Evaluation Criterion 2](#_Criterion_2:_Clarity) and
[Evaluation Criterion 4](#_Criterion_4:_Relationship).)

23. **Research Team**

Identify your research team and describe their qualifications to do the
research. (See [Evaluation Criterion 5](#_Criterion_5:_Qualifications).)

24. **Technology Readiness Level**

State the Technology Readiness Level that you expect to achieve by the
end of your initiative. Explain how you will achieve that level and how
your planned deliverables support success in achieving the stated level.
(See [TRL Definitions](#trl-definitions) at the back of this template.)
(See [Evaluation Criterion 3](#_Criterion_3:_Usefulness) and [Evaluation
Criterion 4](#_Criterion_4:_Relationship).)

25. **Technology Transfer Plan**

Describe your plan for transferring your technology into use by NASA.
"Use" means that NASA Software development projects, maintenance
projects and/or assurance projects are using your technology to produce
better software more efficiently, more effectively, and/or with more
confidence. (See [Evaluation Criterion 4](#_Criterion_4:_Relationship).)

26. **Collaborators**

List participating NASA Centers and/or other collaborating parties and
Project(s). There is an expectation that a team proposing research has
done the preliminary work necessary to have a project engaged so that
needed data or artifacts are available when the research begins. (See
[Evaluation Criterion 5](#_Criterion_5:_Qualifications).)

# Products[^6]:

All proposed deliverables should be part of achieving the stated
research goal. (See [Evaluation Criterion 3](#_Criterion_3:_Usefulness)
and [Evaluation Criterion 4](#_Criterion_4:_Relationship).)

In the first column in table below, list each research product that you
propose to deliver to NASA over all years of your proposed work. (You
may add rows to the table.) In the second column, provide a complete
description of each product, including the role the deliverable will
play in achieving the stated goal. Research products include any and all
publications that you may produce in the course of the research
initiative that results from this proposal. In the third column, write
the date you intend to submit the product to NASA. In the fourth column,
describe the type of the deliverable, for example, executable code,
journal paper, conference presentation, workshop materials, training
materials, data, source code, interim report, final report, etc. In the
fifth column, state who will use the product. In the last column
indicate your suggestion regarding the public release of this
deliverable.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Product   **Description   **Due Date       **Deliverable    **Intended   **For public
  Name**      and role in     (YYYY/MM/DD)**   type**           audience**   release?**
              achieving your                                                 
              research goal**                                                
  ----------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------
                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                             
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# 

# 

# PROPOSED COSTS (MUST INCLUDE ALL PROJECTED OUT-YEAR FUNDING)[^7]

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     **[FY09]{.underline}**   **[FY10]{.underline}**   **[FY11]{.underline}**   **[TOTAL]{.underline}**
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------
  **Budget Authority (K\$)**                                                                                    

  Total Civil Servant Salaries[^8]                                                                              

  Total Civil Servant Travel                                                                                    

  Procurement                                                                                                   

  **Budget Total**                                                                                              

                                                                                                                

  **Workforce**                                                                                                 

  Direct Civil Servant FTE[^9]                                                                                  

  On-Site Direct Contractor WYE[^10]                                                                            

  **Workforce Total**                                                                                           
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Other Funding Sources: 

List other organizations contributing funds to this effort.

# Key Words:

List key words for your planned research so that NASA can index your
results for publication.

# TRL Definitions

9\. Actual system proven through successful mission operations. Embedded
in project, directorate processes. Influenced in NPD, NPR.

8\. Actual system completed and qualified through test and
demonstration. NASA project results with your work indicate that it\'s
useful in NASA domain and applicable beyond a single Center or single
project.

7\. System prototype demonstration in an operational environment. NASA
project proposes to use your work (results, tool, or method). For
example, NASA Research Infusion project.

6\. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant
environment. Demonstration that the results can be applied outside a
laboratory context. May include: documentation & user guide, training,
user interface, demonstrated scalability and/or improvement over current
practice. Published in publications that NASA personnel typically read.

5\. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment.
Extension and elaboration using current NASA data. May include empirical
studies, measurements and baselines, internal validation of approach and
results by a NASA project manager.

4\. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment.
Extension and elaboration using historical NASA data. May include
empirical studies, measurements and baselines, peer reviewed external
validation of approach and results.

3\. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic
proof of concept. Active research and development is initiated. Some
initial results suggest that further work would be useful. Can be done
without NASA data.

2\. Technology concept and/or application formulated. Candidate
solution(s) is (are) identified. The NASA project needs-based problem
drives research concept definition.

1\. Basic principles observed and reported. A problem is defined.
Present or past NASA project needs define problem to be solved.

SARP Operational Model

Figure 1: Working SARP Operational Model \-- This is a representation of
some of the common elements that influence and are influenced by a SARP
initiative. There are paths and possibilities that may not be displayed.
It is a framework for discussion, not turn-by-turn direction. Likewise,
the TRL associated with the various boxes are guidelines, not absolutes.

![](media/image1.wmf)

# FY09 OSMA SARP Proposal evaluation Criteria Score Definitions

## Criterion 1: Relevance to Software Safety and Mission Assurance (SSMA), (relevance can be addressing the research needs (add location) as defined by the NASA centers)

5\. Addresses high-priority SSMA needs that are also generally
applicable across multiple projects/problem spaces.

4\. Addresses a high-priority SSMA need and is applicable to a limited
problem space.

3\. Addresses medium-priority SSMA needs.

2\. Addresses low-priority SSMA needs.

1\. Does not address SSMA needs.

