MISSION CAPABILITY SUBFACTORS
MISSION CAPABILITY SUBFACTORS | ||||
IDPS/C3 Demonstration and Architecture | ||||
Relevancy Rating Equally relevant to hardware and software contracts | Very Relevant During the past 5 years, Concept Definition and/or Risk Reduction for new or enhanced system; AND cost/performance trades | Relevant During the past 5 years, Risk Reduction and/or EMD for new or enhanced system; OR cost performance trades | Somewhat Relevant During the past 5 years, the work on this contract involved only production (little development effort) | Not Relevant No cost control targets such as FFP, grants, etc (unless the questionnaire indicates otherwise) |
Performance Guidance | Exceptional = Blue | Satisfactory = Green | Marginal = Yellow | Unsatisfactory = Red |
ASP/CAIV performance considerations: Ability to develop a system which meets or exceed requirements within cost; Effectiveness at conducting cost-performance trades; Extent to which total LCC considerations affected design decisions | ||||
System Engineering and Program Execution | ||||
Relevancy Rating Note: If sensor has not been flight tested, decrease relevancy by at least one point. | Very Relevant Space sensor of similar function and complexity (ex. Multi channel IR Sounder) | Relevant Space sensor of similar complexity, not necessarily same function (ex. land and/or oceanographic sensor) | Somewhat Relevant Any space sensor;
| Not Relevant
No sensor development |
Performance Guidance Sensor performance | Exceptional = Blue Exceeds requirements and longevity demonstrated in-orbit | Satisfactory = Green Meets requirements | Marginal = Yellow Did not meet all requirements (minor rework, delivered with waivers, etc) | Unsatisfactory = Red Failed flight or ground testing (significant rework, contract terminated, etc) |
Additional sensor design performance considerations: Ability to assess and/or implement new technology; Ability to develop system without excessive government intervention or performance waivers; Effective user involvement in design process Accountability for lifetime requirements; | ||||
Architectural Concept | ||||
Relevancy Rating Note: If algorithm or software has not been tested with operational data, or implemented in an operational system, decrease relevancy by at least one point. | Very Relevant Algorithm of similar function and complexity (ex. Algorithms to produce EDRs from space borne meteorological, oceanographic, and/or land sensor data) | Relevant Algorithm of similar complexity to that required for PD&RR EDRs, but not necessarily same function; OR algorithms/software for calibration of complex meteorological sensors during ground tests) | Somewhat Relevant Algorithms/software to operate/control complex space borne sensors | Not Relevant No algorithm or software developed |
Performance Guidance Algorithm performance | Exceptional = Blue Exceeds requirements | Satisfactory = Green Meets requirements | Marginal = Yellow Did not meet all requirements but and can be easily improved or is still usable to meet requirements | Unsatisfactory = Red Deficient or difficult to implement operationally |
Additional Algorithm/S/W development performance considerations: Ability to implement new science Effectiveness at utilizing existing code Thoroughness of documentation | ||||
Risk Mitigation | ||||
Relevancy Rating More relevant to sensor than to software contracts | Very Relevant Space sensor project of similar complexity with: complex satellite interfaces AND extensive T&E (i.e. at least through OT&E); | Relevant Space sensor project of similar complexity which has undergone DT&E; OR any space sensor or algorithm project which has undergone OT&E; | Somewhat Relevant Any space sensor or algorithm project for which test/integration program not demonstrated | Not Relevant No sensor algorithm or software developed |
Performance Guidance | Exceptional = Blue | Satisfactory = Green | Marginal = Yellow | Unsatisfactory = Red |
SEIT performance considerations: Adequacy of test program (calibration, integration, post launch test support, etc) Effectiveness of requirements tracking; error allocation Ability to identify, track, and mitigate risks Ability to address spacecraft interface issues Completeness of system documentation | ||||
External Interfaces | ||||
Relevancy Rating Equally relevant to sensor and software contracts | Very Relevant Space sensor or algorithm project of similar purpose, function, and complexity | Relevant Space sensor or algorithm project of similar complexity, not necessarily same function | Somewhat Relevant Any sensor or software development | Not Relevant No sensor or software development |
Performance Guidance | Exceptional = Blue | Satisfactory = Green | Marginal = Yellow | Unsatisfactory = Red |
Program Management performance considerations: Ability to design and deliver to cost (plan tasks with realistic costs and schedules) Ability to respond to funding shortfalls, directed scope changes, and keep program office informed of impacts Effectiveness in using metrics to track and measure progress Ability to manage subcontractors (relevant only to evaluation of prime contractor contracts) Ability to conduct effective IPTs including associate contractors, subcontractors, government etc | ||||