Executive Summary

Background. The International Space Station (the Space Station) Program Office (the Program Office) is responsible for building and operating the Space Station and for ensuring that it is safe, productive, affordable, and on schedule. A 1998 agreement (1) between NASA and each of the Space Station international partners (2) established the international partner contributions and levels of participation. Under the Space Station Agreement, the international partners agreed to provide and support critical Space Station hardware and functions that include guidance, navigation, control, propulsion, life support, extravehicular robotics, crew rescue capability, research modules and pressurized and unpressurized logistics resupply. Because the Space Station Program depends on timely and reliable performance and support from the international partners, adequate plans must exist to respond to international partner contingencies that could jeopardize Space Station survival and successful assembly. Objectives. The overall objective was to determine whether NASA had developed adequate plans for international partner contingencies that present risks to the Space Station Program. Specific objectives were to determine whether NASA had identified significant international partner contingencies and had developed adequate plans to prevent and/or mitigate them. Also, we determined whether NASA was effectively updating and revising its contingency plans. Details on the objectives, scope, and methodology used for this audit are in Appendix A. Results of Audit. The Space Station Program Office had developed a draft "International Space Station Program: Overview of Contingency Plans" (the Program contingency plan). A section of the plan identified 14 critical international partner contingencies (see Appendix B) that could cause a serious threat to Space Station assembly and operations. However, this section of the Program contingency plan did not include or clearly identify several critical elements for effective risk management, as required by Agency guidance. Specifically, the plan did not contain cost and schedule impacts and did not clearly identify mitigation measures and primary consequences of the contingencies. Further, the Program Office did not have a process that ensured the contingency plan was kept current. Specifically, the Program plan did not include some actions being taken to prevent further Russian delays. Also, the contingency plan did not address the Year 2000 computer problem. (3) Until the Program contingency plan is complete, NASA cannot fully reduce Space Station risks through advance planning and the establishment of response plans. Further, without estimated costs, the Agency, the Administration, and the Congress cannot adequately assess the feasibility of proposed responses or determine budgetary impact. Recommendations. NASA should establish procedures to ensure the Program contingency plan complies with Agency guidance for effective risk management and establish a process to ensure the contingency plan is kept current. Management's Response. Management concurred with the intent of the recommendations and stated it was fully complying with NASA Procedures and Guidelines (NPG) 7120.5A, "NASA Program and Project Management Processes and Requirements," April 3, 1998, through its Space Station Risk Management System, which, by extension, includes the contingency plan. Management agreed to include risk mitigation measures, consequences, and schedule impacts in future updates to the contingency plan and to implement regular reviews and updates to the plan. However, detailed cost would be maintained in a separate table rather than in the plan because the cost data is sensitive information. Further, the Year 2000 issue would not be included in the plan because it is a design issue and the plan is intended to cover assembly and operations issues. In addition, management did not specify in the contingency plan actions to prevent further Russian delays, such as Space Shuttle Orbiter modifications and the $60 million Russian contract, because those actions had not yet been finalized. Evaluation of Response. Management's planned actions are responsive to include risk mitigation measures, consequences, and schedule impacts in the contingency plan and to conduct regular reviews and keep the contingency plan current. In addition, management's alternative plan to maintain cost information in a separate table is responsive. However, the Program contingency plan does not comply with NPG 7120.5A as a result of the stated compliance of the Space Station Risk Management System (4) because, as management acknowledged, the Program contingency plan contains scenarios not found in the Risk Management System. Further, management's decision to exclude from the contingency plan the Year 2000 issue and the planned actions to prevent further Russian delays is not responsive. Therefore, we request that management further review its position on these matters and provide additional comments.

Rev. 3/16/99