## Criterion 2: Clarity of goals, objectives, and success measures

5\. Very clear and measurable goals and objectives that provide strong,
identifiable drivers for project success.

4\. Clear goals and objectives that provide useful measures of project
success.

3\. Clear goals and objectives that are somewhat measurable and useful
for managing the project.

2\. Somewhat unclear goals and/or objectives and unclear criteria for
project success.

1\. Unclear goals and/or objectives that are difficult to measure and
doubtful that they will drive success.

## Criterion 3: Usefulness of products

5\. Research products are directly applicable to NASA projects as
proposed. Upon completion of the research the products and documentation
will be of adequate maturity to be applied to the target domain.

4\. Research products are applicable but will require refinement for
successful technology transfer. Research products and documentation will
be of sufficient maturity to enable evaluation and potentially
application, but some vetting may be required.

3\. Research products will need more development/tailoring to be useful.
Maturity of resulting products and documentation is questionable or may
be inadequate for direct application.

2\. Research products are insufficient to be useful.

1\. Research products are not applicable.

## Criterion 4: Relationship between problem, goals, products, and technology transfer potential/reasonableness of approach

5\. There is a clear and thoughtful relationship between the problem,
goals, products, and tech transfer plan. The approach indicates a high
probability of achieving proposed goals and objectives.

4\. There is sufficient relationship between the problem, goals,
products, and tech transfer plan. The approach indicates a high
probability of achieving proposed goals and objectives but the
activities may need slight refinement.

3\. There is a relationship between the problem, goals, products, and
tech transfer plan, but it may need to be strengthened or refined. The
approach indicates that goals and objectives will probably be achieved
but some adjustment of activities may be required.

2\. The relationship between the problem, goals, products, and tech
transfer plan are not sufficiently connected. The approach indicates a
low probability of achieving success without significant adjustment of
proposed activities.

1\. There is little to no relationship between the problem, goals,
products, and tech transfer plan. The approach will probably not succeed
in achieving goals and objectives.

## Criterion 5: Qualifications of the research team to do the proposed research

5\. The research team is world-class for the proposed research. The
research team has past relevant experience and capabilities in the
proposed area of research. The research team leader is an expert in the
proposed area of research. More than one NASA civil servant, with the
appropriate expertise, (and from different
branches/divisions/directorates) is part of the research team.

4\. The research team is qualified to do the proposed research. The
research team has past relevant experience and capabilities in the
proposed area of research. The research team leader has experience in
the proposed area of research. More than one NASA civil servant, with
the appropriate expertise, is part of the research team.

3\. The research team is qualified to do the proposed research. The
research team leader has past relevant experience in the proposed area
of research. A NASA civil servant is a part of the research team. The
capabilities of the rest of the team are unknown.

2\. The research team is qualified to do the proposed research. The
research team does not have past relevant experience in the proposed
area of research but should be capable of completing the proposed
research. A NASA civil servant is involved only as a POC, but the work
is in an area relevant to this person.

1\. The research team is not qualified to do the proposed research. A
NASA civil servant is involved only as a POC.

## Criterion 6: Reasonableness of cost

5\. Cost is exactly appropriate for proposed work and value of products
is excellent.

4\. Costs are appropriate and will provide a positive return on
investment to the government.

3\. Costs are questionable but the proposed value vs. risk is
acceptable.

2\. Research addresses a need, but the return on the investment is
questionable.

1\. Too expensive. Proposed work is not worth the cost.

## Criterion 7: Overall quality of proposed initiative

5\. Excellent

4\. Very good

3\. Good

2\. Poor

1\. Unacceptable

[^1]:
    #  List the topics and needs from the research topics and needs list at <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ivv/research/osmasarp.html#needs> that your proposed research will address. 

[^2]: Your start date is the date on which you plan to start work.
    Assume you will receive funds on 1-January- 2009.

[^3]: Your end date is the date on which you plan to complete work.

[^4]: This is a NASA Civil Servant at the NASA Center that will directly
    oversee the research.

[^5]: If your organization is a commercial entity, your authorizing
    official would be your contracting officer. If your organization is
    a university, your authorizing official would be your sponsored
    research officer or equivalent. If your organization is a NASA
    Center, your authorizing official would be your Center's Safety and
    Mission Assurance Director.

[^6]: *Any* publication produced by an initiative, not just planned
    deliverables, resulting from this proposal must be cleared for
    public release with a completed [NASA Form
    1676](http://server-mpo.arc.nasa.gov/services/nefs/home.tml)
    according to NASA Program Directive 2200.

    The deliverables proposed will be reviewed by the selection
    committee and a revision of the deliverables may be requested prior
    to the commencement of selected initiatives. Revisions to the
    deliverable list may also come from the PI or the Research
    Management Team.

    All deliverables associated with this initiative will be tracked on
    the web-based Center Initiative Management Tool.

    For each calendar year, deliverables should include a presentation
    at the annual Software Assurance Symposium (assume July) and an
    end-of-year report summarizing the calendar year's accomplishment.

[^7]: Assume your initiative will start 1-January-2009. Your FY09 budget
    estimate should cover all your costs throughout calendar year 2009.
    Likewise, your FY10 budget estimate should cover your calendar year
    2010 costs and your FY11 budget estimate should cover your calendar
    year 2011 costs.

[^8]: Total Civil Servant Salaries are not to include G&A or Service
    Pools. G&A and Service Pools will not be supported by the OSMA SARP
    budget.

[^9]: FTE: Full Time Equivalent; 1 FTE = 2080 hours

[^10]: WYE: Work Year Effort; 1 WYE = 2080 hours

    Upon selection, initiatives will also have to provide an accurate
    fiscal year spend plan.