_______ ___________ 

_____ ___________ 

__ ___________ 

___________ 

________ ___________ 

_____ ___________ 

_________ ___________ 

___________ 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Capability Portfolio Management Plan (CPMP) 

Space Environments Testing (SET) Management Office (SETMO) 

_ 

Robert Gibbs Date 

Associate Administrator, Mission Support Directorate 

_ 

Michael D. Mastaler Date 

Director, Space Environments Testing Management Office 

_ 

Eugene L. Tu Date 

Director, Ames Research Center 

_ 

David D. McBride Date 

Director, Armstrong Flight Research Center 

__ 

Marla E. Perez-Davis Date 

Director, Glenn Research Center 

_ 

Dennis J. Andrucyk Date 

Director, Goddard Space Flight Center 

_ 

Mark S. Geyer Date 

Director, Johnson Space Center 

_ 

Robert D. Cabana Date 

Director, Kennedy Space Center 

1 
 

 

___________ 

__ ___________ 

___________ 

__________ ___________ 

_ ___________ 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

_ 

Clayton P. Turner Date 

Director, Langley Research Center 

_ 

Jody A. Singer Date 

Director, Marshall Space Flight Center 

_ 

Marcus A. Watkins Date 

Director, NASA Management Office 

Michael M. Watkins Date 

Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Robert A. Pearce Date 

Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

_ 

Kathryn L. Lueders Date 

Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate 

_ 

Thomas H. Zurbuchen Date 

Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate 

_ ___________ 

James L. Reuter Date 

Associate Administrator, Space Technology Mission Directorate 

2 
 

 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Table of Contents 

1.0 CAPABILITY PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW 5 

1.1 Introduction 5 

1.2 Background 5 

1.3 Goals and Objectives 6 

1.4 Customer, Beneficiary, and Stakeholder Identification and Advocacy 7 

1.5 Scope, Products, and Services 7 

2.0 AUTHORITY, GOVERNANCE, AND MANAGEMENT 8 

3.0 STRATEGIC AND CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT 11 

3.1 Activities 12 

3.1.1 SETMO Management Tier Structure 12 

3.1.2 Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) 13 

3.1.3 SETMO Investment Project Process 13 

3.1.4 SETMO Standardization, Consistency, and Common Practices 13 

3.1.5 SETMO Third-Party Assessments 14 

3.1.6 Thresholds for SETMO Director Concurrence and Notification 14 

3.1.7 Engagement Points 15 

3.1.8 SETMO Concurrence and Notification Processes 16 

3.1.9 SETMO Annual Operating Plan 17 

3.1.10 SETCB 18 

3.1.11 SETMO Capability Component Divestment 18 

3.1.12 SETMO Business Management 18 

3.2 Schedule 21 

3.3 Alignment of Capacity with Demand 21 

3.4 Funding Model(s) 22 

3.4.1 SETMO Funding 23 

3.4.2 SETMO to Center Allocation 24 

3.4.3 Center Charging Model 24 

3.4.4 Infrastructure and Technical Capabilities (I&TC) 25 

3.5 Controls and Compliance 25 

3.6 Relationships 25 

3.6.1 Internal Dependencies and Agreements 25 

3.6.2 External Dependencies and Agreements 25 

3.7 Sourcing Strategy and Sourcing Decisions 26 

3.8 Performance 27 

3.9 SETMO Capability Portfolio Strategic Plan 27 

3.10 Risk Management 29 

4.0 REVIEWS 30 

5.0 RECORDS AND DATA MANAGEMENT 31 

6.0 WAIVERS 31 

7.0 DISAGREEMENTS AND DISSENTING OPINIONS 31 

8.0 CPMP ACTIVITIES LOG 32 

Appendix A – Glossary 33 

Appendix B – Acronyms 36 

Appendix C – SETMO Tier 1 and Tier 2 Capability Components 38 

Appendix D – SETMO Budget Run Out 45 

Appendix E – SETMO Personnel 46 

3 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix F – SETMO Schedule 47 

Appendix G – Thresholds for SETMO Director Concurrence and Notification 48 

Appendix H – SETMO Annual Operating Plan Template 49 

Appendix I – Concurrence/Notification Form 50 

Appendix J – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Requirements 51 

Appendix K – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Template 52 

Appendix L – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Spreadsheet 53 

Appendix M – Quarterly Business Reporting Templates – DRAFT 54 

Appendix N – SETMO Tier 1 Five-Year Schedule 55 

Appendix O – Historic Utilization of SCAP Capability Components 56 

Tables 

Table 1. SETMO Capability Categories ............................................................................................... 7 

Table 2. SETMO Roles and Responsibilities ....................................................................................... 9 

Table 3. SETMO Management Tiers.................................................................................................. 12 

Table 4. SETMO Schedule Parts ........................................................................................................ 21 

Table 5. Funding Model Parts............................................................................................................. 23 

Table 6. SETMO Funding................................................................................................................... 23 

Table 7. SETMO Capability Portfolio Strategic Plan Schedule ......................................................... 29 

Table 8. Sample Capability Portfolio Management Plan Activities Log............................................ 32 

4 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

1.0 CAPABILITY PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW 

1.1 Introduction 

This CPMP for the combined Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP) and SET capability 

portfolios is an agreement between the Mission Support Directorate (MSD) Associate Administrator 

and the SETMO Director and includes concurrence from Center and Laboratory Directors with 

capability components at their Centers and participating Mission Directorate Associate 

Administrators (MDAAs). The SETMO CPMP provides the details to the goals and principles 

identified in the Capability Portfolio Commitment Agreement (CPCA). 

Approval of this CPMP: 

• authorizes SETMO Strategic Management activities 

• incorporates the larger group of Agency-owned SET capability components identified per 

MSC decision in November 2015 into the existing SCAP capability portfolio to form the 

SETMO capability portfolio 

• authorizes SETMO to preserve critical Agency SETMO capability components while 

simultaneously implementing a managed approach for reducing redundant and/or obsolete 

infrastructure that is no longer strategically aligned with NASA’s mission

SETMO manages the SETMO capability portfolio of testing capabilities and assets to ensure that 

they are ready to address NASA and National mission testing requirements. The SETMO capability 

portfolio adapts to align with evolving NASA and National strategies and priorities and to optimize 

Agency resources. This is accomplished through the implementation of policy and guidance, 

targeted assessments, informed decision making, effective and efficient resource management, 

proactive deployment of common operational and business practices, enhanced capability planning 

and review, and the mitigation of near-term and strategic risks through capability sustainment and 

operational flexibility. 

1.2 Background 

In August 2005, the NASA Strategic Management Council approved the creation of an Agency-level 

asset management program, SCAP, to preserve key NASA capabilities that met certain criteria (e.g., 

minimum size). This program evolved to include three distinct capability categories: High Enthalpy 

Testing, Flight Simulation, and Space Environments Testing. 

From 2008 to 2015, the Agency completed several studies to assess NASA’s ability to meet its longrange mission requirements. Most notable were the Technical Capabilities Assessment Team 

(TCAT) deep dive of the SET domain across Mission Directorates and Centers and the subsequent 

SET Tiger Team deep dive which led to the identification of the SET assets recommended for 

corporate management. 

In November 2015, the Mission Support Council (MSC) decided to apply a centralized management 

model to SET capabilities. Specifics of this MSC decision are: 

• Establish SET capability management model under MSD to include SET assets within SCAP 

and assets identified in decision package MSC-2015-10-01. 

5 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

• Centralized management areas for test [to include Rocket Propulsion Test Program (RPT), 

SCAP, Aeronautics Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC), and High-End Computing 

Capability (HEC)] will adopt consistent management roles as applicable. 

• Funding model will be the existing funding model, where funding for the portfolio will 

remain where it is today. SET manager can propose a new funding model to the Agency 

through the MSC if the current funding model is driving issues and/or inefficiencies. 

In September 2016, SETMO was established within the MSD Office of Strategic Infrastructure 

(OSI) to manage the combined SCAP/SET capability portfolio. As part of the Planning, 

Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, a fourth capability 

category, External Radiation, was added to SETMO. 

Also in 2016, the MSC mandated the development of Agency policy and procedural requirements 

for Capability Portfolio Management (CPM) to provide direction and guidance for sustaining an 

optimal mix of capabilities suited to meet Agency requirements and constraints. NPD 8600.1, 

Capability Portfolio Management and NPR 8600.1, NASA Capability Portfolio Management 

Requirements provide the guidance and requirements for this CPMP. 

1.3 Goals and Objectives 

NASA's vision is realized through the successful execution of its missions. SETMO indirectly 

enables mission success by achieving best value for the Agency and customers by strategically and 

centrally managing the SETMO capability portfolio and leveraging external capabilities when in the 

best interest of the Agency. 

To meet capability portfolio objectives, SETMO is focused on the achieving following goals: 

1. Continually Increase Value Delivery as measured through: 

a. Timeliness and reliability of support for prioritized Agency testing requirements 

b. Increased alignment of capability components (and their capacities) with projected test 

demand 

c. Effective risk identification and realized risk reductions 

d. Continued relevance of the capability portfolio and enhancements in test capabilities 

e. Satisfied test customers through operational professionalism and efficiency 

2. Strategically Reduce Budget Requirements and Threats as measured through: 

a. Common testing practices and cross-Center synergies 

b. Expanded level of less-costly testing alternatives to meet Agency requirements 

c. Realized efficiencies, consolidations, or operational savings including divestiture or 

reduction in the operational readiness levels for capabilities where return on investment is 

inadequate 

SETMO capabilities support the 2018 NASA Strategic Plan's goals and objectives with the primary 

focus on Strategic Goal 4: Optimize Capabilities and Operations. 

• Strategic Objective 4.2: Enable Space Access and Services. Support the strategic capabilities 

needs of NASA's programs. 

6 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

• Strategic Objective 4.6: Sustain Infrastructure Capabilities and Operations. Enable NASA's 

Mission by providing the facilities, tools, and services required to efficiently manage, 

operate, and sustain the infrastructure necessary to meet mission objectives. 

SETMO aligns with and supports the MSC decision (MSC-2017-06-002) to adopt an Agency goal of 

25% reduction in infrastructure assets over 20 years for strategic alignment of NASA's 

infrastructure. 

1.4 Customer, Beneficiary, and Stakeholder Identification and Advocacy 

The predominate customers of SETMO products and services are the programs and projects 

sponsored by Agency Mission Directorates (~ 90%). SETMO capability components also supports 

other Government agencies (e.g., Department of Defense (DoD), Federal Aviation Administration) 

and commercial space vendors (e.g., Boeing, SpaceX). Appendix O – Historic Utilization of 

SETMO Capability Components, depicts the utilization by NASA Mission Directorates, other 

Government entities, and external customers. 

SETMO capability portfolio stakeholders include internal and external customers, Mission 

Directorates, Centers with SETMO capability components, capability leadership teams (CLTs), 

NASA Tech Fellows, and the Space Environments Testing Control Board (SETCB). 

1.5 Scope, Products, and Services 

The SETMO capability portfolio (Tier 1 and Tier 2) comprise approximately 175 ground test 

capability components across nine NASA Centers. Each capability component is a system 

comprising workforce (i.e., FTE/WYE), equipment, facilities, processes, resources, competencies, 

and technologies that delivers products and services. Some capability components directly and/or 

indirectly support other listed SETMO capabilities as part of an existing consolidation at a Center to 

allow for integrated testing services. Also, at some Centers, there are similar assets, such as 

cleanrooms used for integration and/or build-up that are not within the scope of SETMO. 

