1. Overview of the
Baseline Performance
Review (BPR)
Office of the Chief Engineer
Program Management Challenge
Orlando, FL
February 22-23 , 2012
1

2. Presentation Purpose
• Describe NASA’s Baseline Performance Review (BPR) to the
greater NASA community at PM Challenge 2012.
 Characterize the BPR objectives, scope, process, and products and
recent updates
 Provide insight into other complementary initiatives
 Summarize NASA’s technique for monitoring Agency performance
against its baseline plans
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 2

3. Contents
• BPR History and Context
• BPR Objectives
• BPR Scope, Participants
• BPR Process
• BPR Process Improvements
• Sample BPR Meeting Agenda
• Sample BPR Analysis Content
• Summary
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 3

4. BPR Background and Context
• In the spring of 2006, the Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) was given
the action by the Associate Administrator to develop a State of the Agency
(SoA) process that provides the Agency Project Management Council
(APMC) an independent top level view of the status of the Agency’s
programs and projects.
• The first SoA presentation, to the Agency PMC, was by the Science
Mission Directorate (SMD) in August of 2006. The process has matured
and continued to meet the objectives outlined by the Associate
Administrator, the Associate Deputy Administrator, the Chief Engineer
(CE) and the various stakeholders. The SoA evolved to a distinct monthly
meeting in December 2007 and was officially entitled the Baseline
Performance Review (BPR).
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 4

5. BPR Background and Context
(continued)
• The BPR instituted a modified “balanced score card stop-light chart”
process based on metrics encompassed in a core set of functional area
questions and supporting raw data.
• Participants from the projects, programs, Centers, Mission Directorates
(MDs) and Mission Support Offices respond monthly to each core area
question based on provided thresholds and key metrics for use in internal
and external reporting.
• All Mission Directorates are reporting at the BPR meeting the findings of
the independent process.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
recognized the Agency BPR as a “best practice”
in the Federal Government.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 5

6. BPR Objectives
• Provide NASA Senior Leadership comprehensive,
integrated, and objective information that describes the
“performance-to-plan” of the Agency’s programs, projects,
and institutional capabilities.
 A single place to see the full execution context of the Agency
• Assure open cross-functional communications among
NASA’s organizations to enhance Agency performance.
• Identify and analyze performance trends and cross-cutting or
systemic issues and risks
• Serve the Agency’s decision-making Councils as their
”execution arm”
 Within NASA Governance, the BPR is distinct from the decision-
making Executive Committee, Program Management, and Mission
Support Council
 BPR is “action-oriented” to improve performance and inform Agency
decision authorities of issues needing attention.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 6

7. BPR Scope and Participants
• The BPR is co-chaired by the NASA Associate Administrator (Chris
Scolese)and the Mission Support Directorate Associate Administrator
(Woodrow Whitlow).
• Membership includes the heads of NASA Staff Offices, Mission
Directorates, Mission Support Offices, and its ten Field Centers.
• Mission Support functions (e.g., finance, workforce, acquisition,
infrastructure, IT, etc.) report monthly and Small Business and
Diversity and Equal opportunity report quarterly.
• Mission Directorates (covering all program areas) report monthly with
one (and sometimes 2) “highlighted” in greater detail.
• The Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) leads the process and a team
of “independent assessors” from OCE, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) Strategic Investment Division (SID), Office of Safety
Mission Assurance analyze programs’ and projects’ performance.
 “Green/Yellow/Red” criteria were established to assess of technical, cost,
schedule, and programmatic performance are provided monthly for all
Mission Directorates.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 7

8. BPR Detailed Process Flow
3
Issue
charts
1 Mission MDs
Directorates (MDs)
“Stoplight” ratings for
2 Mission Support projects and
OCE sends out Offices programs from the
OCE (OCE, IPCE,
notifications to consolidates OSMA, and Assessor Teams OCE
3
users who answer NASA Centers input from OCFO) generates
questions stakeholders Assessor
1- 5 Teams BPR
4
Programs package
5 Technical
Projects Cross-Cutting, OCE
PCA Status reps. for
MDs
Non- Package
Technical briefing to
Cross-Cutting Chief
OCE feedback and Engineer for
Action items on BPR OCFO approval
process BPR reports
OCE Package is
Package Provides available
presented Executive for Read-
at the BPR Summary only
viewing
from site
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 8

