• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Zimmerman barbier
 

Zimmerman barbier

on

  • 9,685 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
9,685
Views on SlideShare
9,685
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Zimmerman barbier Zimmerman barbier Presentation Transcript

    • 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 reportsBaseline 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 tounforeseen external events. 5
    • Project Baseline Report• Required for projects with a baselined CONTENTS lifecycle cost (LCC) of $250M or more. Lifecycle Cost by Year• Project Baseline established at KDP-C. Development Cost by Year• Establishes the following Project Purpose commitments with Congress & OMB: Deliverables • LCC Schedule • Development Cost Development Cost by • Key Schedule Milestone (e.g., launch readiness) WBS Element• The same report with the same cost & Project Management schedule baseline numbers goes to Acquisition Strategy OMB and Congress. Independent Reviews Risk Management NEW Confidence Level or reserves 6
    • Contract Baseline Report (OMB)• Required for projects in formulation (phase A or B) with CONTENTS (1) Estimated LCC of $250M or more and (2) which have awarded a contract with a Est. LCC by Year Range value of $50M or more which includes Dev Cost by Year development content. Project Purpose Deliverables• Establishes the following commitment Schedule with OMB: Dev Cost by WBS • Award value of eligible contract(s) Project Management• Content differs from Program Baseline Acquisition Strategy Report as illustrated at right. Contract Purpose Provider, Value• Note that although not a commitment Independent Reviews value, an estimated LCC range is Risk Management included in the report. 7
    • Current Estimate Report Schedule Report Recipient Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 As (Dec 30) (Mar 30) (Jun 30) (Sept 30) neededQuarterly Report OMB √ √ √ √Major Program Congress (as √Annual Report part of CBJ1)(MPAR)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 address 8
    • 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- Projects Trigger Threshold Who Reports Required line Included ReceivesKDP-C > $75M Life Cycle Cost 10% Congress Notification (only LCC requirement to $75M) > $250M Development 15% Congress Notification LCC Cost OMB Threshold Report (Phase C-D) Analysis of Alternatives Report 30% Congress Rebaseline after legislated authorization to continue Key Schedule 6 months Congress Notification Milestone OMB Threshold Report Analysis of Alternatives ReportPre $250M Average 15% Congress NotificationKDP-C LCC & Contract OMB Threshold Report(when > $50M Valuecontract is w/ devsigned) contract 10
    • Types of threshold reportsWritten Notification to 15 days Written Notification PassedNASA Administrator onto Congress 30 daysAdministratorDetermination will 15 days Threshold Report toexceed 15% cost or 6 Congressmonth schedulethreshold These 2 reports have sometimes been combined.If intend to continue 6 months 30 daysprojects, initiate Analysis Analysis toanalysis or alternatives. complete Congress Source: This is a simplified version of flow diagram created 11 by Julie Pollitt (see backup)
    • 30% threshold & re-baselining Determination • 2 NASA projects have that project dev. exceeded the 30% cost will exceed development cost threshold. 30% of Baseline • Glory has re-baselined under this process. 18 months • MSL is in this process. Congressional Yes reauthorization Rebaseline report required. received? No No additional funds on program except termination.Source: This is a simplified version of flow diagram created by Julie Pollitt (see backup) 12
    • Two Ways to Look at Baselines45% 45%40% % Growth from KDP-C 40% File 15% % Growth from Replan 135% 35% threshold % Growth from Replan 230% % Growth from Replan 3 report 30%25% 25%20% 20%15% 15% 30% threshold rebaseline10% 10%5% 5%0% 0% Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09 Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08 Nov-05 Nov-06 Nov-07 Nov-08 Jul-06 Jul-07 Nov-05 Jul-08 Nov-06 Mar-06 Nov-07 Mar-07 Nov-08 Mar-08 Mar-09 Management Perspective Reporting Requirement 13 13
    • 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. Barbier NASA / 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, Overlapped Development, Operations, and Other (overhead if content with in full cost) for each fiscal year, since project start. Current Estimate• Schedule: estimated dates for key life cycle Reporting to milestones (SDR/P NAR, PDR/NAR) and current OMB & Congress• Contracts: key contracts with contractor, date of described award, original value, current value, and contract above type.• 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 18
    • 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 Rolled up together in 2009 – Design maturity – Contractor performance – Development Partner performance• 2009 Audit focused on 6 challenges: – Technology maturity GAO metric: 90% drawings – Design stability* contentious issue released at CDR – Contractor performance – Development Partner performance – Funding Issues – including addition of ARRA funding to projects – Launch manifest Issues* contentious issue 21
    • 2008 Report cover- Released in March 2009Audit took place during2008, 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
    • GAO’sassessment ofchallenges forprojects inimplementationin 2008 26
    • 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 ReportsKDP-C Decision Memo • Top level signed memo • Ensures that all parties agree to theBaseline LCC baseline commitments the Agency isBaseline Development Cost making.Baseline Key Schedule Milestone • Provides the narrative for ProgramKDP-C Report (narrative) Baseline Report to OMB/Congress.Baseline Purpose, Deliverables, • This content updated annually for MPARAcquisition Strategy, etc. (the Current Estimate Report to Congress)KDP-C Supporting Data • Provides the data required for Program(spreadsheet) Baseline Report to OMB. • Updated quarterly for Current EstimateBaseline Cost Data Reports to OMB; ; k the cost & scheduleBaseline Schedule Milestones information required for current estimate reports to Congress, OMB, & GAO. 30
    • Data Template tracks changes for Current Estimate Reporting Current Cost EstimateRoll-Up Reported to Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Current Cost Estimate With UFE and Indirect Applied Prior FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CTC TOTAL 0.0 0.0 OMB & Congress Formulation Development Operations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 This 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 NASAs policy w ith respect to UFE. Project Managed Prior FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 CTC TOTAL Costs1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pre Formulation 0.0 Formulation (A, B) 0.0 What project Development (C, D) Tech Development Aircraft/Spacecraft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 managers have to Payload(s) Systems I&T Launch Vehicle/Services 0.0 0.0 0.0 work with. Ground Systems Science/Technology Other direct project cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 Project-managed UFE 0.0 Operations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MO&DA - Prime (E) 0.0 MO&DA - Extended * (E) 0.0 Closeout (F) 0.0 (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 What programs or 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. Project- or MD- Prior FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 CTC TOTAL managed UFE2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD manage Formulation Development 0.0 0.0 Operations 0.0 (2) These development costs are reflected in the projects 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. ‘Left over’ indirect Indirect costs3 Prior FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CTC TOTAL 0.0 0.0 costs. Center M&O AM&O / Corp G&A I&I 0.0 0.0 0.0 (3) These are overhead costs that are included in the projects 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. 31
    • Signature PagesProject Office – Project Manager: Mission Directorate – Resource Management Office:Name Name_________________________________________ _________________________________________Signature Date Signature Date_________________________________________ __________________________________________Program Office – Program Manager: Mission Directorate – Associate Administrator:Name Name_________________________________________ _________________________________________Signature Date Signature Date________________________________________ __________________________________________ • Ensures projects are aware of what cost orMission Directorate – Program schedule information is being reported toExecutive: OMB or Congress.Name________________________________________ • Ensures everyone involved understands theSignature Date__________________________________________ trace between the dollars the project manages & the costs reported. 32
    • OMB Quarterly Report for Projects in DevelopmentProject Really Big SatelliteDate of Estimate Oct-09Table 1: Summary of Project in Development FY09 FY09 FY09 FY09 Change From KDP-C FY10 PBR Reporting & FY09 1st Last Baseline Q1 Q2 Op Plan** Q3 Q4 Quarter Baseline Reason(s) for Changes from Last QuarterLCC ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) % %Direct 225 225 250 250 250 255 2% 13% LRD delayed for 2 months, to January 2013, due to additional delay inFull Cost at Baseline 225 225 250 250 250 255 2% 13% expected delivery date for xyz instrument after failure of primaryCurrent Accounting 225 225 250 250 250 255 2% 13% component during testing.Development Cost ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) % %Direct 185 185 210 210 210 215 2% 16%Full Cost at Baseline 185 185 210 210 210 215 2% 16%Current Accounting 185 185 210 210 210 215 2% 16%Schedule months monthsLRD Jul-2012 Jul-2012 Nov-2012 Nov-2012 Nov-2012 Jan-2013 4 6**Budget and Operating Plan data provided for information only.Table 2: Estimated Annual Phasing ($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 - - - - - 25Indirect - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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 - - - - 25Indirect - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -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.The project cost and schedule estimates reported here provide a snapshot of what the projects cost and schedule at completion would be given its current status. These do notnecessarily reflect the most recent approved budget request or authorized LCC. Projects may be asked to identify potential offsets to reported cost and schedule growth. 33
    • OMB Quarterly Report for Contracts (Projects in Formulation)Project Really Advanced TelescopeDate of Estimate Oct-09 Table 1: Preliminary Estimated Life-Cycle Cost and Schedule for Project in Formulation* OMB KDP- FY09 FY09 FY09 FY09 B Base FY10 Estimate Q1 Q2 CBJ Q3 Q4 Reason(s) for Changes from Last QuarterEstim ated Orion LCC** ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M)Direct 400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900Full Cost at Baseline 400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900Current Accounting 400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900 The change in materials required for the telescopeEstim ated Schedule Assum ptions mirror assembly adds to estimated mass, which may require a change in launch vehicle.IOC Jan-2013 Jan-2013 Jun-2013 Mar-2013 Jun-2013 Jun-2013*The lifecycle cost and schedule assumptions are preliminary estimates and are provided for information only. The project will estab lish actual b aselines at KDP-C, when the project entersdevelopment. Table 2: Contracts with Development Elements Base Last Current Base Contract Quarter Contract Provider Project Element(s) this Supports Quarter Value Value Value Reason(s) for Change in Contract ValueMirrors Inc. Telescope mirror Q1 FY09 $50M $50M $70 Change in assembly materials.Acme ABC instrument Q2 FY09 $30M $30M $30M Contract totals $80 $80 $100 % Change from Base 25% % Change from Last Quarter 25% Note: Percent changes do not include the addition of new contracts. 34
    • Juno Cost & Schedule InformationCommitments in the Budget (MPAR) Lifecycle Cost: Development Cost & Schedule Summary: LCC Base Development Cost Key Key Project Milestone Year Estimate ($M) Milestone $1070 Date Juno 2008 $742.3 Launch Aug 2011 Dev Cost Details: Dev Cost Run-out: Additional Cost Information Element Est. ($M) FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Total 742.3 39.4 260.1 262.2 180.5 Required Payload(s) 63.9 Spacecraft $236.5 Ground Sys $8.8 Science $22.1 Other $411.0 35
    • Tracking Reported Cost & Schedule Data Over Time Example 2: WBS Elements by Example 1: LCC Phasing ($M) Fiscal Year ($M) $220$70 $200 $26$60 $42 $180 $42 $10 $4$50 $160 $13 $11 $6 $140 $5$40 $28 $120 $88 $59 $67$30 $100$20 $80 $60$10 $40 $76 $76 $76 $0 $20 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 $0 Reporting Baseline/FY07 FY08 FY09 FY07 Q1 FY08 Q1 FY09 Q1 Launch Vehicle/Services Payload(s) Ground Systems Science/Technology Other 36
    • Backup 37
    • Management vs Commitment Baselines• The KDP-C Commitment Baseline is reported to Congress & OMB. $ 20M $650M Commitment• This Commitment Baseline includes MD-held Baseline – The Project Management Baseline – the UFE cost & schedule the project has agreed $ 30M $630M Management to work to, including any UFE managed Project Baseline by the project. UFE – UFE being held by the MD or Program. This UFE may be made available to the $600M ` project mid-development without Allocated affecting the Commitment Baseline. to project• Provides flexibility for managing cost elements risks without risking a reported cost growth every time a problem arises. *UFE=Unallocated future expenses.• The same distinction be made for Schedule and Scope. 38
    • NASA Response 39
    • NASA Response (cont’d) 40
    • Major Program Annual Reports Actions Flow Program 15 days Report Provided to Congress: 30 days Written Written Notification Manager • describes increase in cost or delay in Notifi- Passed onto Congress Suspect schedule and a detailed explanation of cation to why.Baseline Baselines to NASA 30 days • Describe actions taken or proposed inReport to exceed 15 days Adminis- Administrator response to the threshold violation.Congress w/ thresholds trator Determin-ation • impacts of the cost increase orAnnual Budget • 15% will exceed schedule delay and/or the response• Sets baseline thresholds actions will have on any other program developmentdevelopment cost within NASA.cost and keymilestones • 6 mo. Key milestone slip 30 days If intend to continue program, 6 months Analysis to Analysis initiate analysis w/: Congress complete • projected cost and schedule for Verbally Notify completing the program w/ current NASA requirements • projected cost and the schedule Administrator 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. Determination will No additional exceed 30% 18 months funds on threshold on program Development except Costs termination 2 months Source: Julie Pollitt 20.5 months 41
    • Project Baseline Reports 20 Program Baseline Reports Filed to Date Aquarius Herschel MMS RBSP DAWN JWST MSL SDO GLAST/Fermi Juno NPP SOFIA Glory Kepler OCO TDRS K/L Grail LRO Phoenix WISE4 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 OMB5 Contract Baseline Reports Filed to Date Ares 1 LDCM TDRS K&L GPM Orion 43
    • Current Estimate ReportsProjects in Operations To OMB only, until LCC actual is established. LCC of DAWN Kepler $250M or above. GLAST/Fermi LRO Herschel PhoenixProjects in Development To OMB quarterly; CongressAquarius Glory Grail annually (MPAR); GAO semi-JWST JUNO MMS annually. $250M or above.MSO NPP RBSPSOFIA SDO TDRS K/LWISE To OMB quarterly; GAO semi-annually. HaveProjects in Formulation awarded at least 1 contract Ares 1 GPM LDCM >$50M with development Orion content. 44 Yellow Text: new or moved status since PM Challenge 09
    • ‘High Risk’ Report• A part of NASA’s response Outcomes (Definition of Success) to GAO’s ‘High Risk’ Report. 1 NASA will maintain a cost performance that is within 110% of• Filed spring & fall with baseline by 2013. OMB. a. LCC <= 110% of baseline.• Includes only projects in b. Dev Cost <= 115% of baseline development after June c. 100% contract EVM reporting. 2008. 2 NASA will meet the baseline – Juno, JWST, GRAIL, RBSP, schedule goals, with aggregate schedule slippage falling within 110% MMS, TDRS K-L of baseline by 2013.• Tracks weighted average 3 NASA will sustain mission success growth in cost & schedule. by meeting Level 1 requirements for• Also tracks EVM waivers, 90% of its portfolio of major development projects by 2013. mission success after prime operations. 45
    • Contract Baseline Report key values Commitments• The Baseline Contract Contract Value Value is updated each Contract Value time a new contract is $400 M awarded, but the full report is sent only once.• Contract options can be Additional Cost Information LCC & Schedule Summary included in the baseline Required value; if not, they are LCCE Range LRD treated like a new $800-$1200M Sept 2015 award when they are exercised. 46
    • Integrated information set• Reporting is complicated Project Cost * Contracts because Congress, OMB Phase Pending contract awards & GAO request different Year Change in value information at different times. WBS2 Award Fees (new)• NASA policy also Budget line Explanation of Change differentiates what Project Schedule * Changes in content * information is provided Key milestone Reasons for change * before and after KDP-C.• Fortunately, a relatively Interim milestones Management limited set of project Project Content Acquisition Strategy information which can be Purpose Project management established at KDPs and Scope Independent reviews tracked thereafter.• Divided into Parameters Project Risk • Narrative Critical technologies Confidence level • Spreadsheet Data * Backup technologies 47