SETMO capability components fall into four major categories as shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. SETMO Capability Categories 

Component Category Description 

High Enthalpy Testing Large arc jet test facilities, recognized strategic capability components 

Flight Simulation Motion based and stationary aeronautics flight simulation test facilities 

Space Environments 

Testing 

Facilities whose primary use is related to spacecraft and instrument 

development and qualification, space technology development, human 

rated space environments, and launch environments. 

Capability component types include vacuum, thermal/vacuum, and 

thermal chambers; vibration tables; acoustic labs; cleanrooms; and 

electromagnetic interference (EMI)/electromagnetic compatibility 

(EMC), magnetic, optical, X-ray, solar spectrum, and ionizing radiation 

facilities. 

External Radiation Services procured from external sources to meet Agency requirements 

for high-energy radiation testing. 

7 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

The SETMO Tier 1 is the collection of those capability components approved by the Agency SMC 

in August 2005 for SCAP sustainment funding. The SETMO Tier 2 is the collection of those 

capability components approved by the Agency SMC in August 2005 that were not provided SCAP 

sustainment funding and those capability components added through the November 2015 MSC 

decision that created SETMO. SETMO Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability components are listed in 

Appendix C – SETMO Tier 1 and Tier 2 Capability Components. 

Testing services provided to SETMO customers vary and are dependent on customer requirements. 

These services include test planning and set-up; test article installation; test article modification; data 

acquisition, reduction, and analysis; qualification test services; and test imaging. These services are 

Center-managed and the specific service levels provided are negotiated between the test customer 

and the Center capability component manager per Center procedures. 

Performance/operational thresholds are also used to determine when SETMO Director concurrence 

or notification is required. These thresholds are provided in Appendix G – Thresholds for SETMO 

Director Concurrence and Notification. 

SETMO recognizes that decision processes need to consider Center end-to-end capabilities. Some of 

the components included in these end-to-end capabilities might not be in the SETMO capability 

portfolio. 

In addition, SETMO recognizes there is enabling infrastructure required by each capability 

component, and further identification of infrastructure interfaces will be accomplished by SETMO 

and the Centers during the first year of Strategic Management of the SETMO capability portfolio. 

SETMO also maintains cognizance of external capabilities and services that fall within the capability 

portfolio scope. 

2.0 AUTHORITY, GOVERNANCE, AND MANAGEMENT 

The authorization to establish the SETMO capability portfolio is documented in NASA MSC 

decision MSC-2015-10-001 (November 2015). The authorization to transition the SETMO 

capability portfolio to strategic management is documented in NASA MSC decision MSC-2020-08-

0021 (August 2020). The SETMO capability portfolio is governed by NPD 8600.1, Capability 

Portfolio Management and NPR 8600.1, NASA Capability Portfolio Management Requirements. 

MSD is the sponsoring Mission Directorate for the SETMO capability portfolio, and SETMO is 

aligned with the MSD Program Management Council (MSPMC). The line of responsibility, 

authority, and accountability is from the NASA Administrator to the MSD Associate Administrator, 

to the OSI Assistant Administrator, to the SETMO Director. The SETMO Director, who serves as 

the SETMO capability portfolio manager, leads a team that includes the Deputy Director, Chief 

Engineer, Chief Strategist, Capability Component Manager, and Business Manager. 

Each NASA Center with SETMO capability components assigns a point of contact (POC) who 

serves as the primary interface for Center management regarding SETMO-sponsored activities. The 

Center POC should have sufficient authority, insight, and ability to verify that investments and 

divestments support Center commitments. The POC for External Radiation is the Agency Electronic 

Parts Manager. The MSD/SETMO organizational hierarchy is shown in Figure 1. 

8 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Figure 1. MSD/SETMO Organizational Hierarchy 

The SETMO organization is shown in Appendix E – SETMO Personnel. Positions and entities and 

their roles and responsibilities in SETMO are described in Table 2. 

Table 2. SETMO Roles and Responsibilities 

Position or Entity Responsible for . . . 

SETMO Director managing the capability portfolio as described in NPR 8600.1; 

executing Decision Authority 

SETMO Deputy Director supporting the SETMO Director in execution of his/her 

responsibilities. 

SETMO Chief Strategist developing and documenting strategies as they relate to the SETMO 

capability portfolio. Also engages in Agency policy activities. 

SETMO Chief Engineer managing and executing the SETMO Risk Management and 

Investment Project Processes, the SETMO Concurrence and 

Notification Process, third-party assessments, and SETMO quarterly 

reviews. 

SETMO Capability 

Component Manager 

managing and maintaining the capability component inventory 

database, SETMO Records and Data Management systems, and 

SETMO quarterly review reporting templates and spreadsheets; 

coordinating input from Centers for quarterly reviews; and performing 

analysis and rollup of Center data inputs for SETMO Director use in 

Agency-level reviews, discussions, and decisions. 

SETMO Business 

Manager 

managing and coordinating all SETMO business functions. 

9 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Position or Entity Responsible for . . . 

SETMO Subject Matter 

Experts 

informing management in all aspects of the technical capabilities. 

Centers implementing projects within the SETMO capability portfolio and 

managing in accordance with their respective governance structures. 

Center POCs advising SETMO of Center, program, project, and Mission Directorate 

intentions to make investments that may impact the SETMO capability 

portfolio. 

SET Control Board 

(SETCB) 

providing Agency input, guidance, and decisions on utilization, 

strategic investments and divestments, and scalability (capacities 

and/or capabilities) for the SETMO capability portfolio. 

MSC Chair executing the Decision Authority role for capability portfolio 

transitions as described in NPR 8600.1 and for the dissenting opinion 

process; leading the annual MSC review of capability portfolios. 

Per MSC decision MSC-2020-08-0021 (August 2020), the SETMO Director is the Decision 

Authority for all decisions except Tier 1 divestments. The MSC Chair retains Decision Authority for 

Tier 1 divestments. The SETMO Director is responsible for the execution of the goals and objectives 

defined in Section 1.3. This includes assessment of capability components regardless of their tier and 

disposition of Tier 2 capability components. Tier 2 divestments are made only after completion of 

alignment assessments for capability category sub-capabilities (e.g., the vibration sub-capability 

within the SET capability category). A combination of decisional reviews in accordance with NPD/R 

8600.1 are used for the strategic management of the capability portfolio. These include: 

• Additions or deletions of capability components in the SETMO capability portfolio. 

• Construction of new SETMO capability components when the value of the new capability 

component exceeds $1 million regardless of the funding source. 

• Large modifications to existing SETMO capability components when the value of the 

modification exceeds $1 million regardless of the funding source. 

• Divestment of a Tier 2 capability component. 

• Changes to the SETMO funding model. 

• Changes to the role of the SETCB. 

In accordance with Agency policy, the dissenting opinion process is used by Centers and Mission 

Directorates to bring to the MSC Chair disagreement with decisions made by the SETMO Director. 

The MSC Chair also decides divestment reclamas. 

The MSC Chair is the Decision Authority for the: 

• Transition of the SETMO capability portfolio from Establishment activities to Strategic 

Management activities 

10 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

• Transition of the SETMO Capability portfolio from Strategic Management activities to 

Termination activities. 

• Divestment of a Tier 1 capability component. 

The MSC annually reviews SETMO for scope, responsibilities, issues, and risks. 

3.0 STRATEGIC AND CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT 

SETMO capability components are key enablers for accomplishing the Agency’s Aeronautics, 

Human Exploration and Operations, Science, and Space Technology mission objectives. The 

SETMO strategy for strategic and centralized management effectively and proactively: 

1. Manages the capability portfolio as a strategic Agency resource, giving consideration to Agencydefined center roles and responsibilities to sustain, maintain, modernize, enhance, and develop 

infrastructure and a skilled workforce at a level based on current and projected test requirements 

and available funding. The lack of requirements or constraints in funding result in prioritization 

decisions that change the planned capacity or operational readiness level of capability 

components or increase costs to customers. 

2. Ensures sustained capability components have mission requirements, strategic stakeholder 

requirements, or have been identified as potentially required for future missions and are being 

sustained for risk mitigation purposes pending mission requirement maturation. 

3. Provides program management (cost, schedule, technical) for all sustained capability 

components and monitor and report how capability components contribute to the Agency's 

mission. As an element of management, SETMO integrates risks from and mitigations for the 

capability components within the Risk Management Plan. 

4. Provides annual review of business practices, including the offset of customer charging through 

the use of sustainment funding, to ensure consistency with Agency policy. 

5. Ensures continued relevance of the capability portfolio by developing short- and long-range 

plans for capability components. 

6. Evaluates and provides decisions to Agency and Center leadership on assessments that involve 

changes to the capability portfolio in accordance with requirements and strategic guidance 

included in NPD/R 8600.1, this CPCA, and the CPMP. 

7. Implements actionable decision management. SETMO conducts strategic alignment assessments 

of all capability components through an established analytical decision framework with guidance 

and review from the SETCB. 

8. Develops financial management proposals. Potential changes in SETMO budgets are achieved 

after strategic alignment assessments through a budget rationalization review that incorporates 

requirements for sustainment, maintenance, and modernization and advancement. 

9. Advises customers with respect to capabilities to inform the development of realistic test 

campaigns. 

10. Provides a concur or non-concur for investments, divestments, acquisition strategies, 

procurements, agreements, and changes to capability portfolio capability components in 

11 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

accordance with requirements and strategic guidance included in NPD/R 8600, this CPCA, and 

the CPMP. 

11. Provides a concur or non-concur on waivers from CPM requirements as described in NPR 

8600.1, Section 5.2. A written explanation for a non-concurrence is provided. 

12. Maintains cognizance and insight into external capabilities that fall within the capability 

portfolio. 

13. Serves as the Agency's principal advocate and authority for the capability portfolio and its 

components both internal to the Agency and with external partners. 

The SETMO Capability Portfolio Strategic Plan defines the implementation details for specific 

alignment assessments. 

3.1 Activities 

Many activities make up the overall strategic and centralized management of the SETMO capability 

portfolio. 

SETMO continually works with internal NASA organizations, Centers, programs/projects, the 

SETCB, CLTs, NASA Tech Fellows, and System Capability Leadership Team Leads to achieve 

Agency strategic goals and objectives. 

3.1.1 SETMO Management Tier Structure 

SETMO defines management tiers to ensure appropriate levels of insight and oversight are applied 

to the various capability components. Under this system, Tier 1 capability components have more 

frequent and in-depth reporting, and the reporting depth and frequency decrease for Tier 2 capability 

components. The management tiers are described in Table 3. 

Table 3. SETMO Management Tiers 

Tier Components and 

Assets 

Insight and Oversight 

Tier 1 Agency strategic or 

required capabilities 

SETMO provides sustainment funding. Capability 

components are eligible for SETMO maintenance funding. 

Centers provide quarterly reporting. 

Tier 2 NASA capability 

components 

Funded through programs/projects and Center Management 

and Operations (CM&O) or Infrastructure and Technical 

Capabilities (I&TC) funding. SETMO does not provide 

sustainment funding for these capability components, but 

maintenance funding is available for special circumstances. 

Centers provide a mix of annual and quarterly reporting. 

External capabilities Includes aerospace capability components and assets in 

other government agencies, industry, and academia. 

SETMO does not provide sustainment funding for these 

capability components, but maintains cognizance of 

inventory, size, and location. 

12 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Tier 1 capability components are provided sustainment funding but must rely on customer revenue 

and funding from CM&O/I&TC to fully recover the costs necessary to operate at planned capacity. 

Tier 2 capability components are not provided sustainment funding and rely on customer revenue 

and funding from CM&O/I&TC to fully recover the costs necessary to operate at planned capacity. 

SETMO is responsible for continually monitoring conditions associated with the Tier 1 and Tier 2 

capability components. This includes strategic testing needs from the Agency and testing capabilities 

external to NASA. SETMO manages its budget to best meet the needs of stakeholders, and changes 

in Tier 1 funding are based on strategic need and risk. SETMO advises Agency leadership on the 

state and disposition of the capability components. Changes in Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability 

components are expected due to changing Agency programs and projects and the Agency’s goal of a 

25% reduction in infrastructure assets over 20 years. 

Appendix C – SETMO Tier 1 and Tier 2 Capability Components lists all SETMO capability 

components. Appendix J – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Requirements identifies the annual and 

quarterly review reporting requirements for each management tier. Appendix K – SETMO Quarterly 

Reporting Template contains the guidance and template used by Centers for quarterly review 

reporting. Appendix L – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Spreadsheet is used by Centers to create the 

metrics tables linked to the slides used in the quarterly reviews. 

3.1.2 Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) 

The TCO includes all sources of funding used to sustain and operate a capability component. 

SETMO works with Centers to understand costs of ownership and sustainment for their capability 

components. These costs are used for reporting, budget advocacy, and alignment assessments. 

Some capability components at Centers are grouped into logical work and fund centers where the 

capability components are collocated and use shared staff. SETMO develops consistent cost 

elements and groupings, and the SETMO Business Manager is responsible for developing guidance 

for TCO and collecting, collating, and archiving data from the Centers. 

3.1.3 SETMO Investment Project Process 

SETMO makes investments in the capability portfolio through a balanced, risk-informed process. 

When evaluating potential investment projects, the SETMO Chief Engineer considers input from 

Center POCs gathered during monthly reviews and special data calls, third-party capability 

component assessments, and the SETMO Risk Management Process. Using a process that includes 

Center POCs and SETMO subject matter experts, the SETMO Chief Engineer prioritizes potential 

investment projects and presents the prioritized list of projects to the SETMO Director for final 

concurrence and funding. 

Centers are responsible for implementing investment projects and reporting status to SETMO in 

accordance with Appendix J – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Requirements and Appendix K –

SETMO Quarterly Reporting Template. 

3.1.4 SETMO Standardization, Consistency, and Common Practices 

SETMO recognizes the role of Working Groups of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics and trade conferences as valuable tools to encourage and implement standardization, 

13 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

strategic direction, and common practices across NASA’s capability portfolios and encourages, 

enables, and funds Center participation in these forums. 

SETMO sponsors operational and safety training for capability component personnel and provides 

travel funding when requested. SETMO also coordinates industry tours and talks when available to 

discover and share best practices. 

SETMO works collaboratively with Centers and Mission Directorates to develop and maintain key 

documents, strategies, business practices, and operational norms. 

3.1.5 SETMO Third-Party Assessments 

SETMO performs independent assessments on SETMO Tier 1 capability components to identify 

overall condition, possible capability enhancements, maintenance gaps, and potential divestments. 

This practice brings objectivity and consistency to the evaluation of maintenance practices and 

investment needs for SETMO capability components. 

3.1.6 Thresholds for SETMO Director Concurrence and Notification 

As outlined in NPD 8600.1 and NPR 8600.1, Centers, programs and projects, and Mission 

Directorates are responsible for notifying or receiving concurrence from the SETMO Director prior 

to making decisions that influence or change the SETMO capability portfolio. 

The purpose of the NASA policy is to ensure consistency with the established and approved plans 

and direction of the SETMO capability portfolio for: 

• Investments, divestments, acquisition strategies, procurements, or internal and external 

agreements that seek to build or develop new capabilities, improve existing capabilities, or 

divest of existing capabilities, whether NASA or NASA investment in a non-NASA 

capability. 

• Acquisition strategies, procurements, or internal and external agreements that seek to obtain 

products and services from external capabilities or commit the use of Tier 1 capability 

components. This may be done at the individual strategy, procurement, or agreement level or 

at an integrated Center level on a periodic basis. 

• Operational changes to a capability component within the capability portfolio. 

SETMO has established specific thresholds for operational activities associated with these 

investments, divestments, acquisition strategies, procurements, internal and external agreements, and 

operational changes to a capability component, and requires notification to or concurrence from the 

SETMO Director when these thresholds are exceeded. Appendix G – Thresholds for SETMO 

Director Concurrence and Notification identifies these thresholds. 

Guidelines for when concurrence or notification should be obtained are established by engagement 

points described in Section 3.1.7. 

Concurrence and notification processes are described in Section 3.1.8. 

14 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

3.1.7 Engagement Points 

Engagement points are essential for ensuring that concurrence or notification occurs as early as 

possible in the timelines, review cycles, and decision-making processes of the MDAA, Center, and 

program and project management. Early engagement points ensure that the plans of the MDAA, 

Center Director, JPL Lab Director, program manager, and project manager are consistent with the 

strategic direction and approved plans of the SETMO capability portfolio. 

Specific methodologies have been established to serve as engagement points for agreements in 

general and for agreements established as part of competed and directed missions. These 

methodologies are described in Sections 3.1.7.1, 3.1.7.2, and 3.1.7.3, respectively. 

3.1.7.1 Engagement Points for Agreements 

The MSD Partnership Office, SETCB, and Center POCs are required to seek concurrence as early as 

possible during the development of external agreements with external entities (i.e., private industry, 

other U.S. Government agencies, academia, and other stakeholders) when SETMO Tier 1 capability 

components are included. The SETMO Director currently has insight into external agreement 

development through: 

• Coordination with the Centers’ partnership leads; and 

• Abstracts forwarded to NASA headquarters for review and vetting using two systems: the 

NASA Partnership Agreement Maker (PAM) and the NASA System for International and 

External Relations Agreements (SIERA). 

Additional methodologies for gaining insight into external agreement development will be identified 

during the first year of Strategic Management of the SETMO capability portfolio. 

The SETMO Director reviews external agreements with external entities when SETMO capability 

components are included and concurs or non-concurs based on NASA policy. Review and 

concurrence of external agreements by the SETMO Director: 

• Enables general cognizance of testing services being utilized by external customers. 

• Ensures that NASA’s in-house capabilities are sustained only for supporting NASA mission 

requirements and strategic national needs. 

• Ensures that Centers do not enter into external agreements that prevent SETMO from 

executing its Agency-level strategy. 

The SETMO Director’s concurrence is not required in cases where: 

• Only generic testing services are known when the external agreement is being developed. 

• Testing services are a line item included within a product delivery (e.g., instrument build, 

test, and delivery). 

Center capability component managers are required to notify the SETMO Director at quarterly 

meetings of external agreements with external entities, including agreements in development and 

agreements in place, when SETMO Tier 2 capability components are included. 

15 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

3.1.7.2 Engagement Points for Competed Missions 

SETMO recognizes that Mission Directorates use Announcements of Opportunity (AOs) and other 

methods to compete work that typically requires space environments testing. SETMO consults with 

Mission Directorates in the development of AOs for Tier 1 capability components to ensure that the 

AOs: 

• Inform proposers of NASA test capabilities that are potentially available for their use; and 

• Provide guidance on the potential investment of NASA funds in new or existing capability 

components, whether in-house or external. 

At the appropriate time in the proposal review process for competed missions that require Tier 1 

capability components, the Mission Directorates are required to provide SETMO with details on: 

• Proposed testing services (i.e., test assignments). 

• Any proposed investments of NASA funds for in-house or external capabilities within the 

SETMO capability portfolio (capability portfolio realignment). 

3.1.7.3 Engagement Points for Directed Missions 

SETMO recognizes that Mission Directorates use directed work that typically requires space 

environments testing. SETMO consults with Mission Directorates in the formulation phase to 

ensure: 

• Mission planners are cognizant of NASA test capabilities potentially available for their use; 

and 

• Concurrence or notification is provided for the potential utilization of SETMO capability 

components; and, 

• Concurrence or notification is provided for the potential investment of NASA funds in new 

or existing capability components, whether in-house or external. 

Mission Directorates are required to provide SETMO with relevant details before Pre-Key Decision 

Point B, including the Systems Requirements Review, Acquisition Strategy Meeting, and Mission 

Definition Review or System Definition Review for directed missions that could require Tier 1 

capability components including: 

• Proposed testing services (i.e., test assignments). 

• Any proposed investments of NASA funds for in-house or external capabilities within the 

SETMO capability portfolio (capability portfolio realignment). 

3.1.8 SETMO Concurrence and Notification Processes 

The concurrence and notification processes provide capability portfolio oversight, insight, and 

cognizance to the SETMO Director and enable capacity alignment and minimization of capability 

redundancies. Concurrence and notification actions are initiated through formal requests. 

Formal requests to SETMO are made by submitting Form CN001 in Appendix I –

Concurrence/Notification Form via email. SETMO processes and evaluates the impacts to the 

capability portfolio and dispositioned requests are signed by the SETMO Director (or designee), 

16 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

returned to the Center, and archived as an amendment to the respective AOP. Approved activities are 

tracked by SETMO through Center quarterly reporting. 

In lieu of request forms, some requests may be initiated using: 

• SETMO maintenance and repair project data calls. SETMO allocates maintenance and repair 

funding each year and submitting a maintenance and repair project is considered a request. 

Funding of a project constitutes concurrence, and funded projects are required to provide 

status updates during quarterly reviews. 

• The AOP. Each fiscal year, Centers with Tier 1 capability components are required to 

prepare and submit an AOP to SETMO, and the content included in the AOP is considered a 

request. The signed AOP satisfies any concurrence or notification requirements for 

significant changes in capability component function; significant changes to operational 

status; investment, major upgrade, replacement, improvement or addition to an existing 

capability component; creation or divestment of a capability component; obtaining testing 

services external to the capability portfolio; test assignments; and external agreements 

including Space Act Agreements. 

• Discussion at quarterly reviews. Changes to operating capacities are expected due to changes 

in customer schedules and requirements. Unless the net annual estimated operating capacity 

deviates from the AOP, Centers can use the quarterly review to notify and update SETMO on 

changes in quarter-to-quarter operating capacity. 

• SETCB Meetings. Identification of projects through the SETCB or direct engagement 

between a requesting stakeholder (CLT, Center, program, or project) and SETMO are 

considered on a case-by-case basis with the appropriate approach for each case. 

• Direct contact. In the event of an emergency, Centers may contact the SETMO Chief 

Engineer by phone or email, proceed with addressing the emergency repair, and follow up 

with the formal concurrence/notification process to document the activity. 

The SETMO Chief Engineer is responsible for documenting, dispositioning, and archiving these 

requests. 

3.1.9 SETMO Annual Operating Plan 

In collaboration with SETMO, the Centers create and maintain an AOP for each Tier 1 capability 

component each fiscal year. Guidance and a template are provided in Appendix H – SETMO Annual 

Operating Plan Template. 

The Center inputs contain plans that might require SETMO Director concurrence or notification in 

accordance with Appendix G – Thresholds for SETMO Director Concurrence and Notification. For 

example, Center input to the AOP might include a plan for local contract(s) to provide overflow 

vibration testing, and the Center submission serves as the documented request for SETMO Director 

concurrence or notification. Center labor, procurement (to include maintenance requirements), and 

travel are requested, negotiated, and documented in the AOP. 

The approved SETMO AOP serves as the record and baseline for the year of execution. SETMO 

maintains configuration control of and provides access to the AOP. The AOP also includes a change 

form for requests, concurrence, and a record of revisions to the AOP during the year of execution. 

17 
 

 

 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

3.1.10 SETCB 

While one of the purposes of the SETCB is to guide (advise, recommend, encourage, counsel) the 

strategic management of the SETMO Capability Portfolio assigned to the MSD Office of Strategic 

Infrastructure (OSI), the SETCB also makes integrated decisions (resolve, determine, settle, choose, 

commit) related to that capability portfolio that have multi-organizational impact(s). 

SETCB members represent the major stakeholders of SETMO capabilities, and the SETCB ensures 

the SETMO Capability Portfolio (Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability components) align with NASA’s 

strategic goals, Mission Directorate (MD) requirements, and Agency business needs. 

The SETCB guides the SETMO Director and MSD in the development and execution of tactical and 

strategic plans and develops collaborative recommendations and makes decisions to improve the 

effectiveness of strategic and centralized capability management. Plans, recommendations, and 

decisions could include operations, maintenance, modernization, capability advancements (strategic 

investments), and test technologies (improvements to test technologies and test techniques) 

necessary to sustain SETMO capabilities, SETMO budget and the allocation of resources, and 

divestments for technical capabilities no longer required for Agency missions. 

The members, frequency and level of engagement, and processes are described in the SETCB 

Charter. 

3.1.11 SETMO Capability Component Divestment 

SETMO capability portfolio divestments are required to align with evolving Agency requirements 

and needs. Opportunities and recommendations for divestment are considered individually and are 

brought to the attention of the SETMO Director through a variety of methods including Center 

recommendations, SETMO alignment assessments, the SETCB, or the MSC. 

The SETMO Director consults with all capability component stakeholders when developing a 

decision package for divestment. Divestments are assigned to the NASA Headquarters Facilities and 

Real Estate Division for execution, and all divestment activities are reported semi-annually to the 

MSC. 

3.1.12 SETMO Business Management 

3.1.12.1 Budget Formulation – PPBE Process 

SETMO PPBE guidance is provided annually in the MSD Program and Resources Guidance (PRG). 

SETMO PPBE revalidation guidance and templates are distributed to the Centers and developed in 

accordance with the PPBE schedule. SETMO PPBE revalidation is requested from each Center with 

capability components in the SETMO capability portfolio, even if they have not received 

sustainment funding. 

• All Centers are requested to identify any funding issues associated with the operations budgets 

they submit. 

• Workforce levels are negotiated with each Center to ensure capability component availability 

with an appropriate level of skill retention. 

• Planned utilization is also requested on the revalidation worksheet with actual and planned 

sources of funding (NASA or external) identified. 

18 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

• The utilization and funding source data are compiled and reported in the annual SETMO PPBE 

program review. The NASA budget formulation system (N2) is updated and maintained as 

determined by the PPBE schedule. 

• Center labor rates are requested and used to develop the final SETMO budget submission and to 

update N2 for the Program Analysis and Alignment (PAA) and Program and Institutional 

Guidance (PaIG) releases. 

3.1.12.2 Phasing Plans 

Phasing plans are requested in October from Centers with SETMO Tier 1 capability components. 

Guideline trace worksheets are completed for each funded capability component and distributed to 

each Center for phasing plan development. Phasing plans include labor funding and complement, 

procurement, and travel guidelines. These phasing plans serve as the basis of analysis for the Agency 

Baseline Performance Review. Mid-year updates are requested following receipt of the enacted 

fiscal year appropriations. Updated guidelines are allocated to the Centers based on final guidelines 

received by SETMO. 

Center phasing plans for current year funds and prior-year carry-in are reviewed and integrated by 

SETMO to develop and submit plans that are realistic, valid, and executable. Phasing plans are 

utilized for monthly and quarterly actuals versus plans variance analyses. Labor and procurement 

underruns are monitored, and underruns in labor dollars are reallocated to maintenance investment 

projects. 

3.1.12.3 I&TC Funding 

I&TC is the new name (starting in FY21) for the CM&O appropriation. 

3.1.12.4 Budget Execution 

The SETMO work breakdown structure is used for budget planning and funds distribution and is 

reviewed and updated annually to support appropriate funding model financial tracking and 

reporting requirements and communication. 

Guideline trace worksheets are completed for each funded capability component and used for the 

management of guideline changes through the fiscal year. Program Authority is distributed 

incrementally to each Center for labor, procurement, and travel when SETMO receives authority 

guidance. Funds distribution worksheets are completed for each funded capability component and 

adjusted with each funding distribution. Guideline trace and funds distribution worksheets are 

reconciled monthly with Center analysts. 

Prior year un-costed funds are monitored to track costing and the de-obligation of funding no longer 

required after final contract closeout. Prior year funds are pulled back to the SETMO budget and 

held for the future to fund contract closeouts from prior years. 

Centers complete financial reports for presentation at SETMO quarterly reviews. See Appendix M –

Quarterly Business Reporting Templates for additional information and examples. All budget 

execution and financial documents are archived on the SETMO SharePoint site. 

19 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

3.1.12.5 Maintenance Project Funding 

SETMO provides maintenance funding to preserve availability and reliability and to address highrisk capability conditions, gaps, and unplanned needs. The funding allocated to the capability 

components for approved maintenance projects or upgrades is monitored on a monthly basis using 

the SETMO Maintenance Project Funding Reporting Template. Phasing plans are submitted by 

Centers with a description of the project and schedule including obligation and cost. This template 

tracks obligation, cost, schedule, and technical issues until the completion of the project and is due to 

the SETMO Business Manager by the fifth of each month. The monthly reports are analyzed for 

obligation and cost status and then forwarded to the SETMO Chief Engineer for review and to 

address technical issues or concerns. Cost underruns or overruns are addressed by SETMO 

management. SETMO-funded project reporting is also included in quarterly and annual reviews. All 

documents are archived on the SETMO SharePoint site. 

3.1.12.6 Travel 

Through the PPBE revalidation worksheets, Centers request travel funding annually to support 

quarterly reviews and the management and operation of capability components. Annual guidelines 

are approved and included in the AOP, and travel is monitored monthly and quarterly. Travel overguideline requests or reallocation of funds from procurement or labor are reviewed and approved on 

a case-by-case basis. Travel is also monitored for underruns, which are utilized within SETMO for 

other prioritized travel or for maintenance and repair projects. 

3.1.12.7 External Radiation Facilities (Radiation Block Buy) 

The Agency Electronics Parts Manager provides monitoring and quarterly reporting on the SETMO 

Tier 1 external radiation facilities. Programmatic and budget documents associated with radiation 

block buy activities are archived on the SETMO SharePoint site. 

3.1.12.8 SETMO Business Rules 

SETMO operates per the following business rules: 

• Total Center allocations cannot exceed the funding provided by the Agency 

• Center allocations cover the cost of labor identified in N2 

• Program Authority is distributed incrementally for labor, procurement, and travel. 

• Center labor underruns are evaluated for cause 

o an underrun resulting from customer testing is shared equally with the Center, and the 

SETMO share is redirected to maintenance projects 

o an underrun resulting from overstated Center labor rates is not shared and the funding 

is redirected to maintenance projects 

• Carry out (and carry in) is limited to one month for Tier 1 capability components 

• SETMO is not responsible for Center budget gaps 

20 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

3.2 Schedule 

SETMO schedules are shown in two appendixes: 

• Appendix F – SETMO Schedule depicts the routine and recurring milestones associated with 

the strategic and centralized management of the SETMO capability portfolio, and 

• Appendix N – SETMO Tier 1 Five-Year Schedule shows an example of the roll-up of 

demand for SETMO Tier 1 capability components. 

The SETMO schedule has three parts as described in Table 4. 

Table 4. SETMO Schedule Parts 

Schedule Part Description 

Strategic Management 

Cycles 

Identifies the development and updating of required key documents and 

ensures the SETMO strategy and capability portfolio content are planned 

commensurate with the Agency’s budget processes. 

Meetings and Reviews Ensures timely communication and evaluation of the technical and 

programmatic execution of SETMO. 

Planned Investments Identifies key maintenance and capability advancement projects intended 

to sustain and improve capability components. 

3.3 Alignment of Capacity with Demand 

SETMO develops utilization trends and forecasts as part of the strategic and centralized management 

of the capability portfolio. 

SETMO conducts strategic alignment assessments of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability components with 

guidance and review from the SETCB. These alignment assessments evaluate each sub-capability 

category to optimize the value capability components and resources provide to the Agency by: 

• Gaining situational understanding of sub-capability portfolio elements, their capacities, costs, 

and risks, and identifying the criteria that informs element value in meeting requirements. 

• Providing pairwise ranking of each element with prioritization conducted to the level where 

it is relevant. 

• Developing decisional scenarios/options, to produce a limited number of practical 

alternatives, and identifying criteria for evaluating those options. For situations where there is 

insufficient data for analytical evaluation, relevant good enough data requirements are 

defined to support the evaluation of Agency intent to align supply with demand. 

• Developing an action plan for improving resource allocation and or capability portfolio 

investment or divestment and rationalizing any increase in operational readiness levels, 

strategic investment requirements, and any increased funding requirement. 

The SETMO alignment assessment methodology is: 

1. Start the alignment assessment. Develop and approve a charter for the alignment assessment 

team with scope, assumptions, team members, and schedule. The assessment lead should select 

team members from MDs, Centers, and the relevant technical communities. 

21 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

2. Document the performance and condition. Document the technical capabilities and parameters, 

operational characteristics, condition, and cost of each capability component in the assessment 

group and known issues risks in performance and/or condition. Identify enabling infrastructure 

and any co-dependencies (e.g., Machine A and Machine B cannot operate at the same time). Use 

the Facility Condition Index process to validate/update the capability components and the 

enabling infrastructure. 

3. Establish Agency relevance. Evaluate each capability component in the assessment group for 

relevance to the 2018 NASA Strategic Plan, the Agency Master Plan, and the Executive Council 

decision on Center primary and secondary roles. Use the Mission Dependency Index process to 

validate/update mission relevance. 

4. Prioritize. Use the performance, condition, and Agency relevance results to prioritize the 

capability components at the sub-capability level. Provide pairwise prioritization of each 

capability component to inform later assessment steps, recommendations, and decisions. 

5. Determine demand. Use recent historical utilization to set a baseline and identify projected 

demand with confidence levels for each capability component. 

6. Identify strategic requirements. Work with MD and technical community representatives to 

identify Mission Directorate requirements that extend beyond the current budget horizon. 

7. Evaluate cost. Determine costs for capability component changes in capacity and/or operational 

readiness level and investments needed to address projected demand and Agency strategic 

requirements. Determine an acquisition strategy and schedule for the execution of required 

investments. 

8. Identify alternatives. Identify alternative options to address projected demand and Agency 

strategic requirements. Alternatives are developed for each assessment but might include 

leveraging external capabilities or implementing workload concentration. 

9. Develop scenarios/options. Develop a limited number of practical solutions and the criteria for 

evaluation of those solutions. Define relevant good enough data requirements for situations 

where there is insufficient data for analytical evaluation. 

10. Develop a recommendation. Develop an action plan for the recommended option for review by 

the SETCB. Rationalize any change in capability component funding and utilize the annual 

PPBE process to implement funding changes. 

An integrated plan will be developed within three months of MSC approval of the SETMO transition 

to Strategic Management. The integrated plan will prioritize sub-capability alignment assessments 

and will identify the milestones associated with the completion of assessments to support PPBE23 

and those that will support PPBE24. See Section 3.9 for additional information. 

Through alignment assessments, SETMO aligns capacity with both short-term and long-term 

demand. 

3.4 Funding Model(s) 

A fundamental factor for implementing centralized and strategic management and sustaining 

operations is funding. A funding model has four parts, all of which need to work together for the 

Agency to have testing services. These parts are described in Table 5. 

22 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Table 5. Funding Model Parts 

Funding Model Part Description 

Agency to capability 

portfolio (i.e., annual 

funding) 

The annual funding the Agency provides to a capability portfolio 

and the purpose for the funding (e.g., for sustainment). 

Capability portfolio to 

Center (i.e., Center 

allocation) 

The funding a capability portfolio provides to the Centers for 

capability component sustainment, non-routine maintenance, and 

improvement and modernization projects. 

Customer to Center (i.e., 

Center Charging Model) 

The funding provided by internal and external customers based on 

the requirement to cover test-related costs. The Center charging 

model can also include sustainment costs for customers that utilize 

the facility on a long-term basis. 

CM&O/I&TC Centers use CM&O/I&TC or other pooled funding to support 

maintenance and capability advancement investments and to 

address any budget gaps not covered by the capability portfolio to 

Center allocation and the Center charging model. 

3.4.1 SETMO Funding 

SETMO employs a centrally-managed funding strategy, and consistent with MSC Decision Package 

MSC-2015-10-001, requires funding to meet programmatic and operational sustainment goals. 

At the inception of SCAP in 2006, the budget level was set to sustain capability components at a 

ready to produce state with Centers establishing cost recovery strategies needed to meet planned 

capacity. Since 2006, the SCAP/SETMO budget has declined and the purchasing power has eroded 

to the point where capability components are sustained at a less than ready to produce state and with 

associated undesirable consequences (e.g., backlogged maintenance, unplanned downtime, 

instability in capability readiness, lack of technology advancement). Also, the SETMO-sustained 

capability components are not funded for the full complement of workforce (FTEs and WYEs) 

required for operations. 

The SETMO annual funding is composed of three elements as shown in Table 6. 

Table 6. SETMO Funding 

Funding Element Funding for . . . 

Sustainment Tier 1 capability components. Sustainment maintains some level of staff, 

staff proficiency, tools, routine maintenance, and enable operations of 

capability components during periods of low utilization. Customers who 

require increased capability component throughput bear the cost of increased 

staff and must plan in advance to allow adequate time for Centers to react to 

demand. 

Maintenance Funding for planned and unplanned repairs that is centrally managed and 

utilizes a risk-based prioritization and selection process. Capability 

23 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

components request repair funds from SETMO, and all SETMO Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 capability components are eligible. 

Modernization Funding for capability modernization that is centrally managed and utilizes 

an Agency-based prioritization and selection process. 

The maintenance and modernization elements permit SETMO to address reliability and availability 

issues and emerging customer requirements. 

The SETMO budget is established through the PPBE process with specific guidance from MSD and 

OSI. SETMO operates under a constrained budget with funding determined by MSD. Within these 

limits, SETMO makes an initial allocation of funds among the capability components. Each test site 

then prepares an operating budget, divided among civil servant labor, travel, and various categories 

of procurements, to fit their allotted funds. MSD provides approximately $27 million/year (in FY20 

$) to sustain SETMO Tier 1 capability components at less than a ready to produce state and to 

provide a limited level of maintenance funding for Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability components. Per this 

funding model, Tier 1 capability components must rely on customer revenue and funding from 

CM&O to fully recover the costs necessary to operate at planned capacity, and Tier 2 capability 

components must rely on customer sustainment and revenue and funding from CM&O to fully 

recover the costs necessary to operate at planned capacity. The current SETMO PPBE22 run out is 

shown in Appendix D – SETMO Budget Run Out. 

Constraints in funding result in prioritization decisions that increase costs to customers or change the 

planned capacity or operational readiness level of capability components. Potential changes in 

SETMO budgets are requested through the annual PPBE Issue Paper process and realized after 

strategic alignment assessments through a budget rationalization review that incorporates 

requirements for sustainment, maintenance, modernization, and advancement. 

SETMO competes in the Construction of Facility (CoF) process for supplemental resources 

necessary to achieve strategic objectives. All CoF resources realized are programmed outside of the 

SETMO budget. 

3.4.2 SETMO to Center Allocation 

The SETMO allocation of funding to the Centers provides sustainment for capability components 

that are part of the SETMO Tier 1 and maintenance and modernization funding. Grouped operations 

are common, and sustainment funding is provided at the group level where appropriate. The annual 

allocations are documented in the SETMO AOP, which establishes the capability component 

baseline for the year of execution. 

3.4.3 Center Charging Model 

Although the responsibility of the Centers, SETMO collaborates with the Centers to develop 

charging models for internal and external test customers that reflect Agency policies for customer 

charging in NASA facilities. Center charging models cover test-related costs and sustainment costs 

in cases when a customer utilizes the facility on a long-term basis. SETMO capability components 

charge external customers full cost to test. 

24 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

3.4.4 Infrastructure and Technical Capabilities (I&TC) 

Centers use I&TC (or CM&O) or other pooled funding to support maintenance and capability 

advancement investments and to address any budget gaps not covered by the SETMO to Center 

allocation and the Center charging model. 

3.5 Controls and Compliance 

The SETMO Chief Strategist engages in Agency policy development and review activities, and 

through these activities, ensures compliance with NASA policies, directives, and other applicable 

requirements. Relevant policies and directives are brought to the attention of the SETMO Director 

and communicated to SETMO Center POCs for awareness and implementation. 

• See Section 8.0 for details on the process for implementing and controlling changes and 

updating the CPMP. 

• See Section 2.0 for the characterization of the key parameters (cost, technical, products and 

services delivered, new capability components) that require SETMO Director approval and 

the transitions that require MSC Chair approval. 

• See Appendix G for thresholds used to determine when SETMO Director concurrence or 

notification is required. 

3.6 Relationships 

3.6.1 Internal Dependencies and Agreements 

The successful implementation of Agency CPM is highly dependent on the support of the MSC 

Chair, MSC, OSI Assistant Administrator, sponsoring and participating MDAAs, Mission 

Directorate program and project managers, Office of the Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Center Directors, and Center capability 

component managers. Chapter 4 of NPR 8600.1 delineates the roles and responsibilities of these 

parties in CPM. No additional internal dependencies and agreements are necessary for the SETMO 

capability portfolio to meet its objectives. 

SETMO collaborates with Centers in the development of AOPs for the SETMO Tier 1 capability 

components. These AOPs serve as the operational baseline for the year of execution and document 

agreements between SETMO and the Centers. 

3.6.2 External Dependencies and Agreements 

SETMO has several external dependencies and agreements. 

NASA has multiple agreements with National facilities that provide heavy ion and proton radiation 

testing for the Agency. SETMO is collaborating with and provides funding to the Agency 

Electronics Parts Manager to consolidate these agreements and locations for electronic parts external 

radiation testing. This collaboration allows NASA to maintain access to external facilities at highest 

risk through a block buy of time and to consolidate and centralize management of multiple existing 

agreements and contracts to reduce administrative overhead and streamline access. 

NASA also has an agreement with the DoD/NASA National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing 

(NPAT) to expand cooperation between the two parties for aeronautical test facilities including wind 

25 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

tunnels, propulsion test facilities, simulation facilities, and open-air ranges. The SETMO Director 

sits on the NPAT board and works to address topics of mutual interest including planned 

improvements, alterations, or operational changes to aeronautical test facilities, and initiatives to 

promote and preserve the specialized workforce associated with aeronautical test facilities. 

SETMO works with external partners such as the NPAT and relevant American Institute of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics working groups to communicate National needs and communicates 

with them during divestment assessments to ensure National needs are considered. 

3.7 Sourcing Strategy and Sourcing Decisions 

SETMO uses the term “capability portfolio realignment” (i.e., re-aligning the capability components 

to more efficiently or effectively meet expected future demand) instead of “sourcing strategy” and 

the term “test assignment” (i.e., assigning testing requirements to specific capability components) 

instead of “sourcing decision.”

When SETMO identifies opportunities to use, acquire, develop, or modify capability components in 

the SETMO capability portfolio to meet mission requirements, SETMO works with the Mission 

Directorates, Centers, SETCB, NASA Tech Fellows, and Systems Capability Leadership Team 

Leads to determine the best approach for capability portfolio realignment and/or test assignment. 

For capability portfolio realignment, SETMO also concurs or non-concurs on or is notified of: 

• Investments, divestments, acquisition strategies, procurements, or agreements that seek to 

build or develop new capabilities, improve existing capabilities, or divest of capabilities that 

fall within the SETMO capability portfolio and thresholds defined in this CPMP, whether 

NASA or a NASA investment in a non-NASA capability. Recent examples include the Arc 

Jet modernization and the JSC Building 49 divestment. 

• Acquisition strategies, procurements, and agreements to obtain products and services from 

external capabilities that fall within the SETMO capability portfolio. A recent example is the 

external radiation block buy for testing of electronic parts. 

For most test assignments, SETMO customers interact and negotiate directly with Center capability 

component managers (i.e., facility managers) for information, planning, scheduling, developing cost 

estimates, and conducting tests. SETMO engages only in significant test assignments for major 

programs and projects (e.g., James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) testing in JSC Chamber A, Orion 

testing at Plum Brook Station (PBS)) and under other rare circumstances (e.g., a Center cannot 

resolve a schedule conflict and requests help, or external customers are making test inquiries with 

multiple Centers). 

SETMO recognizes that testing is an integral process within the overall spacecraft and instrument 

development process. It is SETMO’s intent for the organization performing the development and/or

integration (as delineated in a proposal) to appropriately plan test assignments in a way that 

optimizes overall success of the mission. SETMO does not perform test assignment for competed 

missions. SETMO limits test reassignment to directed missions, and only prior to Preliminary 

Design Review, which allows the review board to evaluate the reassignment as part of the review 

process. 

26 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

3.8 Performance 

SETMO is committed to full compliance with the capability portfolio management requirements 

documented in NPD/R 8600.1. These requirements are prioritized to best align with the situational 

environment: capability components and enabling infrastructure that are aged and, in some cases, 

unreliable; importance for reliable performance in support of highly visible, costly and important 

Agency missions; and, the need for affordable solutions. Specific management performance 

elements which are of priority are: 

• SETMO annual review of the operational status of its capability components to assess the 

costs and benefits of individual capability components against testing requirements and needs 

and to make appropriate decisions to invest in upgrades and to divest where advantageous. 

• Development of integrated utilization schedules to assist in achieving schedule commitments 

for all SETMO activities and to focus on successful achievement of major milestones. 

• Ensured balance of near-term financial stewardship with long-term capability and risks 

including management of SETMO operational readiness states to realize an optimal balance 

of operations, maintenance, and modernization investments. 

• Mitigation of maintenance issues with attention to those evaluated as having a very high risk 

to test. 

The reliable delivery of testing services is a critical performance metric in support of customer 

needs. The established, annual SETMO Agency Performance Indicator is rated green after a 

minimum of 90% overall availability of the Tier 1 capability components is reported. Availability is 

a measure of readiness and reliability and is calculated by subtracting unplanned downtime from 

time sold and dividing the result by time sold. 

Testing performance is measured through customer satisfaction surveys. The performance metric is 

to achieve 85% or better overall customer satisfaction score for Tier 1 testing services. 

SETMO collaborates with Centers in the development of AOP the SETMO Tier 1 capability 

components. The development starts in April with a milestone to complete the AOP by September 

30th. The AOP serves as the operational baseline for the year of execution. 

SETMO ensures facility maintenance and modernization activities do not adversely affect Agency 

requirements and uses Agency programmatic requirements to govern the implementation of 

activities in meeting testing milestones and schedule commitments. 

Quarterly and annually, SETMO reviews Center operational performance against the planned 

baseline established in the AOP. 

SETMO provides input to the quarterly Agency Baseline Performance Review and is also reviewed 

annually by the MSPMC and the MSC against the goals and objectives identified in Section 1.3. 

3.9 SETMO Capability Portfolio Strategic Plan 

Changes in Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability components are expected and are a reflection of changing 

Agency programs and projects and the Agency’s goal of a 25% reduction in infrastructure assets 

over 20 years. As part of strategic and centralized management of the SETMO capability portfolio, 

SETMO will develop a strategic plan in FY21. The plan will be updated as needed and will include: 

27 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

• Alignment with Agency and Center Master Plans. 

• Principles and guidance for design and development of the capability portfolio and its 

components. 

• The identification of enabling infrastructure required by each capability component and the 

associated interfaces with Center institutional systems and equipment. 

• Identification of future needs and requirements, capability gaps, technology trends, 

opportunities, threats, and changes to internal and external environment. 

• Identification, prioritization, and planning for new and changed products and services (that 

resolve identified capability gaps). 

• Standardization of services, systems, architectures, technologies, processes, and metrics 

within the capability portfolio and among its capability components. 

• Methodology for recurring alignment assessments of the needed future state (combination of 

workforce (FTE and WYE), competencies, assets, equipment, processes, and technologies) 

for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability components and the processes for delivering required 

products and services. 

• Identification of the order and schedule for sub-capability alignment assessments. 

• Evolution of capability components to be added, improved, operating under a different 

readiness level, or divested. 

• Evolution of the capability portfolio to leverage alternative methods and processes for 

delivery of products and services and alternative approaches to sourcing (i.e., balance of inhouse and external). 

• A long-term capability portfolio alignment plan to efficiently and effectively meet expected 

future demand. 

Strategic development efforts are already underway through the scheduled assessment of flight 

simulators in FY20 and FY21 and planning for modernization of the Arc Jet Complex to meet future 

NASA requirements. Associated with strategic alignment assessments are: 

• Implementation of actionable decision management. Strategic alignment assessments include 

the identification and evaluation of sub-capability capability components through an 

established analytical decision framework with guidance and review from the SETCB. 

• Development of a financial management proposal. Potential changes in SETMO budgets are 

achieved after strategic alignment assessments through a budget rationalization review that 

incorporates requirements for sustainment, maintenance, and modernization and 

advancement. 

28 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

The schedule for the first version of the SETMO Capability Portfolio Strategic Plan is shown in 

Table 7. 

Table 7. SETMO Capability Portfolio Strategic Plan Schedule 

Milestone Schedule (MSC Approval is the Starting Point) 

Complete CPMP and submit for 

review/approval 

2 months 

Establish the SETCB 2 months 

Establish an Analytic Decision Framework to 

include sub-capability identification and a subcapability evaluation plan 

3 months 

Complete the development of the SETMO 

Capability Portfolio Strategic Plan 

3 months 

Complete sub-capability alignment 

assessments for: 

• Flight Simulation 

• High Enthalpy Testing 

• Adjustment to SETMO capability portfolio 

for exclusions and like (i.e., discovered) 

capability components 

• Vibration 

• Acoustic 

• Assembly 

• Clean Rooms 

• Other 

In time to support PPBE23 

Complete sub-capability alignment 

assessments for Chambers: 

• Electric Propulsion 

• Human Rated 

• ISRU 

• Specialty 

• Other 

In time to support PPBE24 

PPBE Budget Rationalization Reviews In time to support PPBE 23 and PPBE24 

Note: The CPCA has to be signed as a condition of MSC approval 

3.10 Risk Management 

SETMO has identified three risks to the capability portfolio. These are: 

• Arc Jet Modernization. The Arc Jet Complex is aged, funding for the infrastructure is very 

limited, and equipment failure could disable the capability for up to 24 months which could 

result in critical and costly delays in verifying and validating entry thermal protection 

systems for planned crewed, robotic, and commercial missions. 

• Funding Levels. Flat or decreasing funding for SETMO results in fewer investments in 

maintenance and modernization, more run-to-fail situations, and more costs being passed to 

testing customers, which might result in missed mission milestones. 

• Agency Culture. Centralized management requires Agency-level decision making, funding, 

planning, strategic management, standardization, and controls needed to shape and evolve the 

capability portfolio. 

29 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

SETMO uses a Continuous Risk Management Process per NPR 8000.4, Risk Management 

Procedural Requirements to inform investment and divestment decisions. SETMO utilizes Center 

and third-party capability component condition and risk assessments as input to the Continuous Risk 

Management Process. SETMO provides a centrally-managed, risk-based allocation for maintenance 

projects for the SETMO capability portfolio. 

Risk management is a distributed function in SETMO, and each of the Centers identifies, assesses, 

and mitigates potential risks within its own activities. SETMO maintains an integrated Risk 

Management Plan which includes Center-identified risks for prioritized mitigation projects and 

activities. 

4.0 REVIEWS 

The SETMO capability portfolio has recurring performance, informational, and specific decisional 

reviews with the MSC, MSD, and SETCB. 

MSC decisional reviews authorize transition of the capability portfolio from Establishment activities 

to Strategic Management activities and from Strategic Management activities to Termination 

activities. 

MSD evaluates the efficiency, effectiveness, and performance of the SETMO capability portfolio on 

a recurring basis. These evaluations focus on alignment of the capability portfolio with Agency 

needs, how commitments are being met, and how well policy and management processes are being 

followed. SETMO is reviewed annually by the MSPMC and during the PPBE process and quarterly 

through the Baseline Performance Review. 

The SETCB provides Agency input and guidance on utilization, strategic investments and 

divestments, and scalability (capacities and/or capabilities) for the SETMO capability portfolio. 

SETMO meets with the SETCB quarterly. 

SETMO conducts quarterly reviews with Centers. The purpose of these reviews is to provide 

information and status both from the Centers to SETMO and from SETMO to the Centers. The 

quarterly reviews are held both telephonically and face-to-face. The locations of the face-to-face 

meetings are most often at one of the Centers and occasionally at a location where outside entities 

own and operate facilities similar to those in the SETMO capability portfolio. Tours and 

presentations by these outside entities allow the presentation and discussion of industry best 

practices. Special topic presentations by the Centers are also encouraged to provide lessons learned, 

best practices, and discussions of technical challenges and solutions. 

Appendix J – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Requirements describes the content of each quarterly 

review for the SETMO Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability components. Appendix K – SETMO Quarterly 

Reporting Template is a template provided by SETMO to the Centers to use when preparing 

quarterly presentations. 

Even though processes for providing products and services (e.g., customer service agreements, 

training procedures) are the responsibility of each Center, opportunities for standardization are often 

topics discussed at quarterly reviews and are encouraged when they make sense. The use of 

SETMO-provided templates and spreadsheets for reporting also encourages standardization of 

business practices. Examples of standardization include common definitions for utilization, 

30 
 

 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

availability, downtime, and unplanned downtime. Financial reporting using SETMO-provided 

spreadsheets also encourages the standardization of business practices. 

5.0 RECORDS AND DATA MANAGEMENT 

SETMO uses SharePoint to maintain its records and store its data, including configuration control 

and archiving, consistent with NPR 1441.1, NASA Records Management Program Requirements. 

Records stored include the CPCA, CPMP, and AOP; SETMO presentations to Agency councils; 

issue and white papers; quarterly and annual review information provided to OSI, MSD, and the 

MSC; board information; risk management plans; maintenance investment plans and results; 

waivers; change notification sheets; disagreement/dissenting opinion issue papers and results; PPBE 

issue papers; and project plans. 

Data items stored include quarterly reports from Centers, SETMO performance metrics, and 

financial planning and execution data. 

Other data and information that result from the strategic and centralized management of the 

capability portfolio are also stored on the SharePoint system. 

6.0 WAIVERS 

No waivers against NASA policies, directives, or applicable external requirements are required. 

Waivers are archived in accordance with Section 5.0, Records and Data Management. 

7.0 DISAGREEMENTS AND DISSENTING OPINIONS 

SETMO considers disagreements, disputes, and decision appeals to all aspects of this management 

plan subject to the process identified in NPR 8600.1. 

SETMO works all issues with Centers and Mission Directorates to reach agreement at the lowest 

possible level whenever possible. 

MDAAs, the MSD Associate Administrator, the OSI Assistant Administrator, and the SETMO 

Director shall ensure dissenting opinions are elevated through the Dissenting Opinion Process in 

accordance with the following principles: 

• All stakeholders in the SETMO capability portfolio have full and open discussions with all 

facts made available to understand and assess issues. Diverse views are fostered and 

respected in an environment of integrity and trust with no suppression or retribution. 

• Unresolved issues of any nature within a capability portfolio should be quickly elevated to 

achieve resolution at the appropriate level. In the teaming environment in which the 

capability portfolio operates, capability portfolio participants often have to determine where 

they stand on a decision. In assessing a decision or action, a capability portfolio participant 

has three choices: agree, disagree but be willing to fully support the decision, or disagree and 

raise a Dissenting Opinion. At the discretion of the dissenting person(s), a decision may be 

appealed to the next higher level of management for resolution. 

• When time permits, the disagreeing parties jointly document the issue, including agreed-upon 

facts, discussion of the differing positions with rationale and impacts and the parties’ 

recommendations. The joint documentation is approved by the representative of each view, 

31 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

concurred with by affected parties, and provided to the next higher level of management with 

notification to the second higher level of management. In cases of urgency, the disagreeing 

parties may jointly present the information stated above orally with all affected organizations 

represented, advance notification to the second-higher level of management, and 

documentation follow-up. 

• Management’s decision/action on the dissent memorandum (or oral presentation) is 

documented and provided to the dissenter and to the notified managers and becomes part of 

retrievable MSC documentation. If the dissenter is not satisfied with the process or outcome, 

the dissenter may appeal to the next-higher level of management. The dissenter has the right 

to take the issue upward in the organization, even to the NASA Administrator if necessary. 

8.0 CPMP ACTIVITIES LOG 

All CPMP activities, including revisions that reflect all changes to the original CPMP, are 

documented in the format defined in Table 8. This log may be supplemented with an attached 

addendum (Ref. #X) for each entry that describes the change. The CPMP is revalidated or updated 

every five years. Updates occur more frequently if there are significant changes. 

Table 8. Sample Capability Portfolio Management Plan Activities Log 

Date Event Change Adden- Decision Sponsoring Participating Center CP CIO 

dum Review? MDAA MDAA(s) Director(s) Mgr. Sign 

Sign Sign Sign Sign when 

req’d

10/14/20 Initial 

signatures 

None None Yes 

(MSC) 

Yes Yes Yes Yes NR 

mm/dd/yy Revalidation None N/A No 

mm/dd/yy Approval of Addition Ref. #1 Yes 

significant of change 

change 

32 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix A – Glossary 

Agency Strategic or Required Capability Components. Capability components with 

unacceptable or high risk to Agency mission or reputation for loss or inability to function. With 

unacceptable or high risk, some mission objectives may still be achieved but with significant 

impact. All capability components in the SETMO capability portfolio are Agency Strategic or 

Required capability components. 

Capability Component. An individual capability within Tier 1 or the larger Tier 2. It is a system 

comprising workforce (i.e., FTE/WYE), equipment, facilities, processes, resources, 

competencies, and technologies that delivers products and services; for example, a wind tunnel 

and the workforce that manages, operates, and maintains it or a complex dedicated to an end-toend process. 

Capability Domain. Defined in NPD/R 8600.1, but not used by SETMO. Instead, SETMO uses 

the phrase “SETMO Capability Tier 2” (or Tier 2) with corresponding definition. 

Capability Portfolio. A specific collection of functionally similar site-specific capability 

components and enabling infrastructure strategically managed together to meet NASA's strategic 

goals and objectives. For example, the Aerosciences Evaluation and Test Capabilities (AETC) 

capability portfolio includes selected NASA wind tunnels and aero-propulsion testing capability 

components. The capability portfolio for SETMO consists of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capability 

components, is defined in the CPCA, and is maintained as a configuration-managed element 

within the CPMP. 

Capability Portfolio Realignment. Realigning the capability components within a capability 

portfolio to more efficiently or effectively meet expected future demand. SETMO uses the term 

“capability portfolio realignment” instead of “sourcing strategy.”

Center Point of Contact (POC). The POC assigned by each NASA Center with SETMO 

capability components. The Center POC serves as the primary interface for Center management 

regarding SETMO-sponsored activities. The Center POC should have sufficient authority, 

insight, and ability to verify that SETMO requirements are being satisfactorily addressed. 

Centralized Management. A management, reporting, and communications approach led by a 

central authority to ensure tactical and strategic decisions are made at the appropriate levels and 

are provided an integrated Agency perspective. 

Dormant. A period of extended quiescent status for an operational capability component. 

Establishment. The first of three sets of activities characterizing the lifespan of a capability 

portfolio. When leadership determines that it may be in NASA’s best interest to strategically and 

centrally manage a group of functionally similar capabilities in an integrated manner, it initiates 

the Establishment of a capability portfolio of capability components. 

A decisional review is held at the MSC to determine whether to formally establish a capability 

portfolio and transition to active strategic management status; i.e., to transition to Strategic 

Management activities. 

33 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Long-term (sustainment). When a capability component has been fully funded (i.e., for 

sustainment and test-related costs) by a customer or group of customers for five years or more. 

Sourcing Decisions. The assignment of customer requests to capability components. 

Sourcing Strategy. A strategy for acquiring capability portfolio products and services through 

capabilities available in-house and through other agencies, vendors, partners, and academia. The 

sourcing strategy goal is to achieve an optimized capability portfolio that addresses Agency 

goals and objectives, supports the capability portfolio strategy, enables the capability portfolio’s 

strategic direction, and satisfies customer requirements. 

Space Environments Testing Control Board (SETCB). The SETCB provides Agency input 

and guidance on utilization, strategic investments and divestments, and scalability (capacities 

and/or capabilities) for the SETMO capability portfolio. 

Space Environments Testing Management Office (SETMO). The office responsible for 

managing the SETMO Capability Portfolio. 

SETMO Capability Portfolio Manager. The person assigned to strategically and centrally 

manage the SETMO capability portfolio. The SETMO Director serves as the SETMO capability 

portfolio manager. 

SETMO Capability Tier 1. The SETMO Capability Tier 1 is 10 ground test capability 

components across five NASA Centers. Tier 1 capability components are generally larger and 

more complex than Tier 2 capability components. SETMO strategically and centrally manages 

Tier 1 capability components to meet NASA’s strategic goals and objectives.

SETMO Capability Tier 2. The SETMO Capability Tier 2 encompasses over 130 ground test 

capability components across nine NASA Centers. Tier 2 capability components are generally 

smaller and less complex than Tier 1 capability components. SETMO maintains cognizance over 

Tier 2 capability components. 

SETMO Director. The SETMO Director manages the SETMO. The SETMO Director serves as 

the SETMO capability portfolio manager and leads the team that manages the capability 

portfolio. 

SETMO Management Tiers. SETMO defines two management tiers (i.e., Tier 1 and Tier 2) to 

ensure application of appropriate levels of insight and oversight. Under this system, capability 

components in Tier 1 report frequently and in-depth. The reporting depth and frequency is 

decreased for capability components in Tier 2. 

Significant. Per NPD/R 8600.1, used to characterize changes in a capability portfolio for which 

the MSC Chair has decision authority. 

Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP). The Agency established SCAP in 2006 to 

ensure select critical test capability components are operationally ready to meet mission and 

program requirements by sustaining a skilled workforce and performing essential maintenance. 

The program supports essential core technical capability components: arc jets, simulators, 

thermal vacuum chambers, wind tunnels, and space radiation environments. 

34 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Strategic Management (function). A series of integrated efforts that enable the Agency to 

establish and execute strategy, make decisions, allocate resources, develop and implement plans, 

and measure performance of the capability portfolio. 

Strategic Management (set of activities). The second of three sets of activities characterizing 

the lifespan of a capability portfolio. These activities include key capability portfolio 

management processes associated with both the strategic and centralized management aspects of 

CPM that repeat as long as the capability portfolio is active. 

Termination. The third of three sets of activities characterizing the life span of a capability 

portfolio. When NASA leadership determines it is no longer in the Agency’s best interest to 

strategically and centrally manage a capability portfolio in an integrated manner, it initiates 

Termination of the capability portfolio. 

Test Assignment. The assignment of testing requirements to specific capability components. 

SETMO uses the term “test assignment” instead of “sourcing decisions.”

35 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix B – Acronyms 

AA Associate Administrator 

AETC Aeronautics Evaluation and Test Capabilities 

AFRC Armstrong Flight Research Center 

AJ Arc Jet 

AOP Annual Operating Plan 

ARC Ames Research Center 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CM&O Center Management and Operations 

CMF Cockpit Motion Facility 

CPCA Capability Portfolio Commitment Agreement 

CPM Capability Portfolio Management 

CPMP Capability Portfolio Management Plan 

DoD Department of Defense 

DoE Department of Energy 

EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility 

EMI Electromagnetic Interference 

ESTA Energy Systems Test Area 

FSF Flight Simulation Facilities 

FTE Full-Time Equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GRC Glenn Research Center 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

HECC High-End Computing Capability 

I&TC Infrastructure and Technical Capabilities 

ISS International Space Station 

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

JSC Johnson Space Center 

JWST James Webb Space Telescope 

KSC Kennedy Space Center 

LaRC Langley Research Center 

MDAA Mission Directorate Associate Administrator 

MPPF Multi-Payload Processing Facility 

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center 

MSC Mission Support Council 

MSD Mission Support Directorate 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NPAT (DoD/NASA) National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing 

NPD NASA Policy Directive 

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements 

OSI Office of Strategic Infrastructure 

PaIG Programmatic and Institutional Guidance 

PBS Plum Brook Station 

PHSF Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility 

POC Point of Contact 

PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution 

36 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

PRB Program and Resources Guidance 

RF Radio Frequency 

RPTP Rocket Propulsion Testing Program 

SCAP Strategic Capabilities Assets Program 

SEC Space Environments Complex 

SESTL Space Environment Simulation and Testing Laboratory 

SET Space Environments Testing 

SETCB Space Environments Testing Control Board 

SETMO Space Environments Testing Management Office 

SMC Strategic Management Council 

SSDIF Spacecraft Systems Development and Integration Facility 

SSMS Safety, Security, and Mission Services 

SSPF Space Station Processing Facility 

TCAT Technical Capabilities Assessment Team 

TVAC Thermal Vacuum (chamber) 

VMS Vertical Motion Simulator 

WFF Wallops Flight Facility 

WSTF White Sands Test Facility 

WYE Work-Year Equivalent 

37 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix C – SETMO Tier 1 and Tier 2 Capability Components 

SETMO TIER 1 CAPABILITY COMPONENTS 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

25 GRC VF-5 

26 GRC VF-6 

28 GRC Space Environment Complex 

119.1 JSC Thermal Vacuum Chamber A 

120 JSC Thermal Vacuum Chamber B 

184 MSFC Sunspot Thermal Vacuum Testing Facility 

185 MSFC Chamber V20 Thermal Vacuum Facility 

1001 LaRC Flight Simulation Facilities 

1000 ARC Vertical Motion Simulator 

2000 ARC Arc Jet Complex 

3000 DoE Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) 

AFRC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

226 SOFIA Mirror Coating Chamber 

ARC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 1 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

1000 Vertical Motion Simulator 

2000 Arc Jet Complex 

ARC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

2 Dynavac Chamber 

3 Tenney Altitude Chamber 

4 Humidity Chamber (Despatch) 

5 Sub-Zero Chamber (CSZ-32) 

38 
GRC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 1 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

25 VF5 

26 VF6 

GRC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

9 VF3 

10 VF7 

12 VF11 

14 Lunar Dust Adhesion Bell Jar 

15 VF8 

16 VF10 

17 VF12 

18 VF13 

19 VF16 

20 VF17 

21 VF20 

22 VF21 

23 VF67 

24 Small Multi-Purpose Research Facility (SMiRF) 

32 Glenn Extreme Environments Facility (GEER) 

228 VF4 

249.1 Structural Dynamics Lab MB C-60 

249.3 Structural Dynamics Lab Ling 4022 

GRC-PBS CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 1 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

28.1 SEC Space Power Facility (SPF) 

28.2 SEC Mechanical Vibration Facility (MVF) 

28.3 SEC Reverberant Acoustic Test Facility (RATF) 

GRC-PBS CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

28.4 SEC B1411 Assembly Area 

29 Combined Effects Chamber (K-chamber) 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

39 
GSFC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

44 Thermal Vacuum Facility 225 

45 Facility 237 

46 Facility 239 

47 Thermal Vacuum Facility 238 

48 Space Environment Simulation 290 

50 Facility 232 

51 Facility 233 

52 Mag Test Site 

53 Medium EMI/EMC Facility 

54 Large EMI/EMC Facility 

58 100-m X-ray Line 

59 600-m X-ray Line 

229 Chamber 246 "Deep Chamber" 

230 Optical Calibration Chamber 

245.1 Vibration Test Facility 409 UD T-4000 

245.2 Vibration Test Facility 410 UD T-2000 

245.3 Vibration Test Facility 411 UD T-4000 

245.4 Vibration Test Facility 412 UD T-2000 

246 Acoustic Test Facility 

260 SSDIF - High Bay Cleanroom 

261 MMS Cleanroom 

GSFC - WFF CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

49 GSFC-WFF TVAC Chamber 

242 Sounding Rocket Processing Vacuum Chamber (White Elephant) 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

40 
JPL CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

61 B 313-T6 

62 B 144-T1 

63 B 306-TV-24 

64 6’ Plexiglas Chamber within Anechoic Chamber

65.1 B 144 TV-12 

65.2 B 144 TV-13 

65.3 B 144 TV-14 

65.4 B 144 TV-15 

65.5 B 144 TV-16 

65.6 B 144 TV-18 

65.7 B 144 TV-19 

65.8 B 144 TV-20 

65.9 B 144 TV-21 

66 B 144 TV-22 

67 B 144-TV 8 

68 B 313-TV-27 

69 B 306 FOUD 

70 B 144 TV-7 

71 B 144 TV-10 

72.1 B 306 TV-11 (11’ Optics TVAC Chamber)

73 B 248 TV-10 (10’ Space Simulator)

74 2-m d Helmholtz Coils 

75 3.7-m d Helmholtz Coils 

76.1 25’ Space Simulator

83 148 High Bay Electric Test Chamber 8’ d x 16’ l

84 Patio Chamber 10’ d x 26’ l

85 Ion Chamber 1 

86 Ion Chamber 2 

87 Ion Chamber 3 

88 Ion Chamber 4 

231 MAM Horizontal Vacuum Chamber, 8’ d x 42’ l (60 m3/2110 ft3) 

232 HCIT 8’ Vacuum Chamber

233 Large Electric Propulsion Chamber 

234 5’ x 9’ Vacuum Chamber

235 “Green” Vacuum Chamber

250.1 Vibration Lab LDS-994 

250.2 Vibration Lab Ling-355 

250.3 Vibration Lab LDS-964-1 

250.4 Vibration Lab LDS-964-2 

251 Acoustic Test Chamber 

264 B 179 - High Bay Cleanrooms 1 

265 B 179 - High Bay Cleanrooms 2 

266 100 D (Bldg 150) 

267 High Bay (Bldg 306) 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

41 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

JSC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 1 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

119.1 Thermal Vacuum Chamber A 

120 Thermal Vacuum Chamber B 

JSC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

89 Thermal Chamber H 

91 8’ Chamber

92 11’ Chamber

93 ETA/Airlock Chamber 

95 Space Station Airlock Test Article Chamber (SSATA) 

97 Vent Flow 

98 Portable Life Support System (PLSS) Chamber 

101 B353 20’ Chamber (ESTA 20')

105 20’ Chamber

111 Chamber E 

112 Chamber P 

113 B351 15’ Chamber

238.1 Radiant Heat Facility Chamber 1 

238.2 Radiant Heat Facility Chamber 2 

240 EM Drive Vacuum Chamber 

252.1 General Vibration Lab (GVL)-Ling 4022H 

252.2 General Vibration Lab (GVL)-Ling 4022V 

252.3 General Vibration Lab (GVL)-Ling 335 

252.4 General Vibration Lab (GVL)-Ling 310 Dual 

252.5 General Vibration Lab (GVL)-Spectral Dynamics 

252.6 General Vibration Lab (GVL)-HRVTB 

253 Spacecraft Acoustic Lab (SAL) 

254 Sonic Fatigue Lab (SFL) 

JSC-WSTF CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

104.1 SESTL Rough Vacuum Chamber 

104.2 SESTL Rough Vacuum Chamber 

106 Test Stand 302 

107 Test Stand 303 

116 SESTL Essex Cylindrical Chamber 

117.1 SESTL Webber Chamber 1 

117.2 SESTL Webber Chamber 2 

118 SESTL CVI Self Heated Chamber 

42 
KSC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

130 Right (East) Altitude Chamber 

131 Left (West) Altitude Chamber 

268 PHSF High Bay 

269 SSPF High Bay 

270 High Bay Clean Room 

271 O&C High Bay/Low Bay 

272 MPPF High Bay 

273 Intermediate Bay - SSPF 

LARC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 1 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

1001 Flight Simulation Facilities (CMF) 

LARC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

133.1 8x15’ Space Simulation Chamber

133.2 5x5’ Thermal Vacuum Chamber

133.3 6x6’ Thermal Vacuum Chamber

137 16-meter Vacuum Chamber 

138 8-foot Vacuum Chamber 

257.1 Vibration Laboratory U-D T2000 

257.2 Vibration Laboratory U-D T4000 

258 Structural Acoustic Loads & Transmission Facility (SALT) 

259 Thermal Acoustic Fatigue Apparatus (TAFA) 

274 40’ Clean Room

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

43 
MSFC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 1 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

184 Sunspot Thermal Vacuum Testing Facility 

185 Chamber V20 Thermal Vacuum Facility 

MSFC CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 2 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

172 V-1 

173 V-2 

174 V-3 

175 V-4 

176 V-5 

177 V-6 

178 V-7 

179 V-8 

180 V-9 

182 V-14 

183 V-15 

188 Thermal/Altitude Chamber TA-1 

191 Thermal/Humidity Chambers TH-4 

192 Thermal/Humidity Chambers TH-5 

193 Thermal/Humidity Chambers TH-6 

195 TS300 20’ Chamber

196 TS300 12’ Chamber

199.1 X-Ray Cryogenic Facility (XRCF) 

199.2 XRCF 4’ Cryo Chamber 

199.3 XRCF 4’ Preconditioning Chamber

199.4 XRCF Contamination Evaluation Chamber 

199.5 XRCF Clean Room 

203.1 Stray Light Test Facility 

214 3’ Pulsed Power Test Chamber

215 3’ Iodine Propulsion Test Chamber

216 High-Power Plasma Propulsion Research Test Chamber 

217 Nuclear Power and Cryogenic Fluid Technology Test Chamber 

255.1 East Vibration Laboratory U-D T-4000 

255.2 East Vibration Laboratory U-D T-4000 

255.3 West Vibration Laboratory U-D T-2000 

255.4 West Vibration Laboratory U-D T-2000 

255.5 West Vibration Laboratory U-D T-4000A 

255.6 West Vibration Laboratory U-D T-4000A 

256 Acoustic Test Facility 

EXTERNAL CAPABILITY COMPONENTS IN 

SETMO TIER 1 

SETMO # Capability Component Name 

3000 DoE Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

44 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix D – SETMO Budget Run Out 

Infrastructure and Technical 

Capabilities (I&TC) 

FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 

SETMO ($M) $41.50 $44.42 $44.42 $44.42 $44.42 $44.42 $44.42 

Flight Simulation $10.11 $10.06 $10.06 $10.06 $10.06 $10.06 $10.06 

High Enthalpy Testing $9.00 $8.97 $8.97 $8.97 $8.97 $8.97 $8.97 

Space Environments Testing $6.20 $6.28 $6.28 $6.28 $6.28 $6.28 $6.28 

External Radiation $1.80 $2.72 $2.72 $2.72 $2.72 $2.72 $2.72 

Maintenance Projects $14.40 $16.39 $16.39 $16.39 $16.39 $16.39 $16.39 

The SETMO budget currently resides in Safety, Security, and Mission Services Authorization, under 

the Infrastructure and Technical Capabilities (I&TC) Program. The SETMO budget is structured by 

capability component categories (e.g., Space Environments Testing) and funds are allocated to 

individual capability components (e.g., GRC SEC) within the capability portfolio. 

Note: Funding for the ARC Arc Jet Modernization Program is contained within the Maintenance 

Projects line. 

45 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix E – SETMO Personnel 

Mission Support Directorate

Robert Gibbs, Associate Administrator

Lisa Ziehmann, Deputy AA

Robert Carver, Assistant AA

Office of Strategic Infrastructure

Calvin Williams, Assistant Administrator

Rick Marrs, Deputy AA

Space Environments Testing Management Office

Michael Mastaler, Director (LaRC)

Don Nickison, Deputy (ARC)

Ted Biess, Chief Strategist (HQ)

Wei Hu, Chief Engineer (HQ)

Geoff Husk, Capability Component Manager (LaRC)

Aimee Crowley, Business Manager (LaRC)

Center POCs (11)

46 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix F – SETMO Schedule 

47 
 

NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix G – Thresholds for SETMO Director Concurrence and Notification 

Operational Activity SETMO Director 

Concurrence Required 

SETMO Director 

Notification Required 

Significant change in capability component 

function SETMO Tier 1 SETMO Tier 2 

Significant changes to operational status. 

(i.e. bringing a capability component from 

dormant to operational, or operational to 

dormant; or other change in status as defined 

by NPD 8800) 

SETMO Tier 1 

SETMO Tier 2 - Delegated 

to Center Directors, include 

in quarterly reporting and 

via email 

Non-routine maintenance Projects >$1M Projects >$250K 

Investment, major upgrade, replacement, 

improvement or addition to an existing 

capability component (including demolition 

of existing hardware) 

Projects >$1M Projects >$250K 

Creation of capability components 

Divestment of capability components 

Projects >$1M 

SETMO Tier 1 

Projects >$250K 

SETMO Tier 2 

Obtaining testing services external to the 

capability portfolio Testing Services >$500K Testing Services >$100K 

Test assignment N/A, except as noted in 

Section 3.7 

SETMO Tier 1 - Delegated 

to Center Directors, include 

in quarterly reporting 

SETMO Tier 2 - Delegated 

to Center Directors, include 

in annual reporting 

External agreements SETMO Tier 1 SETMO Tier 2- Customers 

noted in quarterly reporting 

Significant changes to the AOP 

Concurrence required per 

AOP configuration 

management process 

N/A 

Termination of plans for investments, 

divestments, and improvements that 

previously received SETMO Director 

concurrence/notification 

Concurrence required for 

investments, divestments, 

and improvements that 

previously received SETMO 

Director concurrence 

Notification required for 

investments, divestments, 

and improvements that 

previously received 

SETMO Director 

notification 

48 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix H – SETMO Annual Operating Plan Template 

1. Tier 1 Overview 

a. Scope 

i. Cross Center Collaborations 

b. Roles and Responsibilities 

2. FYXX Details 

a. Project and Subproject Management (Operational norms) 

b. Travel 

c. Operations & Maintenance 

i. Operations 

1. Center by Center Operations 

ii. Maintenance 

1. Center by Center Maintenance 

d. Center Concurrence Requests 

e. Capability Advancements (Future Goal) 

3. Project Controls 

a. Risk Management 

b. Status Reporting 

c. Configuration Management 

Appendix A – FYXX Center Budget Summaries 

Appendix B – FYXX Center Facility Rates 

Appendix C – Minimum Sustainability 

Appendix D – SETMO Change Notification Sheet 

49 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix I – Concurrence/Notification Form 

50 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix J – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Requirements 

SETMO Tier 1 

(Every quarter unless otherwise noted) 

SETMO Tier 2 

(Every quarter unless otherwise noted) 

Description of Components/Complex (Q1) Description of Components (Q4) 

Technical Content/Performance Status 

(Stoplight Chart) 

Activity Highlights Activity Highlights (optional) 

Planned Capacity 

Downtime Summary 

Availability and Utilization Metric 

Summary 

Availability and Utilization Metric 

Summary (Q4) 

Schedule Summary 

Risk Summary 

Maintenance & Repair Maintenance & Repair Highlights (if 

SETMO Funded) 

Top Maintenance and Repair Needs 

Budget Execution Summary 

Other Issues, Concerns, Topics Other Issues, Concerns, Topics (optional) 

Customer Satisfaction 

51 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix K – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Template 

See SETMO SharePoint File/SETMO CPMP Appendix Files 

Sample chart from above reporting template: 

33

Center / Asset Name 

Approved maintenance project title / WBS #(s)

Approved project date (Funded project year) and POC xxx

Schedule

Technical

Cost

Description: Description of Project

Planned Activities: provide project start date, description of planned activities, upcoming milestones, etc.

Issues: Provide description of issues.

Progress: Provide description of progress, and planned end date.

Description of photo(s)

Fund 

FY

$ / 

%

Fund 

FY

$ / 

%

SETMO Quarterly Report – X Qtr FYXX

Approved Guideline: FYxx $ K / FY15 $xxK

Percent Committed: FYxx xx% / FY15 xx%

Percent Obligated: FYxx xx% / FY15 xx%

Percent Costed: FYxx xx% / FY15 xx%

Other Funding sources 

CMO FYxx $K / FY15 $xxK

ARMD/ xxx FYxx $K / FY15 $xxK

SCAP Maintenance FYxx $K / FY15 $xxK

52 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix L – SETMO Quarterly Reporting Spreadsheet 

See SETMO SharePoint File/SETMO CPMP Appendix Files 

Example page in above spreadsheet: 

53 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix M – Quarterly Business Reporting Templates – DRAFT 

See SETMO SharePoint File/SETMO CPMP Appendix Files 

Example page in above spreadsheet: 

54 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix N – SETMO Tier 1 Five-Year Schedule 

55 
NASA INTERNAL October 14, 2020 

Appendix O – Historic Utilization of SCAP Capability Components 

HEOMD

76%

SMD

8%

STMD

6%

Gov.

10%

Arc Jet Utilization

HEOMD

2%

ARMD

86%

Gov.

11%

Commercial

1%

Flight Sim Utilization

HEOMD

16%

SMD

62%

STMD

12%

Gov.

4%

Commerical

6%

SCAP SET Utilization

SCAP Utilization Averages by Customer, 

FY12-FY17

ARC: Arc Jet ARC: VMS

LaRC: FSF

GRC: VF5, VF6

GRC PBS: SPF

GSFC: 225, 238, SES, ATF

JPL: 25’, 10’, ATC

JSC: Chambers A,B

MSFC: V20, Sunspot, XRCF

56