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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Types of Cost &
Schedule Reports
• Baseline
• Current Estimate
• Threshold
4

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Current Estimate Report Schedule
Report Recipient Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 As
(Dec 30) (Mar 30) (Jun 30) (Sept 30) needed
Quarterly 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

9. 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

10. Threshold levels
Base- Projects Trigger Threshold Who Reports Required
line Included Receives
KDP-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
Report
Pre $250M Average 15% Congress Notification
KDP-C LCC & Contract OMB Threshold Report
(when > $50M Value
contract is w/ dev
signed) contract
10

11. Types of threshold reports
Written Notification to 15 days Written Notification Passed
NASA Administrator onto Congress
30 days
Administrator
Determination will 15 days Threshold Report to
exceed 15% cost or 6 Congress
month schedule
threshold These 2 reports
have sometimes
been combined.
If intend to continue 6 months 30 days
projects, initiate Analysis Analysis to
analysis or alternatives. complete Congress
Source: This is a simplified version of flow diagram created
11
by Julie Pollitt (see backup)

12. 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

13. Two Ways to Look at Baselines
45% 45%
40% % Growth from KDP-C
40% File 15%
% Growth from Replan 1
35% 35% threshold
% Growth from Replan 2
30% % Growth from Replan 3 report
30%
25% 25%
20% 20%
15% 15% 30% threshold
rebaseline
10% 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

14. 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

15. In Depth: Overview of GAO
‘Quick Look’ Reporting
Louis M. Barbier
NASA / HQ
Office of Program, Analysis, and Evaluation
Strategic Investments Division
15

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Data Collection Instrument (DCI)
19

20. 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

21. 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

22. 2008 Report cover
- Released in March 2009
Audit took place during
2008, February - November
22

23. Example “2 Pager”
23

24. 2008 GAO Audit Summary
24

25. 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
26

27. 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

28. 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

29. How NASA Manages Cost and
Schedule Reporting
29

30. KDP-C Documents are the basis for
Project Baseline Reports
KDP-C Decision Memo • Top level signed memo
• Ensures that all parties agree to the
Baseline LCC baseline commitments the Agency is
Baseline Development Cost making.
Baseline Key Schedule Milestone
• Provides the narrative for Program
KDP-C Report (narrative)
Baseline Report to OMB/Congress.
Baseline Purpose, Deliverables, • This content updated annually for MPAR
Acquisition 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 Estimate
Baseline Cost Data
Reports to OMB; ; k the cost & schedule
Baseline Schedule Milestones information required for current estimate
reports to Congress, OMB, & GAO.
30

31. Data Template tracks changes for
Current Estimate Reporting
Current Cost Estimate
Roll-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 NASA's 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 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.
‘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 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. 31

32. Signature Pages
Project 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 or
Mission Directorate – Program
schedule information is being reported to
Executive: OMB or Congress.
Name
________________________________________ • Ensures everyone involved understands the
Signature Date
__________________________________________ trace between the dollars the project
manages & the costs reported.
32

33. OMB Quarterly Report for Projects
in Development
Project Really Big Satellite
Date of Estimate Oct-09
Table 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 Quarter
LCC ($M) ($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 in
Full Cost at Baseline 225 225 250 250 250 255 2% 13% expected delivery date for xyz instrument after failure of primary
Current 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 months
LRD 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.
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.
33

34. OMB Quarterly Report for Contracts
(Projects in Formulation)
Project Really Advanced Telescope
Date 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 Quarter
Estim ated Orion LCC** ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M)
Direct 400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900
Full Cost at Baseline 400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900
Current Accounting 400-700 400-700 500-800 500-800 500-900 The change in materials required for the telescope
Estim 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 enters
development.
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 Value
Mirrors 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

35. Juno Cost & Schedule Information
Commitments 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

36. 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

37. Backup
37

38. 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

39. NASA Response
39

40. NASA Response (cont’d)
40

41. 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 in
Report to exceed 15 days
Adminis- Administrator response to the threshold violation.
Congress w/ thresholds
trator Determin-ation • impacts of the cost increase or
Annual Budget
• 15% will exceed schedule delay and/or the response
• Sets baseline thresholds actions will have on any other program
development
development cost within NASA.
cost and key
milestones • 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

42. 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 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

43. Contract Baseline Reports filed
with OMB
5 Contract Baseline Reports Filed to Date
Ares 1 LDCM TDRS K&L
GPM Orion
43

44. Current Estimate Reports
Projects in Operations To OMB only, until LCC
actual is established. LCC of
DAWN Kepler
$250M or above.
GLAST/Fermi LRO
Herschel Phoenix
Projects in Development To OMB quarterly; Congress
Aquarius Glory Grail annually (MPAR); GAO semi-
JWST JUNO MMS annually. $250M or above.
MSO NPP RBSP
SOFIA SDO TDRS K/L
WISE To OMB quarterly; GAO
semi-annually. Have
Projects 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

45. ‘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

46. 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

47. 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