Zimmerman barbier
description
Transcript of Zimmerman barbier
Cost & Schedule Reporting:What NASA Reports to OMB,
Congress, & GAO and Why
Mary Beth Zimmerman
Louis Barbier
1Used with Permission
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
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
Types of Cost & Schedule Reports
• Baseline• Current Estimate• Threshold
4
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
• 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
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In Depth: Overview of GAO ‘Quick Look’ Reporting
Louis M. BarbierNASA / HQ
Office of Program, Analysis, and Evaluation
Strategic Investments Division
15
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
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
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
Data Collection Instrument (DCI)
19
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
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
2008 Report cover- Released in March 2009
Audit took place during 2008, February - November
22
Example “2 Pager”
23
2008 GAO Audit Summary
24
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
26
GAO’s assessment of challenges for projects in implementation in 2008
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
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
How NASA Manages Cost and Schedule Reporting
29
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
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
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
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
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 $30M
Mirrors Inc. Telescope mirror
Table 2: Contracts with Development Elements
Provider Project Element(s) this Supports Reason(s) for Change in Contract Value
Direct
The change in materials required for the telescope mirror assembly adds to estimated mass, which may require a change in launch vehicle.
Full Cost at Baseline
*The lifecycle cost and schedule assumptions are preliminary estimates and are provided for information only. The project will estab lish actual baselines at KDP-C, when the project enters development.
IOC
Oct-09
Table 1: Preliminary Estimated Life-Cycle Cost and Schedule for Project in Formulation*OMB KDP-
B Base Estimate
FY10 CBJ Reason(s) for Changes from Last Quarter
34
Juno Cost & Schedule Information in the Budget (MPAR)
Project BaseYear
Development CostEstimate ($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
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
Backup
37
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
NASA Response
39
NASA Response (cont’d)
40
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
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
Contract Baseline Reports filed with OMB
5 Contract Baseline Reports Filed to Date
Ares 1 LDCM TDRS K&LGPM Orion
43
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
‘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
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
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