9. Example Outcomes/Results
• Cross-cutting issues
 Across missions, faulty material was discovered resulting in a mitigation process for
the materials use saving time and resources.
• Organizational communication issues
 Turned a conflict between projects on thermal protection systems into a collaboration
between the major development projects who previously were competing for shared
resources.
• Mission support issues
 Workforce planning resolution was expedited when a project was confronted with
changes resulting in 500 people at a Center needing reassignment because the
project was delayed 2 years.
• Senior leaders as an “Execution Board of Directors”
 Charlie Bolden utilized the BPR to successfully highlight and resolve the delays in
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses.
• Mission specific issues
 Timely communication resulted in a Center director de-conflicting a vendors schedule
between 2 NASA projects from different Centers.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 9

10. BPR Process Updates - 2011
BPR is a dynamic process – stakeholder driven
• AA in July ’10 directed call for inputs for BPR
improvements
• Online survey conducted in Aug ‘10– wide agency
participation to gather recommendations for BPR
process and meeting improvements
• Town Hall in Sep ‘10 to review and refine comments
• Core Team developed recommendations
– Core Team (assessors) - OSMA, OCFO, IPCE and OCE
• Brief to senior agency leadership in early Jan ‘11
• Results promulgated to stakeholders with BPR process
changes implemented throughout 2011
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 10

11. BPR Process Update Highlights
Presentation Content determination and Frequency –
• Workforce & FOIA – from monthly to as required
• OCIO – monthly
• New BPR topic - addition of semi-annual brief by Physical Security
• Deletion of individual briefs by ASM/ASP and External Reporting
(presentation materials will still be included in BPR package)
• OCT to present two different technology areas on a quarterly basis
MSD/MSO – institutional assessment is still a pending issue
• To report to BPR on periodic basis
• Form of assessment and reporting to be determined at a later date
Document Compliance, Life Cycle Review, MD Rollups, MD –
• Monthly Highlighted MD: assessors and MD designee will submit and
present their own inputs
• Non-highlighted MD: assessors only will prepare and submit their
inputs for inclusion in the BPR package, but not be required to brief
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 11

12. Notional BPR Presentation Schedule
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 12

13. Example BPR Reports
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 13

14. BPR Project Questions
Total of 36 Questions for Projects
Technical/Programmatic/Schedule/Cost
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 14

15. Typical Monthly BPR Agenda
10:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. (EST)
NASA Headquarters, Room 8R42
10:00 Opening Remarks and Action Items Associate Administrator, BPR Manager
10:15 Mission Support Reports
Finance Chief Financial Officer
Workforce Human Capital Management
ASP/ASM Mission Support Division
Acquisition Procurement
Small Business Small Business Programs
Infrastructure Infrastructure
Information Technology Chief Information Officer
12:15 Lunch
12:30 Agency Aggregate Assessments
OSMA Safety - NASA Mishap Posture NASA Safety Center
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Status Public Affairs Office
External Reporting Status Chief Financial Officer/Strategic Investment (SID)
Cross Cutting Non-Technical Issues Chief Financial Officer/SID
Cross Cutting Technical Issues Office of Chief Engineer
Documents Compliance Office of Chief Engineer
Life Cycle Milestone Schedule Office of Chief Engineer
1:40 Center Summaries Center Representatives
2:40 Roll-up of Mission Directorates Program/Project Office of Chief Engineer
3:00 Highlighted: Science Mission Directorate (SMD)
SMD Assessment Science Mission Directorate
JWST Status/Recovery Plan* JWST Program
4:15 Actions Summary BPR Executive Secretary
4:30 Adjourn Associate Administrator
*Specific topic is rotated
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 15

16. Example BPR Reports
• Finance
• Acquisition
• Small Business
• Infrastructure
• Safety and Mishaps
• Crosscutting Issues
• Field Center Summaries
• Independent Assessments of Programs and Projects
(“Stoplight” ratings)
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 16

