EXPLORATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM S …

KSC-PLN-8730.5_ERT-QASP

REV: BASIC KSC Safety & Mission Assurance Directorate RELEASE DATE: 09/18/2020

EXPLORATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

PROGRAMS QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Revision: Basic Document No: KSC-PLN-8730.5_ERT-QASP Release Date: 09/18/2020 Page: 2 of 21 Title: Exploration Research & Technology Programs Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

PREPARED BY:

Troy T. Toon, SA-B/Safety and Mission Assurance Engineer

APPROVED BY:

Tiffaney M. Alexander, PhD, Office Chief SA-B/S&MA Exploration Research and Technology Office


CHANGE LOG

Date Revision Description

09/18/2020 Basic Baseline


Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5 1.1 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 SCOPE................................................................................................................................ 6 1.3 CHANGE AUTHORITY ....................................................................................................... 6

2.0 DOCUMENTS .......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 AUTHORITY ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................. 7 2.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................. 8

3.0 METHODOLOGY OF QUALITY SURVEILLANCE ............................................... 10 3.1 LEVELS OF QUALITY INSIGHT/OVERSIGHT ................................................................ 10 3.2 ANALYSIS AND TRENDING ............................................................................................ 10 3.3 RISK-BASED QUALITY SURVEILLANCE ........................................................................ 12 3.4 COMMUNICATING THE FINDINGS ................................................................................. 13 3.5 CERTIFICATE OF FLIGHT READINESS REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 13

3.5.1 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AUDITS ........................................................................ 13 3.5.2 DEVIATIONS AND WAIVERS ................................................................................................ 14 3.5.3 PROBLEM REPORTING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................................................ 14 3.5.4 NONCONFORMANCE ............................................................................................................ 14 3.5.5 GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY DATA EXCHANGE PROGRAM ............................................... 14 3.5.6 GOVERNMENT MANDATORY INSPECTION POINTS ......................................................... 14 3.5.7 FOREIGN OBJECT CONTROL .............................................................................................. 15 3.5.8 TOOL CONTROL .................................................................................................................... 15

3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE RESOURCES ............................................................................ 15

APPENDIX A: QUALITY SURVEILLANCE FUNCTIONS/TOOLS TABLE ................. 16

APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ 17

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...................................................................... 19


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 46.4 requires the development of Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASPs) for Federal acquisitions. NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Subpart 1846.401 provides general information on the development and revision of QASPs for NASA contracts.

NPR 8735.2, Management of Government Quality Assurance Functions for NASA Contracts, provides detailed requirements for Quality Assurance functions and the preparation and content of NASA Program/Project QASPs to ensure that supplies and services acquired under Government contract conform to the contract’s Quality requirements. NPR 8735.2, Management of Government Quality Assurance Functions for NASA Contracts does not apply to Government contract Quality Assurance functions related to software. See NASA-STD-8739.8A, Software Assurance and Software Safety Standard, and NPR 7150.2, NASA Software Engineering Requirements, for the definition of software assurance functions.

The NASA Center Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Directors are identified in NPR 8735.2, Management of Government Quality Assurance Functions for NASA Contracts, Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.5. They provide Quality Assurance services and support to Contracting Officers (CO) and Program/project managers. The Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate (SA) has the responsibility to provide Quality Assurance services and support to programs, contracts, and projects hosted by, or assigned to, KSC. The SA Exploration Research and Technology (ER&T) Office (SA-B) will provide insight and oversight for the ER&T Programs (UB). SA-B will report appropriate contract compliance and program confidence findings to the SA Directorate and ER&T. The Safety and Mission Assurance Support Services Contractor provides additional Quality support to SA-B.

1.1 PURPOSE This QASP ensures products and services are provided to ER&T in accordance with contract requirements. To achieve this, NASA SA-B will strive to meet the following objectives for each contract that provides products and services to ER&T:

a. Ensure the Contractor complies with the requirements of the contract.

(1) Verify the Contractor is compliant with contract-specific higher levels of Quality (e.g., AS9100, ISO 9001).

(2) Verify the Contractor is compliant with all Quality requirements in the Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement.

b. Provide confidence the end user receives quality products and services.

(1) Provide confidence the Contractor is delivering quality products and services.

https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8735&s=2B




https://standards.nasa.gov/standard/osma/nasa-std-87398


https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7150&s=2C




(2) Provide confidence to the International Space Station (ISS) Exploration Research and Technology Programs Certification of Flight Readiness (CoFR).

1.2 SCOPE The scope of this document defines the risk-based approach SA-B implements to ensure contract compliance and provide program confidence. This document defines the Quality Assurance surveillance methodology and techniques performed by the SA ER&T Office. Surveillance activities are further defined and stored in the SA-B repository. This plan applies to SA-B assigned projects for Quality Assurance surveillance specific to the ER&T and contracts.

1.3 CHANGE AUTHORITY a. S&MA change recommendations involving this document shall be submitted to the Point-of-Contact (POC) identified in TechDoc.

b. The recommendation should identify the exact language of the proposed change and the rationale for the change.

Note: SA ER&T Office will ensure proper review and disposition of all change recommendations.


2.0 DOCUMENTS

2.1 AUTHORITY The following documents are the Higher-level specification, standard, guideline, handbook, special publication, or requirement document containing the requirement driving the creation of this document.

FAR Subpart 46.4 Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Government Contract Quality Assurance

NFS Subpart 1846.401 NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Government Contract Quality Assurance

NPD 8730.5 NASA Quality Assurance Program Policy NPR 8735.2 Management of Government Quality Assurance Functions

for NASA Contracts SSP 41173 Space Station Quality Assurance Requirements

2.2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS The following documents include specifications, models, standards, guidelines, handbooks, and other special publications. The documents listed in this section are applicable to the extent specified herein.

NPR 7150.2 NASA Software Engineering Requirements NASA-STD-8739.8A Software Assurance and Software Safety Standard KDP-B-1041 John F. Kennedy Space Center Business Objectives

and Agreement for the Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate

KDP-P-3627 NASA Corrective Action Request (NCAR) KDP-F-3627 NASA Corrective Action Request Form KSC-PLN-2816 NASA (KSC) Quality Planning & Requirements

Document (QPRD) for the portion of NAS 15-10000 performed at KSC

KSC-PLN-8730.5_ERT-QPRD-NNK13MA14C

NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Quality Planning & Requirements Document (QPRD) for the Test and Operations Support Contract (NNK13MA14C) And Nasa Led Tasks in Support of the International Space Station (ISS) Program

NASA-HDBK-8709.22 Safety and Mission Assurance Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions


SSP 30695 International Space Station Program Acceptance Data Package Requirements Specification

ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems - Requirements SAE AS9100 Quality Management Systems – Requirements for

Aviation, Space, and Defense Organizations

2.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS The following documents contain supplemental information to support the user in the application of this document.

KNPR 8040.4 Exploration Research and Technology Programs Configuration Management Procedural Requirements

KNPR 8730.2 KSC Quality Assurance Procedural Requirements NASA-STD-5008 Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel,

and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment

NASA-STD-8739.4 Workmanship Standard for Crimping, Interconnecting Cables, Harnesses, and wiring

NASA-STD-8739.5 Workmanship Standard for Fiber Optics Terminations, Cable Assemblies, and Installation

NASA-STD-8739.6 Implementation Requirements for NASA Workmanship Standards

NASA-STD-8739.12 Metrology and Calibration NASA-STD-8739.14 NASA Fastener Procurement, Receiving Inspection,

and Storage Practices for NASA Mission Hardware SSP 30599 Safety Review Proces SSP 41170 Configuration Management Requirements

International Space Station Program SSP 50001 6.0 Surface Cleanliness Levels SSP 50123 International Space Station Program Configuration

Management Handbook SSP 50200-01 International Space Station Program Implementation

Plan, Volume 1: Station Program Management Plan SSP 50276 Depot/Manufacturing Facility Certification Plan KPL-PLN-50008 Payload Facility Contamination Control

Implementation Plan




IPC®/WHMA-A-620B-S

Space Applications Electronic Hardware Addendum to IPC®/WHMA-A-620B

SAE AS9102 Aerospace First Article Inspection Requirement SAE AS9003 Inspection and Test Quality Systems Requirements for

Aviation, Space, and Defense Organizations.


3.0 METHODOLOGY OF QUALITY SURVEILLANCE

3.1 LEVELS OF QUALITY INSIGHT/OVERSIGHT a. The Government’s goal is to follow a risk-based surveillance approach, using insight and oversight, which allows the Government to focus resources on the performance areas that pose the greatest potential risk. The methodology for conducting Quality surveillance is based on four levels of insight and oversight as illustrated in Figure 1. Level 0 and Level 1 will satisfy the first objective to ensure contract compliance. Level 2 and Level 3 will provide the Program with confidence they are receiving quality products.

b. The Government's intention is not to impede ER&T Operations Support Contractor (OSC) work efforts or schedule while conducting insight/oversight functions. For this document, the government is represented by the SA ER&T Office.

Figure 1 – LEVELS OF QUALITY INSIGHT/OVERSIGHT

3.2 ANALYSIS AND TRENDING a. Trend analysis collects and analyzes information to identify patterns or trends that occur over time. SA ER&T Office collects and analyzes Quality Management System (QMS) data from the ER&T Contractor and their support of test and integration processes to identify hardware and process trends that create a potential for risk to ER&T and Depot Operations. This data includes nonconformance (NC) data, Material


Review Board (MRB) actions, corrective and preventive actions, test failures, anomalies, and Government Industry Data Exchange Programs (GIDEPs).

Figure 2 – SA ER&T OFFICE INSIGHT/OVERSIGHT SOURCES b. Using this information, SA ER&T Office monitors and analyzes Quality system performance indicators to identify and assess system and hardware trends within the production and integration processes of ER&T-procured services. The basis for these assessments will be data obtained from the ER&T Contractor QMS, Quality procurement, integration processes, Contractor audits, and product/process assessments. Depending on the type of ER&T Contractor data provided, the results may apply to a specific facility, production or manufacturing sites, or the Contractor’s QMS. Data analysis and trending will use Contractor metrics and time-phased analysis to assess the performance of the Contractor production/integration processes to assemble flight-worthy and ground support equipment hardware. Review of insight/oversight sources such as Acceptance Data Package reviews provides verification of Contractor compliance with Quality requirements and may promote additional surveillance/audit of the documentation, including certifications, for tracking of any open issues or NCs that affects Flight or Ground Hardware certifications (e.g., reference SSP 30695, International Space Station Program Acceptance Data Package Requirements Specification).

c. Issues or concerns indicated by this data analysis and trending will be further investigated. If required, an assessment will be developed for the specific performance area based on the analysis results, which will include more detailed data from additional

https://edms.iss.nasa.gov/ISS_EDMS/ISS%20ERU%20(Engineering%20Release%20Unit)/NASA%20ERU%20MAPI%20(Mission%20and%20Program%20Integration)/NASA%20SSP%20Documents/SSP%2030695_Rev%20C-%20SSCD%2015916.docx

https://edms.iss.nasa.gov/ISS_EDMS/ISS%20ERU%20(Engineering%20Release%20Unit)/NASA%20ERU%20MAPI%20(Mission%20and%20Program%20Integration)/NASA%20SSP%20Documents/SSP%2030695_Rev%20C-%20SSCD%2015916.docx


insight/oversight tools and activities. The assessment will be documented in the appropriate SA ER&T Office database as a Quality assessment, watch item, or risk.

3.3 RISK-BASED QUALITY SURVEILLANCE a. Risk-based Quality is the primary methodology used to decide what areas, operations, documents, procedures, and steps will receive Quality surveillance. It is used to determine the appropriate Quality insight/oversight level, surveillance function/tool used, frequency, and which government organization is best equipped to perform it. The decision process takes into account the following factors, ranked in order of importance:

(1) Risk – Based on Contractor-supplied risk matrices; hazard analyses; and potential impact on safety, cost, schedule, and performance.

