1. Requirements

2.1.2.5 The NASA Chief, SMA shall authorize appraisals against selected requirements in this NPR to check compliance.

1.1 Notes

NPR 7150.2, NASA Software Engineering Requirements, does not include any notes for this requirement.

1.2 History

2. Rationale

The Headquarters' Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) is responsible for promoting and monitoring software engineering, assurance, and safety practices throughout the agency. It achieves this in part by administering software requirements, policies, procedures, processes, statutes, and regulations. The Headquarters' OSMA uses continuing periodic oversight of compliance at the Centers and programs/projects to verify that this responsibility is being met.

NPR 7150.2 ⁰⁸³ serves as the basis for compliance appraisals for software engineering, software assurance, software safety, and IV&V. The appraisal typically occurs during a QAAR audit of a project's or Center's processes and directives and thorough examinations of an official record. These audits are one of the tools used by the OSMA to provide oversight, maintain internal control, and review its operations.

While SWE-129 - OCE NPR Appraisals is written from the OSMA point of view, the requirement also contains an inherent Center role, i.e., participation in the OSMA audit activities. A Center's support of this SWE can be assessed by considering the extent of its preparations for and involvement in these OSMA audits and surveys.

2.1 Key Rationale for the Requirement

1. Ensuring Accountability and Oversight

The purpose of having the NASA Chief, SMA authorize appraisals is to establish a clear line of accountability and authority for verifying compliance with the requirements outlined in the NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR). This ensures that there is a high-level organizational commitment to maintaining safety, mission assurance, and cybersecurity across all NASA programs and projects.

Having this centralized oversight helps avoid inconsistencies in compliance evaluations across various mission teams and ensures that a uniform standard of rigor is applied to appraisals.

2. Mitigating Risks to Mission Success

Space missions involve complex systems, software, and hardware integration, which are susceptible to a broad range of risks, including cybersecurity threats. By authorizing appraisals against selected requirements, the Chief, SMA, proactively identifies and mitigates gaps in compliance that could jeopardize mission safety, operational objectives, or cybersecurity integrity.

When cybersecurity requirements are not rigorously verified, the system may be vulnerable to malicious attacks, data breaches, or operational disruptions. This appraisal process helps NASA minimize these risks by systematically checking compliance with approved safety and security protocols.

3. Supporting NASA’s Culture of Safety and Continuous Improvement

NASA’s procedural requirements reflect its long-standing culture of prioritizing safety and mission assurance. By mandating appraisal authorization at the Chief, SMA level, the requirement reinforces this culture and ensures continuous improvement through regular review and feedback.

Appraisals authorized by the SMA leadership allow for Lessons Learned from previous missions to be integrated into the appraisal process, thereby improving the compliance, security, and resilience of mission-critical systems over time.

4. Aligning with NASA’s Governance Structure

The Chief, SMA, is strategically positioned within NASA’s governance structure to oversee safety, risk management, and mission assurance requirements. As such, requiring appraisal authorization at this level ensures compliance activities are aligned with broader agency objectives, including adherence to federal cybersecurity standards (e.g., NIST publications, FISMA).

Incorporating appraisals against selected requirements ensures that programs align with overarching NASA and government compliance frameworks, reducing audit vulnerabilities and preserving NASA’s reputation for responsible program management and risk assessment.

5. Targeting Resources Effectively

Given the scope and complexity of NASA's projects, not every requirement or system can be evaluated thoroughly at all times. Enabling the Chief, SMA, to authorize appraisals ensures that resources are targeted toward the most critical areas of mission systems, based on risk assessment, importance to the mission, and cybersecurity implications.

This selective approach ensures that the appraisal process is both efficient and effective, focusing on requirements with the highest potential impact on safety, security, and mission assurance.

6. Building Confidence in System Readiness

Appraisals authorized by the Chief, SMA, serve as a final "check and balance" to ensure that no gaps in compliance are overlooked before critical mission phases or milestones. This builds confidence in system readiness and operational resilience among mission stakeholders, the public, and external regulatory entities.

Regularly reviewing compliance against NASA's procedural requirements, especially in areas related to cybersecurity, allows potential problems to be identified and addressed before they can escalate, ensuring mission success.

7. Demonstrating Adherence to High Standards

In addition to internal requirements, NASA is obligated to demonstrate adherence to government-wide standards and industry best practices in safety, assurance, and cybersecurity (e.g., FISMA, NIST SP 800-37 Risk Management Framework ⁶⁹⁸). Authorizing appraisals demonstrates NASA’s proactive commitment to meeting these standards and ensuring compliance through formalized, high-level oversight.

This formal process provides documentation and accountability that can be used to demonstrate NASA’s due diligence in audits, inquiries, and international collaborations, strengthening NASA’s credibility and leadership in space exploration.

2.2 Conclusion

The rationale for requiring the NASA Chief, SMA, to authorize appraisals lies in the need for centralized oversight, risk mitigation, appropriate resource targeting, and adherence to both internal and external regulatory standards. This requirement reflects NASA’s dedication to mission assurance and its culture of continuous improvement, ensuring that its systems and processes are safe, secure, and mission-ready.

3. Guidance

The guidance provided for the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) compliance audit process is comprehensive and addresses many important aspects of ensuring safety, mission assurance, and compliance in NASA projects. The following guidance was updated for clarity, readability, and functionality. It is better organized, uses more concise language, refines the focus to make the guidance actionable and user-friendly, and ensures it is clear to all stakeholders what is involved in the OSMA audit process.

3.1 Purpose and Objectives of OSMA Audits

The Headquarters OSMA manages and maintains an audit process for periodic compliance audits and surveys of NASA Centers, projects, and relevant NASA Headquarters organizations. The primary goals of these audits are to:

1. Assess Organizational Compliance:
   Evaluate NASA Centers and specified NASA Headquarters organizations for compliance with OSMA safety, reliability, maintainability, quality assurance, and mission success requirements. This includes adherence to policies, statutes, regulations, and defined processes.

2. Review Program/Project Compliance Files:
   Examine specific program or project documentation to ensure compliance with OSMA policies, requirements, and applicable standards.

3. Identify Systemic Issues:
   Detect and document systemic problems or deficiencies that require corrective actions or improvements.

4. Recognize Best Practices:
   Identify and recognize areas of excellence and best practices that can be shared across NASA.

5. Collect Feedback:
   Gather feedback from Centers and projects to recommend meaningful modifications to Agency policies and requirements.

3.2 Core Elements of OSMA Audits

OSMA audits currently focus on the following mission-critical areas:

1. Development and application of a standardized framework for the program/project life cycle.
2. Implementation of program and project review structures (e.g., technical reviews).
3. Enforcement of technical authority policies.
4. Identification, assessment, and mitigation of software risks.
5. Assessment of the dissenting opinions and waiver/deviation process.
6. Software engineering, assurance, and safety management.
7. Integration and implementation of systems engineering principles.
8. Application and tracking of Lessons Learned.
9. Implementation of technical standards.
10. Additional focus areas as determined by mission context or evolving best practices.

3.3 Key Documents for Review During OSMA Audits

In addition to compliance with NPR 7150.2: NASA Software Engineering Requirements ⁰⁸³, OSMA audits include a review and appraisal of products resulting from the implementation of key standards, such as:

• NPD 7120.4E ²⁵⁷: NASA Engineering and Program/Project Management Policy.
• NASA-STD-8739.8 ²⁷⁸: Software Assurance and Software Safety Standard.
• Supporting documents and software engineering products, as outlined below.

See also Topic 8.12 - Basics of Software Auditing and Topic 8.59 - Audit Reports.

3.4 Audit Responsibilities

1. Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA):
   Provides policy direction and oversight for Agency safety, reliability, quality, and mission assurance activities. Serves as an advisory resource for the NASA Administrator and senior officials regarding safety and mission success.

2. NASA Safety Center (NSC):
   Manages the audit, review, and assessment process in coordination with OSMA, to evaluate conformance with Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA) requirements.

3. Project and Center Organizations:
   Support the audit process by providing requested documentation, facilitating access to systems and data, and addressing any findings from the audit report.

3.5 Scope of OSMA Audits

The scope of OSMA audits extends to software assurance, engineering, and safety standards compliance. Specific focus areas include:

• Safety-critical software requirements: Review determination, implementation, and tailored requirements.
• Software Assurance activities: Analyze approach, plan, resource allocation, and metrics.
• Software product access: Ensure adequate access for assurance and review processes.
• Cybersecurity requirements integration: Verify compliance with cybersecurity requirements from NPR 7150.2 and other relevant standards.
• Software development practices: Evaluate coding standards, planned use of tools, and risk management.
• Hazard and risk identification: Ensure appropriate identification and mitigation of software hazards and risks.
• Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V): Analyze plans, communication, and findings.
• Reuse and open-source software: Assess plans for integrating and managing reusable and open-source software.

