| NODIS Library | Program Formulation(7000s) | Search |

NASA
Procedural
Requirements

NPR 7120.8A
Effective Date: September 14, 2018
Expiration Date: September 14, 2028

COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY FOR NASA EMPLOYEES

Subject: NASA Research and Technology Program and Project Management Requirements (Revalidated w/change 5)

Responsible Office: Associate Administrator

Chapter 3. Program Requirements

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 R&T Programs

3.1.1.1 The requirements in this section cover R&T programs. R&T programs comprise only R&T projects (technology development and/or research projects).

3.1.2 Program Life Cycle

3.1.2.1 The program life cycle is shown in Figure 3-1. As shown in the figure, the program life-cycle phases consist of Pre-Formulation, Formulation, and Implementation (including Closeout). The figure also depicts program reviews (key decision points, internal reviews, and independent assessments) and key products.

3.1.2.2 The program reviews consist of KDP reviews, including the Authority to Proceed (ATP), Program Approval, Program Assessment Reviews (PARs), and Closeout; internal reviews, called PSRs; and IAs (see Section 3.2.7.2 for more detail on PARs). As depicted in the life cycle, three specific KDP reviews are required: ATP (to transition from Pre-Formulation to Formulation), Program Approval (to transition from Formulation to Implementation), and Closeout. In addition to these KDPs, at least one PAR is to be conducted during the Implementation phase. If IAs are required at any KDP, they are performed immediately preceding or concurrent with the KDP.

3.1.2.3 The DA is the individual authorized by the Agency to make important decisions on programs, including determining the readiness of a program to progress to the next life cycle phase. The DA conducts the KDP reviews. The plans for conducting reviews, including the schedule for the ATP, Program Approval and Closeout KDPs and the periodicity of PSRs and PARs is approved by the DA in coordination with the program manager. While this NPR describes all potential phases of the program life cycle, which phases a specific program will execute and where the program enters the life cycle will be at the discretion of the DA in coordination with the program manager. The FAD, Program Commitment Agreement (PCA), and Program Plan or equivalent and the ATP, Program Approval, at least one PAR, and Closeout KDPs are required. Unless delegated and documented in the FAD, the DA for the Formulation Phase is the MDAA. Unless delegated and documented in the PCA, the DA for the Implementation Phase is the NASA Associate Administrator (AA). See Table 3-1.

Figure 3-1 shows the Program Life Cycle Figure 3-1 - Program Life Cycle

3.1.2.4 For R&T programs, the DA for KDPs, the Management Official for IA teams, the governing PMC, and the governing document are defined in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Summary of Governance Authorities for R&T Programs

Authority Role	Authority	Comments
Program DA for Authority to Proceed KDP and Formulation Phase	MDAA
Program DA for Program Approval KDP, Closeout KDP, and Implementation Phase	NASA AA	The NASA AA can delegate responsibility to the MDAA. The DA may request additional KDPs (PARs) during Implementation.
Management Official for Establishing Independent Assessment Team(s)	MDAA	The MDAA identifies the chair of the independent assessment team. The chair selects any team members. Approvals/concurrences are obtained from the Mission Directorate, implementing Centers, and OCE for the (1) IA Chair, (2) IA team members, and (3) IA expectations document. The MDAA will ensure that the team(s) and process are independent and objective.
Governing PMC for Formulation	DPMC
Governing PMC for Implementation	APMC	The NASA AA can delegate oversight responsibility to the DPMC.
Governing Document	R&T Program Plan	The R&T Program Plan is approved by the MDAA.

Note: R&T Program Plans will reflect delegations, define reviews, and document the attendant rationale for delegations.

3.2 R&T Program Requirements

3.2.1 Select Program Manager

3.2.1.1 For an R&T program, the MDAA or their delegated representative shall assign a program manager to manage the effort. When a program manager will reside at a field Center, the Center Director will provide a recommendation for filling that role. The title of the position with responsibility for managing a program may be program manager, program lead, program executive, research director, program officer, or other. For the purposes of this NPR, the title “program manager” will be used.

3.2.1.2 If the program manager resides at a Center, the MDAA or their delegated representative coordinates the assignment of the program manager with the Center Director.

3.2.2 R&T Program Pre-Formulation

3.2.2.1 The MDAA has the authority to initiate Pre-Formulation of a potential R&T program. The MDAA is responsible for ensuring the start of new R&T programs are in line with the Agency’s vision and mission, as defined by NPD 1001.0.

3.2.2.2 The MDAA or their delegated representative shall provide the purpose, scope, and constraints of the potential R&T program to the program manager. The scope of the program may be provided in many forms, including in a formal FAD, charter, task agreement, memorandum, a Request for Proposal (RFP), Announcement of Opportunity (AO), or other documentation, as appropriate for the type, size, and complexity of the program and as agreed-to by the MDAA. See Appendix C provides additional guidance on the FAD.

3.2.2.3 During Pre-Formulation, the R&T program gains an understanding of the Agency strategic goals that need to be addressed. A literature search may be performed on existing and related research and technology development activities in other NASA programs, other Government agencies, and the commercial sector. Preliminary estimates for the program cost and schedule are developed. Planning is conducted to identify the tasks and activities needed to accomplish the Formulation Phase, including any Formulation key milestones and/or reviews. The program key deliverables are defined.

a. The program manager is responsible for developing a preliminary breakdown of the program’s scope into scope assignments for potential projects starting in Pre-Formulation.

b. To minimize duplication of effort and identify opportunities to augment R&T developed elsewhere, the program manager or designee should conduct a gap analysis, an assessment of related research and technology development activities in other NASA programs, other Government agencies, and the commercial sector, prior to investment in a proposed R&T area.

3.2.2.4 The Pre-Formulation Phase culminates with the R&T program ATP KDP, which officially determines approval for the start of the program and entry into the Formulation Phase.

3.2.3 R&T Program Authority to Proceed (ATP)

3.2.3.1 The DA shall conduct the Authority to Proceed KDP to determine approval for a proposed program to enter the Formulation Phase. This decision is based on review of information provided by the program manager. (See Table 3-2.) The DA may decide to gather the DPMC, peers, stakeholders, or line managers to review the information provided by the program manager or may make the decision on his or her own depending on the size and complexity of the program. If the information is not sufficient to make that determination, the DA may direct the program manager to continue the pre-formulation effort or to modify the formulation plans based on identified weaknesses. If the DA determines that concepts for the potential program do not meet minimum requirements, a decision to discontinue work on the potential program may be made. If the information is deemed sufficient to conduct the Formulation Phase, the DA authorizes the program to enter Formulation. The DA is responsible for ensuring the R&T program is formulated and continues to be in line with the Agency’s vision and mission, as defined by NPD 1001.0.

3.2.3.2 The ATP decision is documented in retrievable program documentation, which can be a Decision Memorandum or other appropriate format. This decision authorizes the R&T program to transition from the Pre-Formulation Phase to the Formulation Phase.

3.2.3.3 The decision documentation should include the formulation approach, cost, and schedule, with major formulation objectives identified, and any other decisions made or actions assigned.

3.2.3.4 Table 3-2 provides guidance on input and output expectations for the ATP KDP. The actual input and output content and format requirements are determined by the DA in coordination with the program manager and other key stakeholders and depend on the size and complexity of the program. The agreed-to information is provided by the program manager to the DA to determine if the potential program is in alignment with the previously defined purpose, scope, and constraints.

Table 3-2 ATP Expected Inputs and Outputs

Authority to Proceed

Input Expectations

Output Expectations

Understanding of Agency strategic goals being addressed by this research and/or technology program
Formulation approach
Preliminary program cost estimate, including detailed cost for the formulation phase
Preliminary program schedule, including any formulation key milestones and/or reviews
Preliminary System Security Plan
Expected formulation and program key deliverables, including final end-state deliverables

A documented decision on the Authority to Proceed by the DA.

3.2.4 R&T Program Formulation

3.2.4.1 During Formulation, R&T programs perform the detailed planning for how the program will be accomplished during the Implementation Phase. These planning activities include developing goals and objectives; identifying key stakeholders/beneficiaries; developing the cost plan/phasing and the master schedule; identifying the metrics to be used to ensure the program stays on track; identifying the initial projects to be encompassed by the program; defining the organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities; defining the management approach, including the approach and plans for PSRs, PARs, and IAs; and determining and developing what program control plans and other documentation will be needed (such as risk management, configuration management, safety, cyber security). Key products developed during the Formulation Phase are the PCA and the Program Plan.

3.2.4.2 Program Commitment Agreement (PCA)

a. The PCA is an agreement between the MDAA and the NASA AA and is necessary for the program to transition from Formulation to Implementation. The content of the initial PCA reflects the maturity of the R&T program at the beginning of Implementation. Prior to approval of the PCA, the MDAA coordinates with the NASA AA and any Center Directors contributing to the R&T program (not including competitively selected activities) to ensure their commitment to support the R&T program in terms of resources.

b. The MDAA, or designee, shall develop an R&T PCA during program Formulation. The content of the PCA includes program objectives; the organizational structure for managing the program and constituent projects; technical, schedule, and cost commitments; an overview of the acquisition strategy; and identification of high-risk areas, internal and external agreements, PARs and IAs required by the DA during Implementation, and expected outcomes. A PCA template is provided as guidance in Appendix D. The PCA may take the form shown in the template or another form, as appropriate, for the size and complexity of the program. The R&T PCA is signed by the MDAA and approved by the NASA AA.

c. Key products such as the PCA and Program Plan (see Section 3.2.4.3) are updated as needed during the Implementation Phase. The updated documents are reviewed and approved using the same processes as the original.

3.2.4.3 Program Plan

a. The Program Plan is an agreement between the MDAA, the program manager, and Center Director(s) that provide contributions to the program. The Program Plan details how the R&T program will be managed and executed and may contain a list of specific projects (updated as needed) that are official program elements. The initial Program Plan content is reviewed, approved, and baselined as part of the Program Approval KDP to transition to Implementation. The content of the initial Program Plan reflects the maturity of the program at the beginning of Implementation and may be updated during the program’s life cycle.

b. The program manager shall develop a Program Plan that provides the goals and objectives, management approach, program requirements, schedule/key milestones and cost estimate, the budget and acquisition strategy or the project selection approach, and the approach for reviewing and assessing projects. The Program Plan identifies all planned reviews, including PSRs, PARs, and IAs, other reviews required by this NPR, and any additional reviews deemed necessary by the program manager, DA, MDAA, or governing PMC. A template is provided in Appendix E as guidance on the expected content of the Program Plan. The Program Plan is signed by the program manager and Center Director(s), if applicable, and approved by the MDAA.

c. As part of monitoring and controlling the program, the program manager ensures adequate risk management in accordance with NPR 8000.4, Agency Risk Management Procedural Requirements planning is conducted in conjunction with the designated SMA Technical Authority. (NPR 8715.3, NASA General Safety Program Requirements, section 1.5, and NPR 8705.6, Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) Audits, Reviews, and Assessments provide additional information. In many cases, plans are already established by Center and/or facility procedures. Any applicable Center and/or facility institutional plans that the program will use should be referenced in the Program Plan.

3.2.5 R&T Program Approval

3.2.5.1 The DA shall conduct the Program Approval KDP to determine the program’s readiness to proceed to Implementation.

3.2.5.2 As part of the Program Approval KDP, the DA reviews the Program Plan and any other relevant data requested to ensure that the program objectives are aligned with the research goals and/or stakeholder needs and that the program is well planned to meet the objectives.

3.2.5.3 The Program Approval decision is documented in retrievable program documentation, which can be a Decision Memorandum or other appropriate format depending on the size and complexity of the program and authorizes the R&T program to transition from the Formulation Phase to the Implementation Phase.

3.2.5.4 The decision documentation should include the decision made, the effective date, and any caveats for follow-up actions associated with the decision (including responsible parties and due dates). As part of the decision documentation the costs, schedules, and key deliverables are captured. Other information may also be captured such as the program roles and responsibilities, and other key parameters. Upon a successful Program Approval KDP, the program may proceed into the Implementation Phase. The decision documentation also documents any additional resources beyond those explicitly estimated or requested by the program/project (e.g., additional schedule margin) when the DA determines that this is appropriate. This includes Unallocated Future Expenses (UFE), which are costs that are expected to be incurred but cannot yet be allocated to a specific Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) sub-element of the program’s or project’s plan. Management control of some UFE may be retained above the level of the project (i.e., Agency, Mission Directorate, or program).

3.2.5.5 Table 3-3 provides guidance on input and output expectations for the Program Approval KDP.

Table 3-3 Program Approval Expected Inputs and Outputs

Program Approval
Program Plan, including: Purpose addressing Agency needs Goals, objectives, metrics Organizational structure Requirements: e.g., Mission Directorate requirements levied on program, performance requirements, success criteria, end state/final product Schedule/key milestones and cost estimate Program review approach R&T management approach R&T project selection approach R&T project execution, review, and CA approach Program resource management approach Control Plans and other documentation as appropriate: e.g., Acquisition Strategy; and Safety and Mission Assurance, Risk Management, Configuration Management, Data Management, Systems Engineering Management, Software Development, Environmental Protection, System Security Plan and associated security plans and assessments, Education and Public Outreach, Technology Transition Plans, etc. Any expected tailoring of the NPR 7120.8 requirements	A documented decision on Program Approval by the DA. Documentation of the final Program Plan approval by the MDAA, including any actions or next steps as required.

Program Approval

Input Expectations

Output Expectations

Program Plan, including:

Purpose addressing Agency needs
Goals, objectives, metrics
Organizational structure
Requirements: e.g., Mission Directorate requirements levied on program, performance requirements, success criteria, end state/final product
Schedule/key milestones and cost estimate
Program review approach
R&T management approach
R&T project selection approach
R&T project execution, review, and CA approach
Program resource management approach
Control Plans and other documentation as appropriate: e.g., Acquisition Strategy; and Safety and Mission Assurance, Risk Management, Configuration Management, Data Management, Systems Engineering Management, Software Development, Environmental Protection, System Security Plan and associated security plans and assessments, Education and Public Outreach, Technology Transition Plans, etc.
Any expected tailoring of the NPR 7120.8 requirements

A documented decision on Program Approval by the DA.
Documentation of the final Program Plan approval by the MDAA, including any actions or next steps as required.

3.2.6 R&T Program Implementation

3.2.6.1 During the Implementation Phase, the program is executed as described in the Program Plan. Constituent projects are initiated and executed according to the planned cost (phasing) and schedule commitments. Program and project end products are developed, analyzed, verified to meet requirements, validated against stakeholder expectations, and delivered/transitioned per applicable plans. Program Status Reviews, Program Assessment Reviews, and Independent Assessments are conducted as defined in the Program Plan. The Implementation Phase culminates in the closeout activities, including data/information archiving, as needed to end the program.

3.2.6.2 The performance of the program is assessed during reviews. The Program Plan, associated program control plans, accepted IA findings, project performance results, and other metrics are used by the program manager, DA, governing CMC, and governing PMC during PSRs and PARs to determine if the program is meeting objectives and requirements. The program manager shall provide to the project managers, in writing, the purpose, scope and constraints for each specific R&T project that is an official element of the program. This information may be in the form of a formal project FAD (The template in Appendix F provides guidance), project charter, memorandum, or other document as appropriate for the size and complexity of the project. The program manager also concurs on the Project Plan for each constituent project.

3.2.6.3 Program managers shall report new technologies arising from technology programs to the appropriate Center Technology Transfer Offices in a timely manner in accordance with NPR 7500.2, NASA Technology Transfer Requirements to be considered for intellectual property protection and transfer for secondary applications.

3.2.7 Conduct Reviews

As the program proceeds through the Implementation Phase, progress toward the program’s technical goals, cost, and schedule are evaluated in periodic reviews. There are two types of reviews during the Implementation Phase: PSRs and Program Assessment Reviews (PARs).⁵

⁵ IAs may also be conducted during the Implementation Phase. PSRs, IAs, and PARs may be conducted consecutively or concurrently, in accordance with the approach documented in the PCA, Program Plan, and/or IA ToR.

3.2.7.1 Program Status Reviews

a. The program manager shall conduct PSRs to evaluate the status of the program. The frequency, timing, and format of the PSRs are determined by the program manager and documented in the Program Plan.

b. These reviews are typically considered internal reviews of the program cost, schedule, and technical performance. Any issues or concerns are discussed, risks reviewed, recommendations made and/or actions assigned. As documented in the Program Plan, these PSRs may take the form of informal discussions or more formal life-cycle reviews (such as System Requirements Reviews or Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs)). For small programs, a gathering of the program team and key stakeholders may suffice to discuss the program’s progress and to refine forward planning. Larger programs may need a more formal review with a wider audience and a more formal process for gathering comments, dispositioning them, and refining plans.

c. Table 3-4 provides guidance on input and output expectations for PSRs. As program internal reviews, PSRs are considered non-decisional in that no formal decision on program continuance/cancellation occurs as a result of the review, but the information from PSRs may feed into PARs. PSRs may lead to program improvements and adjustments that are within the authority of the program manager to make.

Table 3-4 PSR Expected Inputs and Outputs

Program Status Review
Input Expectations	Output Expectations
Program cost and schedule performance Current projects (in aggregate) Technical performance highlights Issues/Risks Status of plans and assessments (e.g., System Security Plans, Safety) Summary of program issues concerns Changes to scope/Level 1 requirements , if applicable	PSR summary, including: Technical progress Cost/schedule status Reviewer recommendations and/or actions Observations, threats, issues, and/or concerns Issues that need to be raised with upper management for help/resources Actions/Recommendations

3.2.7.2 Program Assessment Reviews

a. The DA shall conduct decisional PARs during the Implementation Phase. The program DA, i.e., the NASA AA or their delegated representative, chairs the PARs. The frequency, timing, and format of the PARs are planned by the program manager and approved by the DA and documented in the Program Plan.

b. Additional PARs can also be called by the NASA AA or MDAA at any time.

c. The PARs are key decision points. During these reviews, the technical progress, cost/schedule, and top risks and threats are assessed. A discussion of the status of constituent projects, lessons learned, any advancements in the state of the art achieved, progression of the program towards its goals, any achievements that have reduced the level of uncertainty in the field, and any results from IAs should also be discussed. Cybersecurity risks and threats should be integrated into the risk and threat list and assessed during the review. As documented in the Program Plan, PARs may take the form of informal discussions or more formal reviews. For small programs, a gathering of key stakeholders may suffice to discuss the program’s progress and to refine forward planning. Larger programs may need a more formal review with a wider audience and a more formal process for gathering comments, dispositioning them, and refining plans. A decision to redirect, continue, or terminate the program is made at this time. A decision to terminate a program triggers the program closeout activity.

d. The result of a PAR is documented in a Decision Memorandum or other appropriate format that is part of retrievable program records. The decision documentation should include the decision made and rationale, the effective date, any caveats for follow-up actions associated with the decision (including responsible parties and due dates). As part of the decision documentation, the costs, schedules, and key deliverables are captured. Other information may be captured such as key parameters or constraints. If the program is redirected in a significant way, the Program Plan should be updated to reflect the change.

e. Table 3-5 provides guidance on input and output expectations for PARs.

Table 3-5 PAR Expected Inputs and Outputs

Program Assessment Review
Input Expectations	Output Expectations
Summary of program metrics as evidence of meeting program goals (e.g., mission infusions/transitions, TRL advancement, dissemination, partnership performance) Technical Progress Summary o Identification of any systemic issues Program Cost/Schedule Summary, including: portfolio to date, margins, and any newly anticipated needs Program top risks and threats Status of plans and assessments (e.g., System Security Plans, Safety) Findings and recommendations from the most recent PSR and most recent IA, if applicable. Continued Agency strategic alignment and relevance (e.g., National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Decadal, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)) Proposed Program Plan updates, if needed	Documented decision by the DA to continue, redirect, or terminate the program Summary of assessment findings and recommendations/actions If required, approval of any Program Plan updates by the DA
It is recommended that a PAR be preceded by a PSR. PARs can be combined with PSRs with approval of the DA.

3.2.8 Program Closeout

3.2.8.1 When the program achieves its goals and objectives and completes the planned mission, the DA shall conduct the Closeout KDP. A Closeout KDP may also be performed after a decision is made to terminate a program.

3.2.8.2 Once the DA authorizes a program to end, closeout activities can proceed. The decision of the DA to close out or terminate the program and the rationale is documented in a Decision Memorandum or other appropriate format, including any recommendations relevant to existing contractual relationships, disposal of assets, manpower support, and timeframe of closure process.

3.2.8.3 Table 3-6 provides guidance on input and output expectations for the Closeout KDP.

Table 3-6 Closeout Expected Inputs and Outputs

Closeout
Input Expectations	Output Expectations
Final program summary, including: Program accomplishments Program metrics summary Rationale for Program closure Lessons learned Archival, storage, disposal, and security approach for program information and artifacts Technologies developed	Documentation of final program Closeout approval by DA, including any actions or next steps.
Closeout KDP should include stakeholder/customer participation.

3.2.8.4 The program manager, in coordination with the MDAA, conducts program closeout activities at the end of the program. The program manager also conducts program closeout activities for each project and oversees closeout activities for the projects.

3.2.8.5 The program manager ensures sufficient data is archived to enable access to any research results and incorporation of the program’s research or technology products into future system designs and investigations. This information is complementary to any information archived by constituent projects.

3.2.8.6 The program manager shall develop a final program report at the conclusion of the program, capturing recommendations/actions and results from the closeout activity, including any issues. The final report is captured as part of the program’s retrievable records.