17. Finance Example
Budget
Execution
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 17

18. Procurement Example
Undefinitized
Contract
Action (UCA)
Status
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 18

19. Small Business Example
Federal
Agency General Services
Administration
Prime Small
Business Department of Justice
Dollars Department of Homeland
Overview Security
Department of Veterans Affairs
National Aeronautics & Space
Administration
Health and Human Services
Department of Energy
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000
In Million $
Total Dollars Small Business Dollars
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 19

20. Infrastructure Example
ARC DFRC GRC GSFC JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC Remarks
Facilities
JSC damage from Ike could impact JWST Project.. Chamber A MOU
G G G G G Y G G G G and Management Plan not complete. Concern about communication
Design & Construction between Eng Div and Facil Div at JSC
Facility repair backlog is 8.6% of facility value with increasing
Y Y Y Y Y R Y Y Y Y trend.JSC damage from Ike could impact SOMD Operations
Facility Maintenance
DFRC, KSC, and SSC were changed to yellow since they have not
G Y G Y G Y Y G Y Y submitted revised Master Plans. GSFC presented new Master Plan,
Planning/Real Estate but has not submitted document for formal approval.
Logistics
Delay in replacement of critical civil service personnel at GRC and
KSC. Also at KSC, a concern existed as retiring civil servants
positions were not backfilled. Situation improved by increased use of
G G Y G G G G Y G Y Support Services Contractors. Sinlge point failure for multiple
logistics functions at LaRC and SSC. Anticipated hire at SSC
Supply currently on hold.
Delay in replacement of critical civil service personnel at GRC and
KSC. GRC expects to fill vacancy by end of 2008. At KSC, a concern
existed as retiring civil servants positions were not backfilled.
G G Y G NA G G Y G Y Situation improved by increased use of Support Services
Contractors. Single point failure for multiple log functions at LaRC and
SSC. Anticipated hire at SSC currently on hold. GSFC filled HQ
Equipment SEMO position.
CFO management control findings related to property management
are being addressed, however center IPO staffing concerns to support
transition workload and FAR update present an on-going staffing
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y issue. JSC in process of filling Contract Property Administrator
position. JSC also submitted request to fill the following: 2 positions
for Property Disposal, 1 position for Shuttle Clerical (Property) and 1
position for Packing/Shipping in Transportation.
Contract Property
Agency risk for not meeting EO 13423 (alternate fuel): discussions
with MSFC to resolve center contribution ongoing. Single point failure
for multiple log functions at SSC, anticipated hire currently on hold.
G G G Y G G G Y Y Y GSFC loss of CNG capability for approx. 13 vehicles. KSC added
additional contractor to assist with transportation functions. At LaRC,
TO/SEMO is one person, he will be out in Jan. (medical leave) no
Transportation replacement appointed.
Increase in excess property workload due to Shuttle and Hubble
G G G Y G Y Y G Y Y disposition at GSFC, MSFC, KSC, SSC & JSC. Single point failure
Property Disposal for multiple log functions at SSC.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 20

21. Mishap Reports Example
February
NASA and Mishap
Contractor OCO
Safety
Statistics
Dashboards
Jan 2008 – Mar 2008 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009 Jan 2008 – Mar 200 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009 Jan 2008 - Mar 2008 Jan 2009 - Mar 2009
March Mishaps:
• No Type A Mishaps
• One Type B Mishap: DRC- (Deluge System Release in Shuttle Hangar - 3/13/09)
• One Potential Type B Mishap: DRC- (Global Hawk Electronics Failure 3/12/09) – currently a Type D
Data does not include 4/2/09 Type B Mishap: Water Drill mishap resulting in multiple amputations
Close Call Incidents Show An Increase From Previous Reporting Period (Jan – Mar 2008).
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 21

22. Technical Cross Cutting
Example of Communications Networks
Capability
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 22

23. PCA Status Example
Agency Programs
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 23

24. Agency Schedule Example
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 24

25. Center Summary Example
Technical Authority/Mission Support/Institutional
Institutional Risk to Mission
Budget/Finance:
Grants reconciliation and transition: The ORR for the Phase 2 transition
to NSSC is scheduled for November 30th; will complete GSFC transition
activities.
Workforce:
Early Career Hiring: FY09 - 66 on-board; FY10 – 10 with an additional
10 offers accepted and negotiating dates.
Acquisition:
Contractor Support: Consolidated Agency contracting approach being
pursued. GSFC had restricted authorization to use the existing GSFC
contract for critical tasks ending in December. “Authorization” to seek
services on another contract granted but is not expected to save resources
and requires unnecessary actions.
XYZ contract protest activities continue. ZYX contract has been
extended through Feb 2011. The delayed transition from ZYX to XYZ
continues to impact the contractor’s ability to retain experienced employees
to perform the work.
• Agency-level protests denied on August 11th and the Corrective Action
Plan (CAP) implementation was initiated on August 17th.
• A protest was submitted on August 21st to GAO with regard to the CAP.
CAP implementation permitted to continue. GAO decision due NLT
November 30th.
• Congressional request for information with regard to the CAP was
submitted October 22nd.
February 2012
25
For NASA Internal Use Only

26. Assessment Aggregate Rollup Example
Science Mission Directorate
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only
26

27. Program Status Roll Up Example
ARMD
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 27

28. Cost & Schedule Rollup Example
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 28

29. Assessment Quad Chart Example
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 29

30. BPR Actions and Status Example
Subj: Cross Cutting Technical Issues –
Review and Update
Action Statement:
• The Mission Directorate Chief Engineers (MDCE’s) will meet and do a
comprehensive review of the technical cross cutting process and issues
to include discussion about what new issues should be added to the
list.
Action for: OCE MDCEs
Date Assigned: Dec 15th
Action Assigned:
• Present candidate Tech Cross Cutting Issues at Feb BPR
.
2011-12-047 30
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only

31. Assessment Color Criteria
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 31

32. Green Criteria
A Category for a Project is Green if:
There are minimal programmatic issues and adequate margin (budget reserve,
schedule slack, technical margin), or capability (for operational missions), to
complete the Project on plan.
A Project is Green overall if:
All 4 categories are Green, or
One or more are Yellow and the issues are collectively not a threat/impact to the
project by virtue of their being solvable within the project's planned resources.
(Margin in one category may provide capability to resolve a lack of margin in another
category.)
A Program is Green if:
The constituent projects are Green overall, or are Yellow with realistic, defined plans
to return to green and all other program elements are on budget and schedule.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 32

33. Yellow Criteria
A Category for a Project is Yellow if:
The remaining margin within the category appears inadequate to meet Project
requirements or external commitments, however, mitigation plans are in place or in
development to recover margin and achieve commitments within the available
resources of the Project. (For operational projects in the technical category "margin"
may be interpreted as operational capabilities.)
A Project is Yellow overall if:
Any one category is Red, the overall is at least Yellow, or
One or more categories are Yellow and the issues are collectively a threat to the
project's ability to meet their commitments within the project's planned resources.
A Program is Yellow if:
Any of its constituent projects are Red overall, or if one or more are Yellow and the
issues are collectively a threat to the Program's ability to meet its commitments
within planned resources.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 33

34. Red Criteria
A Category for a Project is Red if:
There is minimal margin or negative margin within the category such that the Project
is estimated not to meet its requirements or commitments without significant impact
to other categories. There is high risk that the Project will require external resources
or relief from performance or programmatic requirements.
A Project is Red overall if:
One or more categories are Red, and it is estimated that the Project will not have
sufficient resources to meet its commitments.
A Program is Red if:
Most of its constituent projects are Red overall, or if one or more are Red and the
issues are collectively a threat to the Program's ability to meet its commitments.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 34

35. Assessment Rubric
for Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs
Cost Schedule Technical Programmatic
Cost estimates remain consistent with cost Schedule progress remains consistent with Technical progress remains consistent with Programmatic performance remains consistent
commitments: schedule commitments: technical commitments: with program/project requirements:
-- Formulation: Current estimated -- Formulation: The current estimated -- Formulation: The project/program is -- Formulation: An approved FAD is in place and
formulation costs are consistent with the authority-to-proceed to implementation date is making planned progress in developing planned progress is being made in completing
program FAD. at or before the FAD. technical design, reliability, safety, and risk programmatic arrangements necessary to enter
-- Development: Current estimated LCC at -- Development: Current estimated operational mitigation requirements necessary to development as planned.
completion is at or below the LCC readiness date (ORD) is at or before the ORD proceed to implementation as planned. -- Development: Top-level objectives and
commitment. For multi-project programs, the commitment. For multi-project programs, the -- Development: Technical requirements programmatic requirements in the plan are stable
current cost estimate by year for the current estimated schedule for planned start are stable and progress and risk and programmatic capabilities are being
program’s projects, including reserve, is dates for future projects is consistent with the management is consistent with plan while developed/ managed as planned. Plans are
within the 5 year cost run-out in the program program plan. maintaining safety. For multi-project consistent with 7120.5 or necessary waivers are
plan. The program is consistently executing -- Operations: Planned operations, including programs, any lack of planned technical in place. A multi-project program is effectively
its projects within their cost cap or maintenance, are proceeding on schedule. progress at the project level is not resulting managing its projects, with new projects
commitment. and there are minimal issues and adequate in an increased risk to the program’s beginning per the Program Plan.
-- Operations: Annual operational costs are schedule margin to complete the Program or technical commitments and objectives. -- Operations. Operational requirements are
at or below planned costs for these Project on plan: -- Operations: Operational systems are stable consistent with plan, and operations are
operations --Funded schedule reserves & phasing are delivering the planned level of services and being managed as planned. Retirement/ transition
and there are minimal issues and adequate consistent with plan and are being drawn down reliability, with a general trend towards plans are being developed/ implemented
cost margin (budget reserve) to complete at a rate consistent with plan and emergent improved safety, and efficiency. consistent with the timing for these events.
the Program or Project on plan: schedule risks/threats. For multi-project and there are minimal issues and adequate and there are minimal issues and adequate
-Lifecycle cost reserves are consistent with programs, any faster-than-planned project technical margin to complete the Program programmatic flexibility to complete the Program
plan and are being drawn down at a rate draw-down of schedule reserve is not or Project on plan: or Project on plan:
consistent with plan and emergent cost impinging on the ability of the program to meet -- Technical reserves are being drawn down --Key contract actions are being undertaken and
risks/threats. For multi-project programs, its overall schedule commitments. are consistent with plan; technical completed as planned. The multi-project
reserves are being managed consistent with --Key interim milestones (KDP as well as WBS difficulties/risks encountered are typical for program’s acquisition strategy (both contracted
the annual reserves planned for each milestones) being met. this type of project/program and are being and in-house) is resulting in the timely start of
project. -- For multi-project programs, any delay in mitigated or controlled as required to make projects and delivery of project elements.
-- The project/program will not require project schedule is not jeopardizing inputs planned technical progress. --Key critical workforce, access to key facilities,
additional funds to complete the current required for another project or resulting in an -- Are consistent with the requirements of EVM, and management systems are in place
fiscal year with required carryover. increased risk to the program’s schedule safety, reliability & quality assurance, and consistent with plan.
-- Phasing of cost reserves are consistent commitments. incorporate good systems engineering & --Key partnerships are in place and operating as
with emergent risks or threats. -- External partners are providing key integration practice. planned; external requirements are stable; and
-- Current year budget level and timing of deliverables on schedule. -- External partners are making planned there are no other factors external to the
funds distribution are consistent with plan or technical progress and external events project/program (e.g., new Agency requirements)
commitments are not threatened as a result (e.g., import approvals) are not altering which are significantly disrupting planned project/
of any or delay in current year funding. technical requirements. program management.
-- External partners are providing key -- For operational projects, the ground and
resources as planned. in-flight hardware is operating satisfactorily
on prime or backup units and mission
requirements are being met.
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 35

36. Assessment Rubric for
Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs (continued)
Cost Schedule Technical Programmatic
In general, the program or project follows In general, the program or project follows the In general, the program or project follows In general, programmatic performance remains
the green assessment guidelines, green assessment guidelines, but the green assessment guidelines, consistent with program/project
but cost commitments are now schedule commitments are now but technical commitments are now requirements for a green assessment, but
threatened. threatened. threatened: remaining programmatic flexibility may be
Remaining cost margin appears inadequate Remaining schedule margin appears Remaining technical margins appear inadequate to meet requirements due to
to meet requirements due to one or inadequate to meet requirements due inadequate to meet requirements one or more of the following programmatic
more of the following deviations from
to one or more of the following due to one or more of the following deviations from plan however, mitigation
plan, however, mitigation plans are
deviations from plan, however, technical deviations from plan plans are in place or in development to
in place or in development to
mitigation plans are in place or in however, mitigation plans are in recover margin and achieve commitments
recover margin and achieve
development to recover margin and place or in development to recover within the planned resources:
commitments within the planned
achieve commitments within the margin and achieve commitments -- Key contract actions are not being undertaken
resources of the Program or Project:
planned resources: within the planned resources: or completed as planned.
-- Lifecycle cost reserves (including those
-- Schedule reserves are being drawn down -- Technical reserves are being drawn down -- A multi-project program’s acquisition strategy
held at the program level) are being
faster than planned or as required for at a rate inconsistent with plan; or (both contracted and in-house) is not
drawn down faster than planned or
emergent schedule risks/threats. technical difficulties/risks resulting in the timely start of projects and
required for emergent cost
-- Key interim milestones (KDP and/or WBS encountered exceed those which delivery of project elements.
risks/threats.
milestones) have slipped. are typical for this type of -- Key critical workforce, access to key facilities,
-- Phasing of cost reserves are inconsistent
-- For multi-project programs, delay in project project/program or are not being EVM, and management systems are not
with emergent risks or threats.
schedules is resulting in an increased mitigated or controlled as required to consistent with plan..
-- Current year cost growth is exceeding
risk to the program’s schedule make planned technical progress. -- Key partnerships are not in place or operating
planned current year cost reserves
commitments. -- Are not consistent in some key areas with as planned; external requirements are not
and will require a re-phasing of the
-- External partners are delayed in providing the requirements of safety, reliability stable; or there are other factors external
annual budget in order to complete
key deliverables or external factors are & quality assurance, and the to the project/program (e.g., new Agency
the fiscal year with required
delaying completion of a key milestone. incorporation of good systems requirements) which are significantly
carryover.
engineering & integration practice. disrupting planned project/program
-- A reduction in current year budget or
-- External partners are not making planned management.
slow- down in funds distribution will
technical progress or external
require the project/program to
events (e.g., import approvals) are
rephrase future year annual costs.
altering technical requirements.
-- External partner changes or factors
-- For operational projects, ground or flight
external to the project/program are
capabilities have been curtailed, but
placing additional pressure on
plans are in work to recover the
project/program costs.
capability or develop a workaround
-- For operating missions, in flight anomalies
such that mission requirements will
are draining cost reserves.
still be met.
36
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only

37. Assessment Rubric for
Space Flight Projects and Multi-Project Programs (continued)
Cost Schedule Technical Programmatic
The Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to The Program or Project is estimated not to be
meet its cost commitments without meet its schedule commitments without meet its technical requirements able to meet its requirements due to
significant impact to other significant impact to other categories. without significant impact to other programmatic issues affecting the other
categories. The key end-of-phase KDP milestones categories:. categories.
Depending on phase, the project's are unlikely to be met. A project in formulation is not making the A formulation project has failed to make the
formulation costs, or development For multi-project programs, the planned start- technical progress required to enter programmatic progress required to be
costs, or annual operating costs up of future projects is delayed beyond development. confirmed for development.
are exceeding the planned budget program commitments or objectives. For a project in development, technical A development project lacks an approved plan or
beyond all planned reserves. For operations missions, the current operations failures or delays preclude the has failed to implement that plan
For multi-project programs, total annual schedule is insufficient to meet project project from being able to meet its consistent with meeting its commitments.
costs for the program’s projects commitments or the mission failed prior technical requirements and The multi-project program lacks an
exceed the program’s 5 year to the planned end-of-operations date. commitments. approved PCA or project plan, or has
planned run-out, including reserves. For multi-project programs: The current There is minimal or negative technical failed to implement the projects require to
There is minimal or negative cost margin operations schedule is insufficient to margin such that there is high risk meet its commitments.
such that there is high risk that the meet program commitments or the that the Program or Project will There is limited or no programmatic flexibility such
Program or Project will require failure of one or missions prior to the require additional technical that there is high risk that the Program or
additional funding or relief from planned end date has resulted in the resources or relief from performance Project will require relief from performance
performance or programmatic project not being able to meet its or programmatic requirements due or programmatic requirements due to one
requirements due to one or more of commitments or objectives. to one or more of the following or more of the following deviations from
the following deviations from plan for There is minimal or negative schedule margin technical deviations from plan for plan for which the project/ program has
a realistic recovery strategy has not is such that there is high risk that the which the project or program has not not identified a realistic strategy for
been identified: Program or Project will require identified a realistic strategy for recovery:
-- Lifecycle cost reserves (including those additional schedule or relief from recovery: --Key contract actions are not being undertaken or
held at the program level) are being performance or programmatic -- Technical reserves are being drawn down completed as required. The multi-project
drawn down at an unsustainable rate requirements due to one or more of the at an unsustainable rate or program’s acquisition strategy (both
and remaining reserves are following deviations from plan for which emergent technical difficulties, risks, contracted and in-house) is not resulting in
insufficient given emergent a realistic strategy for recovery has not or threats are not being resolved as the timely start of projects and delivery of
risks/threats. been identified: required to meet the technical project elements.
-- Phasing of cost reserves are inconsistent -- Schedule reserves are being drawn down at commitments. --Key critical workforce, availability of key
with emergent risks or threats. an unsustainable rate and remaining -- Are not consistent with the requirements facilities, EVM, and management systems
-- Current year cost growth exceeds planned reserves are insufficient given of safety, reliability & quality are missing or inconsistent with meeting
costs and cannot be accommodated emergent risks/threats. assurance, and the incorporation of the project’s commitments.
by rephrasing annual costs. -- A slip of one or more key interim milestones good systems engineering & --Key planned partnerships did not materialize,
-- A reduction or delay in current year (KDP and/or WBS milestones) is integration practice. quit or not to delivering consistent with
funding is inconsistent with inconsistent with the planned ORD. -- Lack of technical progress by external project/program commitments; unstable or
maintaining the overall LCC For programs, delay in project partners or external events (e.g., newly emergent external requirements are
commitment. schedules is inconsistent with import approvals) are inconsistent not implementable; or other external
-- A loss of key external partners or program’s schedule commitments. with meeting the project/program developments are inconsistent with the
resources is inconsistent with -- An external partner delays or delays caused technical requirements, project/program commitments.
keeping the project or program by other external factors are commitments, or objectives, or
within planned costs. inconsistent with the planned ORD. additional/different external cannot
-- For operational projects, in-flight For multi-project programs, delays be met within plan.
anomalies have drained all cost caused by external factors are -- For operational missions, in-flight
reserves and the project will need inconsistent with the program’s anomalies have used up 37
more funds to February 2012
complete the prime Forschedule Internal Use Only
NASA commitments. redundancy and made it unlikely 37

38. Summary
• NASA Senior Management monitors Agency-Wide
performance monthly through its baseline Performance
Review (BPR) Process
 Mission Directorate detailed assessments are reported quarterly
on a rotating basis
• BPR continues to evolve and improve to reflect the
Agency priorities and plans
Self Assessment – “There is a luxury in self-
reproach. When we blame ourselves we feel that
no one else has a right to blame us.” Oscar Wilde
February 2012 For NASA Internal Use Only 38