2020 HIGH RISK 

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN 

In Response to Recent Programmatic Performance and 

NASA’s Designation on GAO’s High Risk List 

August 2020 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 

NASA Legacy of Programmatic Improvements.............................................................................................2 

2007 Corrective Action Plan...................................................................................................................... 2 

2018 Corrective Action Plan...................................................................................................................... 3 

Approach....................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Corrective Action Plan Overview .................................................................................................................. 5 

Ownership and Responsibilities................................................................................................................ 5 

Initiatives................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Areas of Emphasis..................................................................................................................................... 6 

Severability................................................................................................................................................ 6 

Progress Tracking and Reporting .............................................................................................................. 6 

Corrective Action Plan Update Schedule .................................................................................................. 6 

Initiatives to Implement................................................................................................................................ 7 

Enhance Earned Value Management Implementation............................................................................. 8 

Implement Programmatic (PP&C) Training Curriculum..........................................................................11 

Increase Deep Space Exploration Systems’ Transparency of Cost and Schedule...................................14 

Implement CADRe Enhancements for Category III/Class D Missions.....................................................18 

Create a Schedule Repository .................................................................................................................21 

Risk Assessment and Financial Evaluation of Contractors......................................................................24 

Appendices..................................................................................................................................................26 

Appendix A: 2020 CAP Working Group Membership and PMIAA Working Group Membership...........27 

CAPWG Membership ..........................................................................................................................27 

PMIAA Working Group Membership ..................................................................................................27 

Appendix B: Acronyms List......................................................................................................................28 

1 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose 

This Corrective Action Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan,” or the “CAP”) encompasses a 

collection of specific initiatives and areas of emphasis that the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (the “Agency,” or “NASA”) commits to pursuing as it matures Agency program and 

project management policies and processes, as well as related surveillance of contractors through 

appropriate insight and oversight. NASA developed this Plan in response to recent challenges in cost and 

schedule growth experienced by several of the Agency’s highest profile missions, as well as the 

continued inclusion of NASA’s acquisition practices in the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) 

biennial High Risk Report. The Plan is also developed in support of the Agency’s steadfast commitment 

to good governance and effective stewardship of the resources entrusted to it. The overall goal of the 

Plan is to strengthen the Agency’s cutting-edge program and project management efforts across the 

board and to improve transparency for NASA’s stakeholders. 

NASA Legacy of Programmatic Improvements 

2007 Corrective Action Plan 

NASA sees excellence in program and project management as a core capability and critical if the Agency 

is to successfully develop and operate technologies and systems for the human exploration of deep 

space; execute robust programs of robotic missions to monitor the Sun and Earth, explore the planets of 

our solar system, and observe the universe beyond; and continue to make aviation safer, more efficient, 

and more environmentally friendly. To that end, the Agency continually assesses how to manage 

projects and prepare people to lead. As a result, NASA’s project management and oversight practices 

have seen significant improvement since the Agency was first added to GAO’s High Risk List in 1990. 

GAO originally designated NASA’s acquisition management as a “high risk” area in its inaugural High-Risk 

List released in 1990, citing what was at the time considered a history of persistent cost growth and 

schedule delays in the majority of the Agency’s major products. In 2007, NASA established a Corrective 

Action Plan consisting of five broad focus areas and seven tactical initiatives that provided an Agencywide coordinated approach to improve NASA’s program and project management activities. The 

initiatives included in the 2007 Plan were all successfully closed by the end of 2012, and GAO has 

acknowledged that considerable progress toward strengthening and integrating NASA’s acquisition 

management functions resulted from those efforts. Both the 2015 and 2017 High Risk Reports credited 

NASA with fully meeting three of the five criteria for removal from the High Risk List (leadership 

commitment, action plan, and monitoring), as well as partially meeting the remaining two criteria 

(capacity and demonstrated progress). 

A key milestone in the maturity of NASA’s programmatic discipline was the Corrective Action Plan 

developed in 2007. The 2007 plan contained seven initiatives to address potential shortcomings in 

NASA’s acquisition management practices. Those initiatives were: (1) Program/Project Requirements 

and Implementation Practices; (2) Agency Strategic Acquisition Approach; (3) Contractor Cost 

Performance Monitoring; (4) Project Management Training and Development; (5) Improve Life-Cycle 

Cost/Schedule Management Processes; (6) Integrated Enterprise Management Program (IEMP) Process 

Improvement; and, (7) Procurement Processes and Policies. Six of these seven initiatives were 

operationalized by 2012 through the introduction of new requirements, policies, procedures, training, 

and other tools to improve how we manage our major acquisitions and ensure our workforce has the 

2 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

necessary associated tools. In 2014, NASA declared that the one outstanding initiative, Contractor Cost 

Performance Monitoring, was closed. This initiative was originally designed to improve the availability of 

contractor data to support performance monitoring of programs and projects. The initiative would have 

been accomplished through enhanced business systems and changes to the contractor cost reporting 

process. NASA performed analyses at that time to identify gaps in the existing key business systems and 

concepts and courses of action that could be implemented to address those gaps. As a result of this 

analysis, NASA and GAO agreed to replace the original objective, and instead instituted several process 

improvements designed to achieve greater insight into project performance, including contractor cost 

performance. 

These operationalized initiatives have yielded the desired results for NASA’s small and medium-class 

missions, though the Agency recognized that there was still work to be done. Specifically, that NASA 

needed to do better managing larger, more complex projects, which typically involve the development 

of a significant number of new technologies, greater risk, and early estimation challenges. The 2018 

Corrective Action Plan described below was designed to build upon the successful legacy of its 2007 

predecessor, ensuring that NASA continues to enhance its programmatic rigor while pushing forward 

with the activities that will be necessary to initiate a bold new era of discovery. 

2018 Corrective Action Plan 

In September 2018, Agency senior leadership determined that a new CAP was necessary to continue 

driving improvements in NASA’s program and project management policies and processes. NASA’s 

Associate Administrator (AA) and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) jointly issued a memorandum to this 

effect on September 6, 2018, which can be found as an Appendix to the 2018 CAP. The memo required 

that a new Plan be in place by the end of the 2018 calendar year, and established a working group 

comprised of relevant experts from across the Agency to develop the initiatives. It also called for the 

creation of a Steering Committee to provide guidance to the working group at key milestones in the 

development process. Finally, top-level direction for the new Plan would reside with the NASA AA (in 

coordination with the CFO), with official approvals routed through the Agency Program Management 

Council (APMC). 

The working group held a kick-off on September 19, 2018 and met or communicated daily throughout 

the development of the Plan. The working group considered a variety of inputs during the formulation of 

each of the individual initiatives that comprise the Plan. These inputs include, but are not limited to, 

previous GAO High Risk Reports, GAO’s 2018 Priority Recommendations Letter, reports issued by GAO 

during its annual programmatic reviews of NASA’s major projects, as well as internal analyses conducted 

by the Agency. Direction from NASA senior leadership, the advice of subject matter experts drawn from 

across NASA, and feedback from GAO were also considered. Agency-wide stakeholder review was 

conducted via the APMC community during November 2018, and the final document was approved at 

the December 6, 2018 APMC meeting. 

The 2018 CAP represented an entirely new Plan identifying NASA leadership priorities aimed at 

improving the programmatic performance of NASA’s acquisition management, recognizing that NASA 

was facing continued struggles in its management of large acquisition programs and opportunity existed 

to make improvements. The Plan was comprised of seven (7) initiatives to implement, one (1) initiative 

to pilot, and one (1) initiative to research: 

3 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Initiatives to Implement 

o Enhance Earned Value Management (EVM) Implementation 

o Program Planning and Control (PP&C) Training Curriculum 

o Create Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Best Practices Document 

o Include Original Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) for Performance-Driven 

Rebaselined Projects 

o Update Probabilistic Programmatic Policy 

o Enhance Annual Strategic Review Process 

o Improve Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) Portfolio 

Insight and Status 

• Initiative to Pilot 

o Create a Schedule Repository 

• Initiative to Research 

o Enhance Implementation Indicators for Trends and Projections 

The 2018 CAP also included three Areas of Emphasis around the subjects of improving governance of 

strategic acquisitions, improving risk assessment and concept definition in the early formulation phase, 

and contractually incentivizing high performance. Leadership wanted to emphasize adherence to 

current policies and practices in these areas to encourage improvements that better position the Agency 

to manage cost and schedule performance. 

Significant progress was accomplished between the start of the 2018 CAP in December 2018, and the 

approved 2020 CAP in July 2020. Six initiatives were completed, one was closed and rewritten, and two 

remained in process at the end of the period. Enhancing EVM implementation and implementing the 

PP&C training curriculum were intended to be longer-term initiatives. The HEOMD initiative was 

rewritten, as described below, to better align the changes to GAO’s associated priority 

recommendations, and to clarify tracking and closure requirements. The remaining initiatives all 

successfully completed their plans of action as outlined. 

Approach 

A CAP informational status briefing was presented to the APMC by the OCFO Strategic Investments 

Division (SID), where the progress of the 2018 CAP initiatives was reviewed in detail by Agency senior 

leadership. Out of that meeting, the NASA AA directed that the CAP working group be reconvened to 

explore and evaluate a list of new candidate initiatives for potential inclusion in a 2020 CAP update. The 

Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA) NASA working group was identified to 

serve the function that the Steering Committee served in 2018. A tentative date of May 6, 2020 was set 

as the date for the CAP Update decisional APMC. In order to relieve pressure on the CAP working group 

team during the onset of full-time telework in spring 2020, the APMC decisional briefing was 

subsequently rescheduled to July 16, 2020. 

Appendix A includes the 2020 CAP working group and PMIAA working group membership. Appendix B 

includes a table of acronyms used in this document. 

4 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corrective Action Plan Overview 

Ownership and Responsibilities 

The NASA AA assumes ownership of the CAP. OCFO SID is responsible for maintaining CAP 

documentation, tracking and reporting progress against the CAP on an annual basis, and conducting any 

process updates for subsequent iterations on the CAP. Lead Executives or Lead Organizations as 

described in the various initiatives in the CAP are responsible for executing upon the initiatives as 

written, and reporting progress to either OCFO SID or other specific forums as described. The Supporting 

Organizations, where listed, will support the identified Lead Executives or Organizations in execution of 

the initiatives, as necessary. 

Initiatives 

The Corrective Action Plan is comprised of a set of initiatives evaluated by the working group and crossAgency stakeholders to provide value for Agency acquisition management improvements. The initiatives 

are categorized by the following actionable characteristics: 

• Implement: Initiatives that NASA has determined should proceed and become part of regular 

Agency business cadence. Any actions taken to support execution of the described initiatives will 

follow all established Agency control and oversight boards, as applicable, to ensure no 

unintended consequences are experienced. 

• Pilot: Initiatives that NASA has determined show promise to provide value related to Agency 

acquisition management but will initially be executed to a limited degree in scope and time until 

the Agency assesses and reaffirms continued execution. 

• Research: Initiatives that are less conceptually mature but warrant dedicated effort to explore 

and develop with respect to generating value for Agency acquisition management. 

Each initiative in the CAP includes the following sections: 

• Lead Executive/Organization: The individual or office responsible for leading the initiative as 

described, and periodically reporting progress to OCFO SID for internal and external 

communications and for coordination purposes. 

• Supporting Organization(s): The organization(s) required to support the Lead 

Executive/Organization execute the initiative as described. While the organizations listed are 

necessary and required to support the initiative, the lists are not necessarily exhaustive, as the 

Lead Executive/Organization may call on other Organizations to support. 

• Initiative Description: A brief high-level summary of the initiative. 

• Background/Current State: A description of the status quo and, as necessary, an overview of 

relevant background information and any policies, procedures, constraints, or other areas 

influencing the status quo. 

• Expected Benefits: A review of the expected payoff from conducting and completing the 

described initiative. 

• Recent Accomplishments: Where applicable, a review of recent progress and accomplishments 

regarding the described initiative. Some initiatives already have momentum, which will be 

reflected here. Others, such as research initiatives for new ideas, will not have content for this 

section. 

• Planned Next Steps: A high-level description of the planned progress for the initiative to occur 

over a period ranging up to two years. 

5 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Output and Outcome Metrics: Where applicable, a list of appropriate methods of measurement 

to track progress and effectiveness of the described initiative. 

• Interdependencies: Where applicable, a description of key dependencies that necessitate 

coordination or cognizance in support of initiative success. 

• Impediments and Challenges: A brief description of possible pitfalls, risks, impediments, and 

challenges that can be reasonably expected to occur during execution of the described initiative. 

• Required Resources: A preliminary assessment of possible resource requirements for successful 

execution of the described initiative. This does not represent committed resources and does not 

reflect a refined estimate of resources. Any funds required to execute any initiatives will 

proceed through the regular budget formulation processes for Agency approval. 

Areas of Emphasis 

NASA will emphasize adherence to current policies and practices in certain areas listed in this section 

and encourage improvements that better position the Agency to manage cost and schedule 

performance. In contrast to the initiatives in the CAP, Areas of Emphasis do not currently have direct, 

measurable plans of action for the purposes of the Corrective Action Plan, but nevertheless are deemed 

critical to improving Agency performance. 

Severability 

The initiatives contained herein are interrelated with respect to their connection to improving Agency 

acquisition management but are not mutually dependent on one another for execution purposes unless 

otherwise identified. As such, if the Agency should determine that any individual initiative be removed 

from the Corrective Action Plan for any reason, the Plan and remaining initiatives will remain in effect. 

Progress Tracking and Reporting 

Each initiative in the CAP includes planned next steps and metrics, where applicable. The Lead 

Organization(s) cited in the CAP will pursue actions as described. A subset of initiatives includes specific 

forums for reporting progress or deliverables (e.g., APMC or Business Performance Review (BPR)). For all 

efforts in the CAP, OCFO SID will conduct an annual checkpoint to measure progress against the CAP. For 

odd-numbered years, the progress checkpoint will occur in the summer months. For even-numbered 

years, the progress checkpoint will be folded into the CAP update (see below). OCFO SID will provide the 

overall progress and status update to the AA. OCFO SID will also share and discuss progress with GAO 

annually at a minimum, and more often when applicable. 

Corrective Action Plan Update Schedule 

NASA will keep this Corrective Action Plan current and up to date until GAO removes the High Risk 

designation for the Agency. The update process in which initiatives and/or Areas of Emphasis are added, 

revised, or resolved will occur in the approximate period of May to September of even-numbered years. 

This timeframe allows an informed GAO consideration of any changes made to the CAP and supports the 

GAO’s timeline for preparation of the biennial publication of the High Risk Report (~January/February of 

odd-numbered years). The AA will retain the authority to make changes and revisions to the CAP at any 

time. 

6 | Page 
 

Initiatives to Implement 

7 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhance Earned Value Management Implementation 

Lead Executive/Organization 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

Supporting Organization(s) 

Mission Directorates; Centers; Programs and Projects 

Initiative Description 

NASA will improve and strengthen the Earned Value Management (EVM) discipline, and work to foster a 

culture at NASA where EVM is accepted by Programs and Projects and embraced by managers and 

employees. 

Background/Current State 

EVM is an integrated management control system for assessing, understanding, and quantifying what a 

contractor or field activity is achieving with program dollars. EVM is a discipline with established 

industry-adopted standards outlined in EIA-748 that integrates technical, cost, schedule, and risk 

management. It requires an established performance measurement baseline (PMB) which allows for 

objective assessment and quantification of current project performance as well as helps to predict 

future performance based on trends. EVM provides project management with objective, accurate, and 

timely data for effective decision-making. 

EVM system compliance and use is required on all acquisitions for development designated as major in 

accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 and the Capital 

Programming Guide. At NASA, EVM is required for development or production contracts and 

subcontracts (including those for flight systems, ground systems, and institutional requirements (facility, 

information technology, investment, etc.)) valued at or greater than $20 million. EVM is required on 

NASA spaceflight projects with a lifecycle cost (LCC) of $250 million or greater. Science Mission 

Directorate (SMD) Mission Risk Class-D space flight projects and contracts with a LCC of up to $150 

million (not including launch costs) have an approved deviation from the EVM requirements of NASA 

FAR Supplement (NFS) 1834.201. Class-D missions with a LCC of up to $150 million (not including launch 

costs) should use the processes per the SMD Class-D Tailoring/Streamlining Policy. The Aeronautics 

Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) has also recently tailored governance to require EVM on large 

crewed flight projects. 

EVM reporting begins no later than 60 days post Key Decision Point-C (KDP-C). The primary 

consideration for EVM applicability is the nature of the work, associated risks, and the value of the 

effort. EVM is not recommended on Firm Fixed Price contracts or contracts that are exclusively Level of 

Effort (LOE). 

Expected Benefits of Implementation 

Improved EVM will: 

• Encourage rigorous upfront planning to establish a performance measurement baseline to assess 

NASA projects performance for cost, schedule and Estimate at Completions (EACs). 

• Provide project managers with objective, accurate, and timely data for effective decision-making. 

• Help the Agency progress toward removal from the GAO’s High Risk List by enabling NASA programs 

and projects to identify and address issues and take corrective actions. 

8 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Enable a central repository that provides relevant historical data for NASA to develop better cost 

and schedule estimates for NASA’s future programs and projects. 

Recent Accomplishments 

While areas for improvement still exist, the Agency has taken concrete steps to advance the EVM 

capability, including: 

• All applicable projects submitting EVM data to the EVM central repository. Developed and 

distributed an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) surveillance guide and project 

selection matrix for Centers for implementation beginning third quarter FY20. 

• EVM metrics continue to be reported at the BPR. Data from the EVM Central Repository 

supplies metrics for the OCFO Strategic Investments Division (SID) dashboard chart in support of 

the BPRs. 

• Implemented routine EVM surveillance at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory (JPL), and the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). 

• Surveillance Sub-team developed including APL, JPL, SwRI, Defense Contract Management 

Agency (DCMA), and in-house programs to discuss the DCMA EVMS Compliance Metric (DECM) 

test metrics and use to foster better communication and understanding of the surveillance 

initiative. 

Planned Next Steps 

Mission Directorates (MD) and Centers will provide points of contact to work with the Agency EVM 

Steering Committee to jointly review and assign the following next steps and considerations: 

• Schedule a meeting with the EVM Steering Committee to get agreement on funding and identify 

potential projects for rollout of the EVM Capability. 

• Continue to work with OCFO/SID, MDs, and projects to refine the EVM reporting metrics at the 

Baseline Performance Review (BPR). 

• Begin joint Agency-level EVMS surveillance on Centers. 

• Continue to work with suppliers to implement and refine EVMS surveillance. 

• Continue to work with projects to get their EVM reports into the Central Repository. Work with 

JPL to get EVM data in a format readable by the Agency’s EVM analysis tool, Empower, and to 

revise contract language and ensure Empower data is submitted for future applicable task 

orders. 

Output and Outcome Metrics 

• All applicable contracts use DCMA for contract EVMS surveillance or an equally effective method 

as outlined in the project plan that is consistent with the agency overall surveillance approach. 

• All issues identified in the EVM Assessment have been satisfactorily dispositioned with 

corrective action plans within a reasonable time of identification. 

• A reduction of EVMS data integrity issues identified by GAO. 

• EVM capability is rolled out to all NASA Centers with EVM requirements. 

• Status meetings (e.g., BPR) include EVM data where applicable. 

Interdependencies 

The success of EVM implementation is predicated upon successful adoption and execution by all 

affected projects, programs, and mission directorates. It is also critical that NASA senior leadership 

emphasize the need for EVM performance data and act upon the data when anomalies are identified. 

9 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NASA does all of EVMS NASA does EVMS surveillance Current State, plus additional 

surveillance including all on total project (in-house) and support to implement CAP plan 

contracts JPL, APL, SwRI, etc. 

+~10 FTE/WYEs +~5 FTE/WYEs +~3 FTE/WYEs 

Impediments & Challenges 

• Resistance and pushback from MDs, Centers, and projects is ongoing. 

• Funding and resources for additional work scope. Sufficient funding approved by the EVM 

Steering Committee has not been received to fully implement the initiative. 

• OCFO share of the additional funding submitted as an over guide. No decision yet on the 

additional funding for FY19 and beyond. 

• In-house EVM was waived on Low Boom Flight Demonstrator (LBFD) and therefore EVM 

Capability rollout still has not occurred. 

Required Resources 

Demands on the EVM staff within OCFO and at the Centers indicate that the Agency has been underresourced and under-staffed in recent years for EVM implementation and surveillance. To implement 

the steps in this plan, additional resources will be required depending on the Agency’s final strategy. If 

the full EVM surveillance is assumed by the Agency for both total project (in-house) and contracts, it is 

estimated that an additional 10 full-time equivalents (FTE)/work-year equivalents (WYE) would be 

required. If the Agency continues to utilize DCMA for contracts and focuses more on project (in-house) 

surveillance and increasing EVM analysis at the project level, then approximately three additional 

FTE/WYEs would be required. Finally, to conduct EVM surveillance at contractor specific institutions 

(such as the JPL, the APL, and the SwRI), to continue to conduct EVM assessment in their current state, 

and to use DCMA for contracts, then approximately five additional FTE/WYEs would be required. The 

CAP Working Group (CAPWG) recommends that the level of adequacy for EVM resources be assessed 

during the next logical Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) budget formulation 

process and that the results of that assessment be reflected in the budget. 

NOTE: If the agency were to choose not to use DCMA for EVM surveillance on contracts, the risk would 

be that the current memorandum of understanding (MOU) for surveillance could be rescinded by 

DCMA. This could reduce the likelihood of DCMA conducting these types of reviews in the future 

because they could adjust their workforce based on the reduced scope of work with NASA. Finally, 

DCMA has a stronger presence in the industrial base because the Department of Defense’s budget is 

much larger than NASA’s and DCMA EVMS surveillance findings carry more influence with the industrial 

base than findings by civil agencies carry. 

Notional resource levels (to be reviewed in established NASA budget formulation process): 

10 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Implement Programmatic (PP&C) Training Curriculum 

Lead Executive/Organization 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Strategic Investments Division (OCFO SID) 

Supporting Organization(s) 

The training lead coordinates with subject matter experts (SMEs) from Agency Centers and from each 

programmatic function to ensure that all NASA best practices and processes are reflected in the skillsets 

captured in the competency model matrices. 

Initiative Description 

The purpose of the Programmatic Training Curriculum is to help bridge the gap between the currentstate workforce and future-state workforce of highly trained analysts. Establishing a training curriculum 

where courses are reflective of the Agency’s best practices and methods is necessary to grow and 

strengthen the Agency’s programmatic capabilities. 

Background/Current State 

The Budget and Management Business Services Assessment (BSA) core team conducted a study to 

evaluate the health of the Agency’s PP&C functions, specifically Integration, Resource Management, 

Schedule Management, and Cost Estimation and Assessment (CE&A). The outcome of this study 

revealed that, within the PP&C (herein referred to as Programmatic) workforce, there is an inadequate 

number of advanced, proficient analysts. In addition, there are limited resources describing how a 

programmatic analyst develops into a programmatic SME. 

Expected Benefits of Implementation 

The approach to address the concern for the low number of advanced-level programmatic analysts is 

two-fold: to refine the Agency hiring process to recruit ideal candidates, and to establish a 

Programmatic Career Development and Progression Framework to provide training and guidance to 

those candidates and other programmatic employees. The hiring and interview processes should be 

strategic to attract candidates who possess an inherent analytical and technical aptitude to support 

programmatic work. The Programmatic Career Development and Progression Framework will offer a 

roadmap of how to enhance or develop programmatic skills. It will include tiered competency matrices 

of entry-level to advanced-level programmatic analysts that is reinforced with a common, centralized 

Programmatic Training Curriculum. The establishment of the Programmatic Training Curriculum will 

increase the Agency’s programmatic proficiency level and encourage adherence to Agency best 

practices and processes. This will also promote the consistent application of analytical methods and 

techniques, which will produce more coherent, reliable work products. Although a robust training 

program lays a foundation for acquiring certain programmatic skills, it is important to note that on-thejob experiences and mentoring is also needed to develop programmatic SMEs. Taking concepts learned 

in formalized classroom settings and applying them in day-to-day job functions will enable an analyst to 

grow in their discipline, strengthen any weak programmatic areas, and continue their progression to an 

advanced-level programmatic analyst. 

Recent Accomplishments 

• Drafted course materials for several schedule and cost-related courses. The majority of courses 

are modules in development and are undergoing iterative, internal peer reviews. 

11 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Met with the Agency’s Chief Financial Officer University (CFOU) lead, routinely, to ensure that 

the programmatic training material is embedded within their website and curriculum. 

• Ensured PP&C competency models are reflected in training objectives and supported in Agencyrelated guidance documents. 

Planned Next Steps 

The planned next steps are to: 

• Meet routinely with several course development teams to track execution of plans and 

progress. 

• Target to have one new course completed and ready for deployment by end of 2020. 

Output and Outcome Metrics 

• A percent increase on the number of proficient analysts within the Agency. Similar to the BSA 

study, assess the proficiency levels of the Programmatic community within a year of course 

deployment. 

• Common Competency Models exist for each PP&C discipline and are used toward Career 

Planning and 100% of programmatic job announcements reflect competencies listed within 

models. 

o Supervisors and hiring officials refer to competency models to assess the proficiency 

levels of programmatic analysts and to gauge their ability to support advanced 

programmatic analysis. 

• Development and deployment of training courses. 

o Courses are being developed according to the planned timeline. 100% of plan deviations 

are documented and communicated to the Programmatic Portfolio lead. 

o Each PP&C professional has taken at least one programmatic course from the 

curriculum and/or have identified courses within the Individual Development Plan (IDP). 

Supervisors reinforce the training needs at mid-year and annual performance 

discussions. 

o New hires and early career programmatic professionals have taken at least two courses 

within one year of activity within the PP&C community. 

Interdependencies 

An interdependency exists with the GAO Corrective Action Plan initiative for Agency efforts that involve 

updating programmatic guidance documents and handbooks (e.g., Schedule Management Handbook, 

Earned Value Management (EVM) handbook, Cost Estimating Handbook, Risk Management Handbook). 

The guidance and requirements outlined in related programmatic material will be reinforced within the 

training courses. 

There are similar training initiatives that exist within the Agency that are interdependent with the 

Programmatic Training Curriculum efforts. NASA’s CFOU has an established curriculum that caters to the 

job functions related to the finance and resource management domains as well as the management of 

risk used for programmatic and institutional decision-making. Some of these courses can be expanded 

or amended to include the proper programmatic context to ensure that concepts are properly reflected 

in related training material. Additionally, OCFO’s Professional Development Framework (PDF) has 

created a career path website that enables employees to view the competency matrices of OCFO job 

functions. The competency levels of the Programmatic functions can also be added to this website so 

12 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that information is provided uniformly and consistent to other related technical and programmatic 

fields. 

Impediments & Challenges 

The challenges associated with this effort are: 

• Operating without a budget to develop and deploy courses. Without dedicated resources, it is 

difficult to ensure that conducting training related activities are a priority for team members. 

• Finding optimal times to meet with development teams, due to team member’s conflicting 

schedules. If a team meeting is re-scheduled, action items are still tracked so progress is not 

hindered. 

Required Resources 

The resources required to execute the establishment of the Programmatic Training Curriculum include a 

group of dedicated SMEs that are given the time to develop courses and teach the material. The intent is 

not to solicit assistance from outside the Agency, but to use programmatic SMEs who are familiar with 

NASA’s best practices and processes. However, full-time dedication is not the requirement; depending 

how often a course is taught, an instructor will need a budget to develop course material, prepare for a 

class, travel to the class site (if applicable), and teach the course. Portions of the budget will also help 

ensure that there is a central repository where all related materials of the Programmatic Training 

Curriculum can reside. 

13 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increase Deep Space Exploration Systems’ Transparency of Cost and Schedule 

Lead Executive/Organization 

Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) 

Supporting Organization(s) 

ESD/AES (including EGS/Orion/SLS/HLS/Gateway programs); OCFO SID; OCE; HEOMD RMO 

Initiative Description 

NASA will improve the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate’s (HEOMD) Deep Space 

Exploration Systems’ transparency of cost and schedule for long term plans for human exploration. By 

making Agency Baseline Commitments for future capability upgrades, reporting through the annual 

budget process, and reporting performance against year-to-year operating plans, the data will exist to 

monitor risk and schedule, assess long-term affordability, and enable Congress to make informed 

budgetary decisions. This initiative will address multiple long-standing open GAO recommendations. 

Background/Current State 

In the 2018 Corrective Action Plan, NASA established an initiative to improve the overall internal 

portfolio analysis and planning of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD). 

The 2018 HEOMD initiative (now retired) was instrumental in comprehensively synthesizing exploration 

planning to allow for cross-portfolio strategic assessments within the HEOMD. This 2020 initiative builds 

upon the previous initiative and specifically addresses the need for increased transparency of cost and 

schedule for Deep Space Exploration Systems. 

HEOMD’s Deep Space Exploration Systems feature multi-decadal programs with the goal of returning 

humans to the Moon and beyond to deep space, comprised of the Exploration Systems Development 

(ESD) and Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) enterprise-level organizational structures. ESD is 

responsible for programmatic and technical integration of the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion, and 

Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) programs. AES is responsible for similar integration of the Human 

Landing System (HLS) and Gateway programs. The Deep Space Exploration Systems programs are in 

different life cycle phases for the Artemis missions, with many programs executing multiple life cycles 

concurrently. In terms of the HLS and Gateway programs, these are currently in the Formulation phase 

and will make future commitments, as discussed in following sections. The ESD Programs are focusing 

on the Artemis I launch in 2021 and planning for subsequent missions, including the 2024 crewed lunar 

landing mission. The ESD Programs are also in the design cycle for SLS Block 1B capability upgrades, 

including Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) and Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2). 

Since the last Corrective Action Plan, multiple contracts have been awarded within ESD and AES that 

incorporate better insight into and tracking of contractor performance. NASA has also since 

implemented the 2018 ‘Enhance Earned Value Management Implementation’ CAP initiative to monitor 

the progress of contracts and report Earned Value (EV) metrics to the Agency on a quarterly basis. 

Additionally, the Agency has recently completed several assessments related to the Artemis I and II 

launch dates. NASA has conducted an internal HEOMD assessment of the overall Artemis effort, of 

which SLS and EGS are key components. This assessment included a review of the schedule and 

technical approaches as well as systems engineering integration and program management. In parallel, 

NASA has performed an independent technical and programmatic assessment, including a joint cost and 

14 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

schedule confidence level analysis of the SLS and EGS programs to rebaseline per Agency policy. The 

results of these assessments have informed updates to the Artemis I and II launch planning dates. 

Note that this initiative was written during the COVID-19 pandemic and does not include impacts to 

overall program planning and execution that may result from the pandemic. 

Expected Benefits of Implementation 

The initiative is expected to increase the overall transparency of cost and schedule for Deep Space 

Exploration Systems, resulting in: 

• Improved cost and schedule performance across ESD/AES programs within Artemis. 

• Increased trust and transparency by demonstrating ability to execute to plans and report to 

external stakeholders. 

• Improved clarity of HEOMD major program expenditures for NASA’s planning and execution. 

Recent Accomplishments 

• The Deep Space Exploration Systems enterprises have recently enhanced reporting in areas such 

as: 

o Improved ESD Quarterly Program Status and Agency Baseline Performance Reviews 

(BPRs) with a focus on performance-to-plan schedule metrics and schedule risk 

identification. 

o Enhanced Earned Value Management implementation and reporting (completed 2018 

CAP Initiative); ESD now reports EV metrics to the Agency on a quarterly basis. 

• ESD and AES have recently compiled their Procurement Planning Landscapes across the 

enterprises that couple upcoming and projected contract and procurement milestones with 

contract status. 

o Recent major ESD contract accomplishments include improved contract structures to 

aid in tracking performance by mission for Orion and SLS and enable separate tracking of 

total development cost for Mobile Launcher-2: 

 Mobile Launcher-2 Design-Build Award (June 2019) 

 Orion Production and Operations Contract Award (September 2019) 

 Stages Production and Engineering (CS 3 – 12 and EUS 2 – 9) Letter Contract 

(October 2019) 

o Recent major HLS/Gateway contract accomplishments include: 

 Gateway Power Propulsion Element Contract Award (May 2019) 

 Gateway Logistics Module Award (March 2020) 

 Human Landing System Award of three contracts (April 2020) 

 Gateway Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) Formulation Phase Contract 

Definitized (June 2020) 

• ESD is implementing NASA/GAO contract management best practices, including monthly and 

quarterly reporting of EVM data to the Agency, structured approach to reduced 

cost, incentives in contracts, and evolving to firm fixed price contracts when production has 

matured. ESD has: 

o Separated out contract line item numbers (CLINs) to allow for better tracking of cost on 

all new contracts and during contract actions 

o Shortened period of Fee Determination to 6 months 

o Included technical monitor information in fee evaluation 

o Coordinated fee determination at the Agency level 

o Updated contract areas of emphasis based in part on previous period of evaluation 

15 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o Incorporated incentive fee into contracts 

• NASA leadership rebaselined the EGS and SLS Programs, establishing new Agency Baseline 

Commitments for the EGS and SLS programs and an updated Artemis I launch readiness date to 

appropriately account for Artemis I costs (Orion’s Agency Baseline Commitment is to Artemis II, 

so they were not rebaselined as part of this activity). 

o A joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis was performed for EGS and SLS as 

part of the rebaselining activity 

Planned Next Steps 

• Continue to refine reporting processes. 

o ESD will utilize production contract cost data and annual planning process to establish 

plans and monitor cost performance relative to the baseline manifest plans 

• Further refine Procurement Planning Landscape products. Major upcoming procurement 

activities include: 

o Stages Production and Engineering Contract (SPEC) Award (CS 3 – 12 and EUS 2 – 9) 

(Targeted Award Date Q1 FY21) 

o Core Stage Engine – RS-25 Production Restart CLIN 4 - (Labor & Materials) (Targeted 

Award Date Q3 FY20) 

o Boosters Production and Operations Contract Award (Flights 4 – 9) (Targeted Award 

Date Q1 FY2021) 

o Orion Main Engine Award (Required for Flight 6 of Orion and beyond) (Targeted Award 

Date Q1 FY21) 

o Human Landing System Down-select planned for CY21 

o Gateway xEVA Project (including Suits, Vehicle Interface Equipment and Geology Tools) 

Contract Award (Targeted Award Date CY21) 

• Establish future commitments. 

o Agency Baseline Commitments (including Joint Confidence Level analysis) for SLS, EGS 

and Orion programs’ major capability upgrades over $250M (SLS Block 1B, EGS ML-2, 

and Orion docking). Timing of commitments is dependent upon Block 1B configuration 

and manifest. 

 ML-2 Agency Baseline Commitment will follow SLS Block 1B requirements 

definition 

• Evaluate changes to NASA’s programmatic policies and existing performance reporting to 

improve transparency of program schedules, costs, and performance for multi-year, multicadence type programs. 

o Develop methods to track and report annual costs and cost variances to operating plans 

due to content or scope changes, which can be traced year-to-year. 

• Prepare for upcoming Key Decision Points (KDPs). 

o KDP D for Orion to update Artemis II cost and schedule estimates 

 Orion KDP D will follow NASA’s updated Joint Confidence Level (JCL) Policy 

outlined in 7120.5E as a result of 2018 CAP Initiative implementation. 

• The Gateway program will complete a Program Commitment Agreement (PCA), with cost and 

schedule estimates, to be formalized at KDP-1. Each Gateway project will develop a Joint 

Confidence Level analysis to inform an Agency Baseline Commitment at the Project level. 

• HLS will develop a Joint Confidence Level analysis and Agency Baseline Commitment. HLS will 

further conduct Annual Program Status Life Cycle Reviews assessing adequacy of cost, schedule, 

technical maturity, and integration. 

16 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Output and Outcome Metrics 

• Schedule performance-to-plan metrics for ESD programs reported through Quarterly Program 

Status Reviews and provided to GAO. 

• Future reporting against ESD’s original Agency Baseline Commitment for Artemis I through 

Agency reviews and quarterly Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports. 

• Measure against future commitments for ESD capability upgrades above $250M. 

• The HLS/Gateway programs and projects will measure against future commitments once 

established. 

Interdependencies 

• HEOMD internal interdependencies between Program Planning & Control managers, HEOMD 

Resource Management Office, and HEOMD leadership team. 

• Continued insight to NASA leadership through Baseline Performance Reviews, Agency Program 

Management Councils, and recurring communications with the GAO. 

• Coordination with Office of the Chief Financial Officer Strategic Investments Division and Office 

of the Chief Engineer for oversight and analysis. 

Impediments & Challenges 

• The Agency is challenged in its ability to establish and track baseline costs and schedules given 

the uncertainty that arises from differing priorities of the Administration and Congress. Differing 

priorities may result in content changes, which will affect the program baselines. 

• The current contract structures in place for ESD have proven difficult to track overall 

performance by individual missions. However, ESD is addressing these challenges by 

restructuring existing and future contracts. 

• The structuring of firm-fixed-price contracts for Gateway and HLS may lend itself to limited 

contractor performance insight due to less defined reporting requirements. To address this 

challenge, the Gateway and HLS programs are partnering with the contractors to ensure the 

proper deliverables to adequately track performance. In addition, the use of Public Private 

Partnerships will limit the level of insight into cost and schedule. 

Required Resources 

• Resource impacts may be realized if NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5E updates or 

other Agency reporting add additional requirements that programs have not previously planned 

for (e.g., increased leading indicators, external commitments or performance metrics). 

17 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Implement CADRe Enhancements for Category III/Class D Missions 

Lead Executive/Organization 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

Supporting Organization(s) 

Science Mission Directorate (SMD); OCFO Strategic Investment Division (SID); Office of Chief Engineer 

(OCE) 

Initiative Description 

NASA will enhance its Cost Analysis Data Requirement (CADRe) capability by implementing 

enhancements that will continue NASA’s commitment to collect robust technical and programmatic data 

for smaller Category 3 (Cat III)/Class D missions by expanding its data collection efforts to all NASA space 

flight projects1 above a $50M dollar LCC threshold. CADRe product expectations and cadence would be 

consistent to current language documented in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5E and the 

NASA Cost Estimating Handbook. This initiative addresses GAO’s desire to continue CADRe as a 

meaningful document to underpin cost and schedule capabilities at NASA. 

Background 

The CADRe initiative began in 2005 as part of a NASA’s effort to increase its ability to estimate cost and 

schedule of its missions and archive programmatic, technical, cost information. Shortly after GAO issued 

a report in May 2004 (GAO Report #GAO-04-642) stating that NASA “Lacked Discipline in its Cost 

Estimating Process,” NASA implemented sweeping changes. These included establishing a standard Life 

Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) framework to include full life cycle cost analysis using a standard Work 

Breakdown Structure (WBS). A key part of the NASA changes was the creation and implementation of 

the CADRe, which was codified in 7120 shortly afterwards. Since then, NASA has made significant strides 

to continually improve CADRe as a key enabler of data driven cost and schedule capabilities. 

The unique capability of CADRe is to provide a significant amount of project information in a quick “easy 

to retrieve” format. The CADRe also tracks and explains changes that occurred from one milestone to 

the next, helping the Agency record in a single document events that occurred during the project. All 

NASA Centers use CADRe in some capacity to enable a wide array of analysis capabilities. Some of the 

uses include but not limited to the following: 

• Enable analogy estimating using similar projects already completed. 

• Announcement of Opportunity (AO) Evaluations by the Science Office for Mission Assessments 

(SOMA). 

• Cost studies (Insight articles) and analysis of projects, including trend analysis, milestone to 

milestone cost growth over time, etc. 

• Portfolio analysis, modeling and assessment. 

• Risk input data to help inform Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level (JCL) analysis. 

• Support proposal development. 

• Cost model development including the Project Cost Estimating Capability (PCEC) model. 

• Historical cost research and special studies. 

• Cost engineering trades. 

1 Flight projects are defined as projects governed by NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E: NASA Space Flight 

Program and Project Management Requirements w/Changes 

18 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Cost/Schedule improvement, policy Improvement, JCL Improvement. 

The CADRe is NASA’s unique response to the need to improve cost estimates during formulation process 

and provide the necessary data to enable NASA to be a “smart buyer.” CADRe is a vital component for 

NASA to develop its early cost and schedule estimates for new NASA projects. It is needed to provide a 

common description of a project at a point in time when information is needed to support various cost 

and schedule analysis activities. Additionally, it provides valuable information for procurement of 

hardware and services with partners. 

CADRe’s combination of programmatic and technical data allows NASA to build NASA specific cost 

models calibrated to NASA projects. In addition, the temporal aspect of data collection at each major 

milestone, allows for conducting studies of how technical and programmatic changes occur during the 

development of a project. As NASA produces more realistic cost estimates, more realism is inserted into 

the budgetary process and enables Congress to make informed budgetary decisions based on historical 

data, trends, and patterns. 

Current State 

CADRe is a requirement to the projects as described in NPR 7120.5E. However, in 2014 a policy change 

was implemented for Category 3 Class D missions with a life cycle cost under $150 million, changing the 

CADRe requirement from a “shall” to a “should.” This has caused unnecessary confusion and, in some 

cases, has halted the preparation of CADRes for these missions, limiting the ability to use historical data 

for cost and schedule purposes. All CADRes are funded by the NASA OCFO and provide minimal burden 

to projects. 

Expected Benefits of Implementation 

The initiative is expected to increase clarity and reduce confusion regarding the development of CADRe 

for Category 3 Class D missions by aiming to: 

• Significantly increase the available information on smaller missions with a development cost 

greater than a recommended threshold of $50M. This will enable NASA to better estimate 

projects within the Cat III/Class D missions. Enhancing the CADRe requirement for Cat III/Class D 

projects will contribute to NASA’s on-going efforts to improve programmatic performance, and 

continue to enable NASA to be a “smart buyer” of hardware and services. 

Recent Accomplishments 

The OCFO/SID has worked on an individual basis with several Project Managers (PMs) of these smaller 

missions by: 

• Helping to prevent the unnecessary waiving of the CADRe requirement for these important 

missions. 

• Regularly engaging with concerned project managers and showing them the analytical value 

that CADRe provides for future projects. 

• Demonstrating the CADRe requirement is not overly burdensome on a project since OCFO/SID 

provides the necessary resources to enable this capability. 

Planned Next Steps 

• Clarify policy as part of the NPR 7120.5F revision efforts. 

• Begin working with upcoming Cat III/Class D projects that are between $50 and $150 million 

nearing milestone review and explain all the realized benefits of CADRe over the last decade. 

19 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Expand existing training on the access and use of CADRe data to build consensus among current 

and future Cat III/Class D missions PMs. 

• Develop methods to track and report compliance to CADRe initiative especially with regards to 

Cat III/ Class D missions affected. This effort will be an extension to existing tracking and 

reporting processes. 

Output and Outcome Metrics 

• Additional CADRes for projects between $50 and $150 million dollars. CADRe’s information will 

help inform NASA future endeavors and assist in controlling costs. 

Interdependencies 

• SMD internal interdependencies between project and OCFO/SID. 

• Coordination among OCFO SID and PMs for milestone reviews which include System 

Requirements Review (SRR), Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), and 

System Integration Review (SIR). 

Impediments & Challenges 

• Communicating Agency expectations: after the 2014 policy change, some Centers and Federally 

Funded Research Development Centers (FFRDC) began aggressively waiving the CADRe 

requirement for Cat III/Class D missions. This initiative will mitigate that issue, however, 

communicating direction will be primary challenge. 

Required Resources 

• Estimated yearly resources to support this CAP: $80K funded within OCFO/SID. 

20 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Create a Schedule Repository 

Lead Executive/Organization 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Strategic Investments Division (OCFO SID) and Agency Programmatic 

Analysis and Research Capability (APARC) will lead the Schedule Repository effort with direct support of 

the Agency’s Program Planning and Control (PP&C) Portfolio Lead and the PP&C Steering Group. 

Supporting Organization(s) 

OCFO SID/APARC will coordinate with Center points of contact (primarily the Schedule Community of 

Practice (SCoPe) POCs), and individual programs and projects on the collection of schedule data to 

support the Schedule Repository effort. 

Initiative Description 

Move NASA’s current Schedule Repository Pilot to implementation. 

A Schedule Repository is a collection of program and project (P/p) schedules for completed and current 

missions and technology developments. Schedule information is organized and archived in a searchable 

library. The purpose of the Schedule Repository is to: 

• Provide the schedule management community with access to historical and analogous schedules

to aid in the planning and development of schedules for future missions.

• Allow for the continuous improvement of schedule management guidance and best practices.

The schedule data collection cadence for the Schedule Repository will be determined by the PP&C 

Steering Group, which is represented by the Centers and Mission Directorates (MD). 

Background/Current State 

At the December 2018 Agency Program Management Council (APMC), NASA senior leadership approved 

a collection of specific initiatives and areas of emphasis to strength the Agency’s cutting-edge program 

and project management efforts across the board and improve transparency for NASA’s stakeholders. 

These initiatives and areas of emphasis were documented in the Agency's 2018 Corrective Action Plan. 

One aspect of the CAP focused on the implementation of a pilot initiative to develop a repository of 

schedules and schedule data from NASA projects. 

In June 2019, the NASA Chief Financial Officer (CFO) released a memo codifying the Agency’s approach 

to creating a Schedule Repository as a pilot initiative. This initiative required the following: 

• Submission of Program/project Integrated Master Schedules (IMS) in native scheduling tool

formats, including a fully integrated IMS or summary IMS with lower-level detailed schedules

beginning July 1, 2019.

o All NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5E projects and single-project programs

over Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of $50 Million shall submit quarterly.

o All NPR 7120.8 projects over LCC of $50 Million shall submit quarterly.

o All projects below the $50 Million threshold are not required to submit.

• IMS submissions are required starting after completion of System Requirements Review (SRR)

through completion of Launch Readiness Review (LRD).

o For two-step Announcement of Opportunity (AO) process, where down-selection serves

as KDP-B, schedules are required after down-selection. For NPR 7120.8 projects with no

21 | P a g e
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SRR or LRD, schedule submissions are required starting after Project Approval for 

Implementation. 

• NASA HQ CFO will provide resources for data archiving. Data access control will be conducted

by NASA HQ CFO. Data will not be broadly accessible without project permission before LRD.

After LRD, schedule data will be made available to larger NASA scheduling community.

• All schedule submissions will be collected by emailing schedule native files. The SCoPe Lead 

will transfer data to the Schedule Repository location as 

collected. 

NASA has been actively collecting data since July 2019, per memo guidance, with minimal impact to 

programs and projects. 

Expected Benefits of Implementation 

A Schedule Repository will provide a centralized source for quick and convenient access to schedule data 

(integrated master schedules, as well as supporting schedules and data) from which schedulers and 

analysts will be able to research analogous missions and use them as a basis for developing program or 

project schedules. A Schedule Repository will also allow the Agency to fine-tune best practice guidance 

for schedule planning, development, assessment, analysis, maintenance, and control. Looking across P/p 

schedules can inform the Agency regarding how well schedule management best practices are 

implemented, which in turn can lead to improvements in schedule guidance and training. In addition, 

having a routine collection of schedules will aid the Agency in understanding how and at what point in 

project lifecycle schedules typically experience issues. The trending of performance-based indices across 

a repository of programs and projects can help uncover the critical points in P/p lifecycles when 

schedule performance issues are more likely to arise. This can also facilitate continuous improvement in 

guidance and training. 

Recent Accomplishments 

• In June 2019, the NASA Chief Financial Officer released a memo codifying the Agency’s approach

to creating a Schedule Repository as a pilot initiative.

• The SCoPe Lead has coordinated with NASA Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to

determine the programs and projects that meet requirements for quarterly schedule

submissions.

• Three quarterly schedule submissions have been completed by the identified programs and

projects.

Planned Next Steps 

• Codify Schedule Repository requirements into a NASA Procedural Requirements document.

• Streamline schedule submission/file collection process.

o Utilize one interface for schedule submissions.

o Perform data quality check to provide feedback to submitters on schedule adherence to

best practices.

o Document reporting compliance.

Output and Outcome Metrics 

The Schedule Repository will consist of past and current schedules (as of the most recent key decision 

milestone) from each Center collected in a centralized repository. Repository will enable Agency to have 

the capability to analyze data collected, tag data appropriately, (e.g., by work breakdown structure, 

22 | P a g e
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

subsystem type, and/or responsible organization) to enable various categorizations as appropriate for 

Agency analysis and use. 

Impediments & Challenges 

There are several challenges to implementing a data collection activity to produce a consolidated 

Schedule Repository: 

• Establishing an Agency Framework: to be supportive of all stakeholders from practitioners to 

decision makers. 

o Different schedule file formats (e.g., Primavera versus Microsoft Project files) 

o Schedules may be at different levels of detail for different programs and projects 

o Schedules may be at different levels of integration for different programs and projects 

(e.g., giver/receiver relationships versus all work captured in one IMS) 

• Governance: Forcing mechanism (requirements/guidance). 

o Not “adding” product requirements 

o Not “dictating” schedule processes beyond what is already in policy and guidance 

o Guidance on the way the IMS should be set up to facilitate these uploads (e.g., 

necessary fields, preventing the deletion of tasks once they are complete, putting in the 

actual achieved duration at completion, use of Microsoft Project or compatible format, 

etc.) 

Required Resources 

Pilot of Schedule Repository was conducted with no additional resources. Now that: 1) Schedule 

Repository requirements have been communicated to all Centers and Mission Directorates (MDs) and a 

list of Programs/projects meeting the requirement have been identified, 2) nuances to the schedule 

collection effort across Centers (including JPL) have been identified and workarounds explored, and 3) 

the Schedule Repository has moved from a “pilot initiative” to “implementation”, it has been 

determined that to implement the “next steps” in this plan, additional resources will be required 

depending on the Agency’s final strategy. The Schedule Repository requires: 

• Additional 2.0 full-time equivalents/work-year equivalents (FTE/WYE) and $75k annually in 

Other Direct Costs (ODCs) support to: 

o Communicate/coordinate with Centers (including JPL) and MDs on identifying 

Programs/projects that meet the requirement to ensure schedule file submission start 

dates for new Programs/projects and end dates for current Programs/projects 

o Facilitate an automated process for the collection and metadata analysis capability of 

both NASA- and JPL-provided schedule data 

The CAP Working Group (CAPWG) recommends that the level of adequacy for Schedule Repository 

resources be assessed during the next logical Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) 

budget formulation process and that the results of that assessment be reflected in the budget. 

23 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Risk Assessment and Financial Evaluation of Contractors 

Lead Executive/Organization 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

Supporting Organization(s) 

Office of Procurement and Office of Strategic Engagements and Assessments 

Initiative Description 

Enhance competitive and sole-selection procurement processes by requiring an evaluation of the 

financial health, stability, and outlook of organizations under consideration prior to selection and 

contract award. As part of this financial evaluation, include an assessment of risks to continued financial 

stability. Conduct assessment as part of the contractor responsibility determination. 

Background/Current State 

This initiative was proposed by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in the summer of 2019. Department of 

Defense (DOD) has regulation and guidance in place that executes this requirement, of which NASA can 

leverage as a model. This effort and its implementation approach was approved at the Acquisition 

Strategy Council. 

OCFO is working towards a gradual implementation approach, which is dependent on securing 

additional funding. 

• Pre-award Assessments: Apply to contracts over $500M Current Value and any other high risk 

acquisitions deemed necessary. 

• Staffing model: Resident in OCFO. A term full-time equivalent (FTE) will be hired in FY21, and 

pending funding approval the full capability will be established in FY22 leveraging a fixed price 

procurement acquisition. 

• Policy: Will be codified in policy NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 1000.5B, Policy for NASA 

Acquisition. Contracting Officer to include required NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

Supplement language in applicable procurements. 

• Governance: This initiative and implementation approach was approved by the Acquisition 

Strategy Council (ASC) on 6/12/2020. 

Expected Benefits of Implementation 

• Lower risk to NASA programs and projects due to vendor financial instability by enhanced 

financial capability assessment in pre-award responsibility determination process. 

• Senior Leadership and ASC improved awareness of contractor stability. 

• Insight at the enterprise level rather than just the Program/project level, as NASA may have the 

same contractor working multiple projects. 

Recent Accomplishments 

• Finalized implementation approach with stakeholders and achieved concurrence at the 

Acquisition Strategy Council. 

• Submitted request for funding to enable full capability for FY22-FY26 as a part of the Agency’s 

annual PPBE process. 

24 | P a g e 
 

 

 

Planned Next Steps 

Onboard a Term FTE before 1 October 2020 to implement initial capability. Term hire to work with 

existing Subject Matter Expert (SME) to establish processes and systems to conduct assessments and 

begin conducting assessments on an ad-hoc basis for FY21. 

Secure funding for FY22 and beyond to establish full capability. 

Output and Outcome Metrics 

TBD 

Interdependencies 

N/A 

Impediments & Challenges 

• There is a slight barrier to contractor participation since NASA will be adding an extra layer of 

financial evaluation of contractors. 

• A company may be determined to be financially viable and still not perform. 

• Ability to secure funding in budget constrained environment. 

• Ability to secure highly skilled in-house personnel to perform activities given limited salary and 

benefits of government positions. 

Required Resources 

• Term FTE to begin implementation in FY21. 

• Funding post FY21 to support full-implementation of this capability within OCFO. 

25 | P a g e 
 

Appendices 

26 | P a g e 
 

 

Appendix A: 2020 CAP Working Group Membership and PMIAA Working Group 

Membership 

CAPWG Membership 

Team Lead: Kevin Gilligan 

OCFO/Champion: Craig McArthur 

OCFO/Co-Champion: David Walters 

HEOMD: Melodie Jackson; Ashley 

Peter 

SMD: Viet Nguyen 

ARMD: Tony Springer 

STMD: Patrick Murphy 

OP: Jeff Cullen 

OCE: Ellen Stigberg; Tracy Osborne 

OCFO SID: Charley Hunt 

Deputy PMIO: Mike Blythe 

ARC: Vonnie Simonsen 

GSFC: Richard Ryan 

PMIAA Working Group Membership 

OCE: Ellen Stigberg; Tracy Osborne; 

Roger Forsgren; Steve Angelillo 

OCFO: David Walters; Charley Hunt; 

Craig McArthur 

OHCMO: Fernan Rodriguez 

OP: Julia Wise; Veronica Lansey 

OCIO: Dana Mellerio; Stephanie 

Stilson 

SMD: Mayra Montrose; Steve 

Hirshorn 

STMD: Prasun Desai 

ARMD: Tony Springer 

HEOMD: Scott Martinelli 

Project Manager Practitioner: Doug 

McLennan; Mike Blythe 

Program Manager Practitioner: Cheryl 

Harrell 

Office of the Administrator: Lisa 

Guerra; Mike Blythe; James Ortiz 

27 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Acronyms List 

AA – Associate Administrator 

ABC – Agency Baseline Commitment 

AES – Advanced Exploration Systems 

AO – Announcement of Opportunity 

APARC – Agency Programmatic 

Analysis & Research Capability 

APL – Applied Physics Laboratory 

APMC – Agency Program 

Management Council 

ARMD – Aeronautics Research Mission 

Directorate 

ASC – Acquisition Strategy Council 

BPR – Baseline Performance Review 

BSA – Business Services Assessment 

CADRe – Cost Analysis Data 

Requirement 

CAP – Corrective Action Plan 

CAPWG –Corrective Action Plan 

Working Group 

CE&A – Cost Estimation and 

Assessment 

CFO – Chief Financial Officer 

CFOU – Chief Financial Officer 

University 

CLINs – Contract Line Item Numbers 

COVID-19 – Coronavirus Disease 2019 

CS – Core Stage 

CY – Calendar Year 

DCMA – Defense Contract 

Management Agency 

DECM – DCMA EVMS Compliance 

Metric 

EAC – Estimate at Completion 

EGS – Exploration Ground Systems 

EIA – Electronic Industries Alliance 

ESD – Exploration Systems 

Development 

EUS – Exploration Upper Stage 

EV – Earned Value 

EVM – Earned Value Management 

EVMS – Earned Value Management 

System 

FAR – Federal Acquisition Regulations 

FFRDC – Federally Funded Research 

and Development Center 

FTE – Full Time Equivalent 

FY – Fiscal Year 

GAO – Government Accountability 

Office 

GSFC – Goddard Space Flight Center 

HEOMD – Human Exploration and 

Operations Mission Directorate 

HLS – Human Landing System 

IEMP – Integrated Enterprise 

Management Program 

IMS – Integrated Master Schedule 

JCL – Joint Cost and Schedule 

Confidence Level 

JPL – Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

KDP – Key Decision Point 

LBFD – Low Boom Flight Demonstrator 

LCC – Life-Cycle cost 

LOE – Level of Effort 

LRD – Launch Readiness Review 

MD – Mission Directorate 

ML-2 – Mobile Launcher 2 

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding 

NASA – National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

NFS – NASA FAR Supplement 

NPD – NASA Policy Directive 

NPR – NASA Procedural Requirements 

OCE – Office of the Chief Engineer 

ODC – Other Direct Costs 

OMB – Office of Management and Budget 

P/p – Program/project 

PCA – Program Commitment Agreement 

PCEC – Project Cost Estimating Capability 

PDF – Professional Developmental 

Framework 

PM – Project Manager 

PMB – Performance Measurement Baseline 

PMIAA – Program Management 

Improvement and Accountability Act 

POC – Point of Contact 

PP&C – Program Planning and Control 

PPBE – Planning, Programming, Budgeting, 

and Execution 

RMO – Resource Management Officer 

SCoPe – Schedule Community of Practice 

SID – Strategic Investments Division 

SLS – Space Launch System 
 

SMD – Science Mission Directorate 

SME – Subject Matter Expert 

SOMA – Science Office for Mission 

Assessments 

SPEC – Stages Production and Engineering 

Contract 

SRR – System Requirements Review 

STMD – Space Technology Mission 

Directorate 

SwRI – Southwest Research Institute 

TRA – Technology Readiness Assessment 

WBS – Work Breakdown Structure 

WYE – Work Year Equivalent 

xEVA – Exploration Extravehicular Activity 

29 | P a g e