(a) High Risk Areas = Higher insight/oversight

(b) Low Risk Areas = Lower insight/oversight

(2) History – Initially based on ISS ground processing and system history.

(3) Program Inputs – Based on focus areas identified by SA, UB, ISS Risk Office (OE), ISS Vehicle Office (OB), or other associated Program(s)/Projects (e.g., QPRD, Letter of Delegation (LOD), Operations and Maintenance Requirements and Specifications Document (OMRSD)). Examples include mandatory inspection points provided by ER&T and technical requirements input from the design organization such as the OMRSD.

(4) Effective use of technical and Quality resources – Determined by personnel skillsets, funding, and material within the surveillance organizations.

(5) Crew Survivability – Systems that aid in ground and flight crew survival (e.g. launch abort systems, ground emergency escape systems) will require a higher level of insight/oversight. For example, where appropriate, safety-critical Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIP) may be performed on these systems to ensure compliance with contract requirements that, if violated, could result in an unacceptable risk of personnel injury or loss of life.

(6) Team Work – Through communication, collaboration, and coordination with the appropriate stakeholders and customers (e.g. UB, Engineering Directorate [NE], Programs [e.g., ISS]), Contractor Quality representatives), risk-based Quality initiatives can be used to concentrate on specific focus areas and areas of emphasis and assign the appropriate level of insight/oversight and personnel resources.

b. Appendix A is intended to be used as a guide to determine the appropriate level of surveillance. The Quality surveillance function and tool used will depend on the overall objective as well as the risk level, confidence in the ability of the Contractor, history,


availability and effective use of NASA Technical and Quality personnel. The surveillance function and tool used will vary based on the circumstance.

c. SA-B Quality may develop and use specific QASPs or checklists for contracts, facilities, projects, and programs.

3.4 COMMUNICATING THE FINDINGS a. The surveillance program findings will be documented and tracked by SA-B within the SA-B database. The surveillance findings will:

(1) Communicate all surveillance results.

(2) Provide objective evidence for Award Fee input.

(3) Provide objective evidence for verification and validation decisions.

(4) Identify required changes to the QASP.

(5) Identify issues affecting the Contractor’s ability to comply with AS9100.

(6) Elevate any issues that were not resolved at a satisfactory level to upper management in UB, SA, Contractor(s), and Program(s) as applicable.

b. SA ER&T Office will use the NCAR procedures to notify ER&T OSC of NASA identified NCs or corrective actions (reference KDP-P-3627 and KDP-F-3627).

3.5 CERTIFICATE OF FLIGHT READINESS REQUIREMENTS The CoFR requirements are found in KPL-PLN-50001, KSC ISS Exploration Research and Technology Programs Certification of Flight Readiness (CoFR) Implementation Plan. SA-B processes and products described below are a roll up of all Quality data that supports this milestone. The products may change based on the ISS ER&T CoFR Implementation Plan revisions or support for additional milestones.

3.5.1 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AUDITS

Verify Quality Audits do not have systemic findings that impact flight safety or mission success.

a. AS9100 Certification Audits

b. Contractor Internal QMS Audits

c. Process and Compliance Audits

(1) Process Evaluations of Work Control Documents

(2) Operator Procedure Compliance

https://tdksc.ksc.nasa.gov/servlet/dm.web.Fetch?did=906750&rev=$latest




(3) Procurement Quality Assurance

(4) Software Quality Assurance

3.5.2 DEVIATIONS AND WAIVERS

Verify a Deviation and Waiver process is in place and is being performed properly.

3.5.3 PROBLEM REPORTING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

a. Corrective Action involves root cause analysis and problem-solving measures taken to eliminate the causes of NCs and avoid their recurrence. Preventive Action is a proactive risk analysis for mitigation measures against the likely causes of potential nonconformities intended to avoid their occurrence. These actions work together to prevent NCs and undesirable process outcomes.

b. Verify a program Problem Reporting and Corrective Action closed-loop process is in place and is being performed properly.

3.5.4 NONCONFORMANCE

Verify an NC process is in place and being performed properly.

3.5.4.1 MATERIAL ENGINEERING REVIEW BOARD

The Material Engineering Review Board (MERB) is part of the NC process. Verify the MERB process is in place, performed properly, and there is shared visibility between all Programs. The design programs will be responsible for verifying specific MERB items related to how their flight hardware is dispositioned and approved.

3.5.5 GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY DATA EXCHANGE PROGRAM

Verify all Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) items have been appropriately addressed. Each Program is responsible for verifying GIDEP items.

3.5.6 GOVERNMENT MANDATORY INSPECTION POINTS

a. Verify Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIP) are appropriately performed and ISS surveillance data is reported to the Program QA POC (JSC-OE) per Bi-Weekly NASA/DCMA telecom. GMIPs are planned in accordance with KSC-PLN-2816, NASA (KSC) Quality Planning & Requirements Document (QPRD) for the portion of NAS 15-10000 performed at KSC and KSC-PLN-8730.5_ERT-QPRD-NNK13MA14C, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Quality Planning & Requirements Document (QPRD) for the Test and Operations Support Contract (NNK13MA14C) And NASA Led Tasks in Support of the International Space Station (ISS) Program.

b. Verify any “non-GMIP” surveillance findings applicable to the hardware/software in question have been dispositioned and closed.









3.5.7 FOREIGN OBJECT CONTROL

a. The SA ER&T Office will ensure that ER&T Organizations implement Foreign Object Control in accordance with KPL-PLN-50007, KSC Payload Facility Contamination Control Requirements/Plan.

b. The SA ER&T Office will ensure that Foreign Object Control Programs are established by ER&T Organizations having operational, testing, maintenance, facilities or equipment responsibilities. These programs include implementing Foreign Object Control documentation that describes the processes and specific roles and responsibilities for prevention, detection, planning, implementation, assessment, and corrective action for Foreign Object Debris/Damage in accordance with KPL-PLN-50007, KSC Payload Facility Contamination Control Requirements/Plan.

3.5.8 TOOL CONTROL

The SA ER&T Office will surveil ER&T Organizations’ (i.e., entities conducting operations supporting ER&T) tool control program over tools/tool kits used to process flight hardware, ground hardware or facility systems.

3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE RESOURCES a. SA provides the personnel and material resources used for Quality Assurance. Roles and responsibilities of the SA Divisions are found in KDP-B-1041, John F. Kennedy Space Center Business Objectives and Agreement for the Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate.

b. Funding for this Quality Assurance effort is developed each year during the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process and comes from various sources dependent on the Program supported (e.g., UB).

https://tdtosc.ksc.nasa.gov/servlet/dm.web.Fetch?did=8454&rev=$latest




https://tdksc.ksc.nasa.gov/servlet/dm.web.Fetch?doc=KDP-B-1041&rev=$latest




APPENDIX A: QUALITY SURVEILLANCE FUNCTIONS/TOOLS TABLE

Start Here Pick a tool from here

What is your current situation? Surveillance Objectives Oversight Level

What NASA will be looking for and why Recommended Quality Surveillance Functions/Tools

Step 1: From the first column, pick a box that describes the current situation of the task or operation to be surveyed in terms of risk, confidence, history, and other factors. Step 2: Follow that row to the right to see what options are available for that oversight level. Step 3: Decide on a tool or set of tools from the chosen oversight level or ones above it. Note: If tools do not seem to satisfy your needs, then consider tools from deeper oversight levels. However, be aware of potential for increased costs, schedule delays, and collateral damage.

• Very low risk items • High confidence in Contractor • Extensive history in performing task • Allows for NASA to rely on the Contractor to perform the task

and simply accept the product at face value. • Requires little or no technical or Quality experience and would

be an inefficient use of NASA resources

Con

tract

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

Con

fiden

ce

Level 0

No Oversight: Does the Contractor have a QMS? Quality functions performed entirely by Contractor and results delivered to government

• QMS Reportables (e.g. Internal Audits, Management Reviews, Corrective/Preventive Actions Trending)

• AS9100 Certification Letter • AS9100 Registrar Audit Reports • Oasis Verification • Customer Feedback

• Lower risk issues • Good confidence in Contractor’s abilities • Strong history in performing task • Only high level status of issues needed • NASA participating in periodic Contractor lead reviews and

meetings • We will assess only the data presented • Periodic audits on pre-defined process(es) gives us more

confidence in Contractor’s abilities • Requires some training and experience in Quality functions and

would justify a low level use of NASA resources for specific Quality functions

Level 1

Low Oversight: Does the Contractor follow their QMS? Majority of government Quality functions can be performed by personnel outside of SA with some Quality training

• Any Level 0 function/tool listed above plus… • Document Reviews • Participation with Test and Operations Support Contract activities • Random sampling • Records reviews • Audits of Contractor’s QMS • Joint Quality staff meeting with Contractor • Review of Contractor’s Quality data and metrics • Review Contractor’s audit reports • Participate in audits led by the Contractor or 3rd party organizations • Visibility into process/vendor changes

• Medium risk items • Items where Contractor has only a moderate amount of

experience • Items where Contractor’s abilities are in doubt or have not been

proven yet • Need greater understanding of issues identified by the

Contractor • NASA wants to methodically review details, but not necessarily

duplicate the Contractor’s work. • Requires expertise in technical or Quality functions and would

justify use of specialized NASA resources Level 2

Intermediate Oversight: For standard issues, does NASA agree with the Contractor’s interpretation of their data? For significant issues, does our surveillance data correspond with their data? Government Quality functions performed by both SA and non-SA personnel

• Any Level 1 function/tool listed above plus… • Daily or weekly involvement to drive out issues • Assessments • Process Reviews • Key process and/or support process sampling • Monitor Process Improvement Process • Visibility into NC Reporting and Corrective Action systems [e.g., MRB

system] • Independent analysis of Contractor’s Quality data • Notification of significant process and/or vendor changes • Visibility into Contractor’s decision making processes • Independent data gathering and analysis on specific tasks/issues • Work Instruction Review • Detailed review of NCs and Corrective Actions (e.g. MRB rationale) • Detailed Surveillance of Process Performance • Audits / Evaluations of Contractor’s processes / products • Government metrics generated from our own data • Independent evaluation of significant process and/or vendor changes • Consultation in Contractor’s decision making processes

• High risk level • Least amount of confidence or history with Contractor’s abilities • NASA wants to perform a complete and independent evaluation

or inspection of the task • Requires expertise in technical or Quality functions. Significance

of activity related to risk and Contractor confidence would necessitate the use of NASA resources

Level 3

In-depth Oversight: Has the Contractor delivered a quality product? Majority of government Quality functions performed by SA personnel with special Quality training

• Any Level 2 function/tool listed above plus… • Receiving Inspections • GMIP, Special Inspection Point • Final Acceptance / approval • Approval of significant process and/or vendor changes • Signature authority on NCs and Corrective Actions (e.g. MRB Membership) • Full participation / partnering in decision making processes • Go/No Go Decision


APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS

ABCL As-Built Configuration List ADP Acceptance Data Package C of C Certificate of Conformance CDRL Contract Data Requirements List CE Change Evaluation CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO Contracting Officer CoFR Certification of Flight Readiness COR Contracting Officer Representative CQA Contract Quality Assurance CR Change Request EAR Export Administration Regulations EEE Electrical, Electronic, Electromechanical ESD Electrostatic Discharge FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations GFE Government Furnished Equipment GIDEP Government Industry Data Exchange Program GMIP Government Mandatory Inspection Point GSI Government Source Inspection ICPO Inspection Control Point Outline ISS International Space Station ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations KDP KSC Documented Procedure KNPR Kennedy NASA Procedural Requirements KSC Kennedy Space Center LOD Letter of Delegation MERB Material Engineering Review Board MIP Mandatory Inspection Points MIRR Material Inspection Receiving Report MRB Material Review Board NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NC Nonconformance NCAR NASA Corrective Action Request NDE Nondestructive Evaluation NDI Nondestructive Inspection NDT Nondestructive Test NE Engineering Directorate NFS NASA FAR Supplement NPR NASA Procedural Requirement OB ISS Vehicle Office OE ISS Risk Office


OMRSD Operations and Maintenance Requirements and Specification Document OSC Operations Support Contractor POC Point-of-Contact PQR Procedure Qualification Records QAS Quality Assurance Specialist QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan QMS Quality Management System QPRD Quality Planning & Requirements Document RFI Request for Information S&MA Safety and Mission Assurance SA Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate SA-B SA Exploration Research and Technology Office SOW Statement of Work TBD To Be Determined TBR To Be Resolved UB Exploration Research and Technology Programs WPS Welding Procedure Specifications


APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Term Description

Assessment [1] Review or audit process, using predetermined methods, that evaluates hardware, software, procedures, technical and programmatic documents, and the adequacy of their implementation. [2] An evaluation and analysis of procedures, processes, and practices necessary for effective definition, imposition, implementation, and verification of S&MA requirements. Assessment findings are provided to the organization being assessed and to senior Agency management (e.g., Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance; Chief Engineer; Mission Directorate Associate Administrator; Center Director; and Center S&MA Director). [3] An evaluation or appraisal of the state of a system, Program/project, or a portion of a Program/project. (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)

Audit [1] Formal review to assess compliance with hardware or software requirements, specifications, baselines, safety standards, procedures, instructions, codes, and contractual and licensing requirements. [2] An on-site in-process verification of compliance with policies, procedures, processes, and requirements. Audits and assessments have the unique responsibility for citing noncompliances, as well as observations, and require a follow-up Corrective Action Plan and corrective action status reports. (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)


Term Description

Critical [1] The condition where failure to comply with prescribed contract requirements can potentially result in loss of life, serious personal injury, loss of mission, or loss of a significant mission resource. Common uses of the term include critical work, critical processes, critical attributes, and critical items. [2] A condition that may cause severe injury or occupational illness, or major property damage to facilities, systems, or flight hardware. (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)

Insight Surveillance mode requiring the monitoring of customer-identified metrics and contracted milestones. Insight is a continuum that can range from low intensity, such as reviewing quarterly reports, to high intensity, such as performing surveys and review. (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)

Inspection Product examination, process witnessing, record review, verification, or confirmation as defined herein. (ref. NPR 8735.2B 2.6.2.1)

Objective Evidence Data verifying or supporting the existence of a finding or compliance to requirements. Objective evidence may be obtained through observation, measurement, test, or other means and is not influenced by prejudice, emotion, or bias. Examples of objective evidence include, but are not limited to, procedures, records, work instructions, databases, reports, organizational charts, interviews, hardware, facilities test reports, configuration control documentation (i.e., drawings and specifications), mishap reports, corrective actions, and lessons learned. (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)

Oversight Surveillance mode that is in line with the supplier's processes. The acquirer retains and exercises the right to concur or non-concur with the supplier's decisions. Non-concurrence must be resolved before


Term Description

the supplier can proceed. Oversight is a continuum that can range from low intensity, such as acquirer concurrence in reviews (e.g., PDR, CDR), to high intensity oversight, in which the customer has day-to-day involvement in the supplier's decision-making process (e.g., software inspections). (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)

Oversight/Insight The transition in NASA from a strict compliance-oriented style of management to one which empowers line managers, supervisors, and employees to develop better solutions and processes. (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)

Risk (Programmatic) The combination of (1) the probability (qualitative or quantitative) of experiencing an undesired event, (2) the consequences, impact, or severity that would occur if the undesired event were to occur and (3) the uncertainties associated with the probability and consequences. (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)

Surveillance The continuous monitoring and status of an entity and analysis of records to ensure that specified requirements are being met. (ref. NASA-HDBK-8709.22)

EXPLORATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM S …

Documents

Transcript of EXPLORATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM S …