See also SWE-004 - OCE Benchmarking, SWE-036 - Software Process Determination, SWE-126 - Tailoring Considerations, and SWE-139 - Shall Statements.

3.6 Focus Areas and Supporting Documentation

OSMA audits emphasize specific areas and require access to relevant documentation, which may include but is not limited to:

1. Planning Documents:

   • Software Assurance Plan (current draft).
   • Software Management/Development Plan.
   • IV&V Project Execution Plan (IPEP) and findings.

2. Requirements Mapping Matrices (RMMs):

   • Software Assurance requirements mapped to program standards.
   • NPR 7150.2 requirements mapping matrix.

3. Metrics and Status Reports:

   • Latest Software Assurance metrics and status reports.
   • Software engineering metrics and known issues.

4. Hazard and Risk Documentation:

   • List of identified software hazards, risks, and issues at the time of audit.

5. Testing and Reuse Materials:

   • Software verification and testing plans.
   • List and approach for open-source/reused software.

6. Coding and Development Artifacts:

   • Coding standards used.
   • Software quality assessments.
   • Documentation of the software engineering document management system.

See also Topic 7.18 - Documentation Guidance, Topic 8.16 - SA Products.

3.7  Findings and Reporting

Audit findings are classified into the following categories:

1. Strengths: Best practices and areas of excellence.
2. Weaknesses: Areas needing improvement but not in non-compliance.
3. Observations: Notable findings not directly impacting compliance.
4. Opportunities: Suggestions for improvement or innovation.
5. Non-Compliances: Violations of requirements that adversely affect safety, quality, or mission success.

Significant compliance failures or safety concerns are immediately elevated to the organization's management for resolution. All findings, including corrective actions, are documented in the final audit report.

3.8 Additional Guidance

Additional guidance related to this requirement may be found in the following materials in this Handbook:

3.9 Center Process Asset Libraries

See the following link(s) in SPAN for process assets from contributing Centers (NASA Only). 

4. Small Projects

Compliance audits conducted by the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) apply to all projects, regardless of size. However, small projects often face unique challenges in meeting audit requirements due to resource constraints, limited personnel, and reduced budgets. To ensure small projects can successfully comply with OSMA audits, the following tailored guidance is provided:

4.1 Guidance for Small Projects

4.1.1  Purpose and Focus for Small Projects

The audit process for small projects should aim to verify compliance in a streamlined manner, focusing on core mission-critical elements without imposing unnecessary burden. Small projects should scope their compliance efforts to ensure:

1. Safety-Critical Areas Receive Priority: Key areas such as software assurance, software safety, cybersecurity, and risk assessment must be addressed comprehensively.
2. Documentation Is Concise: Provide focused, relevant documentation that directly supports audit objectives.
3. Efficient Use of Resources: Leverage small teams, automated tools, and reusable processes or templates to minimize workload while ensuring compliance.

4.1.2  Tailored Audit Scope for Small Projects

Small projects can simplify their compliance activities by focusing on the most impactful requirements and deliverables:

1. Core Elements to Address:

   • Compliance with NPR 7150.2: NASA Software Engineering Requirements ⁰⁸³.
   • Safety-critical software and hazard identification.
   • Software assurance planning and activities.
   • Risk identification, mitigation, and tracking.
   • Integration of cybersecurity requirements (referencing NPR 7150.2 and network security standards).

2. Reduced Documentation Requirements: Small projects may use lightweight versions of the following documents, ensuring they align with Agency standards where applicable:

   • Software Management/Development Plan: A simplified plan tailored to the project's scope.
   • Software Assurance Plan: Include only required assurance tasks based on risk level.
   • Risk List: Focus on a priority list of software risks, highlighting mitigation strategies.
   • Metrics Summary: High-level metrics showing progress in meeting software assurance and engineering objectives.

4.1.3  Small Project Audit Preparation

Follow these steps to prepare for OSMA audits for small projects efficiently:

1. Focus on Priority Compliance Areas

Decide on the most critical areas for your project based on:

• Its safety classification.
• Potential risks to mission success.

For example:

• If your project involves safety-critical software, emphasize compliance with NASA-STD-8739.8: Software Assurance and Software Safety Standard ²⁷⁸.
• If cybersecurity risks are significant, ensure robust encryption, secure data flow, and integration of coding standards.

2. Simplify Documentation

Produce lean deliverables tailored for small projects:

• Use NASA compliance templates (adjusted for project complexity and size).
• Consolidate related requirements (e.g., integrate software risks into your software management plan).
• Focus on essential evidence of consistency, adherence to standards, and hazard mitigation.

3. Automate and Streamline Processes

Small projects can use tools and processes that reduce manual work, including:

• Coding Standards: Automate code review and validation using standard tools (e.g., SonarQube, static analysis tools).
• Metrics Collection: Use automated scripts for collecting basic metrics (e.g., defect rates, test coverage) rather than relying on manual tracking.
• Risk Management Tools: Implement lightweight software hazard and risk tracking tools (such as Jira).

4. Optimize Software Assurance Approaches

For small projects, focus assurance efforts on high-risk areas. Common activities include:

• Peer reviews of safety-critical software components.
• Automated testing for software where manual review is impractical.
• Resources for Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) limited to top mission priorities.

5. Tailoring Guidance for Audits

Small projects are eligible for tailored processes under NPR 7150.2, and the following flexible strategies apply:

• Requirement Tailoring: Use the NPR 7150.2 tailoring process (per SWE-126 - Tailoring Considerations) to document modified requirements based on the project classification and scope.
• Audit Frequency: Seek to align audit expectations with project milestones—for example, at project reviews (Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review) rather than imposing additional checkpoints.
• Focus Areas: Concentrate on meeting a subset of prioritized requirements that reduce risks directly (i.e., ensure mission success and safety).

4.1.4  Checklist for Small Project Audit Readiness

Use the following checklist to prepare for OSMA audits efficiently:

• Key Documentation
  •  Software Management/Development Plan (tailored version).
  •  Software Assurance Plan (simplified to project needs).
  •  Risk List or Hazard Analysis (focused on key risks).
  •  Requirements Mapping Matrices for NPR 7150.2 (only tailored requirements) and NASA-STD-8739.8.
  •  Coding Standards list and validation report.
  •  Metrics report (high-level summary).
    
    
• Compliance and Assurance
  •  Safety-critical software identified and properly protected.
  •  Software assurance activities prioritized.
  •  Cybersecurity protections aligned with NPR 7150.2.
  •  IV&V performed (if applicable to high-risk or mission-critical components).
  •  Open-source software compliance documented.
    
    
• Testing and Implementation
  •  Software testing plans demonstrate risk coverage.
  •  Automated tools used for code quality, assurance tasks, or metrics collection.
  •  Issues and non-compliances tracked with corrective actions.

4.1.5  Leverage Center/Project Support

Small projects can reach out to their NASA Center and OSMA representatives for assistance in:

• Tailoring requirements under SWE-126 - Tailoring Considerations.
• Finding reusable templates and tools to support compliance.
• Clarifying documentation expectations.
• Accessing training or resources for lightweight implementations of assurance practices.

4.2 Conclusion

By focusing on priority compliance areas, tailoring processes, and leveraging effective tools and templates, small projects can efficiently meet OSMA audit requirements without overburdening their teams. The streamlined approach ensures that mission assurance is upheld while allowing projects to scale efforts based on size and complexity.

5. Resources

5.1 References

5.2 Tools

6. Lessons Learned

6.1 NASA Lessons Learned

Below are applicable NASA Lessons Learned that align with the requirement for OSMA compliance audits. These lessons were extracted from NASA’s Lessons Learned Library, reflecting decades of experience in safety, mission assurance, and compliance. Each lesson is described with its relevance to improving the audit process and achieving compliance.

6.1.1  Relevant NASA Lessons Learned

1. LLIS-22152: The Importance of Verification and Compliance Audits

• Lesson Learned:
  One NASA program found non-compliance with critical safety standards during an internal review that had gone unnoticed during earlier phases of the project. This non-compliance contributed to a significant delay and additional cost reallocations. The lesson emphasized the importance of periodic compliance audits and robust verification processes to ensure adherence to all safety and mission assurance requirements.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  OSMA audits play a critical role in periodically verifying compliance with safety and mission assurance (SMA) requirements. This particular lesson underscores the need for regular audits as a mechanism to catch issues early and ensure major mission milestones are successful.

2. LLIS-25009: Importance of Thorough Risk and Hazard Identification

• Lesson Learned:
  A mission failed to identify several critical software hazards during early development stages. Risk mitigation was only partially applied due to inadequate audits and insufficient software assurance planning. This led to safety vulnerabilities during mission operations.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  OSMA's focus on compliance audits for software assurance and hazard tracking is critical, especially for safety-critical software. This lesson highlights the importance of robust auditing practices, including a thorough review of risk and hazard management processes.

3. LLIS-14758: Tailored Processes and Documentation for Small Missions

• Lesson Learned:
  Small projects sometimes overextend resources to meet compliance requirements intended for larger missions. This results in inefficiencies and diverts focus from critical safety and assurance tasks. Successful compliance for one small mission was achieved by tailoring documentation, simplifying processes, and focusing on high-priority audit items.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  This lesson aligns with the concept of tailored audits and documentation for smaller projects, emphasizing that "lightweight" processes can still be effective. OSMA audits should leverage tailoring (e.g., SWE-126 - Tailoring Considerations) and focus on mission-specific priorities to streamline compliance efforts without sacrificing safety.

4. LLIS-21439: Lessons from the Mars Polar Lander Mission Failure

• Lesson Learned:
  The Mars Polar Lander mission failed due to undetected software flaws, which were exacerbated by insufficient independent verification and validation (IV&V) and incomplete compliance audits. The audit process failed to examine critical software paths involving safety-critical components.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  This lesson underscores the importance of robust compliance audits that focus on safety-critical software components. OSMA audits, when correctly executed, can prevent oversight of critical software defects by requiring thorough documentation reviews, risk analysis, and IV&V collaboration.

5. LLIS-21555: Early and Consistent Application of Technical Standards

• Lesson Learned:
  A NASA mission team did not consistently apply technical standards across the engineering lifecycle, resulting in a lack of uniform compliance during the final audit stages. Costly rework was required to ensure alignment with technical standards late in development.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  OSMA audits should highlight the importance of applying technical standards like NPR 7150.2 ⁰⁸³ and NASA-STD-8739.8 ²⁷⁸ early and consistently. The audit process must verify that these standards are integrated into workflows from the start to avoid last-minute non-compliance findings.

6. LLIS-18970: Software Cybersecurity Lessons

• Lesson Learned:
  Cybersecurity vulnerabilities during a NASA ground-based testbed experiment were discovered too late in the project, leading to increased mitigation costs. The root cause was insufficient inclusion of cybersecurity requirements in the compliance audit process. The failure exposed weaknesses in secure coding, encryption mechanisms, and access control, which could have impacted mission safety if deployed.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  OSMA compliance audits must include a focus on cybersecurity to verify the implementation of secure coding practices, encryption protocols, secure access, and cybersecurity risk management (as required by NPR 7150.2). Proactively auditing cybersecurity controls can prevent vulnerabilities from progressing to operational systems.

7. LLIS-19779: Robust Metrics and Status Reporting

• Lesson Learned:
  One NASA project struggled with inconsistent reporting on software assurance metrics, which obscured progress and led to lapses in verification tasks. The lesson emphasized the importance of using clear, consistent metrics to provide visibility into the status of software assurance and compliance activities.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  OSMA auditors must ensure that projects provide clear, measurable software assurance and safety metrics. This ensures visibility, tracks progress toward compliance, and enables effective decision-making by managers and technical leaders.

8. LLIS-1221: Lessons from Tailored Safety and Mission Assurance Processes

• Lesson Learned:
  A project that successfully implemented tailored safety and mission assurance (SMA) processes demonstrated that adjusting requirements based on project size, complexity, and budget did not compromise safety or reliability. This customizable approach allowed the team to meet audit requirements while optimizing their resources effectively.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  OSMA compliance audits should support flexibility in tailoring requirements (e.g., through SWE-126 - Tailoring Considerations in NPR 7150.2). Tailored audits for small projects or low-risk missions can ensure efficient compliance without overburdening resources.

9. LLIS-22160: Importance of Lessons Learned Integration

• Lesson Learned:
  Many failures recur across NASA missions due to inadequate integration of past lessons learned into audit practices, technical reviews, and decision-making processes. Early and proactive use of lessons learned documents in development and audit phases helps avoid the repetition of common mistakes.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  OSMA audits should verify that projects actively incorporate lessons learned (e.g., by reviewing Center-based contributions to NASA’s Lessons Learned Library). This ensures continuous improvement in engineering practices and compliance.

10. LLIS-22452: Management of Open-Source Software

• Lesson Learned:
  A NASA project encountered legal and technical challenges when incorporating open-source software into mission systems without proper documentation, audit trails, or compliance assurance. The lesson stressed the need for thorough tracking of open-source usage, proper licensing, and compliance verification.

• Relevance to This Requirement:
  OSMA compliance audits must include a focus on open-source software management, ensuring projects document licensing, compliance, and the integration of quality-controlled open-source components as part of their software assurance processes.

6.1.2  Summary of Key Lessons

The Lessons Learned above highlight critical factors for strengthening OSMA compliance audits, including:

• Early verification of compliance during development.
• Tailoring processes effectively for small projects.
• Consistently applying technical standards and metrics.
• Prioritizing cybersecurity, safety-critical software, and hazard tracking.
• Leveraging past Lessons Learned to avoid repeated mistakes.

Incorporating these lessons into OSMA audits will improve audit rigor, reduce non-compliance risks, and ultimately contribute to safer and more successful NASA missions.

6.2 Other Lessons Learned

No other Lessons Learned have currently been identified for this requirement.

7. Software Assurance

7.1 Tasking for Software Assurance

7.2 Software Assurance Products 

Software Assurance (SA) products are tangible outputs created by Software Assurance personnel to support oversight, validate compliance, manage risks, and ensure the quality of delivered products. These products are essential to demonstrate that SA objectives are being met, and they serve as evidence of the thoroughness and effectiveness of the assurance activities performed.

No specific deliverables are currently identified.

7.3 Metrics

No standard metrics are currently specified.

7.4 Guidance

7.4.1  Objective of the Guidance

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that appraisals are conducted to verify compliance with selected requirements from NPR 7150.2 ⁰⁸³. These appraisals provide an opportunity to assess whether software engineering and assurance practices meet NASA standards. Software Assurance (SA) personnel play a critical role in preparing, participating in, and following up on these assessments to ensure assurance-related requirements are fully implemented.

This guidance outlines the steps SA personnel should take to support appraisals authorized by the NASA Chief, SMA.

7.4.2  Software Assurance Responsibilities

For specific guidance on the items below, see Topic 8.12 - Basics of Software Auditing.

1. Understand Selected Requirements and Appraisal Scope

   1. Identify the Selected Requirements:

      • Review the requirements in NPR 7150.2 that are included in the appraisal scope, with a focus on assurance-specific requirements (e.g., verification, validation, risk management, and process conformance).

   2. Understand the Appraisal Process:

      • Coordinate with the SMA office to understand the appraisal’s goals, methodology, and timeline.
      • Ensure clarity on the criteria used to evaluate compliance with the selected requirements.

   3. Collaborate with Relevant Teams:

      • Work with project and Center personnel to scope the appraisal, ensuring all applicable activities, documentation, and artifacts are considered for evaluation.
        
        
2. Prepare for the Appraisal

   1. Collect Evidence of Compliance:

      • Gather artifacts that demonstrate compliance with the selected requirements, including:
        • Software Assurance Plans (as per NASA-STD-8739.8 ²⁷⁸).
        • Risk assessments and mitigation plans.
        • Test results demonstrating requirements verification and validation.
        • Metrics for defect tracking, test coverage, and anomaly resolution.
        • Records of peer reviews, audits, and formal evaluations.

   2. Ensure Traceability:

      • Verify that assurance activities and evidence directly map to the selected NPR requirements.
      • Highlight traceability to software classification (Class A, B, C, etc.) and the criticality of the software.

   3. Address Known Deficiencies:

      • Identify areas of potential non-compliance prior to the appraisal and develop corrective action plans where necessary. Ensure these are presented during the appraisal as ongoing mitigation efforts.

   4. Tailoring Records:

      • Confirm that any requirements tailoring (e.g., waivers, deviations) is documented, justified, and formally approved.
        
        
3. Actively Participate in the Appraisal

   1. Represent Assurance Activities:

      • Be prepared to describe and demonstrate how assurance tasks (e.g., verification, validation, safety analysis) are performed in compliance with the selected requirements.

   2. Provide Documentation and Clarifications:

      • Present organized and complete evidence for appraisal evaluation.
      • Be available to clarify how assurance and safety practices align with the requirements and address project-specific challenges.
      • See Topic 8.59 - Audit Reports for guidance on documenting audit results.

   3. Highlight Key Practices and Risks:

      • Emphasize particularly effective assurance practices and any risks that have been identified and addressed for compliance.

   4. Facilitate Team Engagement:

      • Support the appraisal by coordinating contributions from other assurance and software engineering personnel to ensure all relevant aspects are covered.
        
        
4. Address Findings and Recommendations

   1. Review Appraisal Results:

      • Analyze the appraisal findings, particularly focusing on non-compliance areas related to software assurance requirements.
      • Provide detailed feedback if there are discrepancies in the findings or require additional clarity.

   2. Develop Corrective Actions:

      • For any identified gaps, collaborate with project leadership to:
        • Prioritize findings based on risk and criticality.
        • Define clear, actionable steps to resolve compliance issues.
        • Provide specific timelines and accountability for implementing corrective actions.

   3. Track Progress:

      • Create and maintain tracking mechanisms (such as an action item database) to monitor progress on addressing findings and improving compliance.

   4. Validate Corrective Actions:

      • After corrective actions are implemented, ensure they are reviewed and validated to confirm issues are fully resolved. Provide updated artifacts and statuses for follow-up appraisals, if required.
5. Support Continuous Improvement

   1. Analyze Lessons Learned:

      • Use appraisal findings to identify systemic issues or recurring gaps in Software Assurance practices across projects.
      • Recommend changes to processes, tools, or training to strengthen compliance with NPR 7150.2 requirements and NASA-STD-8739.8 standards.

   2. Implement Improvements:

      • Implement continuous improvement activities for assurance processes based on Lessons Learned and best practices highlighted during appraisals.

   3. Promote Sharing Across Centers:

      • If specific practices or processes are found to be highly effective during appraisals, share them with other Centers to promote consistency and improvement Agency-wide.

7.4.3  Focus Areas for Assurance During Appraisals

Software Assurance personnel should ensure that appraisals verify compliance in the following critical areas:

1. Planning:

   • Verify the completeness and adequacy of the Software Assurance Plan and its alignment with NPR 7150.2 and NASA-STD-8739.8.

2. Requirements Verification and Validation (V&V):

   • Ensure that all software requirements (especially safety-critical requirements) have been verified and validated using appropriate test plans, analyses, and reviews.

3. Risk Management:

   • Confirm that risks related to software quality and safety are identified, tracked, and mitigated effectively.
   • Emphasize risk-based assurance approaches for safety-critical systems.

4. Testing and Anomalies:

   • Check for sufficient test coverage and appropriate resolution of anomalies or defects.
   • Ensure that test results trace back to specific NPR requirements.

5. Process Compliance:

   • Confirm that assurance milestones, reviews, and other process requirements are performed in accordance with NPR 7150.2 and tailored plans.

6. Tailoring Discussions:

   • Evaluate whether tailored or waived requirements are well-justified and supported with appropriate risk mitigation.

7.4.4  Expected Outcomes of Supporting Appraisals

By supporting SMA-authorized appraisals:

1. Ensure Compliance:
   • Confirm that software assurance and safety practices meet NPR 7150.2 and NASA-STD-8739.8 requirements.
2. Identify and Address Gaps:
   • Surface gaps or inconsistencies early and resolve them through structured corrective actions.
3. Strengthen Processes:
   • Use findings to enhance assurance practices and improve reliability for current and future projects.
4. Promote Consistency:
   • Drive consistent implementation of assurance practices across Centers and projects, improving NASA’s overall software quality.
5. Facilitate Mission Success:
   • Ensure software assurance supports system safety and mission reliability, reducing risks and improving outcomes.

7.4.5  Conclusion

Software Assurance personnel play a vital role in supporting the NASA Chief, SMA’s authorized appraisals of NPR 7150.2 requirements. By preparing evidence, participating actively in appraisals, addressing findings, and driving continuous improvement, SA ensures effective, consistent, and compliant assurance practices. This strengthens mission safety, reduces project risks, and improves software reliability across NASA programs.

7.5 Additional Guidance

Additional guidance related to this requirement may be found in the following materials in this Handbook: