Detailed Information on the
National Security Space Weather Programs Assessment

Successfully deliver sensors to support the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) launch in FY09

Successfully execute restructured program for on-time C1 launch

Successfully meet the FY07 Interim Program Plan goals and successfully execute the Nunn-McCurdy program restructure.

Measure: NPOESS Technical Performance Measurements (TPM)

Explanation:TPMs of NPOESS system Requirements. These are measurements of how well NPOESS is delivering the system characteristics described in the IORD. There are eight Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and 55 Environmental Data records (EDRs) that the NPOESS system will deliver. Six KPPs are EDRs and two KPPs are system performance capabilities.

Measure: C1 Launch Date

Explanation:Upon successful calibration/validation of NPOESS C1, users will begin to receive data from NPOESS sensors to assist in their specific environmental monitoring mission.

Measure: DMSP Constellation Sustainment

Explanation:Statistical summary of system operational availability and data delivery to users.

Measure: NPOESS SPI/EVMS

Explanation:Schedule Performance Measure This data is reported on a monthly basis by the prime contractor to the IPO. This is the data that will flag a schedule overrun on a particular part of the program.

Measure: National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System cost performance index (CPI) is a better measures of how efficiently the program's funding is being managed.

Explanation:The CPI is an indicator of the cost performance efficiency achieved on a contract and is used to analyze cost performance on defense contracts. A stable CPI indicates that a contractor has a healthy management system. CPI increases the reliability placed in the contractor's planning process, gives confidence in our Estimate at Completion computations, and if a contractor is overrunning his budget, it gives confidence when declaring the contractor in trouble. (= 1 means that the cost of completing the work is right on plan (good); > 1 means that the cost of completing the work is less than planned (good or sometimes bad). Having a CPI that is very high (in some cases, very high is only 1.2) may mean that the plan was too conservative, and thus a very high number may in fact not be good, since the CPI is being measured against a poor baseline. Management or the customer may be upset with the planners since an overly conservative baseline ties up available funds for other purposes, and the baseline is also used for manpower planning.

Measure: NPOESS CDR

Explanation:Successful Completion of CDR. CDR is a critical review of the entire system that must be successfully passed before the program can go into final production/deployment. The review board at a CDR is made up of a team of government reviewers that critically looks at each area of the program to ensure that user requirements are being successfully met by the design and intended implementation of the system.

Measure: NPP Ground System Readiness

Explanation:Integrated Data Processing Segment (IDPS) available to process NPP data. This will demonstrate the ability to process data collected by NPP sensors on the ground and once processed, distribute data products to the user community with NASA, DOC and DoD.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) and NPOESS programs purposes are clear. DMSP's primary mission is to provide global high-resolution cloud imagery in support of Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community missions. DMSP's secondary mission is to collect and disseminate other critical air, land, sea, and space environment data to support a broad range of national security users. NPOESS will continue this mission by supporting military and civil weather/science community needs and is Congressionally supported.

Evidence: DMSP System Operational Requirements Documents (26 Dec 1990) to provide comprehensive global air, land, sea, and space environmental data collection for national security users. Mission Need Statement (AFSPACECOM 035-92) to provide DoD worldwide and regional sensing of atmospheric, space environment, oceanographic, and terrestrial conditions to support military planning. Presidential Decision Directive/NSTC-2 (5 May 1994) to converge US civil and military polar-orbiting environmental satellites to reduce costs, while satisfying US operational needs. Integrated Operational Requirements Document II (IORD II) (10 Dec 2001) to provide regular and reliable global imagery to US military and civil users. Approved by the tri-agency (DoD, DOC, NASA) Executive Committee (EXCOM).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: DMSP is a critical element of the DoD's force structure enabling current and predictive battlespace awareness in support of the full range of strategic, tactical, and special military and intelligence operations. DMSP's vantage point in space allows it to "reach-into" data denied areas collecting weather observations required for effective mission planning and execution. This access has been particularly critical in supporting the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which is primarily being fought in remote areas that do not have indigenous environmental monitoring networks of sufficient density and fidelity to support US operations and weapons systems. NPOESS continues this mission by serving as a single, integrated polar-orbiting satellite system satisfying both civil and military national security requirements for space-based, remotely sensed environmental data that will significantly improve weather forecasting and climate prediction to enable effective employment of weapon systems and aid in the protection of national resources (safety, life, and property).

Evidence: The Mission Need Statement (AFSPACECOM 035-92) identifies the DoD need for polar-orbiting environmental data and is reaffirmed by PDD-NSTC-2 (5 May 1994) for the need of a converged polar-orbiting environmental satellite system. Classified assessments for DMSP are available upon request.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: There is an element of redundancy to the existing DMSP and civil Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) systems that will be resolved with the NPOESS systems. DMSP's mission has been tailored and optimized to support national security user requirements for global weather data. Similarly, the civil POES system was tailored and optimized to support civil missions that do not necessarily mirror those of the national security community. However, the US government long ago recognized that both defense and civil requirements could be fulfilled with a single platform flying a suite of sensors optimized to fulfill both missions. NPOESS will eliminate programmatic and system redundancy by converging the civil and military polar-orbiting environmental satellites with one integrated system. User needs that are addressed by NPOESS are derived from existing DMSP and POES requirements. There are no state, local, or private efforts redundant to the US Government's operational polar-orbiting environmental satellite systems.

Evidence: DMSP/POES Convergence Materials Handbook, Oct 1991; ENVIROSAT-2000 Report, Comparison of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) and the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite Program (POES), Oct 1985; Presidential Decision Directive/NSTC-2, 5 May 1994, directs the convergence of the civil (POES) and DoD (DMSP) polar-orbiting environmental satellites into one integrated system. The Integrated Operational Requirements Document II, 10 Dec 2001 (approved by the tri-agency (DoD, DOC, NASA) Executive Committee) identifies Key Performance Parameters and other environmental parameters to be met by NPOESS as recommended by the NPOESS Senior Users Advisory Group.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: DMSP has no major performance limiting design flaws and NPOESS is being designed to meet its system Key Performance Parameters. There are a few DMSP spacecraft and sensor deficiencies that are being resolved to maintain optimal mission effectiveness and reduce the risk of gaps in operational coverage through program fly-out and the transition to NPOESS. It is the position of the DoD and DOC that the NPOESS program does not have any major flaws in the design and ultimate delivery of capability to both military and civil users. However, the DoD and DOC do acknowledge that there is an increased level of both technical and programmatic risk associated with the development and delivery of the NPOESS system. At the inception of the program in 1994, NPOESS was directed to combine two separate environmental monitoring system requirements onto a single platform. The decision was made to accept a higher amount of programmatic and technical risk to achieve overall cost savings by containing cost growth to the one system instead of two. In 2004, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy directed NASA and NOAA to develop a follow-on to LandSat 7 that would be integrated and flown on the NPOESS spacecraft. This has also increased the programmatic risk to the program. Technical risk on NPOESS is challenging and has been seen in the development issues resulting in sensor delivery delays and impacts to the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) launch and NPOESS launch as well. The IPO is working closely with the prime contractor to resolve these risks and deliver an operational system that meets both military and civil environmental monitoring requirements. The DoD and DOC would consider the NPOESS system to have a major flaw if it did not meet its Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) as outlined in the Integrated Operational Requirements Document (IORD) II (10 Dec 2001). A KPP is defined as a measurable capability or characteristic a system must deliver or display when declared operational. Any system or program not meeting a KPP is candidate for program termination.

Evidence: The DMSP program office, spacecraft and sensor contractors, and user community have gauged operational performance of the DMSP system. Performance limiting deficiencies have been identified and steps are being taken by all stakeholders to resolve known deficiencies. The Tri-agency Memorandum of Agreement (26 May 1995), Integrated Operational Requirements Document II (10 Dec 2001), Test and Evaluation Master Plan (2 May 2002), Single Acquisition Management Plan (7 Jun 2002) and other related documents provide the organizational structure for the development and deployment of NPOESS. The Milestone Decision Authority for Space approved the NPOESS program to enter Key Decision Point-C (Acquisition & Operations) on 22 Aug 2002. Various ongoing independent cost reviews take place on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis to ensure resources are in place to achieve program objectives.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: DMSP holds quarterly Constellation Sustainment and Assessment Team (CSAT) meetings to ensure the program is optimized, within available resources, to seamlessly fulfill user requirements. The CSAT's assessments and recommendations are a critical factor the program's resource advocates use in determining where to direct resources and efforts to optimize support to the program's users (beneficiaries) and will apply to NPOESS. The NPOESS budget is submitted by the System Program Director and approved by the tri-agency (DoD, DOC, NASA) EXCOM before being vetted through the DoD and DOC funding process. The majority of the NPOESS budget is comprised of a systems contract with Northrop Grumman Space Technology (prime contractor). The NPOESS IPO works with NGST to ensure resources are effectively targeted to meet intended performance parameters recommended by the NPOESS Senior Users Advisory Group (SUAG).

Evidence: Quarterly CSAT meeting minutes; PDD/NSTC-2 (5 May 1994) directs the convergence of the civil (POES) and DoD (DMSP) polar-orbiting environmental satellites into one integrated system. The tri-agency MOA (26 May 1995) outlines the roles and responsibilities of each Agency, the EXCOM, and the Integrated Program Office. User needs are brought to the EXCOM through the SUAG for final approval. The System Program Director is responsible for managing, directing, and executing the development of NPOESS.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: DMSP tracks three specific long-term performance measures: space segment operational availability, Command/Control/Communication (C3) segment operational availability, and user segment operational availability. DMSP's operational performance is assessed on a weekly basis and long-term trends are integrated over longer periods as required. The NPOESS program tracks cost, schedule, and technical performance quantitatively on a monthly basis. The Earned Value Management System (EVMS) provides a measure on the status of NPOESS development, quality of delivered products, timeliness of data delivery, and progress towards major program milestones.

Evidence: DMSP's System Operational Requirements Document and weekly system operations status reports. Examples of some of the NPOESS reviews are weekly program Integrated Program Team reviews, monthly management reviews, quarterly EXCOM reviews, and annual DoD and OMB budget processes. Additionally, the NPOESS IORD II (10 Dec 2001) identifies KPPs and other environmental parameters to be met by NPOESS.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The required DMSP space segment availability is 0.91 over each satellite's minimum required 36-month mission duration; C3 segment availability is 0.998 over the notional 45-minute mission duration of hourly contracts; and the user segment's required availability is 0.988 per 24-hour period. The NPOESS Integrated Operational Requirements Document (IORD) II establishes the targets to be met by NPOESS. The NPOESS Integrated Program Office (IPO) and the primary contractor have established detailed schedules with a large number of milestones that are reviewed weekly, in order to support major program events.

Evidence: DMSP's System Operational Requirements Document and weekly system operations status reports. The NPOESS has an Integrated Master Plan and an Integrated Master Schedule that provides for the timely analysis/visibility in major program events/goals.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: DMSP's long-term goal is to provide seamless operational capability in each of the mission's two orbit planes until the mission transitions to NPOESS. The specific metrics for annual performance are identical to those performance metrics cited above and integrated over the course of a year. For NPOESS, a program schedule has been established between the IPO and the primary contractor, and is reviewed and analyzed constantly. Schedule profiles of major events are also tracked in the DoD yearly budget submission.

Evidence: DMSP's System Operational Requirements Document and weekly system operations status reports. NPOESS has an Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule that provides for the timely analysis/visibility in major program events/goals.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: DMSP's annual baselines and targets are identical to those performance metrics cited above and integrated over the course of a year. The NPOESS program established a fully integrated baseline during the re-plan (due to budget cuts) in February 2004. This baseline established all schedules and performance measures. Many target dates for milestones are tracked and discussed on a weekly basis. Each month a program review is held and all performance measures are reported and discussed. This process has identified sensor and funding issues that are actively being addressed by the program office, primary contractor, various sub-contractors, and the major stakeholders.

Evidence: DMSP's System Operational Requirements Document and weekly system operations status reports. NPOESS has an Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule. The plan provides for the timely analysis/visibility in major program events/goals, which is reported on a monthly basis through a Program Management Review.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: DMSP's contractor incentive payments are structured to support achievement of the required operational availability targets. Per the tri-agency NPOESS MOA (26 May 1995), the NPOESS program is funded 50/50 between DoD and DOC, with the DoD as the lead agency for acquisitions. Congressional language for the DOC supports this funding arrangement. The primary contractor and its sub-contractors create the detailed NPOESS schedule together with the Integrated Program Office (IPO). This process has identified sensor schedule delays, which as caused the program to slip. The IPO and prime contractor are working to minimize program and cost impacts. Replan options will be presented to the Tri-agency Steering Committee (TSC) in July 2005. The TSC recommendations will be presented to the NPOESS Executive Committee (EXCOM) for final approval. The EXCOM will then direct the Program Office to implement the approved replan, expected in July 2005. All major partners (DoD, NOAA, NASA) are involved in the day-to-day, weekly, and monthly program activities.

Evidence: DMSP contracts and incentive payment plans. The NPOESS Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (26 May 1995) and other MOAs between the three agencies ensure all partners work towards and fully support program goals. EXCOM Acquisition Decision Memorandums update and direct the program's budget and way-ahead. The Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule contractually obligate contractors to accomplish the long-term goals for NPOESS.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The DMSP Program Office commissions "tiger teams" as required to address specific program problems or emerging needs. Such efforts have been very successful in recommending cost effective program improvements that have increased the operational effectiveness and mission duration of the DMSP fleet. The NPOESS acquisition and execution follows the guidelines and policies of DoD procurement, which includes system testing and evaluation conducted by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC). An Independent Program Assessment was conducted before the program entered Milestone-C in Aug 2002. Since entering Milestone-C, there have been numerous milestone reviews, independent reviews and cost assessments, Government Accountability Office (GAO) led studies on the status of the program, and various other reports and studies concerning the status of the program, achievements, and ensuring user desires/concerns are being met.

Evidence: Mission enhancements implemented as a result of DMSP Tiger Teams: Solid State Mission Data Recorders, Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder modifications, Mini Inertial Measurement Units for attitude determination, Single Gyro software development, and primary mission sensor scan motor bearing replacement. The NPOESS Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) (May 2002) is the test roadmap for system test and evaluation. The NPOESS EXCOM has directed two Independent Program Assessments and two Independent Cost Assessments to verify program status, since program award. The GAO has also conducted yearly reviews on NPOESS status. The Senior Users Advisory Group (SUAG) leads studies and reviews that concern user issues or as directed by the EXCOM. The EXCOM also directs the OSD Cost Analysis Improvement Group, Air Force Cost Assessment Agency, and other groups to conduct program assessments, as needed.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: DMSP's budget is structured to ensure sustainment of seamless global weather monitoring in support of DoD and Intelligence Community operations. Any modification or enhancement to the program is explicitly presented to Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress in the annual budget review process. For NPOESS, changes are also identified in the program's Selected Acquisition Report. The EXCOM approves the annual NPOESS budget and Acquisition Program Baseline. Sensor schedule delays have caused schedule and cost impacts, causing the program to replan. Replan options will be presented to the Tri-Agency Steering Committee (TSC) in July 2005. The TSC recommendations will be presented to the EXCOM for final approval. The EXCOM will then direct the Program Office to implement the approved replan, expected in July 2005. Contractually, an Integrated Baseline Review is conducted, with a detailed Work Breakdown Structure, so annual results and all low-level milestones are linked to support major program events that are the NPOESS long-term performance goals. The NPOESS program is currently in a program re-baselining effort. Unitl this effort is completed, the accomplishment of the long-term goals and their impact on the budget is not apparent.

Evidence: DMSP and NPOESS Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget exhibits and OSD/OMB and Congressional staffer briefs. Additionally, NPOESS budget requests are fully vetted through DoD and DOC budget processes. The Acquisition Program Baseline, approved by the EXCOM, directs the Program Office to implement the approved baseline goals.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The tri-agency (DoD, DOC, NASA) stakeholders work constantly towards the goal of optimizing the transition from the legacy DMSP, POES, and Earth Observing Satellite (EOS) missions to NPOESS. Whenever a specific deficiency is identified, the partners collaboratively plan and execute adjustments to ensure a seamless operational transition between the legacy missions and NPOESS. Several such adjustments have been made to accommodate budget cuts. Currently, the stakeholders are actively addressing cost over-runs caused by sensor delivery slips to limit program impacts.

Evidence: An Integrated Baseline Review was completed in FY2004 to replan the NPOESS program to accommodate budget restrictions. Funding reductions in FY03/04 caused escalation of work, inefficiencies, and a two year level of effort extension that caused the EXCOM to direct the Program Office to replan the program. The new baseline was implemented in Dec 2003 and is reflected in the FY06 budget request. Similar activities are currently taking place to address the replan associated with sensor schedule slips and cost increases. The EXCOM is expected to approve the new replan in August 2005 and direct development of an updated Acquisition Program Baseline.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: The NPOESS acquisition process required the competing teams to perform and extensive list of alternatives and trade-offs including Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV). The Integrated Program Office (IPO) performed very detailed analysis of the competing teams' proposals. Cost, schedule, risk, and technical performance were explicit issues that were addressed. The IPO not only used internal staff, but highly experienced support contractors and other experts from the Government and user community. This is an on going process that will be used in deliberating the current program challenges.

Evidence: The acquisition milestone review that allowed NPOESS to enter into the manufacturing stage fully vetted this concern. DoD and the Air Force have extensive documentation capturing acquisition processes and decisions that led the program from concept to milestone B/C implementation.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The DMSP System Program Office receives weekly system operational status updates during periods of nominal system operations and more frequent performance feedback during periods of anomalous system performance. The program's system engineering staff, operations crews, users, and management use this performance feedback to make any required changes to improve system performance. The major NPOESS partners (DoD, DOC, NASA) are involved in the day-to-day, weekly, and monthly activities. The IPO conducts weekly meetings with team leads and the primary contractor to assess progress, review schedules, and discuss issues with program development. On a monthly basis, the program conducts a Program Management Review, where concerns, risks, and mitigation plans are presented. The (PMR) also has "splinter" sessions on selected issues to discuss and analyze alternatives in more depth. The results of the PMR are reported to the EXCOM and briefed to the Tri-Agency Steering Committee (TSC) on a monthly basis. On a quarterly basis, or as needed, the EXCOM is briefed on program status for high-level decision/directions.

Evidence: DMSP weekly operations status reports, CSAT meeting minutes, and Program Management Review meeting minutes. The NPOESS IPO, on a weekly basis, reviews program cost, schedule, performance, and risk. Program status is presented to Congress via the Selected Acquisition Report, the yearly budget submission, and as needed. Specific aspects of the program are reported to the GAO in support of their annual assessment and other NPOESS specific studies. The TSC receives monthly briefings from the Program Director. In addition, the EXCOM receives monthly status reports from the Program Director and is briefed quarterly, or as needed. The Program Office also submits earned value data that shows cost expenditures on a monthly basis.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The DMSP System Program Director (SPD) is ultimately accountable to the Air Force Space Command's Commander for DMSP cost, schedule, and performance results. Additionally, the DMSP contractors' are accountable to the DMSP SPD for cost, schedule, and performance results. On a monthly basis, all segments of the NPOESS program are accountable and held responsible for their projects using earned value analysis to provide details about cost, schedule, and technical performance. The NPOESS cost plus award fee contract is managed through monthly, earned value management reports that are reviewed by the Tri-agency Steering Committee (TSC). The prime contractor is evaluated every 6 months on cost, schedule, and technical performance to determine award fees. In the last two years, the prime contract has received most of its possible total award for a six-month period. Given recent cost and schedule overruns in the NPOESS program, there is not sufficient evidence that program managers and contractors are adequately held accountable for its performance. The program should also work to improve how its research partners are held accountable for schedule and performance. The NPOESS Program Director provides monthly reports to the EXCOM on the status of NPOESS, and briefs the EXCOM at least every 6-months. The TSC is briefed on program status on a monthly basis. The program holds monthly program reviews, where the prime contractor and all sensor sub-contractors report on the status of their project. All interested partners are welcome to attend these meetings. The IPO evaluates the prime contractor every 6-months on cost, schedule, technical performance, etc. Strengths and weaknesses are evaluated, and award fee is based on contractor performance.

Evidence: Regular DMSP internal government program management reviews and program management reviews between the DMSP System Program Office (SPO) and associated contractors. The NPOESS Program Director is held accountable for the program's performance based on Selected Acquisition Reports, monthly status reports to the EXCOM, and briefings to the TSC on a monthly basis, the EXCOM on a quarterly or as needed basis, and various other staffs. Contracts and award fee structure, and program manager performance plans.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: DMSP executes all funds in a timely manner and in accordance with annual program funding plans presented to and appropriated by Congress. The NPOESS program consistently meets or exceeds the DoD goals for obligation and expenditure rates. All funding transactions are reviewed and approved by both the NPOESS Chief Finance Officer and Program Director before being distributed to the prime contractor. Contractor award fee is based on cost, schedule, and technical performance and is evaluated every 6-months.

Evidence: DMSP Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) and Procurement budget exhibits and monthly funds execution updates. NPOESS abides by the DOC and DoD funding rules and regulations. Expenditures are tracked through the contractually required submission of earned value data. Financial transactions are audited annually.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Within the past three years the DMSP System Program Office (SPO) has awarded, based on competitive sourcing, two prime contracts for integration, test, and sustainment of the DMSP spacecraft and sensor suites, respectively. The contractors are motivated by incentive payments to achieve and surpass mission requirements. The NPOESS Integrated Operational Requirements Document (IORD) II (10 Dec 2001) details the requirements of the spacecraft and ground segment to be met by the prime contractor. The IORD II reflects the needs and requirements of the various user communities to meet their various mission goals. The contractors are expect to provide cost effective solutions to technical and cost challenges to meet these goals through the use of award fees and mission success fees. The NPOESS Acquisition Program Baseline (updated Jan 2005) serves as an efficiency measure to ensure the NPOESS baseline and KPPs are being met.

Evidence: DMSP contracts and monthly Earned Value Management reporting. NPOESS IORD II (10 Dec 2001); NPOESS Acquisition Program Baseline (updated Jan 2005) and other interface control documents. NPOESS abides by the DOC and DoD funding rules and regulations. The cost, schedule, and technical progress are tracked through the contractually required submission of earned value data.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NPOESS is a Presidentially directed tri-agency (DoD, DOC, NASA) program that converges the current DoD (DMSP) and civil (POES) polar-orbiting environmental satellites into a single program. The NPOESS Program Director has been delegated Satellite Control Authority for DMSP as a first step towards full mission convergence. The tri-agency MOA (26 May 1995) outlines the roles and responsibilities of each agency in developing NPOESS. Defense and civil user communities also regularly participate with the development of NPOESS.

Evidence: POES and DMSP are an integrated part of the NPOESS program. The NPOESS director has direct responsibility for the DMSP operations. In addition, the POES and NPOESS Program Managers meet regularly to discuss program integration. Other evidence includes PDD/NSTC-2 (5 May 1994) and the tri-agency MOA (26 May 1995).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: DoD's financial management weaknesses are well documented. While DoD continues to make efforts to improve them, the Department has yet to obtain an unqualified audit opinion. The Air Force does not have audit reports demonstrating that the NPOESS program is free from internal weaknesses. Moreover, DoD's plan to obtain a department-wide unqualified audit opinion has continued to slip from its planned milestones, which warrants a "no" for this question.

Evidence: None of the reports or audits specifically cite the NPOESS program for material financial weaknesses, however none of the audits specifically looked at that aspect of the program. Numerous audits document DoD's financial management weaknesses. Because of the magnitude of its problems, DoD is unlikely to obtain an unqualified opinion for some time.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The DMSP and NPOESS prime contractors present top concerns and issues to the Program Directors during regular Program Management Reviews. For NPOESS, lower level contractors and program office personnel are constantly communicating and discussing current or potential issues or risks. If an issue cannot be resolved at a low level, the issue is raised to higher program office and contractor management using the formal issue resolution process. Also, at any time, the NPOESS EXCOM or Tri-agency Steering Committee (TSC) can direct an independent review of the program, or particular part of the program, to ensure issues are being adequately resolved.

Evidence: For DMSP, any management deficiencies that cannot be resolved at the regular program management reviews will be elevated to Air Force Space Command's Space and Missile Systems Center leadership for resolution. For NPOESS, management deficiencies are addressed using the Integrated Program Team process between IPO personnel and the contractors. The EXCOM or TSC can also direct independent reviews and cost assessments to ensure and verify management issues are being addressed in the most cost efficient and timely manner.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: The DMSP System Operational Requirements Document references the most critical required capabilities DMSP must fulfill: one satellite with a fully operational primary mission sensor package operating in each of two orbital planes. NPOESS will meet 55 Environmental Data Records (6 KPPs) as defined in the IORD II. The satellite program has clearly defined technical performance requirements and data products that are expected for each acquisition. Earned value management reporting of contractor progress on cost, schedule, and performance are tracked on a monthly basis for all large contracts and acquisitions. However, due to recent cost and schedule overruns in the NPOESS program, there is not sufficient evidence that the program is managed by appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals.

Evidence: The DMSP System Operational Requirements Document. The NPOESS IORD II (10 Dec 2001) identifies KPPs and other environmental parameters to be met by NPOESS. Program requirements are documented in NPOESS plans and contractor agreements. Plans and schedules are in place and monitored in monthly Earned Value Management reports, to help meet the many contractually binding requirements that exist to ensure program capabilities are met.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: DMSP consistently achieves the program's long-term mission performance goals and is projected to maintain this performance through the life of the program. The Acquisition Program Baseline's (APB) Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for NPOESS defines the long-term goals for cost, schedule, and performance. Due to budget reductions in FY03/04, the APB was updated in Jan 2005. Currently, portions of the program are making excellent progress towards the long-term performance goals. However, the cost and schedule performance of the sensor development effort remains problematic. Several sensors are experiencing development problems that will cause cost and schedule impacts to interim milestones. The program does have mitigation plans in place to account for these problems and will update the APB.

Evidence: DMSP's operations status reports and monthly acquisition reports. The current NPOESS APB was approved in Jan 2005. The APB will be updated following a program replan in July 2005 to reflect sensor developmental challenges and schedule impacts. The program has an Integrated Master Plan/Schedule that provides visibility into major program events/goals. The IORD II (10 Dec 2001) contains the six KPPs directly related to sensors that the program must meet along with a transition schedule from the legacy systems to NPOESS.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: DMSP consistently achieves the program's annual mission performance goals and is projected to maintain this performance through the life of the program. The NPOESS program has been successful in meeting the majority of its FY05 annual performance goals (major program milestones). Sensor development has been challenging, impacting the program's cost and schedule. The Program Office and prime contractor are developing plans (to be approved by the EXCOM) to minimize program impacts.

Evidence: DMSP's operations status reports and monthly acquisition reports. Formal program reviews (PMRs) have occurred on schedule. The NPOESS Preliminary Design Review was completed in Jun 2005. The Space-Ground Compatibility Test #1 for NPP occurred one month ahead of schedule, in early FY05. Delivery of the Flight Vehicle Simulator for NPP has been delayed. Delivery of the VIIRS EDU, which is behind schedule, has shown improvement in recent months. Since Dec 2004, the VIIRS team has met each of the incremental schedule milestones that have been laid out.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: In Nov 2004, the DMSP System Program Office (SPO) awarded a contract that consolidates multiple separate sensor contracts under a single prime sensor contract. This contract consolidation provides cost, management, and technical efficiencies that were unachievable when the SPO was the sole manager of the multiple individual sensor contracts. The DMSP Consolidated Sensors Support and Services (CSS&S) contract is a key example of the program's ongoing pursuit of improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness. NPOESS uses cost effectiveness, risk analysis & mitigation, and problem resolution practices as criteria for the prime contractor evaluations and award fee success. The program is a cost-plus award fee effort that contains incentives to achieve cost, schedule, and performance goals with the primary contractor.

Evidence: DMSP's CSS&S contract. The NPOESS award fee has been used as a tool to incentivize and the program office has reduced the turn-around time for award fee feedback to provide Northrup Grumman Space Technology (NGST) additional time to incorporate award fee recommendations. System-level trades are driven by cost and seek the most cost effective solution. Examples of recent trades driven by cost include Space Environment Sensor Suite (SESS), 8500 tailoring, and the decision to partner with NASA for Field Terminal verification testing.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: DMSP continues to be effectively managed within cost and performance thresholds contained in the program baseline while maintaining seamless operational capability on-orbit. This performance compares favorably to other operational national security satellite systems. The NPOESS program is very similar to any large satellite procurement in terms of delivering capabilities on cost and schedule. The effort associated with fielding significant improvements to the US's environmental sensing capabilities has resulted in cost and schedule challenges typical for such an endeavor.

Evidence: DMSP's operations status reports and monthly acquisition reports. Financial reports documenting NPOESS performance include the 2004 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), program update briefings and congressional budget justification briefings, as well as various GAO, OMB, and independent reviews of the program.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Since the NPOESS contract award (Aug 2002), two Independent Program Assessments were completed along with two Independent Cost Estimates. The GAO also conducts yearly reviews. All assessments have agreed with the Program Office's internal assessments of NPOESS program performance. The latest Independent Review Team's (IRT) findings indicate some issues with the risk reduction mission and that there will be some impacts to NPOESS. The IRT findings are being reviewed by the Integrated Program Office (IPO) and Tri-agency Steering Committee (TSC). The EXCOM will be notified of the final results in Aug 2005.

Evidence: Findings from each of the independent assessments can be found in the briefing material for following EXCOM meetings: Air Force Cost Analysis Agency Independent Cost Estimate (Apr 2003); Aerospace Corp "quick-look" Independent Program Assessment (Jun 2004); Aerospace Corp Space Environment Sensor Suite (SESS) Independent Program Assessment (Jul 2004); OSD/Cost Analysis Improvement Group Independent Cost Assessment (Jan 2005); NPOESS Preparatory Project Independent Review Team (May 2005).

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: DMSP annual budget request contains little to no management reserve funding and therefore requires additional funding each year via below threshold reprogramming to resolve technical challenges while maintaining and optimizing operational capability. NPOESS has achieved the majority of its FY05 goals. However, delivery of the Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) Engineering Design Unit (EDU) has been delayed and current FY06 and out schedules are in jeopardy due to cost overruns in sensor development.

Evidence: DMSP 's operations status reports and monthly acquisition reports. NPOESS budget data can be found in the monthly Program Management Reviews and earned value data can be obtained out of the Winsight database. Elements of the NPOESS program continue to perform well in spite of overall program status. In FY05, the first space-ground compatibility test was completed, the system Preliminary Design Review was completed, and the C3 segment completed Factory Acceptance Testing and is under budget.