Procedural
Requirements
Effective Date: March 12, 2021
Expiration Date: March 12, 2026
|
|
NASA Procedural Requirements |
NPR 8735.2C Effective Date: March 12, 2021 Expiration Date: March 12, 2026 |
| | TOC | ChangeHistory | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | Chapter7 | Chapter8 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | ALL | |
F.1 This Appendix provides recommended entrance and success criteria for the following types of reviews:
a. Mission Concept Review (MCR) or Key Decision Point (KDP) A.
b. Systems Requirements Review (SRR) or KDP B.
c. Preliminary and Critical Design Review (PDR or CDR).
d. Production Readiness Review (PRR).
e. KDP C.
f. Systems Integration Review (SIR) or KDP D.
g. Operations Readiness Review (ORR), Launch Readiness Review (LRR), and KDP E.
F.2 NPR 7123.1 describes the life-cycle review (LCR) and KDP review processes and the Project Manager's role in planning and executing those reviews. The minimum QE and QA products are recommended below for delivery at LCRs or, otherwise, prior to milestone reviews to enhance the integration of the QE and QA requirements and processes herein with program or project planning and execution activities. These products take the form of reports or other evidence of the status of Project QA program execution and of the rationale for risk-based decision making. The report or deliverable maturity is expected to be commensurate with the associated point in the life cycle (i.e., initial, update, or final).
F.3 Mission Concept Review (MCR) or KDP A
F.3.1 The following deliverables are recommended to demonstrate Project QA program and supply chain risk management process maturity at MCR or KDP A.
a. Evidence of initial QE/QA strategy concepts including:
(1) A compliance matrix indicating the initial plans to align the project's QA strategy with the requirements herein and alternative equivalent approaches that will be used to satisfy the requirements.
(2) An initial SMAP that contains or references the Project QA program plan.
(3) Explanation of the approach that will be used to identify critical items and processes or the initial critical items list (CIL).
b. The preliminary budget for establishing and executing the Project QA program that considers:
(1) Allocation for a QA program leadership function and other QE/QA staffing curves over the life cycle.
(2) Allocation for developing quality controls and assurance criteria for nonstandard designs and manufacturing processes.
(3) Allocation for characterizing and resolving quality gaps or quality risks for COTS and inherited items.
(4) Allocation for supply chain management including supplier audits and assessments and GCQA functions.
(5) Allocation for workmanship risk mitigation.
c. An initial technology development and manufacturability plan that includes:
(1) Preliminary list of materials, parts, sub-systems or processes where analysis or test will be used to fully define the physical design specifications, quality controls, or QA criteria.
(2) Preliminary peer review plan for evaluating manufacturability risks for new designs.
(3) List of COTS or inherited components that are planned for use for critical applications that require quality risk characterization.
d. A supply chain list cross-referenced to the mission hardware configuration, as it is known at that time for parts, subassemblies and components that will be manufactured or integrated in-house (by a NASA Center).
e. Status of procurement commitments made to prime contractors through contractual or other Government acquisition mechanisms (e.g., Partnership Opportunity Document).
f. Status of procurement strategy decisions related to 48 CFR pts. 12 and 46, and 48 CFR, NFS 1846.
g. Initial supplier audit and assessment plan.
h. The status of data, records, and CM including:
(1) The initial architecture and status of implementation of the CM system.
(2) The initial hardware identifications.
(3) The initial concept for storing and managing project quality conformance, nonconformance, and traceability data.
i. Identification and status of known manufacturability, supplier, and quality risks.
F.4 System Requirements Review (SRR) and KDP B Criteria
F.4.1 The following deliverables or objective evidence of accomplishments are recommended for review at SRR or, otherwise, prior to KDP B to demonstrate Project QA program and SCRM process maturity.
a. Evidence of QE/QA strategy maturity and implementation progress including:
(1) The project budget and schedule addresses the project's QE and QA strategy over the entire project life cycle.
(2) Completed SMAP and compliance matrix with Center SMA TA concurrence.
b. Data and Records Management. The following processes and approaches are established and in use:
(1) The systems that will be used to control and store QA documents, data, and records are in place and are accessible by project QE and QA personnel.
(2) The system and hardware naming and marking schemes are known and flowed to suppliers.
c. The MCR criteria initially used to determine safety-critical and mission-critical items and processes is further defined or the CIL is maturing.
d. Materials, parts, and subassembly certification requirements are defined.
e. Product acceptance requirements are defined.
f. QA implementation plans are delivered.
g. The status of processes that drive manufacturability and product conformance for new and non-standard designs and constructions including:
(1) A status of the technical analysis required to define verification methods for non-standard items or processes or to overcome flow-down obstacles related to product verification methods or processes.
(2) A status of ongoing process qualifications or plans to require process qualification.
(3) A status of the development and publication of specialized production procedures and work instructions.
(4) The status of the development and use of specialty training for nonstandard processes.
h. Technical specifications are being defined; engineering documentation completeness is progressing.
i. Design reviews are identifying and addressing manufacturability and availability risks.
j. Procurement processes are progressing including:
(1) Decisions are made regarding the use of clauses referenced in Acquisition of Commercial Items, 48 CFR § 12, Quality Assurance, 48 CFR § 46, and NFS 1846 for GCQA and product acceptance.
(2) The supply chain cross-reference to the mission hardware configuration is progressing.
(3) Supplier prescreening using GIDEP, NASA Advisories, and SCIS is being completed.
(4) QA surveillance plan(s) are in development.
(5) The supplier audit and assessment plan is in development.
