![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.1680555555555556in"
height="1.8416666666666666in"}

**OFFICE WORK INSTRUCTION**

**FORMULATE AND APPROVE FLIGHT MISSIONS**

**(Conforming to ISO 9001 Quality System Requirements)**

**Original Signed By:**

**Ghassem R. Asrar**

**Associate Administrator**

**Office of Earth Science**

**DOCUMENT HISTORY LOG**

+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| Status  | Do     | Eff    | Description                             |
|         | cument | ective |                                         |
| (Ba     |        |        |                                         |
| seline/ | Re     | Date   |                                         |
|         | vision |        |                                         |
| Re      |        |        |                                         |
| vision/ |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        |                                         |
| Ca      |        |        |                                         |
| nceled) |        |        |                                         |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| B       |        | 2/1/99 |                                         |
| aseline |        |        |                                         |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | A      | 4      | Sections 1.0 and 6.0: Changed to lower  |
| evision |        | /28/99 | case for program coordinator as this is |
|         |        |        | a role or function, not a title.        |
|         |        |        | Changed to lower case for division      |
|         |        |        | director, except where referring to a   |
|         |        |        | specific division director, per NHB     |
|         |        |        | 1450.1B, *NASA Correspondence           |
|         |        |        | Standards*.                             |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 2.0: Expanded scope to include  |
|         |        |        | technology demonstration flight mission |
|         |        |        | requirements. Introduce notion of       |
|         |        |        | tailoring the 2-step process.           |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 4.0: Deleted references not     |
|         |        |        | called out in the procedure.            |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 5.0: Added a flight mission     |
|         |        |        | formulation planning activity. Added    |
|         |        |        | *Technology Development/Investment      |
|         |        |        | Plan* as an input to activity \# 2.     |
|         |        |        | Added references to HQOWI 7040-Y012 and |
|         |        |        | HQOWI 5100-Y014. Deleted references to  |
|         |        |        | HQOWI 5100-Y013. Removed \"Solicitation |
|         |        |        | Requirements\" as an output of activity |
|         |        |        | \# 4. Added a note explaining that      |
|         |        |        | activity \# 9 is skipped if a 1-step    |
|         |        |        | process is used. Clarified the titles   |
|         |        |        | of outputs from activities \# 8 and 10. |
|         |        |        | Shaded PMC owned activities (13 and     |
|         |        |        | 14). Revised activity titles to be      |
|         |        |        | consistent with Section 6.0.            |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 6.0: Clarified that the two     |
|         |        |        | step selection process can be tailored  |
|         |        |        | to a one step process if desired.       |
|         |        |        | Removed reference to HQOWI 5000-Y013.   |
|         |        |        | Removed Solicitation Requirements as an |
|         |        |        | explicit output of activity \# 4.       |
|         |        |        | Clarified the use of the phrase         |
|         |        |        | \"flight mission profile.\" Clarified   |
|         |        |        | evaluation requirements for comparing   |
|         |        |        | flight mission architectures in         |
|         |        |        | activity \# 5. Revised step one of the  |
|         |        |        | two step solicitation process to result |
|         |        |        | in an \"Advisory Downselect.\"          |
|         |        |        | Indicated that activity \# 9 can be     |
|         |        |        | skipped if a one step selection process |
|         |        |        | is used. Updated references to HQOWI    |
|         |        |        | 8310-Y005, HQOWI 7040-Y012, and HQOWI   |
|         |        |        | 5100-Y014.                              |
|         |        |        |                                         |
|         |        |        | Section 7.0: Added NPG 1441.1           |
|         |        |        | reference. Updated owner and retention  |
|         |        |        | information. Modified location and      |
|         |        |        | retention for Accept/Reject letters.    |
|         |        |        | Changed mappings from NPG Schedule 5,   |
|         |        |        | "Industry Relations and Procurement,"   |
|         |        |        | to NPG Schedule 7, "Program Formulation |
|         |        |        | Records."                               |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | B      | 11     | Added "covered by the Provide Aerospace |
| evision |        | /12/99 | Products and Capabilities (PAPAC)       |
|         |        |        | Management process" to the end of first |
|         |        |        | sentence in Section 1.0. Added text in  |
|         |        |        | Section 2.0 to clarify Scope. Changed   |
|         |        |        | the word Mission for Measurement (where |
|         |        |        | applicable) throughout the document.    |
|         |        |        | Added " The Program Coordinator shall   |
|         |        |        | chair the development team unless other |
|         |        |        | wise specified:" after the first        |
|         |        |        | sentence in Section 6.3. Added "conduct |
|         |        |        | initial technology readiness            |
|         |        |        | assessment" to paragraph 6 of Section   |
|         |        |        | 6.3 Section 6.8, deleted last sentence  |
|         |        |        | in paragraph 4, and substituted with:   |
|         |        |        | The development team also produces a    |
|         |        |        | separate written evaluation plan, as    |
|         |        |        | described in the NASA FAR supplement    |
|         |        |        | 1872, the evaluation plan should        |
|         |        |        | include review guidelines, and cover    |
|         |        |        | the procedural flow, the evaluation     |
|         |        |        | schedule, and the recommended staffing  |
|         |        |        | for any subcommittee or contractor      |
|         |        |        | support. Added Step 17 to Section 6.0.  |
|         |        |        | Added Step 17 to Section 5.0. Added a   |
|         |        |        | paragraph in Section 6.3 and 6.5 to     |
|         |        |        | clarify procedure. Reworded Section     |
|         |        |        | 6.16 for better understanding of        |
|         |        |        | procedure. Section 6.0, activity 16,    |
|         |        |        | last paragraph was reworded to read:    |
|         |        |        | Offerors, awardees, and Public Affairs, |
|         |        |        | International, and Congessional         |
|         |        |        | Liaisons Offices are all notified of    |
|         |        |        | the selection decision. The selection   |
|         |        |        | decision, whether the result of a       |
|         |        |        | directed award or a peer-reviewed       |
|         |        |        | solicitation, is then announced in the  |
|         |        |        | CBD and NAIS in accordance with the     |
|         |        |        | requirements of the FAR and NFS.        |
|         |        |        | Section 6.0, added activity 17. Section |
|         |        |        | 7.0, added a new quality record         |
|         |        |        | entitled "Letter of Approval to         |
|         |        |        | Proceed".                               |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+
| R       | C      | 8/7/00 | Ammend Y003B to add an additional step  |
| evision |        |        | (now step #17) which allows the AA/ESE  |
|         |        |        | to notify offerors of their competition |
|         |        |        | results.                                |
+---------+--------+--------+-----------------------------------------+

**PREFACE**

The NASA Office Work Instruction (OWI) for Formulate and Approve Flight
Missions documents the tasks and activities in conformance with the
International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) 9001 requirements
for quality systems. The OWI supplements the *NASA Strategic Plan*, the
*NASA Strategic Management Handbook*, and other higher level NASA
directives, which form the basis for how NASA conducts business.

This OWI is not intended to duplicate or contradict any other NASA
policy, procedures or guidelines, which currently exist. As such, the
OWI will reference prevailing documents where a topic is addressed and
existing coverage is deemed adequate. Additional information provided
within is intended to supplement existing documentation regarding
Headquarters (HQ) implementation of strategic and program/project
management, as well as HQ conformance with the ISO 9001 Quality
Management System (QMS) requirements.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[PARAGRAPH]{.underline} PAGE

**1.0 Purpose [6](#purpose)**

2.0 SCOPE and applicability [6](#scope-and-applicability)

3.0 DEFINITIONS [6](#definitions)

4.0 References [6](#references)

5.0 FLOWchart [8](#flowchart)

6.0 procedure [13](#procedure)

7.0 QUALITY RECORDS [21](#quality-records)

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# 1.0 Purpose

This OWI provides instructions on what must be done to formulate NASA
Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) flight missions. It describes the
activities that are performed for a typical mission formulation effort
covered by the Provide Aerospace Products and Capabilities (PAPAC)
Management process. The OWI describes what is to be accomplished by the
process, not how the work is to be performed. Program coordinators are
expected to apply their experience, expertise, professional contacts,
and knowledge in order to successfully conceptualize, solicit, and plan
science and applications-driven flight missions.

# 2.0 SCOPE and applicability

2.1 [Scope]{.underline}. This work instruction describes activities
typically performed by a team of Enterprise and Agency personnel
coordinated by the Program Planning and Development Division of the NASA
ESE when formulating science, applications, and technology
demonstration-driven flight missions. Flight mission formulation begins
with the packaging of Earth science, applications, and/or technology
demonstration requirements into sets. These requirements sets form the
basis for conceptualizing a flight mission, and developing its
architecture. A 2-step solicitation approach is then followed which
results in a \"preferred\" response. Level I program requirements are
developed, a new or updated Program Commitment Agreement (PCA) is
produced, [and a performing organization is assigned to confirm the
mission]{.underline}. The process is completed when the ESE Associate
Administrator (AA) and NASA Administrator sign the PCA, [the performing
organization confirms the mission architecture, cost cap and technical
commitments. With this information the AA approves the mission for
implementation.]{.underline}

This work instruction represents a tailoring of NPG 7120.5, *NASA
Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements*, to support a
process that is modeled after the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP)
method of formulating a flight mission. Fundamentally, this approach
reaches out to the science community for ideas on how best to meet the
science and/or applications requirements and involves a 2-step
solicitation process. The process is tailorable depending on the
specific circumstances. In particular, if the mission is straight
forward and well defined, or the need is sufficiently urgent, a 1-step
process may be employed that by-passes the advisory downselection step
(Activity 9).

2.2 [Applicability]{.underline}. This work instruction for Formulate and
Approve Flight Missions applies to the NASA Office of Earth Science
(OES, Code Y) offices and divisions. The Associate Administrator for
Earth Science is responsible for maintaining this document. The
controlled version of this OWI is available on the World Wide Web (WWW)
via the HQ ISO 9000 Document Library at
[http://hqiso9000.hq.nasa.gov]{.underline}. Any printed version of this
OWI is uncontrolled (reference: HCP 1400.1, *Document and Data
Control*). Proposed revisions will be accomplished by following HQOWI
1410-Y015, Approve ESE Office Work Instructions.

# 3.0 DEFINITIONS

Appendix B of the *Earth Science Enterprise Management Handbook*
provides ESE-specific terms and definitions.

# 4.0 References

The following documents contain provisions that, through reference in
this OWI or in policy or procedure documents, constitute the basis for
the documented procedure:

> NFS Part 1835 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1835, Research and Development
> Contracting
>
> NFS Part 1872 NASA FAR Supplement, Part 1872, Acquisition of
> Investigations
>
> NPG 7120.5 NASA Program and Project Management Processes and
> Requirements
>
> HQOWI 8310-Y005 Solicit and Select Science, Applications, Education,
> and Technology Investigations
>
> HQOWI 7040-Y012 Conduct Peer Review
>
> HQOWI 5100-Y014 Obtain Approval for Release of Solicitation Instrument

# 5.0 FLOWchart

The following flowchart depicts the procedure described in Section 6.
Outputs in boldface type represent the quality records listed in Section
7. Shaded objects belong to entities other than ESE.

![](media/image2.wmf)

![](media/image3.wmf)5.0 FLOWCHART (CONTINUED)

5.0 FLOWCHART (CONTINUED)

# ![](media/image4.wmf)  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

# 6.0 procedure

The following table describes the flowchart of Section 5.

+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Actionee     |    | Action                                           |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| YF Division  | 1  | [Plan Flight Mission Formulation                 |
| Director     |    | Work]{.underline}. The ESE Program Planning and  |
|              |    | Development Division (YF) Director is            |
|              |    | responsible for planning the work to be done in  |
|              |    | formulating a flight mission. The YF Division    |
|              |    | Director plans the activities required to        |
|              |    | execute this procedure in advance. The work plan |
|              |    | documents the required work activities,          |
|              |    | resources, milestones, and schedule. This        |
|              |    | planning activity consists of the following      |
|              |    | steps:                                           |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | -   *Identify Required Work Activities*. Extract |
|              |    |     work activities from this procedure          |
|              |    |     documentation and tailor them to the         |
|              |    |     specific needs of the task at hand. Tailor   |
|              |    |     the activities by identifying the necessary  |
|              |    |     resources and milestones.                    |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | -   *Obtain Resources*. Involve all affected     |
|              |    |     groups in identifying the resources needed   |
|              |    |     to execute the work, the associated costs,   |
|              |    |     and the work schedule. Make a preliminary    |
|              |    |     determination as to the desired makeup of    |
|              |    |     the mission development team.                |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | -   *Establish the Schedule.* Include the        |
|              |    |     required resources, milestones, and work     |
|              |    |     schedule in the work plan.                   |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    |     The plan is updated as part of Activity 3    |
|              |    |     when the draft Formulation Authorization     |
|              |    |     Document is developed.                       |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Division     | 2  | [Develop and Approve Requirements Sets           |
| Directors    |    | (Candidate Flight Measurement                    |
| coordinated  |    | Profiles)]{.underline}. Science, applications,   |
| by YF        |    | and technology demonstration requirements \--    |
|              |    | documented in the *ESE Science Implementation    |
|              |    | Plan*, the Applications implementation Plan, and |
|              |    | the Technology Development/Investment Plan \--   |
|              |    | drive formulation of flight programs. Packaging  |
|              |    | related requirements into sets for flight is     |
|              |    | tempered by the science and applications         |
|              |    | requirements, technology schedules published in  |
|              |    | the *Technology Infusion Plan* (produced by the  |
|              |    | Manage ESE Technology Development Program        |
|              |    | process), and budgets. In essence, the flight    |
|              |    | measurement profile represents a synchronization |
|              |    | of requirements sets with technology schedules   |
|              |    | and budget availability.                         |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The division directors prepare a briefing of the |
|              |    | flight measurement profiles which is given to    |
|              |    | the ESE AA. The ESE AA determines the            |
|              |    | acceptability of the flight measurement profiles |
|              |    | and approves them for inclusion in a flight      |
|              |    | program by signing a concurrence cover sheet.    |
|              |    | The ESE AA relies heavily on advice from the     |
|              |    | division directors when making these decisions.  |
|              |    | Note that a program is a collection of related   |
|              |    | flight mission(s) that in turn address specific  |
|              |    | requirements/measurement sets.                   |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+

+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 3  | [Obtain AA Approval to Proceed with Formulation  |
| Team (YF,    |    | of Flight Mission(s) for a Requirements          |
| YS, YO, YB,  |    | Set]{.underline}. For each flight measurement    |
| IY, H, and   |    | profile approved during the previous activity    |
| G)           |    | (Activity 1), the Directors of ESE assigns a     |
|              |    | development team. The Program Coordinator shall  |
|              |    | chair the development team unless otherwise      |
|              |    | specified. As a minimum, the development team    |
|              |    | includes a Program Scientist and [Data System    |
|              |    | Analyst]{.underline} from the Research Division  |
|              |    | (YS) and/ a Program Manager from the             |
|              |    | Applications Research and Outreach Division      |
|              |    | (YO), the technologist and program coordinator   |
|              |    | from the Program Planning and Development        |
|              |    | Division (YF), a [cost analyst]{.underline} from |
|              |    | the Business Division (YB), an International     |
|              |    | Affairs specialist from Code IY, a procurement   |
|              |    | advisor from Code H, and legal council from Code |
|              |    | G.                                               |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | [Because all missions are transferred to a       |
|              |    | center for oversight, a representation from the  |
|              |    | Program Management office is sought to advise    |
|              |    | the team.]{.underline}                           |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The team begins to define the concept for the    |
|              |    | mission(s). As part of this effort, the          |
|              |    | development team associates mission(s) to a      |
|              |    | specific ESE program. **In some cases, new       |
|              |    | missions are attached to an existing program. In |
|              |    | other cases, new missions (one or more) may      |
|              |    | become a new program.**                          |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The team also begins to define the purpose and   |
|              |    | objectives of the mission(s) or the ESE          |
|              |    | contribution to a mission, relate the objectives |
|              |    | of the mission(s) to the ESE goals, prepare      |
|              |    | overviews for the mission(s), define who are the |
|              |    | customers for the mission(s), and specify who    |
|              |    | has responsibility and authority for the         |
|              |    | mission(s). All of this is preparatory work for  |
|              |    | later development or update of the associated    |
|              |    | program\'s Program Commitment Agreement (PCA).   |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The team tailors the NASA program management     |
|              |    | process defined in NPG 7120.5, *NASA Program and |
|              |    | Project Management Processes and Requirements*,  |
|              |    | to meet the unique needs of the mission(s) being |
|              |    | formulated. This tailoring is incorporated into  |
|              |    | the program's PCA later in the formulation       |
|              |    | process.                                         |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The team continues the conceptualization         |
|              |    | activity by scoping out the rest of the mission  |
|              |    | formulation phase, identifying program time and  |
|              |    | cost constraints, [studies to be                 |
|              |    | performed]{.underline}, technology readiness     |
|              |    | assessments, and estimating the funding          |
|              |    | requirements for the mission formulation phase.  |
|              |    | The team also identifies other enterprises,      |
|              |    | centers, and external partners who will          |
|              |    | participate in the program.                      |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The tasks contained within this activity lead to |
|              |    | the development of a draft Formulation           |
|              |    | Authorization Document for the proposed          |
|              |    | [measurement set]{.underline}. Refer to NPG      |
|              |    | 7120.5 for a listing of what should be included  |
|              |    | in a Formulation Authorization Document. The     |
|              |    | Formulation Authorization Document documents the |
|              |    | development team\'s planning of the formulation  |
|              |    | effort.                                          |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The development team presents the draft          |
|              |    | Formulation Authorization Document to the ESE AA |
|              |    | who determines whether or not to proceed with    |
|              |    | additional mission formulation efforts. If       |
|              |    | authorization to proceed is denied, the mission  |
|              |    | concept is either reworked based on guidance     |
|              |    | received from the ESE AA or planning ceases. The |
|              |    | ESE AA indicates approval to proceed by signing  |
|              |    | the Formulation Authorization Document. This     |
|              |    | authorizes the team to continue the formulation  |
|              |    | effort and expend the formulation resources      |
|              |    | identified in the Formulation Authorization      |
|              |    | Document.                                        |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 4  | [Develop Mission Architecture Options for the    |
| Team         |    | Requirements Set]{.underline}. With the signed   |
|              |    | Formulation Authorization Document as            |
|              |    | authorization to proceed, the development team   |
|              |    | conducts a series of tasks designed to develop   |
|              |    | candidate mission architectures which represent  |
|              |    | mission implementation options. One of the       |
|              |    | mission architectures will become the desired    |
|              |    | mission architecture documented in the PCA and   |
|              |    | defined by the NASA HQ Level I program           |
|              |    | requirements for that mission (see Activity 5).  |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The team or its designee begins the activity of  |
|              |    | developing candidate mission architectures by    |
|              |    | identifying or assessing the following:          |
|              |    | partnership opportunities, technology readiness  |
|              |    | schedules, commercialization opportunities, data |
|              |    | system needs and issues, environmental issues,   |
|              |    | and life-cycle cost (LCC) elements (specific     |
|              |    | cost estimates are developed later in Activity   |
|              |    | 5). This information, together with the          |
|              |    | requirements sets, the flight mission profiles,  |
|              |    | and the *Technology Infusion Plan,* enable the   |
|              |    | team to develop Level I program requirements for |
|              |    | the mission later in Activity 5.                 |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The team then identifies risks and defines       |
|              |    | appropriate acquisition strategy options for     |
|              |    | each candidate mission architecture. The         |
|              |    | acquisition strategy would indicate if the       |
|              |    | solicitation is to be a Request for Proposals    |
|              |    | (RFP), Request for Offer (RFO), a NASA Research  |
|              |    | Announcement (NRA), an Announcement of           |
|              |    | Opportunity (AO), or a Cooperative Agreement     |
|              |    | Notice (CAN). If the solicitation were to be an  |
|              |    | RFP, then the award instrument would be a        |
|              |    | contract. The award instruments for an NRA can   |
|              |    | be a cooperative agreement, or contract. For an  |
|              |    | AO, the award instrument can be a grant or a     |
|              |    | contract.                                        |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | As members of the development team, the Code H   |
|              |    | (Office of Procurement) and Code G (Office of    |
|              |    | the General Counsel) representatives assist in   |
|              |    | defining acquisition strategies for each of the  |
|              |    | options. The other members of the development    |
|              |    | team rely on the Code H and Code G               |
|              |    | representatives\' knowledge of procurement laws  |
|              |    | and regulations to ensure appropriate            |
|              |    | acquisition strategies are selected. Refer to    |
|              |    | Appendix A in HQOWI 8310-Y005, *Solicit and      |
|              |    | Select Science, Applications, Education, and     |
|              |    | Technology Investigations*, for reference        |
|              |    | information on selecting an appropriate          |
|              |    | solicitation instrument.                         |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 5  | [Compare, Select, and Approve Viable Flight      |
| Team         |    | Mission Architecture(s) for the Requirements     |
|              |    | Set]{.underline}. The development team then      |
| ESE AA       |    | evaluates and compares the various candidate     |
|              |    | mission architectures using the information      |
|              |    | generated in the previous activity. As part of   |
|              |    | the evaluation, the team develops life-cycle     |
|              |    | cost estimates for each architecture. These      |
|              |    | architectures and cost estimates are often       |
|              |    | developed using mission design capabilities      |
|              |    | located at NASA centers. These cost estimates    |
|              |    | are used in the comparison among candidate       |
|              |    | architectures. The evaluation and comparison     |
|              |    | considers issues such as: 1) how well the        |
|              |    | science and/or applications requirements are     |
|              |    | met, 2) whether the architecture fits within the |
|              |    | available budget, and 3) satisfaction of the     |
|              |    | mission profile schedule. The comparison results |
|              |    | in recommended mission architecture(s) that are  |
|              |    | presented to the ESE AA by the program           |
|              |    | coordinator.                                     |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | If the ESE AA approves the mission               |
|              |    | architecture(s), the development team updates    |
|              |    | existing or prepares new Level I documentation   |
|              |    | (PCA, requirements, etc.) for that mission.      |
|              |    | Should the ESE AA reject the proposed mission    |
|              |    | architecture, the activity cycles back to the    |
|              |    | step where the development team formulates       |
|              |    | candidate mission architectures and repeats the  |
|              |    | intervening steps.                               |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | Refer to NPG 7120.5 for listings of what should  |
|              |    | be included in a PCA. The Level I program        |
|              |    | requirements for the mission represent the core  |
|              |    | NASA HQ requirements. These requirements will be |
|              |    | used in the Oversee and Evaluate Flight Program  |
|              |    | process to determine if the Lead or Performing   |
|              |    | [Organization]{.underline} is successful in      |
|              |    | accomplishing the mission. At a minimum, these   |
|              |    | Level I requirements include the mission         |
|              |    | objectives, the PCA technical performance        |
|              |    | requirements, the mission schedule, and the      |
|              |    | total life cycle cost.                           |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | If the acquisition strategy articulated in the   |
|              |    | approved mission architecture requires a         |
|              |    | solicitation, then the process proceeds to       |
|              |    | either Activity 6 (Submit Solicitation           |
|              |    | Requirements to Procuring Center) or Activity 8  |
|              |    | (Solicit Best Concept). The path is through      |
|              |    | Activity 6, if the solicitation is to be done    |
|              |    | via an RFP or RFO. For Announcement of           |
|              |    | Opportunity (AO); NASA Research Announcement     |
|              |    | (NRA); and Cooperative Agreement Notification    |
|              |    | based solicitations, the process flow is through |
|              |    | Activity 8. If no solicitation is required and   |
|              |    | the mission(s) represent a new Program, the      |
|              |    | process skips to Activity 12 (Request PMC        |
|              |    | Approval to Proceed with Implementation). [If no |
|              |    | solicitation is required and the mission(s) is   |
|              |    | attached to an existing program, the process     |
|              |    | skips to Activity 16]{.underline}. An example of |
|              |    | such a skip might occur in the case of a         |
|              |    | directed award.                                  |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The development team determines how to tailor    |
|              |    | the solicitation process at this point. In       |
|              |    | particular, they determine if a full 2-step      |
|              |    | process is to be used, a 1-step process or       |
|              |    | other. For example, selection of a science or    |
|              |    | applications mission may require the full 2-step |
|              |    | process. In contrast, the mission for a single   |
|              |    | instrument or measurement capability may be      |
|              |    | defined well enough or the need sufficiently     |
|              |    | urgent that a 1-step approach is appropriate.    |
|              |    | This decision is made on a case-by-case basis.   |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 6  | [Submit Solicitation Requirements to Procuring   |
| Team         |    | Center]{.underline}. For RFP or RFO-based        |
|              |    | solicitations, the development team relies on a  |
|              |    | NASA center to write and issue the RFP/RFO, as   |
|              |    | well as evaluating responses from offerors. The  |
|              |    | development team provides the NASA center with   |
|              |    | solicitation requirements in the form of mission |
|              |    | requirements, a solicitation schedule, and       |
|              |    | solicitation funding constraints. ESE normally   |
|              |    | retains responsibility for making the actual     |
|              |    | selection, however (see Activity 11).            |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 7  | [Guide and Monitor Procuring Center Solicitation |
| Team         |    | Activities]{.underline}. The development team    |
|              |    | monitors the NASA center\'s solicitation process |
|              |    | to ensure the solicitation schedule and cost     |
|              |    | constraints are being honored. Where appropriate |
|              |    | and needed, the development team also provides   |
|              |    | guidance to the NASA center.                     |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 8  | [Solicit Best Concept (Step 1.1)]{.underline}.   |
| Team         |    | For NRAs, AOs, and CANs, ESE retains             |
|              |    | responsibility for generating the solicitation,  |
|              |    | releasing it, and evaluating responses. This     |
|              |    | work instruction describes a 2-step solicitation |
|              |    | approach (Activities 8 through 11). The          |
|              |    | philosophy behind this 2-step approach is to     |
|              |    | lessen the resource burden on proposing          |
|              |    | institutions by relying on the scientific and    |
|              |    | technology communities to develop, assess, and   |
|              |    | propose technological solutions to mission       |
|              |    | requirements without preparing full cost         |
|              |    | proposals, and then obtaining comprehensive      |
|              |    | proposals (including cost) from a reduced set of |
|              |    | offerors screened by science and technology peer |
|              |    | review teams.                                    |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | Depending on the circumstances and mission       |
|              |    | architecture option, the development team [may   |
|              |    | tailor the solicitation and evaluation           |
|              |    | steps]{.underline}. This can include a tailored  |
|              |    | 2-step process or a tailored 1-step process.     |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | Using the initial PCA, initial Level I program   |
|              |    | requirements for the mission, and other          |
|              |    | information developed in the previous activities |
|              |    | as starting points, the development team begins  |
|              |    | to prepare a solicitation that asks the science, |
|              |    | application, and technology communities for      |
|              |    | approaches that satisfy the mission\'s program   |
|              |    | requirements. The remainder of this work         |
|              |    | instruction describes the full two-step          |
|              |    | solicitation approach.                           |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | In the first step, the development team solicits |
|              |    | ideas from the broader scientific, application,  |
|              |    | and technical communities on how best to meet    |
|              |    | the mission's goals, objectives, and             |
|              |    | requirements. When soliciting concepts, the      |
|              |    | development team begins by defining proposal     |
|              |    | assessment criteria as described in NASA FAR     |
|              |    | Supplement 1872.. The development team also      |
|              |    | produces a separate written evaluation plan, as  |
|              |    | described in the NASA FAR supplement 1872. The   |
|              |    | evaluation plan should include review guidelines |
|              |    | and cover the procedural flow, the evaluation    |
|              |    | schedule, and the recommended staffing for any   |
|              |    | subcommittee or contractor support.              |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | This solicitation also provides instructions for |
|              |    | offerors who elect to proceed to step 2. When    |
|              |    | preparing updated responses to be considered in  |
|              |    | the final evaluation (see Activity 10), offerors |
|              |    | will refer to these instructions.                |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The development team also merges technology      |
|              |    | criteria that it deems necessary for a           |
|              |    | successful mission with the proposal assessment  |
|              |    | criteria to form the required step 1             |
|              |    | solicitation documents. Approval to release the  |
|              |    | solicitation is done in accordance with HQOWI    |
|              |    | 5100-Y014, *Obtain Approval for Release of       |
|              |    | Solicitation Instrument*. If the ESE AA requests |
|              |    | changes, the development team makes the changes. |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | At roughly the same time, the team selects a     |
|              |    | peer review panel that will evaluate responses   |
|              |    | (Activity 9). The peer reviewers normally are    |
|              |    | recognized experts. They may be from NASA, other |
|              |    | Government agencies, universities, or the        |
|              |    | commercial sector. When selecting peer           |
|              |    | reviewers, the program coordinator is            |
|              |    | responsible for ensuring conflicts of interest   |
|              |    | are avoided. Refer to HQOWI 7040-Y012, *Conduct  |
|              |    | Peer Review*, for details on selection of peer   |
|              |    | reviewers.                                       |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The ESE AA is designated as the selection        |
|              |    | official. The development team publicizes and    |
|              |    | releases the best concept solicitation in        |
|              |    | accordance with the Federal Acquisition          |
|              |    | Regulations (FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplements.  |
|              |    | A synopsis of the solicitation is posted in the  |
|              |    | Commerce Business Daily (CBD) and on the NASA    |
|              |    | Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS). Again,      |
|              |    | refer to HQOWI 5100-Y014 for instructions on how |
|              |    | to release solicitations.                        |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 9  | [Evaluate Concepts (Step 1.2)]{.underline}.      |
| Team and     |    | Offerors from the scientific, applications, and  |
| Peer         |    | technical communities generate proposals. These  |
| Reviewers    |    | are intended to be brief proposals that outline  |
|              |    | how the offerors would meet the mission          |
|              |    | requirements. These responses are received by    |
|              |    | the peer review panel who screens the proposals  |
|              |    | for relevancy and feasibility.                   |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The peer review panel discusses the scope,       |
|              |    | strengths, and weaknesses of the various         |
|              |    | proposals. The proposals are graded in           |
|              |    | accordance with the evaluation criteria defined  |
|              |    | in the solicitation and a consensus is sought    |
|              |    | from the committee. The results of the peer      |
|              |    | review panel's evaluation are documented and     |
|              |    | presented to the ESE AA as an advisory           |
|              |    | downselect[^1] recommendation that includes      |
|              |    | identification of each proposal\'s strengths and |
|              |    | weaknesses with rationale and justifications for |
|              |    | the panel\'s recommendation. The ESE AA then     |
|              |    | makes an advisory downselect to a set of         |
|              |    | preferred responses. Refer to HQOWI 7040-Y012    |
|              |    | for details on peer review evaluations.          |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The successful offerors and those offerors whose |
|              |    | proposals were not included in the advisory      |
|              |    | downselect are notified via formal letter signed |
|              |    | by the AA.                                       |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 10 | [Evaluate and Present Findings (Step             |
| Team and     |    | 2.1)]{.underline}. The offerors submit updated   |
| Peer         |    | responses that contain more detail and are more  |
| Reviewers    |    | comprehensive including full cost information.   |
|              |    | They contain the results of mission trade-off    |
|              |    | studies, environmental assessments, platform and |
|              |    | launch services availability assessments,        |
|              |    | assessments of ground data service options, and  |
|              |    | data availability assessments. The proposals     |
|              |    | also indicate what technology will be            |
|              |    | incorporated and the readiness of the            |
|              |    | technology. Tentative launch and partnership     |
|              |    | agreements will be documented. The proposals     |
|              |    | must include estimated mission life-cycle costs  |
|              |    | as well.                                         |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The development team distributes the expanded    |
|              |    | responses to the peer review panel. As before,   |
|              |    | the peer review panel chair summarizes the       |
|              |    | responses for presentation at a meeting of the   |
|              |    | combined peer review panel.                      |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | The Panel Chair, a member of the development     |
|              |    | team, reconvenes the peer review panel to        |
|              |    | discuss the proposal evaluations. The peer       |
|              |    | review panel discusses the scope, strengths, and |
|              |    | weaknesses of the various proposals. The         |
|              |    | proposals are graded in accordance with the      |
|              |    | evaluation criteria and a consensus is sought    |
|              |    | from the committee. The Panel Chair documents    |
|              |    | the results of the peer review panel's           |
|              |    | evaluation for presentation to the ESE AA.       |
|              |    | Again, refer to HQOWI 7040-Y012 for details on   |
|              |    | peer review evaluations.                         |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| ESE AA       | 11 | [Select Preferred Mission (Step                  |
|              |    | 2.2)]{.underline}: Evaluation results from the   |
| Program      |    | peer review panel or the procuring NASA center,  |
| Coordinator  |    | depending on which solicitation path was         |
|              |    | pursued, are presented to the AA as strengths    |
|              |    | and weaknesses for each proposal with rationale  |
|              |    | and justification. The ESE AA selects the        |
|              |    | preferred mission. The program coordinator       |
|              |    | prepares and keeps a memorandum for the record   |
|              |    | documenting the ESE AA\'s decision.              |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | If the new mission is an addition to an existing |
|              |    | program, the flow proceeds to the Activity 16    |
|              |    | (Finalize Documentation and [Handover to         |
|              |    | Performing]{.underline} Organizations). In the   |
|              |    | event, the mission results in a new program,     |
|              |    | then the flow goes to Activity 12 (Request PMC   |
|              |    | Approval to Proceed with Implementation) and a   |
|              |    | set of evaluation activities by the PMC.         |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Program      | 12 | [Request PMC Approval to Proceed with            |
| Coordinator  |    | Implementation]{.underline}. The program         |
|              |    | coordinator, with [enterprise                    |
|              |    | concurrence]{.underline}, prepares Program       |
|              |    | documentation and submits to the Program         |
|              |    | Management Council (PMC) for approval to         |
|              |    | proceed. This applies to new programs only. If   |
|              |    | the mission is not a new program, the process    |
|              |    | skips to Activity 16 (Finalize Documentation and |
|              |    | [Handover to Performing                          |
|              |    | Organization]{.underline}).                      |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| PMC          | 13 | [Evaluate Program Readiness to Proceed           |
|              |    | (PMC)]{.underline}. The PMC assesses the         |
|              |    | documentation provided by the Enterprise and     |
|              |    | determines if the program is consistent with     |
|              |    | Agency strategic goals and risk parameters. If   |
|              |    | risks are high, an independent assessment may be |
|              |    | required. Based on this information, the PMC     |
|              |    | approves implementation of the Program as        |
|              |    | proposed or provides guidance.                   |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | If either an independent assessment or other     |
|              |    | guidance is required, the PMC may re-evaluate    |
|              |    | the program\'s readiness for implementation      |
|              |    | after completion of those activities.            |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Independent  | 14 | [Perform Independent Assessment]{.underline}.    |
| Assessment   |    | The independent assessment essentially is a      |
| Program      |    | readiness assessment used by the NASA HQ PMC     |
| Office       |    | when deciding whether to grant approval to       |
| (IAPO)       |    | proceed with implementation. The Independent     |
|              |    | Assessment Program Office (IAPO) typically       |
|              |    | prepares a presentation for the PMC that         |
|              |    | identifies the members of the assessment team,   |
|              |    | provides an executive summary, describes the     |
|              |    | Program, and discusses readiness, technical, and |
|              |    | resource status and issues. Upon completion of   |
|              |    | the independent assessment, the IAPO forwards    |
|              |    | the various evaluation and assessment results to |
|              |    | the NASA HQ PMC (see Activity 13).               |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 15 | [Rework Program (until approved)]{.underline}.   |
| Team         |    | The development team revises the Program as      |
|              |    | directed by the NASA HQ PMC. The program         |
|              |    | coordinator then again requests PMC approval to  |
|              |    | proceed (Activity 12). This cycle repeats until  |
|              |    | an acceptable Program is formulated.             |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Development  | 16 | [Finalize Documentation and Handover to          |
| Team         |    | Performing Organization]{.underline}. The        |
|              |    | development team updates the Level I program     |
|              |    | requirements for the mission, updates the PCA (a |
|              |    | mission specific appendix) and submits the PCA   |
|              |    | to the ESE AA for concurrence. A letter is       |
|              |    | prepared and sent to the lead and performing     |
|              |    | organizations. This letter, along with the       |
|              |    | preliminary Level I program requirements for the |
|              |    | mission, funding authorization (via Form 506     |
|              |    | Green \-- see HQOWI 7410-Y008, *Execute the ESE  |
|              |    | Budget*), and the signed PCA, authorizes the     |
|              |    | performing [organization, whether a directed     |
|              |    | award or the results of peer-reviewed            |
|              |    | solicitation, to]{.underline} validate the       |
|              |    | flight mission. The lead center is given         |
|              |    | authorization to validate the flight mission.    |
|              |    | The lead center is given authorization to        |
|              |    | administer the contract.                         |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | Offerors, awardees, and Public Affairs,          |
|              |    | International, and Congressional Liaisons        |
|              |    | Offices are all notified of the selection        |
|              |    | decision. The selection decision, whether the    |
|              |    | result of a directed award or peer-reviewed      |
|              |    | solicitation, is then publicized in accordance   |
|              |    | with the requirements of the FAR and NFS.        |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Program      | 17 | [Selection Notification]{.underline}. The        |
| Coordinator  |    | Program Coordinator is responsible to coordinate |
|              |    | selection notification status to offerors with   |
|              |    | the ESE Associate Administrator, the Office of   |
|              |    | Public Affairs (Code P), the Office of           |
|              |    | Legislative Affairs (Code L), and the Office of  |
|              |    | External Relations (Code I). The Program         |
|              |    | Coordinator shall ensure that the following are  |
|              |    | accomplished in the order specified:             |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | 1)  The ESE AA may opt to notify offerors of     |
|              |    |     their selection status personally and in     |
|              |    |     advance of public release of the results of  |
|              |    |     the competition. The Program Coordinator     |
|              |    |     shall ensure that the AA has considered this |
|              |    |     option and that the AA has completed         |
|              |    |     whatever personal notifications are          |
|              |    |     necessary before the release of any public   |
|              |    |     accept/reject notices. After the AA has      |
|              |    |     conducted his personal notifications to      |
|              |    |     offerors, the Program Coordinator shall      |
|              |    |     ensure that other relevant NASA Headquarters |
|              |    |     offices shall be notified of the results of  |
|              |    |     the competition, as follows.                 |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | 2)  Code L notifies appropriate Congressional    |
|              |    |     personnel prior to any public announcement.  |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | 3)  Code I has the opportunity to notify         |
|              |    |     appropriate international partners (if any)  |
|              |    |     prior to a public announcement. In addition, |
|              |    |     any formal notifications shall be concurred  |
|              |    |     on by Code I.                                |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | 4)  Code P prepares and coordinates any public   |
|              |    |     press release.                               |
|              |    |                                                  |
|              |    | .                                                |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+
| Performing   | 18 | [Mission Confirmation & Approval to Proceed Into |
| Organization |    | Implementation.]{.underline} Following handover, |
| and Lead     |    | the lead center, in coordination with the        |
| Center       |    | performing organization, ensures issuance of     |
|              |    | procurements and validates the mission           |
|              |    | architecture, cost & schedule commitments and    |
|              |    | Level I requirements. During this timeframe, the |
|              |    | ESE AA discusses and signs the PCA with the NASA |
|              |    | Administrator. The process ends when the ESE     |
|              |    | Associate Administrator (AA) receives            |
|              |    | confirmation from the Lead Center, along with an |
|              |    | approved Program Plan and Level I requirements,  |
|              |    | and returns a letter of approval to proceed into |
|              |    | implementation back to the Lead Center.          |
+--------------+----+--------------------------------------------------+

# 7.0 QUALITY RECORDS

+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| RECORD        | OWNER | L       | MEDIA  | SCHEDULE | RETENTION / |
| I             |       | OCATION |        | AND ITEM | DISPOSITION |
| DENTIFICATION |       |         | Elec   | N        |             |
|               |       |         | tronic | UMBERS\* |             |
|               |       |         | or     |          |             |
|               |       |         | Ha     |          |             |
|               |       |         | rdcopy |          |             |
+===============+=======+=========+========+==========+=============+
| Approved      | YF    | Program | Ha     | Schedule | Permanent.  |
| Flight        | Div   | P       | rdcopy | 7, Item  |             |
| Measurement   | ision | lanning |        | 6, "R&D  | Retire to   |
| Profile       | Dir   | and     |        | Program  | Federal     |
|               | ector | Deve    |        | Manager  | Records     |
| -Requirements |       | lopment |        | Control  | Center      |
| Sets          |       | D       |        | Files."  | (FRC) 2     |
|               |       | ivision |        |          | years after |
| -Launch       |       | (YF)    |        |          | completion, |
| Schedules     |       |         |        |          | ca          |
|               |       |         |        |          | ncellation, |
| -Concurrence  |       |         |        |          | t           |
| Sheet         |       |         |        |          | ermination, |
|               |       |         |        |          | or          |
|               |       |         |        |          | suspension  |
|               |       |         |        |          | of the      |
|               |       |         |        |          | program.    |
|               |       |         |        |          | Transfer to |
|               |       |         |        |          | National    |
|               |       |         |        |          | Archives    |
|               |       |         |        |          | and Records |
|               |       |         |        |          | Adm         |
|               |       |         |        |          | inistration |
|               |       |         |        |          | (NARA) 10   |
|               |       |         |        |          | years after |
|               |       |         |        |          | subject     |
|               |       |         |        |          | event or    |
|               |       |         |        |          | when 25     |
|               |       |         |        |          | years old   |
|               |       |         |        |          | whichever   |
|               |       |         |        |          | is sooner.  |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Signed        | D     | Program | Ha     | Schedule | Permanent.  |
| Formulation   | evelo | P       | rdcopy | 7, Item  |             |
| Authorization | pment | lanning |        | 6, "R&D  | Retire to   |
| Document      | Team  | and     |        | Program  | FRC 2 years |
|               |       | Deve    |        | Manager  | after       |
|               |       | lopment |        | Control  | completion, |
|               |       | D       |        | Files."  | ca          |
|               |       | ivision |        |          | ncellation, |
|               |       | (YF)    |        |          | t           |
|               |       |         |        |          | ermination, |
|               |       |         |        |          | or          |
|               |       |         |        |          | suspension  |
|               |       |         |        |          | of the      |
|               |       |         |        |          | program.    |
|               |       |         |        |          | Transfer to |
|               |       |         |        |          | NARA 10     |
|               |       |         |        |          | years after |
|               |       |         |        |          | subject     |
|               |       |         |        |          | event or    |
|               |       |         |        |          | when 25     |
|               |       |         |        |          | years old   |
|               |       |         |        |          | whichever   |
|               |       |         |        |          | is sooner.  |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Solicitation  | Res   | Kept by | Ha     | Schedule | Transfer    |
| Package       | earch | R       | rdcopy | 7, Item  | all files   |
| (Includes     | O     | esearch |        | 8, "NASA | to the      |
| Signed        | pport | Oppo    |        | Research | responsible |
| Concurrence   | unity | rtunity |        | Announ   | division /  |
| Cover Sheet)  | Adm   | Admini  |        | cement." | project 2   |
|               | inist | strator |        |          | years after |
| (See HQOWI    | rator |         |        |          | award.      |
| 5100-Y014,    |       |         |        |          | Records     |
| *Obtain       |       |         |        |          | will be     |
| Approval for  |       |         |        |          | i           |
| Release of    |       |         |        |          | ncorporated |
| Solicitation  |       |         |        |          | into the    |
| Instrument).* |       |         |        |          | official    |
|               |       |         |        |          | project     |
|               |       |         |        |          | file, or    |
|               |       |         |        |          | gra         |
|               |       |         |        |          | nt/contract |
|               |       |         |        |          | file.       |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Advisory      | D     | Program | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Downselect    | evelo | P       | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
| R             | pment | lanning |        | 9, "R&D  | year old.   |
| ecommendation | Team  | and     |        | Peer     | Destroy     |
| with          |       | Deve    |        | Review   | when 5      |
| Rationale and |       | lopment |        | and      | years old.  |
| Justification |       | D       |        | Evalu    |             |
|               |       | ivision |        | ations," |             |
|               |       | (YF)    |        | p        |             |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph |             |
|               |       |         |        | B.2.     |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Step 1        | D     | Support | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Accept/Reject | evelo | Contrac | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
| Notices       | pment | tor\*\* |        | 9,       | year old.   |
|               | Team  |         |        | p        | Destroy     |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph | when 5      |
|               |       |         |        | B.2.     | years old.  |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| R             | D     | Program | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| ecommendation | evelo | P       | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
| of Preferred  | pment | lanning |        | 9,       | year old.   |
| Mission with  | Team  | and     |        | p        | Destroy     |
| Rationale,    |       | Deve    |        | aragraph | when 5      |
| J             |       | lopment |        | B.2.     | years old.  |
| ustification, |       | D       |        |          |             |
| and Peer      |       | ivision |        |          |             |
| Review        |       | (YF)    |        |          |             |
| Results       |       |         |        |          |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Selection     | Pr    | Program | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Memorandum    | ogram | P       | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
| for the       | C     | lanning |        | 9,       | year old.   |
| Record        | oordi | and     |        | p        | Destroy     |
|               | nator | Deve    |        | aragraph | when 5      |
|               |       | lopment |        | B.2.     | years old.  |
|               |       | D       |        |          |             |
|               |       | ivision |        |          |             |
|               |       | (YF)    |        |          |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Approved PCA  | Pr    | Program | Ha     | Schedule | Permanent.  |
|               | ogram | P       | rdcopy | 7, Item  |             |
|               | C     | lanning |        | 6, "R&D  | Retire to   |
|               | oordi | and     |        | Program  | FRC 2 years |
|               | nator | Deve    |        | Manager  | after       |
|               |       | lopment |        | Control  | completion, |
|               |       | D       |        | Files."  | ca          |
|               |       | ivision |        |          | ncellation, |
|               |       | (YF)    |        |          | t           |
|               |       |         |        |          | ermination, |
|               |       |         |        |          | or          |
|               |       |         |        |          | suspension  |
|               |       |         |        |          | of the      |
|               |       |         |        |          | program.    |
|               |       |         |        |          | Transfer to |
|               |       |         |        |          | NARA 10     |
|               |       |         |        |          | years after |
|               |       |         |        |          | subject     |
|               |       |         |        |          | event or    |
|               |       |         |        |          | when 25     |
|               |       |         |        |          | years old   |
|               |       |         |        |          | whichever   |
|               |       |         |        |          | is sooner.  |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Finalized     | D     | Program | Ha     | Schedule | Permanent.  |
| Level I       | evelo | P       | rdcopy | 7, Item  |             |
| Program       | pment | lanning |        | 6, "R&D  | Retire to   |
| Requirements  | Team  | and     |        | Program  | FRC 2 years |
|               |       | Deve    |        | Manager  | after       |
|               |       | lopment |        | Control  | completion, |
|               |       | D       |        | Files."  | ca          |
|               |       | ivision |        |          | ncellation, |
|               |       | (YF)    |        |          | t           |
|               |       |         |        |          | ermination, |
|               |       |         |        |          | or          |
|               |       |         |        |          | suspension  |
|               |       |         |        |          | of the      |
|               |       |         |        |          | program.    |
|               |       |         |        |          | Transfer to |
|               |       |         |        |          | NARA 10     |
|               |       |         |        |          | years after |
|               |       |         |        |          | subject     |
|               |       |         |        |          | event or    |
|               |       |         |        |          | when 25     |
|               |       |         |        |          | years old   |
|               |       |         |        |          | whichever   |
|               |       |         |        |          | is sooner.  |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Step 2        | D     | Support | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Accept/Reject | evelo | Contrac | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when 1  |
| Notices       | pment | tor\*\* |        | 9, "R&D  | year old.   |
|               | Team  |         |        | Peer     | Destroy     |
|               |       |         |        | Review   | when 5      |
|               |       |         |        | and      | years old.  |
|               |       |         |        | Evalu    |             |
|               |       |         |        | ations," |             |
|               |       |         |        | p        |             |
|               |       |         |        | aragraph |             |
|               |       |         |        | B.2.     |             |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+
| Approval to   | Pr    | Program | Ha     | Schedule | Retire to   |
| Proceed       | ogram | P       | rdcopy | 7, Item  | FRC when no |
| Letter        | C     | lanning |        | 10,      | longer      |
|               | oordi | and     |        | "Project | needed for  |
|               | nator | Deve    |        | Approval | active      |
|               |       | lopment |        | Doc      | reference   |
|               |       | D       |        | uments," | or when 8   |
|               |       | ivision |        | p        | years old,  |
|               |       | (       |        | aragraph | whichever   |
|               |       | YF)\*\* |        | A.       | is sooner.  |
|               |       |         |        |          | Transfer to |
|               |       |         |        |          | NARA when   |
|               |       |         |        |          | 25 years    |
|               |       |         |        |          | old.        |
+---------------+-------+---------+--------+----------+-------------+

\*Quality Records are retained in accordance with the referenced
schedule and item numbers from NPG 1441.1, *NASA Records Retention
Schedules. \*\*J*orge Scientific Corporation stores peer review results
(including accept/reject letters) at 400 Virginia Avenue SW, Washington,
D.C., telephone 202/554-2775. These records are available for on-site
inspection in Jorge offices during normal working hours. For off-site
use, copies must be requested.

-   For on-site inspection, the solicitation initiator may call in
    advance to request record retrieval and work space in the Jorge
    offices. Specify the solicitation name or acronym, the solicitation
    number, and the type of document required \-- for example,
    accept/reject letters, mail evaluation forms, panel evaluation
    forms, summary reports.

-   To request copies for use outside Jorge offices, the solicitation
    initiator may contact either the support contractor\'s Code Y
    Project Manager, or the Task Lead who was assigned to support a
    particular peer review. Specify the solicitation name and number,
    the type of document, and the number of copies required. Copies will
    be provided within 1 to 3 days, depending on the volume.

[^1]: An advisory downselect does not preclude an offeror from bidding
    during the second step of the process. However, it is an indication
    that NASA did not feel the concept presented in the initial offer
    was likely to be funded in the final selection.