47
Cost & Schedule Reporting: What NASA Reports to OMB, Congress, & GAO and Why Mary Beth Zimmerman Louis Barbier 1 Used with Permission

Zimmerman barbier

  • Upload
    nasapmc

  • View
    13.499

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Zimmerman barbier

Cost & Schedule Reporting:What NASA Reports to OMB,

Congress, & GAO and Why

Mary Beth Zimmerman

Louis Barbier

1Used with Permission

Page 2: Zimmerman barbier

Session topics

• What’s new

• The types of reports required– Baseline Reports

– Current Estimate Reports

– Threshold Reports

• In Depth: Overview of GAO Quick Look

• How NASA manages this reporting

2

Page 3: Zimmerman barbier

What’s new since PM Challenge 09?Reporting requirements• Congressional requirement to report confidence levels or

reserves.

• GAO Quick Look data collection has added information about contract award fees, heritage technology, & partnerships.

NASA Policy• NPD 1000.5 (Jan 2009) distinguishes project funding and budget.

• 7120.5D NID provides an initial ‘vocabulary’ for 1000.5.

Process• Data collection and management for external baseline reporting

builds from KDP decision documentation.

• Signatures required. 3

Page 4: Zimmerman barbier

Types of Cost & Schedule Reports

• Baseline• Current Estimate• Threshold

4

Page 5: Zimmerman barbier

Types of cost & schedule reports

Baseline Reports (Congress, OMB)Project Baseline Report. Established at KDP-C. Sets project cost and

schedule baseline with OMB and Congress.

Contract Baseline Report. Established when a project in formulation awards a contract for >=$50M which includes development content. Sets baseline for contract value with OMB.

Current Estimate Reports (Congress, OMB, GAO)Provides updated cost-at-completion and schedule-at-completion estimates for the approved project content.

Threshold Reports (Congress, OMB)Explains the reasons for cost or schedule growth. Required when a cost or schedule growth threshold has been breached.

If cost growth exceeds 30% or NASA chooses to rebaseline due to unforeseen external events.

5

Page 6: Zimmerman barbier

• Required for projects with a baselined lifecycle cost (LCC) of $250M or more.

• Project Baseline established at KDP-C.

• Establishes the following commitments with Congress & OMB:• LCC

• Development Cost

• Key Schedule Milestone (e.g., launch readiness)

• The same report with the same cost & schedule baseline numbers goes to OMB and Congress.

Project Baseline Report

CONTENTS

Lifecycle Cost by YearDevelopment Cost by YearProject PurposeDeliverablesScheduleDevelopment Cost by

WBS ElementProject ManagementAcquisition StrategyIndependent ReviewsRisk ManagementConfidence Level or

reserves 6

NEW

Page 7: Zimmerman barbier

• Required for projects in formulation (phase A or B) with (1) Estimated LCC of $250M or more and

(2) which have awarded a contract with a value of $50M or more which includes development content.

• Establishes the following commitment with OMB:

• Award value of eligible contract(s)

• Content differs from Program BaselineReport as illustrated at right.

• Note that although not a commitment value, an estimated LCC range is included in the report.

Contract Baseline Report (OMB)

CONTENTS

Est. LCC by Year RangeDev Cost by YearProject PurposeDeliverablesScheduleDev Cost by WBSProject ManagementAcquisition Strategy

Contract Purpose Provider, Value

Independent ReviewsRisk Management

7

Page 8: Zimmerman barbier

Current Estimate Report Schedule

Report Recipient Q1(Dec 30)

Q2 (Mar 30)

Q3 (Jun 30)

Q4 (Sept 30)

Asneeded

Quarterly Report OMB √ √ √ √

Major Program Annual Report (MPAR)

Congress (as part of CBJ1)

Quick Look GAO √ √

High Risk Metrics OMB √ √

PAA/PAR Congress (as part of CBJ)

Operating Plan Congress √

1Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) Book is NASA’s annual budget request to Congress.

Louis will address8

Page 9: Zimmerman barbier

Threshold Reports

• Provides Congress & OMB with explanations as to why cost or schedule have grown.

• Explains what steps NASA management has or is proposing to take to reduce pressures on cost or schedule.

• Identifies impacts on other NASA projects.

9

Page 10: Zimmerman barbier

Threshold levels

Base-line

ProjectsIncluded

Trigger Threshold Who Receives

Reports Required

KDP-C > $75M LCC

Life Cycle Cost 10% Congress Notification (onlyrequirement to $75M)

> $250MLCC

Development Cost (Phase C-D)

15% CongressOMB

NotificationThreshold Report Analysis of AlternativesReport

30% Congress Rebaseline after legislated authorization to continue

Key Schedule Milestone

6 months CongressOMB

NotificationThreshold ReportAnalysis of AlternativesReport

Pre KDP-C(when contract is signed)

$250M LCC &> $50M w/ dev contract

AverageContract Value

15% CongressOMB

NotificationThreshold Report

10

Page 11: Zimmerman barbier

Types of threshold reports

Written Notification to NASA Administrator

Written Notification Passed onto Congress

15 days

Administrator Determination will exceed 15% cost or 6 month schedule threshold

30 days

Threshold Report to Congress

15 days

6 monthsAnalysis complete

Analysis to Congress

30 daysIf intend to continue projects, initiate analysis or alternatives.

Source: This is a simplified version of flow diagram created by Julie Pollitt (see backup)

These 2 reports have sometimes been combined.

11

Page 12: Zimmerman barbier

30% threshold & re-baselining

Determination that project dev. cost will exceed 30% of Baseline

18 months

No additional funds on program except termination.

Congressional reauthorization received?

Rebaseline report required.Yes

No

• 2 NASA projects have exceeded the 30% development cost threshold.• Glory has re-baselined

under this process.• MSL is in this process.

Source: This is a simplified version of flow diagram created by Julie Pollitt (see backup)12

Page 13: Zimmerman barbier

Two Ways to Look at Baselines

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Nov

-05

Mar

-06

Jul-0

6

Nov

-06

Mar

-07

Jul-0

7

Nov

-07

Mar

-08

Jul-0

8

Nov

-08

Mar

-09

% Growth from KDP-C% Growth from Replan 1% Growth from Replan 2% Growth from Replan 3

13

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Nov

-05

Mar

-06

Jul-0

6

Nov

-06

Mar

-07

Jul-0

7

Nov

-07

Mar

-08

Jul-0

8

Nov

-08

Mar

-09

File 15% thresholdreport

30% threshold rebaseline

13

Reporting RequirementManagement Perspective

Page 14: Zimmerman barbier

Agency responses: 1000.5 NDP & 7120.5D NID

• The KDP-C baseline provided to Congress is the Project’s Baseline.

• This Baseline includes all unallocated future expenses (UFE), irrespective of whether all of these dollars have been released to the project to utilize.

• If the current cost estimate exceeds this baseline, the Decision Authority may approve a Replan authorizing the Project to work to the new cost or schedule. – Reported to Congress & OMB as growth from the KDP-C baseline.

• Re-baselines occur in limited circumstances.– Project exceeds 30% of baseline & Congress reauthorizes.

– NASA may rebaseline if unforeseen external events necessitate a change to the project’s baseline.

• Notice that a PPBE or POP submission is not a re-baseline.14

Page 15: Zimmerman barbier

In Depth: Overview of GAO ‘Quick Look’ Reporting

Louis M. BarbierNASA / HQ

Office of Program, Analysis, and Evaluation

Strategic Investments Division

15

Page 16: Zimmerman barbier

GAO Reporting

• Why we report to GAO• What we report

– What we reported last year– Schedule for reporting

• What projects were reviewed last year and this year?

• What was new this year?• Results of the 2008 review• PA&E Role• Summary

16

Page 17: Zimmerman barbier

GAO Reporting

• Why we report to GAO?– NASA FY2008 Appropriations bill included

explanatory statement from the House Committee on Appropriations (accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act) that directed GAO to prepare project status reports on selected large-scale NASA programs, projects, or activities.

• This is to be a semi-annual activity (update) with a yearly report.

• Will be on-going unless repealed by Congress

17

Page 18: Zimmerman barbier

Data Requested by GAO bi-annually

• Cost: estimated LCC by Formulation, Development, Operations, and Other (overhead if in full cost) for each fiscal year, since project start.

• Schedule: estimated dates for key life cycle milestones (SDR/P NAR, PDR/NAR) and current

• Contracts: key contracts with contractor, date of award, original value, current value, and contract type.

18

Overlapped content withCurrent EstimateReporting to OMB& Congress described above

• Technology Maturity: critical technologies, back up technologies and technology readiness levels at key milestones or most recent design review.

• Design Stability: number of releasable drawings vs. total planned drawings at PDR/NAR and CDR

Page 19: Zimmerman barbier

Data Collection Instrument (DCI)

19

Page 20: Zimmerman barbier

Reporting Projects

• NASA arranged that GAO would report on the same projects that were already in external reporting to OMB

• These projects are (2008):– Operating: DAWN, Fermi

– Development: Aquarius, Glory, Herschel, JWST, JUNO, Kepler, LRO, MSL, NPP, OCO, SOFIA, SDO, WISE

– Formulation: Ares 1 (CLV), GPM, Grail, Orion (CEV), LDCM

– New for 2009: RBSP and MMS

20

Page 21: Zimmerman barbier

What’s new?

• 2008 Audit focused on 5 challenges:– Technology maturity

– Complexity of heritage technology

– Design maturity

– Contractor performance

– Development Partner performance

• 2009 Audit focused on 6 challenges:– Technology maturity

– Design stability* contentious issue

– Contractor performance

– Development Partner performance

– Funding Issues – including addition of ARRA funding to projects

– Launch manifest Issues* contentious issue

21

GAO metric: 90% drawings released at CDR

Rolled up together in 2009

Page 22: Zimmerman barbier

2008 Report cover- Released in March 2009

Audit took place during 2008, February - November

22

Page 23: Zimmerman barbier

Example “2 Pager”

23

Page 24: Zimmerman barbier

2008 GAO Audit Summary

24

Page 25: Zimmerman barbier

2008 Audit Challenges identified by GAO

• Technology maturity: Projects were asked to assess TRL level of the critical technologies (TRL 6 when entering development phase)

• Complexity of heritage technology: Asked projects what heritage technologies were used, what effort was needed to modify form, fit or function, what problems arose

• Design maturity: Per cent of engineering drawings completed by PDR and CDR (GAO metric is 90% drawings complete by CDR)

• Contractor performance: interviewed projects and contractors; discussed award fees, workforce, supplier base, corporate experience

• Partner performance: interviewed projects about their international and domestic partners and whether they were experiencing problems that impacted cost, schedule, or performance

25

Page 26: Zimmerman barbier

26

GAO’s assessment of challenges for projects in implementation in 2008

Page 27: Zimmerman barbier

PA&E Role in Cost/Schedule Reporting

• Audit POC - Julie Pollitt for both 2008 & 2009 Quick Look Audits.

• Negotiation with, and translation of, Congressional/GAO and OMB policy and requirements (working with OLIA and OGC)

• Design of process, formats, tools, methodologies and procedures for meeting external performance reporting requirements

• Verification and validation of cost/schedule and supporting report data– Sufficiency for meeting intent of requirements

– Consistency with costs reported to Congress

• Review and concurrence on final products (shared with MD, OCE, OCFO and OLIA) before signature by Administrator or OLIA Head

27

Page 28: Zimmerman barbier

GAO Quick Look Summary

• GAO audits of large scale NASA projects will continue

– Currently, they are reviewing 20 projects

• Along with DCIs, GAO conducts one-on-one interviews with the projects, HQ staff, and contractors; HQ provides contract information as requested

• NASA has a chance to comment on the overall report, and the projects are able to comment on their own pages in the report

• The project’s cooperation and responses are crucial to making the process work

• The report does not make recommendations

28

Page 29: Zimmerman barbier

How NASA Manages Cost and Schedule Reporting

29

Page 30: Zimmerman barbier

KDP-C Documents are the basis for Project Baseline Reports

KDP-C Decision Memo

Baseline LCC

Baseline Development Cost

Baseline Key Schedule Milestone

KDP-C Report (narrative)

Baseline Purpose, Deliverables, Acquisition Strategy, etc.

• Top level signed memo • Ensures that all parties agree to the

baseline commitments the Agency is making.

• Provides the narrative for Program Baseline Report to OMB/Congress.

• This content updated annually for MPAR (the Current Estimate Report to Congress)

KDP-C Supporting Data (spreadsheet)

Baseline Cost Data

Baseline Schedule Milestones

• Provides the data required for Program Baseline Report to OMB.

• Updated quarterly for Current Estimate Reports to OMB; ; k the cost & schedule information required for current estimate reports to Congress, OMB, & GAO.

30

Page 31: Zimmerman barbier

Data Template tracks changes for Current Estimate Reporting

Prior FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 CTC TOTAL0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Prior FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 CTC TOTAL0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Prior FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 CTC TOTAL0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Prior FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 CTC TOTAL0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.00.00.0

Tech Development

Aircraft/Spacecraft

Payload(s)

Project Managed Costs1

Current Cost Estimate With UFE and Indirect Applied

TotalFormulation

Development

OperationsThis roll-up table is included in the Quarterly Cost and Schedule Report to OMB. It includes all unallocated future expenses (UFE), w hether being managed by the project, program, or MD, as w ell as any indirect costs ascribed to the project. See NPD 1000.5 for information on NASA's policy w ith respect to UFE.

MO&DA - Extended * (E')

Current Cost Estimate

Operations

Pre Formulation

Formulation (A, B)

Development (C, D)

Systems I&T

Closeout (F)

Launch Vehicle/Services

Ground Systems

Science/Technology

Other direct project cost

Project-managed UFE

MO&DA - Prime (E)

(1) Project Managed Costs are direct project costs, including any unallocated futurte expenses (UFE) held and managed by the project. It does not include UFE that has not been made available to the project to manage; nor does it include indirect costs. See NPD 1000.5 for Agency policy on UFE.

Development

Project- or MD-managed UFE2

Formulation

Indirect costs3

(3) These are overhead costs that are included in the project's account in the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ); they are not managed by the project and generally do not appear in project accounts. Currently, the Agency is only carrying minimal indirect costs for FY04 through FY06. The indirect costs to be included are determined by MD, PA&E, and OCFO consultation and should not be changed without full coordination.

(2) These development costs are reflected in the project's account in the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), but have not been provided to the project to manage as part of its management baseline. UFE moves to the project-managed UFE line, above, when it is released to the project to manage. Lines for UFE by phase are provided because not all of the UFE held by MD or Programs is held for development costs.

Operations

Center M&OAM&O / Corp G&AI&I

Roll-Up Reported to OMB & Congress

What project managers have to

work with.

What programs or MD manage

‘Left over’ indirect costs.

31

Page 32: Zimmerman barbier

Signature Pages

• Ensures projects are aware of what cost or schedule information is being reported to OMB or Congress.

• Ensures everyone involved understands the trace between the dollars the project manages & the costs reported.

Project Office – Project Manager: _________________________________________ Name _________________________________________ Signature Date Program Office – Program Manager: _________________________________________ Name ________________________________________ Signature Date Mission Directorate – Program Executive: ________________________________________ Name __________________________________________ Signature Date

Mission Directorate – Resource Management Office: _________________________________________ Name __________________________________________ Signature Date Mission Directorate – Associate Administrator: _________________________________________ Name __________________________________________ Signature Date

32

Page 33: Zimmerman barbier

OMB Quarterly Report for Projects in Development

Project Really Big Satellite Date of Estimate

Table 1: Summary of Project in DevelopmentFY09 FY09 FY09 FY09

LCC ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) % %

225 225 250 250 250 255 2% 13%225 225 250 250 250 255 2% 13%

Current Accounting 225 225 250 250 250 255 2% 13%Development Cost ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) % %

185 185 210 210 210 215 2% 16%185 185 210 210 210 215 2% 16%

Current Accounting 185 185 210 210 210 215 2% 16%Schedule months months

Jul-2012 Jul-2012 Nov-2012 Nov-2012 Nov-2012 Jan-2013 4 6**Budget and Operating Plan data provided for information only.

Table 2: Estimated Annual Phasing ($M)Baseline Prior FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 BTC TOTAL*

Direct 0 0 5 10 50 100 30 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 225 Formulation - - 5 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 15 Development - - - - 50 100 30 5 - - - - - - - 185 Prime Ops - - - - - - - 5 10 10 - - - - - 25 Indirect - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Full Cost - - 5 10 50 100 30 10 10 10 - - - - - 225

FY09 Q4 Prior FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 BTC TOTAL*Direct - - 5 10 50 110 40 15 10 10 5 - - - - 255 Formulation - - 5 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 15 Development - - - - 50 110 40 15 - - - - - - - 215 Prime Ops - - - - - - - - 10 10 5 - - - - 25 Indirect - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Full Cost - - 5 10 50 110 40 15 10 10 5 - - - - 255 *Due to rounding, the run out may not add to total for project.

KDP-C Reporting Baseline

LRD delayed for 2 months, to January 2013, due to additional delay in expected delivery date for xyz instrument after failure of primary component during testing.

Reason(s) for Changes from Last Quarter

The project cost and schedule estimates reported here provide a snapshot of what the project's cost and schedule at completion would be given its current status. These do not necessarily reflect the most recent approved budget request or authorized LCC. Projects may be asked to identify potential offsets to reported cost and schedule growth.

Full Cost at Baseline

Direct

Full Cost at Baseline

LRD

Q3 Q4

Change From

Last Quarter Baseline

Direct

Oct-09

FY10 PBR & FY09 1st Op Plan**Q1 Q2

33

Page 34: Zimmerman barbier

OMB Quarterly Report for Contracts (Projects in Formulation)

Project Really Advanced TelescopeDate of Estimate

FY09 FY09 FY09 FY09

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Estimated Orion LCC** ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M)

400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900

400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900

Current Accounting 400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900

Estimated Schedule Assumptions

Jan-2013 Jan-2013 Jun-2013 Mar-2013 Jun-2013 Jun-2013

Base Quarter

Base Contract

Value

Last Quarter Value

Current Contract

Value

Contract totals $80 $80 $100% Change from Base 25%

% Change from Last Quarter 25%Note: Percent changes do not include the addition of new contracts.

Change in assembly materials. Q1 FY09 $50M $50M $70

$30M $30MAcme ABC instrument Q2 FY09 $30M

Mirrors Inc. Telescope mirror

Table 2: Contracts with Development Elements

Provider Project Element(s) this Supports Reason(s) for Change in Contract Value

Direct

The change in materials required for the telescope mirror assembly adds to estimated mass, which may require a change in launch vehicle.

Full Cost at Baseline

*The lifecycle cost and schedule assumptions are preliminary estimates and are provided for information only. The project will estab lish actual baselines at KDP-C, when the project enters development.

IOC

Oct-09

Table 1: Preliminary Estimated Life-Cycle Cost and Schedule for Project in Formulation*OMB KDP-

B Base Estimate

FY10 CBJ Reason(s) for Changes from Last Quarter

34

Page 35: Zimmerman barbier

Juno Cost & Schedule Information in the Budget (MPAR)

Project BaseYear

Development CostEstimate ($M)

KeyMilestone

KeyMilestone

Date

Juno 2008 $742.3 Launch Aug 2011

Development Cost & Schedule Summary:LCC

$1070

Lifecycle Cost:

Com

mitm

ents

Addi

tiona

l Cos

t Inf

orm

atio

n R

equi

red

Element Est. ($M)

Total 742.3

Payload(s) 63.9

Spacecraft $236.5

Ground Sys $8.8

Science $22.1

Other $411.0

Dev Cost Details: Dev Cost Run-out:FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

39.4 260.1 262.2 180.5

35

Page 36: Zimmerman barbier

Tracking Reported Cost & Schedule Data Over Time

36

$76 $76 $76

$59 $67 $88

$5 $6

$4

$11 $13

$10 $42 $42

$26

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

$220

Reporting Baseline/FY07 FY08 FY09

Example 2: WBS Elements by Fiscal Year ($M)

Launch Vehicle/Services Payload(s)

Ground Systems Science/Technology

Other

$28

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

Example 1: LCC Phasing ($M)

FY07 Q1 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q1

Page 37: Zimmerman barbier

Backup

37

Page 38: Zimmerman barbier

Management vsCommitment Baselines

• The KDP-C Commitment Baseline is reported to Congress & OMB.

• This Commitment Baseline includes– The Project Management Baseline – the

cost & schedule the project has agreed to work to, including any UFE managed by the project.

– UFE being held by the MD or Program. This UFE may be made available to the project mid-development without affecting the Commitment Baseline.

• Provides flexibility for managing cost risks without risking a reported cost growth every time a problem arises.

• The same distinction be made for Schedule and Scope.

`

$650M Commitment Baseline

*UFE=Unallocated future expenses.

$600MAllocated to project elements

$ 30MProject UFE

$ 20M MD-held

UFE

$630M Management Baseline

38

Page 39: Zimmerman barbier

NASA Response

39

Page 40: Zimmerman barbier

NASA Response (cont’d)

40

Page 41: Zimmerman barbier

Major Program Annual Reports Actions Flow

Baseline Report to Congress w/ Annual Budget

• Sets baseline development cost and key milestones

Program Manager Suspect Baselines to exceed thresholds

• 15% development cost

• 6 mo. Key milestone slip

Verbally Notify NASA Administrator

Written Notifi-cation to NASA Adminis-trator

30 days Written Notification Passed onto Congress

15 days

Administrator Determin-ation will exceed thresholds

30 days

Report Provided to Congress:• describes increase in cost or delay in schedule and a detailed explanation of why.• Describe actions taken or proposed in response to the threshold violation.• impacts of the cost increase or schedule delay and/or the response actions will have on any other program within NASA.

15 days

6 months Analysis complete

Determination will exceed 30% threshold on Development Costs

Analysis to Congress

18 months

20.5 months

No additional funds on program except termination

30 days

If intend to continue program, initiate analysis w/:• projected cost and schedule for completing the program w/ current requirements • projected cost and the schedule for completing the program after instituting the actions described in report to Congress• description of, w/ projected cost and schedule for, a broad range of alternatives to the program.

2 monthsSource: Julie Pollitt41

Page 42: Zimmerman barbier

Project Baseline Reports

20 Program Baseline Reports Filed to Date

Aquarius Herschel MMS RBSPDAWN JWST MSL SDOGLAST/Fermi Juno NPP SOFIAGlory Kepler OCO TDRS K/LGrail LRO Phoenix WISE

4 Program Baseline Reports Planned to be Filed 2010

Ares 1 Ground Ops (Cx)GPM Orion

Yellow Text: Added since PM Challenge 2009 42

Page 43: Zimmerman barbier

Contract Baseline Reports filed with OMB

5 Contract Baseline Reports Filed to Date

Ares 1 LDCM TDRS K&LGPM Orion

43

Page 44: Zimmerman barbier

Current Estimate Reports

Projects in FormulationAres 1 GPM LDCMOrion

Projects in OperationsDAWN KeplerGLAST/Fermi LROHerschel Phoenix

Projects in DevelopmentAquarius Glory GrailJWST JUNO MMSMSO NPP RBSPSOFIA SDO TDRS K/LWISE

To OMB only, until LCC actual is established. LCC of $250M or above.

To OMB quarterly; Congress annually (MPAR); GAO semi-annually. $250M or above.

To OMB quarterly; GAO semi-annually. Have awarded at least 1 contract >$50M with development content.

Yellow Text: new or moved status since PM Challenge 0944

Page 45: Zimmerman barbier

‘High Risk’ Report

• A part of NASA’s response to GAO’s ‘High Risk’ Report.

• Filed spring & fall with OMB.

• Includes only projects in development after June 2008.– Juno, JWST, GRAIL, RBSP,

MMS, TDRS K-L • Tracks weighted average

growth in cost & schedule. • Also tracks EVM waivers,

mission success after prime operations.

Outcomes (Definition of Success)1 NASA will maintain a cost

performance that is within 110% of baseline by 2013. a. LCC <= 110% of baseline.b. Dev Cost <= 115% of baselinec. 100% contract EVM reporting.

2 NASA will meet the baseline schedule goals, with aggregate schedule slippage falling within 110% of baseline by 2013.

3 NASA will sustain mission success by meeting Level 1 requirements for 90% of its portfolio of major development projects by 2013.

45

Page 46: Zimmerman barbier

Contract Baseline Report key values

Contract Value

$400 M

Contract Value

Com

mitm

ents

Addi

tiona

l Cos

t Inf

orm

atio

n R

equi

red

LCCE Range LRD

$800-$1200M Sept 2015

LCC & Schedule Summary

• The Baseline Contract Value is updated each time a new contract is awarded, but the full report is sent only once.

• Contract options can be included in the baseline value; if not, they are treated like a new award when they are exercised.

46

Page 47: Zimmerman barbier

Integrated information set

Project Cost * ContractsPhase Pending contract awardsYear Change in valueWBS2 Award Fees (new)Budget line Explanation of Change

Project Schedule * Changes in content *

Key milestone Reasons for change *Interim milestones Management

Project Content Acquisition Strategy

Purpose Project managementScope Independent reviewsParameters Project RiskCritical technologies Confidence level

Backup technologies

• Reporting is complicated because Congress, OMB & GAO request different information at different times.

• NASA policy also differentiates what information is provided before and after KDP-C.

• Fortunately, a relatively limited set of project information which can be established at KDPs and tracked thereafter.

• Divided into• Narrative• Spreadsheet Data * 47