(6) Suppliers' compliance with the QMS requirements is characterized.
k. Initial plans are in development for use of PRRs.
l. Identification and status of known manufacturability, supplier, and quality risks.
m. The initial plans for self-evaluation of the project's Project QA program health can be described.
F.5 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR)
F.5.1 The following deliverables or objective evidence of accomplishments are recommended for review at PDR or CDR.
a. Status of suppliers' requests for waiver of QE or QA requirements.
b. Changes to the critical items and processes categorization approach.
c. Procurement status and related supplier assessments planned.
d. Status of COTS and heritage parts and components QE/QA risk mitigations.
e. Status of design development progress including:
(1) Critical attribute definitions for items and processes and engineering documentation maturity.
(2) Manufacturability assessments.
(3) Development of custom verification methods.
(4) Completeness of acceptance criteria.
(5) Status of plans to require or execute process qualifications.
f. Identification and status of known manufacturability, supplier, and quality risks including known supplier process changes.
F.6 Production Readiness Review (PRR)
F.6.1 In addition to the entrance and success criteria in NPR 7123.1 Table G-8, when PRRs are performed, the criteria in Table F-1 is recommended.
Table F-1 Additional Entrance and Success Criteria Applicable for PRRs
| Entrance Criteria | Success Criteria |
|---|---|
3a. Critical process controls and control limits are identified in procedures and production instructions. 10a. Applicable Government mandatory inspections (GMIPs), pre-production, in-process, and post-production have been identified. 10b. Schedules are identified for GMIPs. 13. The contents of the acceptance data package (ADP) is agreed to by the acquirer and the supplier. 14. The schedule is identified for review of the ADP and product acceptance. 15. The schedule and logistics, including Government oversight of operations, are defined for transfers of items out of, and return to, the plant for processing or test in subcontractor or Government facilities prior to final acceptance. |
4a. There is high confidence that there are sufficient manufacturing controls to eliminate the risk of installing latent defects. 13a. Documentation and data systems are adequately prepared to capture conditions and results unique to the production run. 13b. The produced item will have traceability to constituent material lots and the production run's processes and conditions. |
F.7 KDP C Criteria
F.7.1 The following deliverables or objective evidence of accomplishments are recommended for review prior to KDP C.
a. Updated QE/QA staffing plan that is traceable to hardware configuration, production and operations plan, and the supply chain.
b. The following approaches or plans are fully developed or sufficiently mature:
(1) Procurement approach.
(2) The approach for categorizing critical items and processes.
(3) Supplier audit and assessment plan.
(4) PRR plans and implementation status and results.
(5) Status of supplier prescreening, including at sub-tier level as well emerging issues identified in GIDEPs and NASA Advisories.
(6) Manufacturing procedures including for special verification methods.
(7) QA surveillance plans including additions made for I&T operations.
(8) TRR plans.
c. The following analyses are maturing or complete:
(1) Supply chain cross-referenced to the mission hardware configuration.
(2) Supplier QMS compliance.
(3) COTS and inherited item QE or QA gaps.
(4) Use and status of process qualifications.
d. The following plans or processes are in implementation:
(1) CM plans and implementation status for engineering documentation.
(2) Supplier and quality risk monitoring via the GIDEPs and NASA Advisories systems.
(3) Processes that achieve preservation of products.
(4) Counterfeit avoidance in procurements.
(5) Metrology and calibration.
(6) Materials, parts, and subassembly certifications.
(7) Nonconformance assessments by review boards.
(8) Self-assessment of conformance by the project with the quality requirements in the approved SMAP and adherence to established procedures.
e. Identification and status of known manufacturability, supplier, and quality risks including known supplier process changes.
F.8 Systems Integration Review (SIR) or KDP D Criteria
F.8.1 The following deliverables or objective evidence of accomplishments are recommended for review at the SIR or prior to KDP D.
a. Updates have been made to the SMAP to address QE and QA planning for launch and initiation operations.
b. Updates to the following items previously reviewed prior to KDP C and roll up of CDR reporting that occurred during Phase C include:
(1) Significant changes to the procurement approach and execution status.
(2) Significant changes to requirements flow-down or supplier waivers.
(3) Significant changes to critical item categorizations.
(4) Supply chain list cross-referenced to the mission hardware configuration.
(5) Supplier audit and assessment plan and status.
(6) PRR and TRR plan and implementation status.
(7) Surveillance plan and implementation status including additions made for launch operations.
(8) Status of emerging issues identified in GIDEPs and NASA Advisories.
(9) Configuration audit results.
c. Identification and status of known manufacturability, supplier, and quality risks including known supplier process changes.
d. Status and results for self-assessment of conformance by the program or project with the quality requirements in the approved SMAP and adherence to established procedures.
F.9 Operations Readiness Review (ORR), Launch Readiness Review (LRR) and KDP E Criteria
F.9.1 The following deliverables or objective evidence of accomplishments are recommended for review at the ORR, LRR or prior to KDP E.
a. Completed quality requirements and surveillance plans for launch and operations initiation.
b. The hardware certification and configuration audit status.
c. Identification and status of known manufacturability, supplier, and quality risks including known supplier process changes.
d. The overview of quality risks includes:
(1) Those related to interface controls and traceability to qualification status.
(2) Those related to supplier process or product changes.
e. A status and results report includes details on the self-assessment of conformance by the program or project with the quality requirements in the approved SMAP and adherence to established procedures.
| TOC | ChangeHistory | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | Chapter7 | Chapter8 | AppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | ALL | |
| | NODIS Library | Program Management(8000s) | Search | |
This document does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract. This document is uncontrolled when printed. Check the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) Library to verify that this is the correct version before use: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov.