<PAGE> 1
31 August 2000 - Amendment 7
Satellite Contract Contract Number: ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
================================================================================
COMPOSITE COMPILED SATELLITE CONTRACT
BETWEEN
HUGHES SPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AND
I-CO GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
DATED AS OF 3 OCTOBER 1995
================================================================================
CONTRACT NUMBER: ICOO/95-1002/NR
Page 1
<PAGE> 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Page No.
<S> <C>
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION....................................................... 5
ARTICLE 2 SCOPE OF WORK.................................................... 12
ARTICLE 3 DELIVERY SCHEDULE................................................ 14
ARTICLE 4 CONTRACT PRICE, PAYMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS.......................... 17
ARTICLE 5 SATELLITE PERFORMANCE PAYMENTS; * INCENTIVES; * INCENTIVES....... 23
ARTICLE 6 RESERVED......................................................... 44
ARTICLE 7 PERMITS AND LICENSES: GOVERNMENT APPROVALS....................... 45
ARTICLE 8 ACCEPTANCE....................................................... 47
ARTICLE 9 TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS........................................... 54
ARTICLE 10 FORCE MAJEURE.................................................... 57
ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCES OF LATE DELIVERY.................................... 58
ARTICLE 12 ACCESS TO WORK IN PROGRESS AND DATA.............................. 64
ARTICLE 13 INDEMNIFICATION.................................................. 66
ARTICLE 14 WARRANTY......................................................... 68
ARTICLE 15 SATELLITE NOT LAUNCHED AFTER AVAILABLE FOR SHIPMENT DATE......... 70
ARTICLE 16 TAXES AND DUTIES................................................. 72
ARTICLE 17 TERMINATION...................................................... 74
ARTICLE 18 DATA RIGHTS...................................................... 85
ARTICLE 19 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY.................................. 87
ARTICLE 20 RIGHTS IN INVENTIONS............................................. 89
ARTICLE 21 CONFIDENTIALITY.................................................. 92
ARTICLE 22 INTERPRETATION................................................... 96
ARTICLE 23 PUBLICITY........................................................ 99
ARTICLE 24 NOTICES.......................................................... 100
ARTICLE 25 INTEGRATION...................................................... 102
ARTICLE 26 ASSIGNMENT....................................................... 103
ARTICLE 27 SEVERABILITY..................................................... 105
ARTICLE 28 CORRECTIVE MEASURES IN UNLAUNCHED SATELLITES..................... 106
ARTICLE 29 I-COGC'S RESPONSIBILITIES........................................ 107
ARTICLE 30 DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION......................................... 110
ARTICLE 31 MISSION OPERATIONS AND LAUNCH SUPPORT............................ 111
ARTICLE 32 STORAGE.......................................................... 112
ARTICLE 33 OPTIONS.......................................................... 113
ARTICLE 34 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.......................................... 120
ARTICLE 35 MISCELLANEOUS.................................................... 122
ARTICLE 36 MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS............................................. 126
ARTICLE 37 SPECIAL PROVISION APPLICABLE TO SATELLITE F15.................... 127
ARTICLE 38 ADDITIONAL SATELLITES OF THE SAME GENERATION AND DESIGN.......... 130
ARTICLE 39 FINALIZATION OF RADAR SPECIFICATION AND MODIFICATION............. 131
</TABLE>
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 2
<PAGE> 3
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
ARTICLE 40 RESERVED......................................................... 134
ARTICLE 41 SPACE SEGMENT SUPPORT TO SEIT.................................... 135
</TABLE>
THIS COMPOSITE COMPILED CONTRACT is effective as of the third day of October,
1995,
BETWEEN:
I-CO GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED, a company incorporated in the
Cayman Islands as an Exempted Company having its registered office at the
Huntlaw Building, PO Box 1350, Fort Street, Georgetown, Grand Cayman, Cayman
Islands (hereinafter referred to as "I-COGC") and
HUGHES SPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a company incorporated
under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA, with a place of business in El
Segundo, California, (hereinafter referred to as "Hughes").
WHEREAS, I-COGC desires to procure fifteen Satellites delivered on the ground to
designated launch sites, together with delivery of an engineering model (EM)
payload, an integrated TT&C ground segment and additional hardware and services
for launch preparations, mission operations and post-launch commissioning and
test as part of a fixed and mobile satellite communications system subject to
the terms and conditions hereof; and
WHEREAS, Hughes desires to supply the same in accordance with the terms and
conditions hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Parties to this Contract acknowledge that certain delivery
requirements under this composite compiled contract have already been met.
Page 3
<PAGE> 4
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into a separate but interrelated launch
services supply and management contract ;and
WHEREAS, this Contract has been amended by Amendment 1 dated 26 June 1996,
Amendment 2 dated 9 September 1996, Amendment 3 dated 6 April 1998, Amendment 4
dated 21 January 1998, Satellite Variation Agreement to the Contract on 11 March
1998, Amendment 5 dated 7 August 1998, and Amendment 6 dated 7 August 1998, the
terms and conditions of all such amendments having been incorporated in this
composite compiled Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained and other good and valuable consideration, and intending to be legally
bound hereby, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
Page 4
<PAGE> 5
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS
In this Contract, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms
shall have the meaning stated hereunder:
A. "ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN" means the test plan which is incorporated herein
and made a part of this Contract and is EXHIBIT D to this Contract.
B. "Affiliate" means, with respect to a Party, any subsidiary or holding
company (as determined by the Companies Act 1985 of Great Britain) at
any tier of such Party.
C. "Associate" means any individuals or legal entities, organized under
public or private law, who shall, directly or indirectly, on behalf of
or at the direction of either Party to this Contract fulfill any of the
obligations undertaken by such Party in this Contract including, but
without limitation, the Affiliates, Subcontractors, Consultants,
employees, officers, directors or agents of each of them and of each of
the Parties.
D. "ATP" means the contract made between the Parties as of 05 July 1995
entitled "Preparatory Phase of Inmarsat-P Space Segment".
E. "Available for Shipment" means that the Satellite, Engineering Model
Payload or Satellite Control Equipment and other relevant Work has
successfully passed all in-plant acceptance tests, has undergone a
Pre-Shipment Review (if applicable) and has been agreed ready to be
shipped.
F. "Business Day" means a day on which I-COGC or Hughes (as appropriate for
affected Party) is open for business, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and
public holidays.
Page 5
<PAGE> 6
G. "Consultant(s)" means a person or organization identified to Hughes,
which person is retained by I-COGC to provide I-COGC with technical
advice and/or management services.
H. "Contract" means this written instrument embodying the agreement between
Hughes and I-COGC, including the EXHIBITS annexed hereto and made a part
of this Contract, as may be varied in accordance with the provisions of
this Contract.
I. "Contract Price" means the total amount expressed in this Contract
ARTICLE 4, CONTRACT PRICE, PAYMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS, as may be varied in
accordance with the provisions of this Contract.
J. "Day" means a continuous 24-hour period commencing at 2400 Midnight
(Greenwich Mean Time).
K. "Delivery" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in ARTICLE 3, DELIVERY
SCHEDULE.
L. "Delivery Date" means in respect of a Satellite or GCE that Delivery
date specified in ARTICLE 3, DELIVERY SCHEDULE, taking into account the
number of Days of Excusable Delay, if any, within the meaning of ARTICLE
10, FORCE MAJEURE, or otherwise excused by the terms of this Contract
M. "Delivery Schedule" means the timetable for Delivery set forth in
ARTICLE 3, DELIVERY SCHEDULE.
N. "Designated Launch Site" means the launch facility provided by the
applicable Launch Services Provider.
Page 6
<PAGE> 7
0. "Documentation" means documentation to be delivered under this Contract,
as more fully described in EXHIBIT A, STATEMENT OF WORK.
P. "Effective Date of Contract (EDC)" means the last date that this
Contract was duly signed by both Parties.
P1. "Employment Cost Index" or "ECI" means the U.S. Department of Labor
Employment Cost Index for wages & salaries - professional, specialty,
and technical workers and is published by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
P2. "Engineering Model Payload" means that which is defined in EXHIBIT A,
STATEMENT OF WORK.
Q. "Excusable Delay" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in ARTICLE 10,
FORCE MAJEURE.
R. "Ground Control Equipment (GCE)" means Ground TT&C hardware and software
services to support telemetry, tracking, command and spacecraft control
monitoring equipment being manufactured and delivered under this
Contract as part of the Work, as more particularly described in EXHIBIT
A, STATEMENT OF WORK.
S. "I-CO Program" means the program to establish a system for fixed and
mobile communications, data, and ancillary services using the Satellites
and any earth stations operating at any time in conjunction therewith.
The term "Inmarsat P" as used in the Exhibits and as applied to various
elements of this program shall have the same meaning as "I-CO".
Page 7
<PAGE> 8
T. "I-COSL" means ICO Services Limited. I-COSL has been appointed a
Consultant and has been given authority under an agreement with I-COGC
to manage this Contract on behalf of I-COGC. All notices, instructions
or consultations which are given or engaged in by I-COSL in the
performance of its management and consultancy functions in relation to
this Contract shall be deemed, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, to
have been given by I-COGC and shall be binding on I-COGC.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I-COSL is not authorized to vary the
terms of this Contract in any manner whatsoever unless and to the extent
that the I-COGC authorized representative referred to in ARTICLE 24,
NOTICES, advises Hughes in writing to the contrary.
U. "Intentional Ignition" means the intentional ignition of any first stage
motor of the Launch Vehicle by the Launch Services Provider or, for
Atlas Launch Services, the point in time during the launch countdown
when initiation of the gas generator ignitors firing command and firing
of any of the gas generator ignitors occurs.
V. "Launch Attempt" or "Launch" means the point in time when there is
Intentional Ignition.
W. "Launch Operations Services for Satellites" means the services provided
by Hughes in support of the launch mission as defined in EXHIBIT A,
STATEMENT OF WORK.
X. "Launch Readiness Review" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in
ARTICLE 8.4.
Y. "Launch Services" means the services which the applicable Launch
Services Provider provides under its Launch Services agreement.
Z. "Launch Services Provider" means the organization(s) which Hughes has
contracted with under the proposed interrelated contract referred to in
the Recitals to perform Launch
Page 8
<PAGE> 9
Services, including furnishing the Launch Vehicle, launch support,
equipment and facilities for the purpose of launching the Satellites
into orbit.
AA. "Launch Vehicle" means a vehicle provided by the applicable Launch
Services Provider by which a Satellite is to be launched into orbit.
BB. "Less than Satisfactorily Operating Satellite" means a Satellite which
exhibits Less than Satisfactory Operation
CC. "Less than Satisfactory Operation" means that not all performance
parameters for a Satellite meet the requirements of EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION.
DD. "Major Subcontractor" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in ARTICLE
36, MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS.
EE. "Month" means a calendar month.
FF. "Navigation Payload" means that element of the Satellite payload which
provides navigation services in accordance with EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION, and which is separable from the Work as
described in ARTICLE 6, NAVIGATION PAYLOAD.
GG. "Operational Lifetime" means the twelve year (4383 Day) performance
period of the Satellite. This performance period commences on the day
when the Satellite is positioned at its Specified Orbit and completion
of in-orbit testing, or forty-five (45) Days after Launch, whichever is
earlier. The term "Service Life" shall have the same meaning.
Page 9
<PAGE> 10
HH. "Party" or "Parties" means an entity or all entities, according to the
context, which has or have signed this Contract.
II. "Payload Control System (PCS)" means the integrated suite of hardware,
software, and operations products that collectively will be used to
support normal, on-station, ICO payload traffic control operations. The
PCS will provide data to assist in operations relating to satellite
diagnostics, calibration, payload trending, and short-term storage. PCS
will also assist IOT and satellite failure investigation efforts as
required.
JJ. "Performance Commencement Date (PCD)" means 05 July 1995 being the date
of the signature of the ATP.
KK. "Pre-Shipment Review" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in ARTICLE
8, ACCEPTANCE.
LL. "PRODUCT ASSURANCE PLAN" means the PRODUCT ASSURANCE PLAN which is
incorporated herein and made a part of this Contract and is EXHIBIT C to
this Contract.
MM. "PCS System Requirement Review (SRR)" shall have the meaning ascribed to
it in Article 5.2.5 of EXHIBIT A, STATEMENT OF WORK.
NN. "Satellite" means the satellite(s) to be provided to I-COGC as part of
the Work as defined below (including the firm and exercised optional
satellites). The term "Spacecraft" shall be interchangeable with the
term "Satellite" and has the same meaning.
OO. "Satisfactorily Operating Satellite" means a Satellite which exhibits
Satisfactory Operation
Page 10
<PAGE> 11
PP. "Satisfactory Operation" means that all performance parameters for a
Satellite meet the requirements of EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION.
QQ. "Service Life" shall have the same meaning as "Operational Lifetime".
RR. "Spacecraft Operating Procedures" means the written directives and
instructions for operating the Satellite as described in EXHIBIT A,
STATEMENT OF WORK.
SS. "Specified Orbit"" means, with respect to a Satellite, the intermediate
circular orbit plane and spacing specified in accordance with EXHIBIT B,
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION.
TT. "STATEMENT OF WORK" or "SOW" means the STATEMENT OF WORK which is
incorporated herein and made a part of this Contract and is EXHIBIT A to
this Contract.
UU. "Subcontractor" means a person, firm, corporation, consultant or
business entity which has been awarded a subcontract by Hughes, to
provide a portion of the Work covered by this Contract.
VV. "Successfully Launched Satellite" means that the elements of the
Specified Orbit established by the Launch Vehicle and the orientation
and time of separation are within three (3) sigma limits of the Launch
Vehicle performance as established in the interface control document or
equivalent, and the Satellite has not suffered damage caused by any
failure or malfunction of the Launch Vehicle.
WW. "Work" means all labor, services, acts (including tests to be
performed), items, materials, articles, data, documentation, equipment,
matters and things to be furnished, and rights to be transferred under
this Contract.
Page 11
<PAGE> 12
The ARTICLE and ARTICLE headings are for convenience of reference only and shall
not be considered in interpreting this Contract. Where the context so requires,
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders
where the context so requires. The Recitals of this Contract are descriptive
only and shall not create or affect obligations of the Parties.
Page 12
<PAGE> 13
ARTICLE 2 SCOPE OF WORK
2.1 In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract, Hughes
shall sell, and I-COGC shall purchase the Work (including fifteen (15)
Satellites) and Hughes shall furnish and perform all elements of the
Work for the purposes of such sale. Hughes shall furnish and perform the
Work in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and shall
perform the Work to the extent and in the manner specified in the
following documents, which are attached hereto and made a part of this
Contract:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Document Date
<S> <C>
EXHIBIT A - STATEMENT OF WORK 24 Aug 2000
EXHIBIT B - SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 25 Aug 2000
EXHIBIT C - PRODUCT ASSURANCE PLAN 25 Aug 2000
EXHIBIT D - ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN 24 Aug 2000
EXHIBIT E - GCE IMPLEMENTATION AND TEST PLAN 3 Oct 1995
EXHIBIT F - GCE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3 Oct 1995
EXHIBIT G - GCE PRODUCT ASSURANCE PLAN 3 Oct 1995
EXHIBIT H - MILESTONE PAYMENT PLAN 24 Aug 2000
EXHIBIT I - I-COGC GUARANTEE 3 Oct 1995
EXHIBIT J - HUGHES GUARANTEE 3 Oct 1995
EXHIBIT K - PCS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AND TEST PLAN 10 Dec 1997
</TABLE>
2.2 In the event of any inconsistency among or between the parts of this
Contract, such inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in
the order of the parts as set forth below:
Page 13
<PAGE> 14
Page 14
<PAGE> 15
A. CONTRACT ARTICLES
B. STATEMENT OF WORK (EXHIBIT A)
C. SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION (EXHIBIT B)
D. ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN (EXHIBIT D)
E. PRODUCT ASSURANCE PLAN (EXHIBIT C)
F. GCE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION (EXHIBIT F)
G GCE IMPLEMENTATION AND TEST PLAN (EXHIBIT E)
H. GCE PRODUCT ASSURANCE PLAN (EXHIBIT G)
I. MILESTONE PAYMENT PLAN (EXHIBIT H)
J. I-COGC GUARANTEE (EXHIBIT I)
K. HUGHES GUARANTEE (EXHIBIT J)
L. PCS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AND TEST PLAN (EXHIBIT K)
2.3 The ATP is hereby subsumed and incorporated into this Contract as if it
had formed a part of this Contract ab initio. For the avoidance of
doubt, monies paid by I-COGC under the ATP * are deemed to
have been paid on account of the total Contract Price and Hughes' share
of the cost of the ATP is included in the Contract Price.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 15
<PAGE> 16
ARTICLE 3 DELIVERY SCHEDULE
3.1 The following goods and services forming part of the Work to be provided
under this Contract shall be delivered on or before the dates specified
below.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Item Delivery/Performance Date Place of Delivery
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
1. Satellite F1 5 Oct 1998 Designated Launch Site
2. Satellite F2 18 Jan 2002 Designated Launch Site
3. Satellite F3 15 Feb 2002 Designated Launch Site
4. Satellite F4 15 Mar 2002 Designated Launch Site
5 Satellite F5 12 Apr 2002 Designated Launch Site
6. Satellite F6 17 May 2002 Designated Launch Site
7. Satellite F7 14 Jun 2002 Designated Launch Site
8. Satellite F8 12 Jul 2002 Designated Launch Site
9. Satellite F9 16 Aug 2002 Designated Launch Site
10. Satellite F10 13 Sep 2002 Designated Launch Site
11. Satellite F11 11 Oct 2002 Designated Launch Site
12. Satellite F12 8 Nov 2002 Designated Launch Site
13. Satellite F13 3 Jan 2003 Designated Launch Site
14. Satellite F14 16 Feb 2003 Designated Launch Site
15. Satellite F15 1 Apr 2003 Designated Launch Site
16. Ground Control 5 Jun 1998 per SOW
Equipment (GCE)
17. Initial Satellite Per EXHIBIT A I-COGC Satellite Control
Mission Operations Center and SAN Sites
and In-Orbit
Testing Services
</TABLE>
Page 16
<PAGE> 17
<TABLE>
<S> <C> <C>
18. Launch Site Per EXHIBIT A Designated Launch Site
Operations Services
19. Training Per EXHIBIT A EL Segundo, California and SCC
20. Documentation Per EXHIBIT A EL Segundo, California
21. Engineering Model 05 Jul 1997 El Segundo California*
Payload
22. Payload Control 28 Nov 1998 El Segundo, California, SCC,
System and SANs per SOW
</TABLE>
Notes:
* Hughes is acting as custodian of and will maintain and upgrade the Engineering
Model Payload, as provided in the Statement of Work.
3.2 Delivery of a Satellite shall be deemed to have occurred upon arrival of
the Satellite at the Designated Launch Site subject to a visual
inspection by I-COGC to ensure that there is no apparent physical loss
or damage in transit and that the Satellite is available for
commencement of the launch campaign and subject also to the provisions
of ARTICLE 8.6, and where applicable, ARTICLE 11.4.
3.3 Delivery of items 16 and 22 of ARTICLE 3.1 shall take place upon Final
Acceptance pursuant to the provisions of ARTICLE 8, ACCEPTANCE.
Deliverable Documentation which requires I-COGC approval shall not be
deemed to be delivered and accepted until such approval is received from
I-COGC.
3.4 Delivery of all other items of Work shall be deemed to have occurred
upon arrival of the item at the place of delivery or upon completion of
the service as the case may be.
Page 17
<PAGE> 18
3.5 For a Satellite having been determined Available for Shipment and placed
into storage in accordance with ARTICLE 32, STORAGE, or ARTICLE 33,
OPTIONS, Delivery shall be deemed to have occurred upon arrival of the
Satellite at the storage location.
Page 18
<PAGE> 19
3.6 Packing and shipping will be in accordance with EXHIBIT A, STATEMENT OF
WORK.
Page 19
<PAGE> 20
ARTICLE 4 CONTRACT PRICE, PAYMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS
4.1 CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT
The Contract Price for the construction portion of this Contract
(totaling * ), together with the maximum potential incentives (Satellite
Performance Incentives, * Incentives, * Incentives, * Incentives, and
the * Incentive Payments) (totaling * ), is (US) two billion two hundred
and thirteen million eight hundred and ninety-five thousand six hundred
ninety dollars (US$2,213,895,690) as shown below. I-COGC shall pay the
Contract Price to Hughes in accordance with the terms set forth below
and in the Payment Schedule of EXHIBIT H, MILESTONE PAYMENT PLAN, and
ARTICLE 5, SATELLITE PERFORMANCE PAYMENTS.
Construction Portion
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Item Price (US$)
<S> <C>
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
Subtotal Construction Price *
</TABLE>
* Does not include Launch Operations or Mission Operations Services, the
price of which is determined in accordance with Article 31.
** The Contract Price for F15 is subject to escalation if placed in
call-up status as provided in Article 37.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 20
<PAGE> 21
Incentives Portion
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
Subtotal Incentives Price *
Contract Price (Construction + Incentives) 2,213,895,690
</TABLE>
4.2 I-COGC shall pay each milestone amount identified in EXHIBIT H,
MILESTONE PAYMENT PLAN by the end of the relevant Hughes fiscal quarter
if the invoice and certification from Hughes for that particular
milestone event has been completed and received at least fifteen (15)
Days prior to the end of Hughes fiscal quarter. Hughes will identify on
each invoice the specific day in March, June, September or December that
coincides with the end of Hughes fiscal quarter. For the avoidance of
doubt, no invoice may be submitted unless the relevant milestone has
been completed. In the event I-COGC determines that the requirements for
such milestone event have not been fulfilled, and if I-COGC gives notice
to Hughes of such non-fulfillment within five (5) Business Days after
receipt of Hughes' invoice and certification, the applicable payment may
be delayed until fifteen (15) Days after I-COGC has determined that the
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 21
<PAGE> 22
requirements for such milestone event have been fulfilled. For the
purpose of this ARTICLE 4.2, receipt by I-COGC of an invoice and of
Hughes' certification shall occur upon receipt of a copy thereof by the
authorized on-site representative referred to in ARTICLE 4.3.
4.3 The invoices will separately identify any applicable taxes and duties
and shall be addressed to I-COGC at the following address:
Page 22
<PAGE> 23
I-CO Global Communications (Operations) Limited
Huntlaw Building
P.O. Box 1350
Fort Street
Georgetown, Grand Cayman
Cayman Islands
but submitted both via an internationally recognized air courier and via
telefax to:
I-CO Services Limited
1 Queen Caroline Street
Hammersmith, London W6 9BN
United Kingdom
Attention: Contract Administrator (Space Segment)
Fax #44-208-600-1199
and with a copy given by hand to an authorized on-site representative of
I-COGC at the Hughes' facility.
4.4 Amounts payable are to be remitted by telegraphic transfer to a bank to
be advised in writing by Hughes.
4.5 Should Hughes fulfill the requirements for a particular payment
milestone prior to the date specified in EXHIBIT H, MILESTONE PAYMENT
PLAN, Hughes shall have the right to invoice and receive payment early
for that milestone provided that:
1. Hughes has not received a cumulative payment amount in excess of the
total amount of the milestone payments scheduled for that calendar
date, and
Page 23
<PAGE> 24
2. I-COGC agrees at its sole discretion that the early fulfillment of
the milestone event significantly facilitates the timely performance
of the Work under the Contract.
4.6 Hughes shall have no right to obtain partial payments for milestone
events that are not completed but Hughes may, from time to time, request
partial payment for a partially completed milestone, and if I-COGC (at
I-COGC's sole discretion) determines such partial payment to be
appropriate under the circumstances, then Hughes shall be entitled to
submit an invoice. Such partial payment shall be made by I-COGC within
fifteen (15) Days after the date of receipt of the invoice to which it
relates. The remainder of the milestone payment shall be paid in
accordance with ARTICLE 4.2.
4.7 With respect to any other amounts payable under the Contract, the Party
entitled to payment shall make a written demand for, or shall submit an
invoice if so requested by the payor, after such entitlement becomes
established, and the payor shall make payment within thirty (30) Days
after receipt of a valid written demand or valid invoice unless the
Contract specifies to the contrary.
4.8 Within 15 Days of EDC, I-COGC shall provide a parent company guarantee
of I-COGC's obligations substantially in the form set forth in EXHIBIT
I, I-COGC GUARANTEE.
4.9 Within 15 Days of EDC, Hughes shall provide a parent company guarantee
of Hughes' obligations substantially in the form set forth in EXHIBIT J,
HUGHES GUARANTEE.
4.10 No dispute with respect to the payment of any amount under this Contract
shall relieve the disputing Party of its obligation to pay all other
amounts due and owing under this Contract. All disputed amounts, unless
otherwise specified in the Contract, shall be paid
Page 24
<PAGE> 25
into an interest-bearing escrow account at Bank of America, Concord,
California, Account No. (to be established later), within fifteen (15)
Days after receipt of invoice. After the dispute is settled, the Party
entitled to the amount or part thereof in escrow shall receive such
amount together with all interest thereon and the costs and fees
associated with such escrow account shall be paid by each Party in
inverse proportion to the amounts received by each Party.
4.11 The Contract Price for Satellites F1-F12 includes all Launch Operations
and Mission Operations Services. The Contract Price for F2-F12 Launch
Operations and Mission Operations Services is based upon seven (7)
Florida and four (4) Russia Launches (as shown in the table below).
Should I-COGC direct a change(s) to this Launch site allocation, and
such change is not the result of late Delivery of the Satellite(s), and
such change has a material effect on the reasonably expected costs of
such Launch Operations and Mission Operations Services, then the
Contract Price will be adjusted (up or down) by the amount of such
Launch Operations and Mission Operations Services increase or decrease
in expected costs in accordance with ARTICLE 22.3.C.
For reference purposes, the designated Launch sites and sequence are as
follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Satellite Designated Launch Site
--------- ----------------------
<S> <C>
F2 Florida
F3 Florida
F4 Florida
F5 Florida
F6 Kazakhstan
F7 Kazakhstan
F8 Florida
F9 Florida
F10 Kazakhstan
F11 Kazakhstan
F12 Florida
</TABLE>
Page 25
<PAGE> 26
ARTICLE 5 SATELLITE PERFORMANCE PAYMENTS; * INCENTIVES; * INCENTIVES
5.1 For Satisfactory Operation of the F1-F12 Satellites delivered under this
Contract over their Operational Lifetime, Hughes shall, in addition to
the amounts paid as specified in EXHIBIT H, MILESTONE PAYMENT PLAN, be
entitled to payments in the amount of * for each Satellite.
For Satisfactory Operation of the F13-F15 Satellites delivered under
this Contract over their Operational Lifetime, Hughes shall, in addition
to the amounts paid as specified in Exhibit H, MILESTONE PAYMENT PLAN,
be entitled to payments in the amount of * for each satellite.
The foregoing incentives for F1-F15 are referred to herein as the
"Satellite Performance Incentives." No Satellite Performance Incentives
will be owing with respect to any Satellite that is terminated pursuant
to ARTICLE 17.
5.2 The first (US) * of potential liquidated damages for late delivery
pursuant to ARTICLE 11, CONSEQUENCES OF LATE DELIVERY which are not
incurred, (or such lesser amount which is actually available), shall be
used to establish a performance refund pool (the "Refund Pool"). This
pool represents an amount of additional Hughes' liability which shall be
treated as if I-COGC had elected payment refund and had paid the Refund
Pool as part of the Satellite Performance Incentives at the time of
Launch, save that for this amount the Operational Lifetime of the
Satellite shall be deemed to be nine (9) Months and earned accordingly
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 26
<PAGE> 27
on a linear basis over that period. This amount shall be apportioned
equally over the 12 Satellites being delivered under this Contract. The
foregoing amount is not an incentive that will be payable by I-COGC but
instead is a Hughes liability that, if not extinguished by Satisfactory
Operation of the 12 Satellites, will be paid by Hughes to I-COGC (or, at
I-COGC's option, offset against any I-COGC payments to be made to
Hughes).
5.3 Payment of these amounts shall be made on the basis of either payment
refund or payment over time. Election of the basis of payment shall be
made by I-COGC for each Satellite prior to the Available for Shipment
date. Regardless of the manner of payment, incentives, or if applicable
the balance of Satellite Performance Incentives not forfeited under
ARTICLE 5.6 and/or 5.8 for each individual Satellite are earned linearly
on a daily basis over the Operational Lifetime of the Satellite. Earned
incentives are no longer subject to reduction for Less than Satisfactory
Operation.
A. If payment refund is selected, then the total amount of
incentives due to Hughes on each Satellite as determined in
ARTICLE 5.6 shall be invoiceable by I-COGC after successful
completion of in-orbit tests or 45 Days after Launch, whichever
is earlier.
B. If payment over time is selected, then each Satellite shall start
earning incentives commencing either forty five (45) Days after
the launch date or upon successful completion of in-orbit tests,
whichever is earlier. At the end of the first Month subsequent to
such commencement date, Hughes shall invoice I-COGC for the
partial Month's incentives earned during that Month. Thereafter,
invoices shall be submitted at the end of each calendar Month for
the next one hundred forty four (144) Months. The final invoice
shall be for the outstanding balance of earned Satellite
Performance Incentives for that Satellite which have not yet been
paid.
Page 27
<PAGE> 28
The amount of each payment invoiced (save in respect of a partial
Month) shall be one one-hundred-forty-fourth (1/144) of the total
amount for each Satellite stated in ARTICLE 5.1, reduced by any
percentage reduction calculated under this ARTICLE for Less than
Satisfactory Operation, and increased by the compounded interest
rate at a composite LIBOR + 3% starting from successful
completion of in-orbit tests or forty-five (45) Days after
Launch, whichever is earlier. When payments are being made on
multiple Satellites, the invoices shall be aggregated and
submitted for payment at the end of each calendar month. I-COGC
shall pay each amount with fifteen (15) Days after receipt of the
invoice. Whenever the term "interest" is used in this ARTICLE 5,
the interest rate associated with said "interest" shall be LIBOR
+ 3%, compounded monthly, unless otherwise stated.
5.4 In the event that a Satellite is placed in storage, then the payment
provisions of this ARTICLE shall be modified as follows:
A. If the Satellite is stored for I-COGC convenience for a period
exceeding 3 Months, then the Satellite Performance Incentive
payments for that Satellite shall be handled as follows:
1. If payment refund is selected, then the full amount of the
Satellite Performance Incentives for that Satellite is due
and invoiceable in full 3 Months after the Delivery of the
Satellite.
2. If payment over time is selected, then calculation of the
compound interest rate applied to each payment (when
finally made) shall start 3
Page 28
<PAGE> 29
Months after Delivery of the Satellite, regardless of the
time when the in-orbit tests are actually completed.
3. For avoidance of doubt, when such stored Satellite is
removed from storage and launched, then the full amount of
the Satellite Performance Incentives must still be earned
(or forfeited) in accordance with the other provisions of
this ARTICLE 5.
B. In the event that the Satellite is placed into storage for
reasons other than for I-COGC convenience (including but not
limited to late Delivery of the Satellite or launch delays) then
the provisions of ARTICLE 5.4.A shall not apply and no payment or
escalation, as appropriate, shall be due or apply until
completion of in-orbit tests or 45 Days after Launch, whichever
is the earlier.
C. Notwithstanding the above, if such stored Satellite is not
removed from storage within five (5) years after entry into
storage for purposes of Launch, then all Satellite Performance
Incentives for said Satellite shall be deemed to have been earned
in full. If payment over time was selected, then the full amount
of the Satellite Performance Incentives shall be immediately due
and payable together with escalation thereon provided that
storage was for I-COGC's convenience as provided for in ARTICLE
5.4.A.
5.5 In the event that a Satellite is launched but is not a Successfully
Launched Satellite, then the full amount of the incentives for that
Satellite shall be immediately due and payable by I-COGC in full within
3 Business Days after receipt of the corresponding insurance proceeds
but in no event later than 30 days after such launch.
Page 29
<PAGE> 30
A. Notwithstanding the above, if a failure to achieve the Specified
Orbit can be remedied by utilization of the Satellite propulsion
system such that the Satellite can be placed into the Specified
Orbit, then the Satellite shall be treated as a Successfully
Launched Satellite only for purposes of this ARTICLE with the
proviso that the Operational Lifetime shall be recalculated based
on the amount of propellants remaining at the beginning of the
Operational Lifetime. Such Satellite Performance Incentives will
be linearly earned over that resultant lifetime.
B. If it is later proven that the Satellite failed to achieve the
status of a Successfully Launched Satellite because the Launch
Vehicle was destroyed or damaged by the Satellite, then the
Satellite Performance Incentives payment on that Satellite will
be refunded by Hughes, together with interest at LIBOR + 3%.
5.6 A Successfully Launched Satellite shall immediately be subjected to a
series of in-orbit tests as specified in EXHIBIT D, ACCEPTANCE TEST
PLAN. The results of these tests shall be used by I-COGC to determine
the status of the Satellite as either exhibiting Satisfactory Operation,
or Less than Satisfactory Operation.
If election of the basis of Satellite Performance Incentive payments
made by I-COGC pursuant to ARTICLE 5.3 was payment refund, then:
A. If the Satellite was determined to be a Satisfactorily Operating
Satellite, then I-COGC shall pay to Hughes under the terms of
ARTICLE 5.3.A above, the full amount of Satellite Performance
Incentives for the Satellite as stated in ARTICLE 5.1.
Page 30
<PAGE> 31
B. If the Satellite was determined to be a Less than Satisfactorily
Operating Satellite, then I-COGC shall determine the amount of
reduction in the Satellite Performance Incentives stated in
ARTICLE 5.1 and ARTICLE 5.2 (if any) in accordance with the other
provisions of ARTICLE 5.8. The balance of said Satellite
Performance Incentives shall be deemed available to be earned as
described in other sections of this ARTICLE. The resultant
amounts shall be paid to Hughes by I-COGC in the case of
Satellite Performance Incentives referred to in ARTICLE 5.1 under
the terms of ARTICLE 5.3.A and by Hughes to I-COGC in the case of
Satellite Performance Incentives referred to in ARTICLE 5.2. If
Hughes disputes I-COGC's determination, then this dispute shall
be resolved pursuant to ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION.
If election of the basis of performance payments made by I-COGC pursuant
to ARTICLE 5.3 was payment over time, then:
C. If the Satellite was determined to be a Satisfactorily Operating
Satellite, then the full amount of Satellite Performance
Incentives for the Satellite as stated in ARTICLE 5.1 shall be
deemed available to be earned and paid as described in other
sections of this ARTICLE.
D. If the Satellite was determined to be a Less than Satisfactorily
Operating Satellite, then I-COGC shall determine the amount of
reduction in the Satellite Performance Incentives stated in
ARTICLE 5.1, in accordance with the other provisions of ARTICLE
5.8. The balance of said Satellite Performance Incentives shall
be deemed available to be earned and paid as described in other
sections of this ARTICLE. If Hughes disputes I-COGC's
determination, then this dispute shall be resolved pursuant to
ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION.
Page 31
<PAGE> 32
5.7 To the extent that any failure to maintain Satisfactory Operation is
caused by 1) a failure of I-COGC to operate or have operated the
Satellite in accordance with the written directives and instructions
furnished to I-COGC in the Spacecraft Operating Procedures and any
applicable service notes for the Satellites, such having been furnished
under this Contract and not being such as to prevent I-COGC from
achieving Satisfactory Operation, save that this exclusion shall not
apply to operation by Hughes; or 2) radio interference by third parties
(over and above that for which the Satellite is specified), then Hughes'
entitlement to Satellite Performance Incentives shall not be affected,
provided that Hughes shall have the burden of proving such causation.
5.8 During periods of time that a Satellite does not provide the performance
specified in EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION but I-COGC
elects to continue using the Satellite for communications services, a
reduction in the Satellite Performance Incentives not previously
forfeited under ARTICLE 5.6 or this ARTICLE will be calculated as set
forth below in this ARTICLE 5.8 and in ARTICLE 5.9. If payment refund
was elected, then the reduction in the incentive amount shall be due and
payable by Hughes to I-COGC at such time as the amount of reduction is
agreed between the Parties, save that if the reduction is determined at
the time of the initial in-orbit tests, then said reduction shall be
subtracted from the payment due Hughes at completion of said tests. If
payment over time was elected, then the percentage reduction shall apply
to all remaining Satellite Performance Incentive payments for that
Satellite, and no reduction shall apply to payments already made.
A. I-COGC will determine the effective loss of capacity (number of
communications circuits) or availability (link margin available
to initiate and maintain a communications circuit).
Page 32
<PAGE> 33
B. Capacity will be determined by inspecting the non-conforming
specified parameter(s) and calculating the effective loss of
S-band or C-band EIRP.
If the Satellite continues to support the full design
capacity, (assuming availability is unaffected) * of
Satellite Performance Incentives will be earned.
If the effective EIRP is reduced by 3 dB relative to that
available from a Satellite which meets the performance in
EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION, Satellite
Performance Incentive earnings reduce to * .
Partial Satellite Performance Incentives will be earned for
effective degradations between 0 dB and -3 dB according to the
following linear scale:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
S-band or C-Band
EIRP Degradation, dBW % Capacity Incentives Earned
------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
0 * *
-1 * *
-2 * *
-3 * *
</TABLE>
C. Availability will be determined by inspecting the non-conforming
specified parameter(s) and calculating the effective loss of
S-band G/T.
If the Satellite continues to support the full availability,
(assuming capacity is unaffected), then * of Satellite
Performance Incentives will be earned.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 33
<PAGE> 34
If the effective S-band G/T is reduced by 3 dB relative to
that available from a Satellite that meets the performance in
EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION then Satellite
Performance Incentive earnings reduce to * .
Partial Satellite Performance Incentives will be earned for
effective degradations between 0 dB and -3 dB according to the
following scale:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
S-Band G/T Degradation, dB Incentives Earned
-------------------------- -----------------
<S> <C>
0 *
-1 *
-2 *
-3 *
</TABLE>
D. The Parties acknowledge that capacity or availability loss may
also result from out-of-specification performance of other
parameters due to loss of usable bandwidth, or inability to use
EIRP or G/T at full efficiency. These effects are difficult to
determine a priori. I-COGC will perform appropriate analyses to
compute the impact on capacity or availability if and when such
specific non-conformances occur.
E. Earned incentives will be based on the lower of the degraded
capacity as calculated per paragraph (B) above, or degraded
availability as calculated per paragraph (C), taking into account
the factors under paragraph (D) above.
F. Where performance can be fully restored by a one time switch to
redundant equipment, full Satellite Performance Incentive
earnings apply.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 34
<PAGE> 35
G. In the case of the S-band antennas, where antenna element
redundancy is not required, a graceful performance loss is
expected if individual element paths fail or do not perform to
specification. If performance loss is solely due to loss of an
element path, then full Satellite Performance Incentives will be
earned provided seven (7) or less elements fail or cease to
achieve specified performance.
If more than seven (7) elements fail or cease to achieve
specified performance, then the capacity and availability
calculations discussed above shall be made. The reference for the
EIRP and G/T reductions shall be the level of performance
specified in EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION less
the 0.7 dBW EIRP and 0.4 dB G/T reductions associated with loss
of elements as permitted in EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION.
H. I-COGC will determine the extent of non-conforming specification
parameters for the purpose of incentive calculations based on a
combination of:
i. In-orbit performance measurements using the
I-COGC in-orbit test facilities
ii. The on-board self test facility
iii. Antenna pattern computations based on element
excitation coefficients.
I-COGC will not seek to lower Satellite Performance Incentive
payments for performance reduction resulting from a
non-conformance with a specification, to the extent such
non-conformance is within the measurement uncertainties of the
in-orbit test results.
Page 35
<PAGE> 36
I-COGC will grant to Hughes access to all in-orbit performance
and/or diagnostic data available to allow Hughes to perform an
independent assessment of degraded performance.
I. Notwithstanding the above determinations, if performance is
degraded below 50% capacity or availability but I-COGC at its
sole discretion elects to use the Satellite for revenue-bearing
purposes, the Parties will negotiate an equitable incentive plan.
5.9 Outages due to intermittent equipment operation or faulty
hardware/software design (for example, ESD induced switchoffs, passive
intermodulation, attitude control loop failures) shall result in loss of
Satellite Performance Incentives equated to disruption of services, not
time to recover outage. For outages which are less than one day in
duration, the loss of Satellite Performance Incentives for each such
outage in a twelve month period beginning at the commencement or
anniversary of Operational Lifetime ("Operational Year") shall be as
follows, where the incentives lost will be that amount which would have
been otherwise earned in the time period stated:
Page 36
<PAGE> 37
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Outage Lost Incentives
------ ---------------
<S> <C>
First *
Second *
Third *
Fourth *
Fifth I-COGC may declare the Satellite a total loss per
ARTICLE 5.10
</TABLE>
For the first outage in an Operational Year which is longer than one day
in duration, the loss of incentives shall be one calendar month for each
week or fraction thereof that the Satellite is out of service during
said outage. Upon occurrence of the second such outage in an Operational
Year, or if any outage cannot be rectified within one Month, then I-COGC
may declare the Satellite as a total loss pursuant to ARTICLE 5.10. For
the purpose of this ARTICLE 5.9, outages will not result in a reduction
in the Satellite Performance Incentives due Hughes if:
1) The outage(s) occurs on a spare Satellite, or
2) The outage(s) occurs on a Satellite prior to the commencement of
commercial service on that Satellite and the outage(s) do not impact
system test and/or pre-commercial service trials.
5.10 I-COGC shall have the right to claim a total loss if repeated outages
result in the Satellite failing to offer a satisfactory service and
results in I-COGC withdrawing the Satellite from operational service. If
I-COGC uses said Satellite for experiments or testing in lieu of
operational service, no Satellite Performance Incentives shall be due to
Hughes for said usage. If I-COGC elects to use the Satellite for a
degraded service a partial incentive payment shall be negotiated.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 37
<PAGE> 38
5.11 If I-COGC has to make investment in additional ground segment staffing
or facilities (hardware or software) to keep a Less than Satisfactorily
Operating Satellite in operational service, the cost of the additional
investment will be deducted from Hughes' unearned incentives for that
Satellite if payment over time has been selected by I-COGC, or Hughes
will pay I-COGC the corresponding cost (not to exceed the unearned
incentives for that Satellite) if payment refund has been selected by
I-COGC.
5.12 If at any time after Satellite Performance Incentives are reduced by
this ARTICLE the performance of a Satellite improves, the incentives
will be adjusted to the percentage applicable to the new performance
level adjusted for the incentive provisions of ARTICLE 5.11, if
applicable. I-COGC will test each Satellite placed out of service
quarterly to determine if such Satellite's performance level has
improved.
5.13 Hughes shall have the opportunity to re-earn all partial Satellite
Performance Incentives lost, not to exceed * , during the
first twelve (12) operational years of each Satellite, including any
performance refund amounts paid by Hughes to I-COGC under ARTICLE 5.2,
if a Satellite(s) is (are) providing revenue generating communications
services in accordance with this ARTICLE during the 13th and 14th
operational years. (For the purpose of this ARTICLE, in-orbit spares
shall be considered to be providing revenue generating communication
services.) However, if a Satellite is declared a total loss, then only
the incentives lost prior to total loss declaration are re-earnable. The
re-earnable amount will be the amount of incentives lost prorated by the
number of operational days for that Satellite divided by four thousand
three hundred and eighty (4,380). An extended life Satellite Performance
Incentive pool will be established. At no time shall the extended life
performance pool amount be less than zero. All re-earnable lost
Satellite Performance Incentives will be added to this pool, it being
understood that the said pool be notional only and shall not require
I-COGC to segregate any monies for this purpose. The extended life
Satellite Performance Incentive value for each Satellite
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 38
<PAGE> 39
will be determined by dividing the total number of operational
Satellites in their first twelve operational years (and still providing
revenue generating communications services in accordance with this
ARTICLE) into the total value of the extended life performance pool at
that time. However, such extended life Satellite Performance Incentives
shall not exceed * per year for each Satellite.
The amount of each Satellite's extended life Satellite Performance
Incentives will be determined at the completion of each Satellite's 12th
operational year. No additional lost Satellite Performance Incentives
will be added to, or deleted from, a Satellite's extended life
performance pool once that Satellite is operating in its extended life
period. The value of each Satellite's extended life Satellite
Performance Incentive will be evaluated in accordance with this ARTICLE
and earned linearly over the 13th and 14th operational years. All
extended life Satellite Performance Incentives shall only be earned by
Hughes if the Satellite(s) is providing revenue generating
communications services in accordance with this ARTICLE which, for the
avoidance of doubt, shall not include use for test or experimental
purposes.
Payment of these extended life Satellite Performance Incentive amounts
shall be made on the basis of either payment refund or payment over time
with interest in accordance with Article 5.3 of this Contract, except
that the interest rate is calculated at LIBOR, at the time the
incentives and any associated interest are lost.
5.14 In addition to the Satellite Performance Incentives specified in ARTICLE
5.1 above for Satisfactory Operation of the F13-F15 Satellites over
their Operational Lifetime, Hughes shall, in addition to the amounts
paid as specified in Exhibit H, MILESTONE PAYMENT PLAN, be entitled to
payments in the amount of * for each Satellite (the * Incentive
Payments") for the satisfactory operation of the * on board the
F13-F15 Satellites. *
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 39
<PAGE> 40
* The amounts specified above are independent of one another and will
only be paid if the * on board such Satellite operates satisfactorily.
Determination of satisfactory operation of the * will be based upon
the * performance verification procedure specified in ARTICLE 5.18
below. If any of the prior delivered Satellites (F2-F12) is not
demonstrating on-orbit satisfactory operation of the * operation (up to
a maximum of three complete failures of such Satellites, no * Incentive
Payments being payable if such F2-F12 failures exceed three), then the
maximum amount payable for each of the F13-F15 Satellites will be
reduced by the such maximum amount multiplied by a fraction, the
numerator of which is the number of such prior delivered Satellites not
demonstrating on-orbit satisfactory operation and the denominator of
which is 11. For the purposes of this paragraph, a "complete failure"
shall be deemed to have occurred when the * the point at which the
incentives earned will have reached zero percent (0%) under the table in
Section 5.18.
The * Incentive Payments will be payable six (6) months after
Launch.
If I-COGC directs that any of the F13-F15 Satellites be placed into
storage and such storage continues for six or more months, the amount of
the * Incentive Payments (reduced as described above in the
event any of the F2-F12 Satellites are not demonstrating successful
on-orbit * operation), will be payable six months
after placement into storage. If, after successful launch of the
previously stored (F13-F15) Satellite(s), the Satellite does not
demonstrate successful * operation on-orbit, the
* Incentive Payments received by
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 40
<PAGE> 41
Hughes for that Satellite shall be immediately refunded to I-COGC with
interest from the date of payment at LIBOR + 3%, compounded monthly.
In the event that any of the F13-F15 Satellites is launched but is not a
Successfully Launched Satellite, then the full amount of the *
Incentive Payments for that Satellite(s) shall be due and payable by
I-COGC six months after the launch. If any of the F13 through F14
Satellites are terminated for I-COGC's convenience as specified in
ARTICLE 17 TERMINATION, then in addition to I-COGC's obligations under
ARTICLE 17, the * Incentive Payments (reduced as described above in
the event any of the F2-F12 Satellites are not demonstrating successful
on-orbit * operation) for the terminated Satellite(s) shall be due
and payable by I-COGC on the then current nominal Delivery Date for the
F13 and/or F14 Satellite(s). In the event, that any of the eleven (11)
F2-F12 Satellites were terminated for I-COGC's convenience prior to
I-COGC's termination of F13 and/or F14, I-COGC's * Incentive Payment
shall be reduced by 1/11th for each terminated F2-F12 Satellite. No
interest is to accrue on the * Incentive Payments payable by I-COGC.
5.15 * incentives (the " * Incentives") totaling * will be paid by
I-COGC to Hughes after completion of * events to be mutually agreed
upon by the Parties no later than 30 Days after the completion of the
System Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The target will be approximately
20%, 40% and 40% in 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively. If Hughes and
I-COGC have not mutually agreed upon the definition of * events
within 30 Days after the completion of PDR as provided above, the
dispute resolution process specified in ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND
ARBITRATION, will apply.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Contract, the foregoing
* Incentives will not be payable unless and until the
corresponding *
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 41
<PAGE> 42
event has occurred (regardless of the reasons for any failure of such
event to occur). * I-COGC will use its commercially best efforts to
negotiate with each of its key suppliers system incentives generally
tied to the same events and proportionately similar in amount as
incentives for Hughes in order to maximize alignment of interest and
avoid gaming by individual suppliers at the expense of other companies.
No interest will accrue on the * Incentives payable by I-COGC.
5.16 Integrated * incentives (the " * Incentives") totaling * will
be defined by the Parties and paid by I-COGC to Hughes in accordance
with a performance formula and definition of * parameters to be
mutually agreed upon by the Parties no later than 30 Days after the
completion of the System Preliminary Design Review (PDR). Formula
variables will include, for example, system capacity and quality of
service parameters measured over applicable time periods * . The
target appropriation for the integrated * incentives will be
approximately 80% divided approximately equally for performance periods
expected to occur in calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, with the
remaining 20% divided approximately equally for performance periods
events expected to occur in calendar years 2007 through 2014.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Contract, the
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 42
<PAGE> 43
foregoing * Incentives will not be payable unless and until the
corresponding * has occurred (regardless of the reasons for any failure
of such performance to occur). No interest will accrue on the *
Incentives payable by I-COGC. In the event that Hughes and I-COGC have
not mutually agreed to the definition of * parameters within 30 Days
after the completion of the PDR as provided above, the dispute
resolution process specified in ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION,
will apply.
5.17 * incentives (the * Incentives") totaling * are included in the
price specified in ARTICLE 4. * The incentive amounts specified above
are independent of one another and will be paid in accordance with the
following criteria. These incentives will be conditioned upon full
demonstration of * performance on the first * Satellite (including all
affected unit design and unit manufacturers) and will be payable within
fifteen (15) Days after I-COGC's determination that the requirements for
each of the following events has occurred: 25% on successful completion
of unit test (including all affected unit designs and unit
manufacturers); 25% on successful completion of spacecraft test
(including all affected unit designs and unit manufacturers); and 50% on
successful verification as set forth in ARTICLE 5.18 after six months
on-orbit for the first in-orbit * Satellite (including all affected unit
designs and unit manufacturers). No interest will accrue on these *
incentives.
5.18 The Satellite * will be tested in accordance with the test methodology
as described in Section 6.7 of EXHIBIT D. For purposes of
accountability, Hughes will supply specific procedures to measure the
performance described below. I-
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 43
<PAGE> 44
COGC will be responsible for procuring and making available the
`cooperative emitter', generating the operating plan, and obtaining the
permits, licenses, and authority to operate the "cooperative emitter"
used as a source for the test. In addition, I-COGC shall obtain and
disclose calibration data for the source so that the validity of the
test results can be established. If a calibrated, suitable source is not
available to provide the ability to verify spacecraft performance
in-orbit, then a modified test approach shall be mutually agreed between
the Parties within six (6) Months after Launch of the first * Satellite.
Based upon the results of the testing, the * Performance
Incentives shall be paid in accordance with the following criteria:
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 44
<PAGE> 45
* Incentive Criteria
Given a cooperative S-band interference source on the ground with an
uplink EIRP of no more than * at the edge of coverage (no more than *
incident flux density at the Satellite), within * and a signal bandwidth
between *, partial * incentives shall be earned according to the
following formula:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
S-band G/T degradation relative to
Exhibit B Table 3.4.3-1 Specification Incentives Earned
------------------------------------- -----------------
<S> <C>
degradation (less than or equal to) 4 dB *
degradation (greater than) 4 dB *
degradation (greater than) 4.5 dB *
degradation (greater than) 5 dB *
</TABLE>
The intent of this formula is to devise a simple quantitative metric
(averaged over at least 10 seconds of integration time) to capture the
gross noise floor changes due to all * including spurious and harmonic
products.
* Incentive Criteria
The * performance shall be measured in accordance with Section 6.7 of
EXHIBIT D to verify that the * function properly executes and that the
equivalent G/T disturbance duration (based on * plus measurement margin
due to the in-orbit environment) is within 20% of the specified time in
EXHIBIT B Table 3.5.14-1. Measurement margin shall be mutually agreed at
the time of the * CDR. If * occurs and the disturbance duration is
verified, then the * incentives will be paid to Hughes.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 45
<PAGE> 46
If the in-orbit performance of a Satellite suggests that the *
modifications are not operating correctly, and no * in-orbit testing has
yet been performed on the Satellite, then Hughes agrees to perform
appropriate in-orbit testing to verify the performance of the *
modification.
5.19 Hughes agrees not to insure against the risk of losing (or, in the case
of the Refund Pool, paying) any of the incentives (including, without
limitation, the Satellite Performance Incentives, the Refund Pool, the *
in this ARTICLE (including such incentives as may be applicable to F15
or any of the optional Satellites).
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 46
<PAGE> 47
ARTICLE 6 RESERVED
Page 47
<PAGE> 48
ARTICLE 7 PERMITS AND LICENSES: GOVERNMENT APPROVALS
7.1 Hughes shall, at its own expense, secure all Government permits,
licenses, approvals and consents as may be required for the performance
of the Work under this Contract. Hughes shall perform the Work in
accordance with the conditions thereof. I-COGC shall, make commercially
reasonable efforts to provide to Hughes in a timely manner all
applicable updating information related to the ownership and control of
the "new" ICO to include foreign and domestic ownership, corporate
structure, members of the board, and governance. Hughes and I-COGC agree
to develop a process for working together to resolve all licensing
issues in a manner and on a schedule that is consistent with the
scheduled delivery dates. Such process will include periodic meetings to
review program export status, consultation with I-COGC prior to
submission of new or materially-amended export licenses, and, as
applicable, provision to I-COGC of copies of export licenses and
subsequent provisos.
In addition, I-COGC will be responsible for the cost of any new license
requirements that results from a change to the Contract requested or
directed by I-COGC, whereas Hughes will be responsible for the cost of
any license modifications/updates not resulting from a change to the
Contract requested or directed by I-COGC.
If I-COGC directs that Hughes relocate the Hughes-provided TT&C
equipment currently at the I-COGC's SAN site in India to another
location, I-COGC agrees to reimburse Hughes on a cost reimbursement
basis for all reasonable costs incurred, including a ten percent (10%)
fee.
7.2 Notwithstanding this or any other ARTICLE in this Contract, the Parties
understand and agree that certain restrictions are placed on access to
Hughes' plant and the use of technical data and hardware delivered under
this Contract with relation to the approvals
Page 48
<PAGE> 49
Hughes must obtain from the U.S. Government. As a result, the Parties
agree that such access and the actual delivery of any technical data
will be under a separate agreement which shall require prior U.S.
Government approval. Hughes shall prepare said agreement and, in
consultation with I-COGC, shall request U.S. Government approval.
Request for U.S. Government approvals shall be sufficiently
comprehensive to allow Hughes to fulfill all of its obligations
hereunder including but not limited to the rights of access and
inspection granted to I-COGC and its Consultants under this Contract.
7.3 The hardware ("hardware products") furnished under this Contract will be
authorized by the U.S. Government for export only to I-COGC or to the
Designated Launch Site for Launch into space or in the case of GCE to
the installation sites. The products may not be resold, diverted,
transferred, trans-shipped or otherwise be disposed of in any other
country, either in their original form or after being incorporated
through an intermediate process into other end items without the prior
written approval of the U.S. Government. Additionally, transferring
registration or control to any other person or business entity of the
products furnished under this Contract is considered an export and as
such also requires prior written approval from the U.S. Government.
I-COGC represents and warrants that the ultimate end use of the products
is for telecommunications services.
7.4 I-COGC is responsible for obtaining all Governmental licenses and
permits, approvals and consents as may be required for the importation
of the Work (other than the Satellite(s)) to the applicable delivery
location (including those which are required for GCE and PCS
installation), or relating to the use or operation of the Work following
delivery, including the Satellite(s), GCE, PCS and other related items.
7.5 The obligations contained in this ARTICLE 7 shall survive expiration or
termination of this Contract for whatever cause.
Page 49
<PAGE> 50
ARTICLE 8 ACCEPTANCE
8.1 Final Acceptance of any Satellite shall only arise following the
occurrence of each of the following events:
A. Preliminary acceptance (following successful completion of the
Pre-Shipment Review); and
B. Successful completion of the Launch Readiness Review, following
Delivery of the Satellite to the Designated Launch Site.
8.2 No Satellite shall be delivered either to a Designated Launch Site or
into Storage until preliminary acceptance of that Satellite, whereupon
the Satellite shall be Available for Shipment.
8.3 The procedure for effecting a Pre-Shipment Review shall be as follows:
A. Hughes shall conduct a Pre-Shipment Review at its premises prior
to dispatch of any Satellite from its premises;
B. The Pre-Shipment Review shall verify that:
1. The Satellite protoflight or acceptance testing has been
satisfactorily completed in accordance with
EXHIBIT D, ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN;
2. All discrepancies or non-conformances have been corrected
or dispositioned;
Page 50
<PAGE> 51
3. The Satellite, ground support equipment, and supporting
documentation as specified in EXHIBIT A, STATEMENT OF
WORK, and EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION,
are ready for shipment based on an inspection of the
Satellite and examination of the data package. A
Pre-Shipment Review cannot be deemed completed until all
documentation relating to such review has been delivered.
C. At least fifteen (15) Business Days written notice of the date of
the Pre-Shipment Review shall be given by Hughes to I-COGC;
D. I-COGC shall have the right to send representatives to attend the
Pre-Shipment Review;
E. Preliminary acceptance shall arise upon the occurrence of any of
the following:
1. The Pre-Shipment Review complies in all respects with the
provisions of ARTICLE 8.3.B, and I-COGC notifies Hughes of
their acceptance of the Pre-Shipment Review within 5
Business Days following successful completion. Failure of
I-COGC to so notify Hughes shall be deemed to constitute
acceptance of said review; or
2. The Pre-Shipment Review complies in all respects with
ARTICLE 8.3B save for minor non-conformances that have not
been corrected or dispositioned which Hughes demonstrates
at the review to I-COGC's reasonable satisfaction have no
adverse affect upon the capability of the Satellite to
perform its on-orbit mission throughout its Operational
Lifetime, and I-COGC notifies Hughes of their acceptance
of the Pre-Shipment Review within 5 Business Days
following successful
Page 51
<PAGE> 52
completion. Failure of I-COGC to so notify Hughes shall be
deemed to constitute acceptance of said review; or
3. If the Pre-Shipment Review contains non-conformances which
require correction, within five (5) Business Days after
the said review, I-COGC shall request correction of
non-conforming conditions affecting the Satellite in
writing ("PSR Correction Notice"). Hughes shall promptly
correct the non-conforming conditions referred to therein
and, promptly following such correction, shall notify
I-COGC that the corrections have taken place and shall
invite I-COGC to send representatives to attend an
inspection at which they will be entitled to verify that
such corrections have been satisfactorily made. The
provisions of this ARTICLE 8.3 shall thereafter apply
mutatis mutandis to that inspection as if that inspection
was the original Pre-Shipment Review.
8.4 Prior to integration of any Satellite with the Launch Vehicle at the
Designated Launch Site, a Launch Readiness Review (LRR) shall be jointly
conducted by Hughes and I-COGC. Hughes shall give I-COGC 15 days notice
of shipment of the Satellite to the Designated Launch Site and I-COGC
shall have the right to send representatives to attend the LRR. The
purpose of the LRR is to confirm:
A. The Satellite is ready for Launch. Any defects or
non-conformances as may remain from the Pre-Shipment Review
(which I-COGC has agreed may be corrected at the Designated
Launch Site), or resulting from shipment or otherwise discovered
during Satellite launch preparations shall have been
satisfactorily corrected or dispositioned in the reasonable
opinion of I-COGC;
B. The TT&C Ground Control is ready to support launch and in-orbit
operations of the Satellite. Readiness consists of prior Final
Acceptance of the GCE, and the
Page 52
<PAGE> 53
preparedness of the GCE and the mission operations team to
support launch and in-orbit operations; and
C. The Launch Vehicle is ready for Launch.
Upon successful completion of the LRR, the Satellite shall be released
by I-COGC for Launch Vehicle integration.
8.5 Final Acceptance shall arise upon the occurrence of any of the
following:
A. The LRR demonstrates compliance in all respects with the
provisions of ARTICLE 8.4.A (and 8.4.B for Satellite F1), and
I-COGC notifies Hughes of their acceptance of the LRR within 5
Business Days following its successful completion. Failure of
I-COGC to notify Hughes shall be deemed to constitute acceptance
of said review; or
B. The LRR demonstrates compliance in all respects with ARTICLE 8.4A
(and 8.4B for Satellite F1) save for minor non-conformances that
have not been corrected or dispositioned which Hughes
demonstrates at the review to I-COGC's reasonable satisfaction
have no adverse affect upon the capability of the Satellite to
perform its on-orbit mission throughout its Operational Lifetime,
and I-COGC notifies Hughes of their acceptance of the LRR within
5 Business Days following its successful completion. Failure of
I-COGC to notify Hughes shall be deemed to constitute acceptance
of said review; or
C. If the LRR contains non-conformances which require correction,
within five (5) Business Days after the said review I-COGC shall
request correction of non-conforming conditions affecting the
Satellite in writing ("LRR Correction Notice"). Hughes shall
promptly correct the non-conforming conditions referred to
therein
Page 53
<PAGE> 54
and, promptly following such correction, shall notify I-COGC that
the corrections have taken place and shall invite I-COGC to send
representatives to attend an inspection at which they will be
entitled to verify that such corrections have been satisfactorily
made. The provisions of this ARTICLE 8.4 shall thereafter apply
mutatis mutandis to that inspection as if that inspection was the
original Launch Readiness Review.
8.6 For the purposes of ARTICLES 3.2 and 11, CONSEQUENCES OF LATE DELIVERY,
in the event that I-COGC serve a valid LRR Correction Notice upon
Hughes:
A. Delivery of the relevant Satellite shall be deemed to have
occurred only upon Final Acceptance; and
B. for the purposes of calculating any amounts payable pursuant to
ARTICLE 11, CONSEQUENCES OF LATE DELIVERY:
1. No account shall be taken of the period from actual
physical arrival of the relevant Satellite at its
Designated Launch Site, subject to a visual inspection by
I-COGC to ensure that there is no apparent physical loss
or damage and that the Satellite is available for
commencement of the launch campaign, until (and including)
the date of a valid LRR Correction Notice relating to that
Satellite; and
2. the obligation to pay liquidated damages shall terminate
on the Day that Final Acceptance of that Satellite occurs.
8.7 Prior to shipment of the GCE to the sites selected by I-COGC Hughes
shall conduct a Pre-Shipment Review at the Hughes plant. The
Pre-Shipment Review shall be
Page 54
<PAGE> 55
conducted in accordance with EXHIBIT A, STATEMENT OF WORK. Hughes shall
provide I-COGC fifteen (15) Business Days notice of the Pre-Shipment
Review.
8.7.1 I-COGC shall direct Hughes to ship the GCE to the selected
site(s) upon successful completion of the Pre-Shipment Review.
The Pre-Shipment Review shall be deemed complete and preliminary
acceptance occurs when the Parties agree that:
A. factory acceptance testing in accordance with EXHIBIT E,
GCE IMPLEMENTATION AND TEST PLAN, is complete;
B. all open actions have been closed or a closure plan agreed
by I-COGC;
C. all non-conformances have been corrected or dispositioned.
8.7.2 I-COGC shall not withhold its preliminary acceptance of the GCE
for minor non-conformances which Hughes demonstrates to I-COGC's
reasonable satisfaction have no adverse effect upon the operation
of the GCE in accordance with EXHIBIT F, GCE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION.
8.8 Final Acceptance of the GCE shall occur upon successful completion of
installation and checkout of the SCC at its installation site, TT&C
equipment at the SAN site, an acceptance test of the complete GCE
system, and closure of all action items from the Pre-Shipment Review.
Provided however if there is a delay in installation and checkout due to
unavailability of hardware or facilities not the responsibility of
Hughes, and in particular if the beneficial occupancy dates for the SCC
and SAN in accordance with the table in ARTICLE 29.1.A are not met by
I-COGC, then there shall be a day for day adjustment to the Delivery
Date for the GCE and I-COGC shall be responsible for any reasonable
costs directly related to the delay.
Page 55
<PAGE> 56
8.9 Final Acceptance of the Engineering Model Payload shall occur upon
successful completion of the testing specified in the Engineering Model
Payload Test Plan of EXHIBIT D, ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN.
8.10 Final Acceptance of the Software Simulator (DSS) shall occur upon
completion of the testing specified in EXHIBIT E, GCE IMPLEMENTATION AND
TEST PLAN
8.11 No approvals given by I-COGC in respect of the Work, whether at any
design review or other meetings or in respect of any testing or any
documentation, or any concurrence with or acceptance of Hughes' actions
in the performance of the Work, shall release or be deemed to release
Hughes from its obligations to deliver Work in accordance with the
requirements of the Contract.
8.12 If during any monitoring, review or inspection of Work in progress
I-COGC discovers that any of the Work does not conform to the
requirements of the Contract, then I-COGC shall so inform Hughes and
Hughes will promptly respond with a corrective action plan to rectify or
otherwise disposition said non-conformance. Hughes shall not be relieved
from any contractual obligations should I-COGC fail to detect any such
non-conformances.
Should a dispute arise as to whether Work does or does not conform with
the requirements of the Contract, or whether the plan for corrective
action is adequate, then, unless otherwise agreed, the dispute shall be
resolved in accordance with ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION.
8.13 Final Acceptance of the Payload Control System shall occur upon
successful completion of SAT as described in EXHIBIT K, PCS TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION AND TEST PLAN. I-COGC shall not withhold its acceptance of
the PCS for minor
Page 56
<PAGE> 57
nonconformances which Hughes demonstrates to I-COGC's reasonable
satisfaction to have no adverse effect upon the operation of the PCS in
accordance with EXHIBIT K, PCS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AND TEST PLAN.
Page 57
<PAGE> 58
ARTICLE 9 TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS
9.1 Title and risk of loss or damage to the Satellites to be delivered under
this Contract shall pass from Hughes to I-COGC at the time of Launch of
that Satellite(s) or upon expiration of the warranty period, whichever
occurs earlier.
9.2 Notwithstanding the above, in the event that there is a Launch Attempt
by the Launch Services Provider for any Satellite(s) such that the
Launch Vehicle is shut-down and the launch activity is thereby
terminated prior to lift-off, Hughes agrees to re-acquire risk of loss
or damage for the affected Satellite, until the Intentional Ignition of
the Launch Vehicle for the re-launch of that Satellite, subject to the
following conditions:
A. Such transfer of risk of loss or damage back to Hughes from
I-COGC shall not occur until the launch pad has been declared
safe by the Launch Services Provider.
B. Such risk of loss or damage coverage then assumed by Hughes shall
cover ground risks only which occur after the launch pad has been
declared safe and prior to Intentional Ignition of the Launch
Vehicle used for the re-launch of the Satellite. I-COGC shall
then re-acquire risk of loss or damage for the affected Satellite
at Intentional Ignition of the Launch Vehicle used for the
re-launch.
C. Any damage sustained by the affected Satellite from the period of
Intentional Ignition up to and including the point in time when
the launch pad has been declared safe, shall be the sole
responsibility of I-COGC.
Page 58
<PAGE> 59
D. Any and all additional costs and expenses necessarily incurred by
Hughes associated with this re-acquiring of risk of loss or
damage, including but not limited to de-mating the Satellite from
the Launch Vehicle, defueling operations, inspection and testing,
refurbishment, storage, transportation, and additional launch
operations effort for the re-launch of the Satellite, shall be
the sole responsibility of I-COGC. Hughes shall use its
reasonable endeavors taking into account all the circumstances to
mitigate any such additional costs and expenses.
E. Additionally, in the event that Hughes' insurance capacity limit
for the relevant launch site would be exceeded by the addition of
an affected Satellite, I-COGC shall be responsible for Hughes'
consequent additional insurance premium required to provide
adequate coverage for that Satellite.
9.3 Not later than forty-five (45) Days before Launch of a Satellite, I-COGC
shall request and Hughes shall provide a report within fifteen (15) Days
of the insurance situation pertaining to the relevant Designated Launch
Site. If such report indicates that Hughes believes that its insurance
capacity limits will or may be exceeded for the relevant Designated
Launch Site then the Parties will discuss the appropriate options. If
requested by I-COGC, Hughes will use its reasonable efforts to obtain
additional insurance capacity at I-COGC's cost. If Hughes cannot obtain
the said additional coverage, then I-COGC will bear risk of loss or
damage to the Satellite to the extent not covered by Hughes' existing
insurance until and unless the Satellite is put into storage in
accordance with ARTICLE 32, STORAGE or ARTICLE 33, OPTIONS.
9.4 In relation to that affected Satellite, in the event that the Launch
Vehicle is shutdown again and the launch activities are thereby
terminated prior to lift off, Hughes agrees to re-acquire risk for the
affected Satellite, until the Intentional Ignition of the Launch
Page 59
<PAGE> 60
Vehicle for the re-launch of that Satellite, subject to the conditions
set out in paragraphs A) to E) of ARTICLE 9.2 and also ARTICLE 9.3 (both
of which shall apply mutatis mutandis to any subsequent attempted
re-launch).
9.5 Title to and risk of loss or damage to all items to be delivered under
this Contract other than Satellites and Documentation, shall pass from
Hughes to I-COGC at the time of Final Acceptance by I-COGC in accordance
with ARTICLE 8, ACCEPTANCE save for title to the GCE which shall pass
from Hughes to ICO GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS B.V. at the time of
Final Acceptance by I-COGC of the GCE in accordance with ARTICLE 8.8.
9.6 Title and risk of loss to all Documentation shall pass to I-COGC at the
time of Delivery, save that intellectual property rights in
Documentation shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of
ARTICLE 18, DATA RIGHTS.
Page 60
<PAGE> 61
ARTICLE 10 FORCE MAJEURE
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Contract, in the event Hughes or
its Associates performing Work under the Contract are delayed by act of God, or
of the public enemy, fire, flood, epidemic, quarantine restriction, or lockout,
strike, walkout, (other than those solely affecting Hughes' or its Associates'
workforce) or freight embargo, acts of Government, including but not limited to
the Government of the United States, (including the refusal, suspension,
withdrawal, or non-renewal of export or import licenses essential to the
performance of the Contract not caused by Hughes or its Associates) whether in
its sovereign or contractual capacity, or any other event which is beyond the
reasonable control and without the fault or negligence of Hughes and its
Associates performing any part of the Work, then such event shall constitute an
"Excusable Delay". In the event of an Excusable Delay, there shall be an
equitable adjustment to the time for the performance of the affected obligations
under this Contract provided that Hughes informs I-COGC immediately of the
occurrence of the event giving rise to the Excusable Delay and provides I-COGC
within seven (7) Business Days of the date of such notice with a detailed
description of the performance affected by such event as well as such Hughes'
plans for minimizing the effects of such event upon the performance of its
obligations under the Contract. In all cases Hughes shall use reasonable efforts
to avoid or minimize such delay.
In the event the Excusable Delay condition continues beyond six (6) Months,
I-COGC shall have the right to terminate the Contract in accordance with ARTICLE
17.1, TERMINATION FOR I-COGC'S CONVENIENCE, except that there shall be no
payment to Hughes for lost profit on the uncompleted Work.
Page 61
<PAGE> 62
ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCES OF LATE DELIVERY
11.1 A. In the event that the second Satellite (F2) to be delivered for
Launch or placement into storage hereunder is not delivered on or
before its Delivery Date, then, on the * Day after such
scheduled Delivery Date, Hughes shall pay I-COGC * . Starting
with the * Day after such scheduled Delivery Date, for
a period not to exceed * Days, Hughes
shall pay I-COGC * for each Day the second Satellite (F2) is
late, up to a maximum cumulative total for F2 of * .
B. In the event the fifth Satellite (F5) to be delivered for Launch
or placement into storage hereunder is not delivered on or before
its Delivery Date, then, on the * Day after such
scheduled Delivery Date, Hughes shall pay I-COGC * . Starting
with the * Day after such scheduled Delivery, for a
period not to exceed * Days, Hughes
shall pay I-COGC * for each Day the fifth Satellite (F5) is
late, up to a maximum cumulative total for F5 of * .
C. In the event that the eighth through twelfth Satellites (F8
through F12) to be delivered for Launch or placement into storage
hereunder are not delivered on or before their respective
Delivery Dates, then, commencing on the Day after such scheduled
Delivery Date, for a period not to exceed two hundred and seventy
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 62
<PAGE> 63
(270) Days, Hughes shall pay * for each Day the eighth,
ninth, tenth, eleventh, or twelfth Satellite (F8-F12) is late, up
to a maximum amount of * each and a maximum cumulative total
of * for all five (5) Satellites.
D. If a * entered into by the Parties and
Hughes is in the * , then system delivery liquidated
damages in the amount of * will be allocated to events and
criteria to be defined and mutually agreed to by the Parties by
the execution of such * contract (and, if the Parties are unable
to agree, the dispute resolution process specified in Article 30,
Disputes an Arbitration will apply). If such * contract is
entered into, liquidated damages provided in Article 11.1.B will
be reduced proportionately from * to * . Notwithstanding
any other provision in this Contract, the foregoing system
delivery liquidated damages will be payable if the corresponding
system delivery event has not occurred (regardless of the reasons
for any failure of such event to occur). *
E. In the event the thirteenth through fourteenth Satellites
(F13-F14) to be delivered for Launch or placement into storage
hereunder are not delivered on or before
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 63
<PAGE> 64
their respective Delivery Dates, then, on the * Day after
such scheduled Delivery Date, Hughes shall pay I-COGC * for
each F13 through F14 Satellite that is late. Starting with the
* Day after such scheduled Delivery, for a period not to exceed
* , Hughes shall pay I-COGC * for each Day the F13 through
F14 Satellites are late, up to a maximum amount of * each and
a maximum cumulative total of * for both Satellites.
F. In the event the F15 Satellite to be delivered for Launch or
placement into storage hereunder is not delivered on or before
its respective Delivery Date, then, commencing on the * Day
after such scheduled Delivery Date, for a period not to exceed
one hundred and fifty (150) Days, Hughes shall pay * for each
Day the fifteen Satellite (F15) is late, up to a maximum amount
of * .
G. In the event that any of the F16 through F20 Satellites are
procured under ARTICLE 33 OPTIONS by I-COGC to be delivered for
Launch or placement into storage hereunder and is not delivered
on or before its Delivery Date, then, commencing on the * Day
after such scheduled Delivery Date, for a period not to exceed
* Days, Hughes shall pay * for each Day that any of the F16
through F20 Satellites are late, up to a maximum amount of *
per
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 64
<PAGE> 65
Satellite and a cumulative maximum total of * for all five
Satellites.
Therefore, the maximum aggregate liquidated damages payments
under this ARTICLE 11 shall never exceed * for the firm
Satellites; and, an additional * if all OPTION Satellites are
exercised, for a cumulative maximum aggregate total liquidated
damages of ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND US
dollars (US$113,400,000).
Notwithstanding the above, if such late Delivery of the eighth
through twelfth Satellites (F8-F12) does not cause the relevant
Launch to be later than 3.5 Months after the Delivery Date, then
any amounts paid by Hughes to I-COGC in respect of the affected
Satellite(s) shall be refunded to Hughes within fifteen (15) Days
of Launch.
If any of the eighth through twelfth Satellites (F8-F12) is
delivered into storage for I-COGC's convenience on a date which
is less than 2.5 Months after the Delivery Date, then any amounts
paid by Hughes to I-COGC in respect of the affected Satellite(s)
shall be refunded to Hughes within forty-five (45) Days of
placement into storage.
11.2 As used in this Contract, the designations of Satellite F1 through F12
shall be considered for reference purposes only. For purposes of
assessment of liquidated damages, each Satellite delivered shall be
designated the numerical designation relative to the actual Delivery
Date, i.e., if the Satellite F4 is actually the second Satellite
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 65
<PAGE> 66
delivered to the Designated Launch Site or storage it would be deemed F2
even though its reference designation was F4. Hughes is entitled to
Deliver any Satellite in any order regardless of reference designation
provided that each Satellite complies with the applicable Delivery Date.
If the Satellite designated for protoflight testing (nominally the first
Satellite through environmental test) is not the first Satellite to be
delivered, then such protoflight testing shall be successfully completed
before any Satellite may be launched.
11.3 If a Satellite is put into storage because the Launch is delayed for
other than I-COGC's convenience, then Hughes shall bear all related
costs of such storage, including but not limited to actual storage
costs, program stretch out costs, post-storage retest costs, and any
costs relating to deployment of crews and/or Satellite shipment, until
such time as the Satellite and Launch Vehicle are ready for a Launch.
11.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Delivery of the first
Satellite will not be deemed to have occurred until Final Acceptance of
the GCE has occurred. Additionally, Delivery of the second Satellite
cannot occur prior to Delivery of the first Satellite. However, if
payments for late delivery are incurred through this ARTICLE 11.4 solely
due to late Final Acceptance of the GCE, then account shall be taken of
any adjustments to the GCE Delivery Date.
11.5 The Parties agree and declare that any payments for late delivery
payable in accordance with this ARTICLE 11 and where applicable subject
to ARTICLE 8.6, shall constitute full and final settlement (and shall
therefore be in lieu of all other claims for damages, actual or
consequential or otherwise) for all claims howsoever arising resulting
from the late delivery of any Satellite, other than as provided in
ARTICLE 17, TERMINATION, and ARTICLE 11.3 and the amount payable in
accordance with this ARTICLE 11 shall constitute liquidated damages
which the Parties believe and declare,
Page 66
<PAGE> 67
represent a genuine pre-estimate of all losses suffered by reason of any
such late delivery and are not, therefore, penalties.
11.6 I-COGC may elect to set off any amounts then due and payable by I-COGC
under this Contract against any amounts payable by Hughes to I-COGC
pursuant to this ARTICLE. In the event I-COGC alternatively elects to
have Hughes make payment under this ARTICLE such payment shall be due
within 30 Days of receipt by Hughes of a valid invoice from I-COGC. For
billing purposes to Hughes, I-COGC shall aggregate amounts owed on a
monthly basis.
Page 67
<PAGE> 68
ARTICLE 12 ACCESS TO WORK IN PROGRESS AND DATA
12.1 Hughes shall provide I-COGC and its Consultant(s) reasonable access to
all Work, related data and documentation being performed under this
Contract (including observation of tests in accordance with the
requirements of EXHIBIT D, ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN), such that I-COGC may
fully and effectively monitor the progress of the Work and its
compliance with the requirements of this Contract at Hughes' facilities
provided that such access does not unreasonably interfere with such Work
and access to Work is coordinated with the Hughes Program Manager or
designated alternative(s). Hughes may, at its reasonable discretion,
deny access to persons who are employed by or affiliated with a company
manufacturing satellites or major subsystems for satellites. Such access
shall be in compliance with Hughes' security requirements, and United
States law. I-COGC and its Consultant(s) shall also be afforded such
access to the Major Subcontractors' facilities pursuant to ARTICLE 36,
MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS and also Subcontractors' facilities to the extent
that Hughes is permitted to provide such access, subject to I-COGC
providing sufficient notice to Hughes so as to assure that if desired by
the Hughes Program Manager, Hughes personnel can accompany I-COGC and
its Consultant(s) on any such visit.
12.2 I-COGC and/or its Consultant(s) visiting Hughes facilities (a) will
abide by Hughes' security regulations and applicable US Government
regulations; and (b) will not use or disclose except as provided in
ARTICLE 18, DATA RIGHTS, ARTICLE 20, RIGHTS IN INVENTIONS, and ARTICLE
21, CONFIDENTIALITY to a third party any information received in
connection with the access provided hereunder.
12.3 For purposes of access, I-COSL and ICO-Teledesic Global Limited, their
respective Affiliates and successors of the foregoing shall be
considered the same as I-COGC.
Page 68
<PAGE> 69
12.4 I-COGC shall be provided adequate office space so as to accommodate the
I-COGC on-site monitoring team (approximately ten people) as is more
particularly described in EXHIBIT A, STATEMENT OF WORK.
Page 69
<PAGE> 70
ARTICLE 13 INDEMNIFICATION
13.1 Each Party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other Party and its
Associates, (or any of them) from any loss, damage, liability or
expense, resulting from damage to all property and personal injury,
including death, arising out of or based upon any occurrence prior to
arrival at the Designated Launch Site to the extent caused by a
negligent act or omission of the indemnifying Party or its Associates in
the performance of the Work and at the indemnifying Party's expense
shall defend any suits or other proceedings brought against the
indemnified Party and/or its Associates (or any of them) on account
thereof, and satisfy all judgements which may be incurred by or rendered
against them, or any of them, in connection therewith.
13.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Party ("the Indemnifying Party")
will indemnify the other Party for any loss or damage to the
Indemnifying Party's property or death or personal injury to the
Indemnifying Party's personnel whilst on the premises of either Party
provided however that the first US$100,000 of any such loss, damage,
death or personal injury shall be dealt with in accordance with ARTICLE
13.1.
13.3 Prior to the time that either Party or its Associates enter the
Designated Launch Site, (and as a precondition of such entry) each Party
shall ensure that they and their respective relevant Associates shall
sign a no-fault, no-subrogation inter-party waiver of liability
consistent with that between the Launch Services Provider and Hughes.
13.4 In the event that either I-COGC or Hughes fails to obtain the aforesaid
inter-party waiver of liability from their respective Associates, then
I-COGC and Hughes shall indemnify and hold each other harmless from
claims brought by the other Party or its Associates for damage to any
such persons'
Page 70
<PAGE> 71
property or injury to, or death of, any such persons' employees in
connection with launch operations at the Designated Launch Site. For
these purposes, Hughes or its Affiliates or any of its subcontractors or
employees or agents performing work under the interelated contract for
Launch Services referred to in the Recitals shall not be deemed to be an
Associate of I-COGC for the purposes of this Contract.
13.5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, but without
prejudice to any indemnities or insurance coverage as may be provided by
Launch Services Providers under the interrelated contract for Launch
Services referred to in the Recitals, I-COGC shall indemnify and hold
harmless Hughes and its Associates from any liabilities, losses and
damages including but not limited to those based on negligence,
including any costs, expenses and damages whatsoever incurred by Hughes
in defending, or assisting I-COGC in its defense, against any and all
third party claims, including but not limited to, I-COGC's customer(s)
or an agency of any Government with whom I-COGC shall have any
obligation related to the Satellites, arising after Launch Attempt of a
Satellite, and I-COGC shall obtain waivers of subrogation rights against
Hughes and its Associates from I-COGC's insurers if any.
This indemnity shall not apply to Hughes or its Associates to the extent
that they make a claim against I-COGC as a direct or indirect customer
of I-COGC and shall not apply to any intellectual property-related
claims, which are instead intended to be the subject of Article 19,
Intellectual property Indemnity.
Page 71
<PAGE> 72
ARTICLE 14 WARRANTY
14.1 Notwithstanding any prior inspection or acceptance, Hughes warrants in
respect of the Work that all equipment (including, but not limited to,
the Satellite) shall be free from defects in materials or workmanship
and all services shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike
manner consistent with generally accepted custom and practice in the
industry and further that all equipment and services shall conform to
the specifications and other technical requirements of the Contract.
14.2 I-COGC shall have the right at any time during the period of this
warranty to require that any Work not conforming to the above warranty
be promptly corrected or replaced (at Hughes' option after taking into
account any of the representations by I-COGC and at Hughes' expense)
with conforming Work. If Hughes fails to correct or replace such
defective Work within a reasonable period after notification from
I-COGC, I-COGC may elect, in lieu of its other rights and remedies, to
require Hughes to repay such portion of the Contract Price and/or make
such modifications to the performance incentive scheme as are equitable
under the circumstances in lieu of repairing or replacing such defective
Work.
14.3 This warranty with respect to a Satellite, (but excluding any Satellite
batteries) shall begin upon Final Acceptance of the Satellite and shall
run for a period of five (5) years, or until Launch, whichever is
earlier.
14.4 The Satellite batteries are warranted for 36 Months after cell
activation. This Satellite battery warranty may be extended to 54 Months
by resetting the battery precharge, as long as direction is received
from I-COGC to perform this reset no later than 30 Months after
activation.
Page 72
<PAGE> 73
14.5 With respect to GCE, Software Simulator (DSS), and Engineering Model
Payload, this warranty shall begin upon Final Acceptance and shall run
for a period of two years therefrom.
14.6 For the avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall limit Hughes'
obligations as stated in ARTICLE 28, CORRECTIVE MEASURES IN UNLAUNCHED
SATELLITES nor limit I-COGC's rights to be repaid monies pursuant to
ARTICLE 5, SATELLITE PERFORMANCE PAYMENTS.
14.7 With respect to the PCS, this warranty shall begin upon Final Acceptance
and shall run for a period of one year therefrom; except for the PCS
baseband equipment which shall have a ten (10) month warranty period.
Page 73
<PAGE> 74
ARTICLE 15 SATELLITE NOT LAUNCHED AFTER AVAILABLE FOR SHIPMENT DATE
15.1 A Satellite which is not shipped to the Designated Launch Site following
agreement that the Satellite is Available for Shipment shall be stored
by Hughes pursuant to ARTICLE 32, STORAGE or ARTICLE 33, OPTIONS.
Upon receipt by Hughes of a written request from I-COGC at least six (6)
Months prior to the applicable rescheduled launch date, Hughes shall
remove the Satellite from storage and based upon an on-site inspection,
ship it to either the Designated Launch Site or the Hughes facility for
inspection, test and refurbishment if required. If Hughes receives less
than six Months notice of a re-scheduled launch date, it shall
nevertheless use its commercially reasonable efforts to meet I-COGC's
schedule requirements. The Parties will determine which destination is
more appropriate under the then existing circumstances. All the costs of
any such inspection, test and refurbishment shall be included in the
prices for storage in ARTICLE 32, STORAGE or ARTICLE 33, OPTIONS.
15.2 If a Satellite has not been launched within five (5) years after its
Available for Shipment date and Hughes is otherwise not in default,
Hughes shall be entitled to receive all payments which are due and
owing, any Satellite Performance Incentive payments not yet due shall be
deemed earned and owed, and Hughes shall be entitled to retain without
obligation all payments previously made with respect to that Satellite.
Neither Party shall have any further obligations to the other Party
under this Contract with respect to that Satellite, provided that I-COGC
and Hughes have met their obligations under this Contract with respect
to that Satellite, and I-COGC shall have title to the Satellite.
Disposition of the Satellite shall be at the option of I-COGC, subject
to U.S.
Page 74
<PAGE> 75
Government export controls, with such costs to be borne by I-COGC.
Hughes shall have no liability in the event an export license is not
issued for the benefit of I-COGC. In this event, Hughes shall assist
I-COGC by using its reasonable endeavors in locating an alternative
buyer for the affected Satellite for which an export license may be
obtained.
15.3 If the Satellite is not launched within one hundred eighty (180) Days
from its Available for Shipment date other than due to the fault of
Hughes or due to Excusable Delay, Final Acceptance will be deemed to
have occurred at such time.
Page 75
<PAGE> 76
ARTICLE 16 TAXES AND DUTIES
16.1 Hughes shall be responsible for all United States federal and state
taxes which are levied upon Hughes or its Affiliates in connection with
the Work, excluding any sales tax on property or services delivered to
I-COGC.
16.2 Hughes shall also be responsible for all non-U.S. taxes assessed upon
Hughes or its Affiliates except any future non-U.S. income tax, value
added tax, sales tax, personal, withholding or business tax, or goods
and services tax, duties, or other governmental assessments which are
levied on Hughes or its Affiliates in connection with the Work related
to the launching of the Satellite(s) from the Designated Launch Site(s)
and except for all present and future taxes etc. as aforesaid for Work
related to installation, checkout and testing of the GCE and PCS at the
selected installation site(s).
However, should any such taxes be the result of an incremental increase
in any pre-existing Hughes tax obligation, I-COGC shall be responsible
only for such incremental increase. Further, should Hughes utilize an
Affiliate to perform Work at the Designated Launch Site or at the
selected installation site, then I-COGC shall not be responsible for any
taxes which would not have been levied on Hughes if Hughes had performed
said Work.
Should any taxes paid or reimbursed by I-COGC under the Contract
eventually be subject to tax equalization by reimbursement to Hughes
from a governmental entity or otherwise, Hughes shall repay I-COGC an
equivalent amount.
I-COGC shall not be liable for any personal taxation incurred by
employees of Hughes or its Affiliates, but shall pay to Hughes an amount
equal to the additional compensation
Page 76
<PAGE> 77
paid by Hughes or its Affiliates to such employees as compensation for
such incremental taxes incurred by such employees as part of its normal
compensation package for employees while performing Work at the
Designated Launch Site or selected installation site. Provided further
that I-COGC shall not be responsible for any element of said
compensation package in respect of the Designated Launch Site, except to
the extent it is increased to take account of future taxation.
16.3 Hughes shall consult with I-COGC or its designated Consultant(s) on any
taxes or duties which may be the responsibility of and payable by I-COGC
under ARTICLE 16.1 and 16.2 above. In the event any of the items in
ARTICLE 16.1 and 16.2 above, for which I-COGC is responsible, are levied
upon Hughes or its Affiliates, or employees, Hughes shall immediately
notify I-COGC of such requirement. I-COGC, within fifteen (15) Business
Days of receipt of such notification from Hughes, shall either have the
charges waived or pay the charges to Hughes. For those items in ARTICLE
16.1 and 16.2 that Hughes is required by law to pay immediately, I-COGC
shall reimburse Hughes the full amount of the charges in a manner which
leaves Hughes net of all such charges within fifteen (15) Days of
I-COGC's receipt of Hughes' valid invoice. The reimbursement request
will be accompanied by evidence of the amount and purpose of such
payments.
In any event, provided Hughes or its Affiliates have appropriate legal
standing, I-COGC may direct Hughes to file any appropriate protests or
appeals with the applicable governmental agency. I-COGC agrees to
reimburse Hughes for all costs incurred as a result of such protest or
appeal and also for any resultant taxes that Hughes is required to pay.
16.4 For the avoidance of doubt, I-COGC is not responsible for any taxes,
fees, or duties as they relate to any Work performed by Subcontractors
of Hughes.
Page 77
<PAGE> 78
16.5 This ARTICLE shall survive the expiration, completion, or termination of
this Contract.
Page 78
<PAGE> 79
ARTICLE 17 TERMINATION
17.1 Termination for I-COGC's Convenience
A. I-COGC may, upon written notice to Hughes, at any time terminate in
whole or in part the Work with respect to this Contract in accordance
with the terms set forth below, and Hughes shall immediately cease Work
in the manner and to the extent specified. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in no event shall there be a Termination for Convenience for
a Satellite after said Satellite has been launched.
B. Upon receipt of a notice of termination, as provided in ARTICLE 17.1.A
above, Hughes shall take the following actions:
1. stop Work under this Contract on the date and to the extent
specified in the notice of termination;
2. place no further orders, subcontracts for materials, services, or
facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such
portion of the Work as is not terminated;
3. terminate orders and subcontracts to the extent that they relate
to the performance of Work terminated by the notice of
termination;
4. settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of
such termination or orders, subcontracts for materials, services,
or facilities;
5. take such action as may be necessary, or as I-COGC may direct,
for the protection and preservation of the property related to
this Contract which is in the possession of Hughes or any
Subcontractor and in which I-COGC has or may acquire an interest.
Page 79
<PAGE> 80
C. Within ninety (90) Days or longer (as determined by Hughes) after
determination by Hughes of the cost of all Work terminated, Hughes shall
submit to I-COGC its termination claim consisting of the costs of all
Work done up to the date of termination, including pre-payments which
are non-refundable to Hughes, and including the settlement and other
costs connected with the termination. Settlements with the Major
Subcontractors identified in ARTICLE 36, MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS and such
other subcontractors having a subcontract hereunder with a value
exceeding U.S.$30,000,000, shall be made with the approval of I-COGC
with such approvals not to be unreasonably withheld or unduly delayed.
The term "costs" as used herein includes but is not limited to direct
costs and indirect costs (including general and administrative expense),
which have been posted to Hughes' books of account in accordance with
the standard accounting practice for commercial contracts, consistently
applied. In addition to these incurred costs, such termination claim
shall include, and I-COGC shall be obligated to pay, a profit of nine
percent (9%) on such costs. I-COGC shall also pay 1.8% profit on the
uncompleted Work which is terminated. The termination claim shall give
credit for all amounts already paid by I-COGC to Hughes in respect of
the terminated Work. In no event shall a termination settlement
(including such credit for amounts already paid by I-COGC) exceed the
Contract Price inclusive of performance incentives.
D. Each termination claim shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by
the Controller of Hughes stating that the claim properly includes the
costs incurred by Hughes in connection with the Work terminated. In the
event I-COGC desires independent verification of the claim, it may
request to have Hughes' independent Certified Public Accountants (CPA)
audit the costs incurred by Hughes and report to the Parties. Such audit
shall be subject to ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION, save that, if
the costs determined by such report exceed the amount of Hughes'
termination claim, I-COGC shall only be obliged to pay the amount of
Hughes' termination claim.
Page 80
<PAGE> 81
E. I-COGC shall within thirty (30) Days pay to Hughes for any termination
for convenience hereunder the amount claimed by Hughes unless I-COGC
requests verification by Hughes' independent CPA. In the event
verification is requested, I-COGC shall place the amount claimed by
Hughes into an interest-bearing escrow account at Bank of America,
Concord, California, within thirty (30) Days after receipt of a valid
invoice. Within thirty (30) Days after an agreed resolution of the
dispute or resolution in accordance with ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND
ARBITRATION I-COGC shall cause to be released from such escrow account,
such amount agreed due or determined due to Hughes in accordance with
ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION together with interest on such
amount; and the costs and fees of such escrow account shall be borne by
each Party in inverse proportion to the amounts received by each party.
I-COGC shall be responsible for all non-Hughes costs associated with any
audit of Hughes' termination claim, unless such audit determines a
discrepancy in I-COGC's favor in excess of five (5) percent or more of
the total claim value; in this latter case Hughes shall bear said audit
costs.
F. Title to all items of Work, which would have been incorporated into a
deliverable item under this Contract, and which are in progress before
the giving of notice under ARTICLE 17.1.A above, shall, upon payment in
full of all amounts due hereunder, vest in I-COGC, and Hughes shall
deliver, FOB Hughes plant El Segundo, California, subject to US Export
Regulations for which Hughes has no liability in the event of failure to
obtain stated export authorizations (other than due to Hughes' fault or
negligence), all such items to I-COGC who shall remove such items. All
such items of Work which are under the custody or control of Hughes
shall until delivery to I-COGC be insured by Hughes at its cost and risk
therein shall pass to I-COGC on such delivery.
G. If in Hughes' sole judgment it is feasible for Hughes to utilize any
items of terminated Work, it shall submit to I-COGC an offer to acquire
such items. If such offer is accepted, Hughes' termination claim shall
be credited with the agreed acquisition price. Hughes
Page 81
<PAGE> 82
shall have no obligation to use any of the Work in any other project or
for any other customer and any decision to do so shall be made at
Hughes' sole discretion.
H. Hughes shall place subcontracts for Major Subcontractors, and shall use
reasonable efforts for other Subcontractors, to place subcontracts on
terms that will enable Hughes to terminate in a manner consistent with
this ARTICLE.
I. Upon a partial termination, Hughes may equitably reprice the Work not
terminated and the Contract Price shall be adjusted accordingly. For
purposes of this ARTICLE, the word "equitably" shall mean that the
repricing must be based upon, and that Hughes can demonstrate to I-COGC,
that the partial termination for convenience caused such price increase
and that the repricing reflects the actual increased prices. Two
examples, among many potential situations, where repricing would be
deemed to be equitable under this ARTICLE are; (1) where certain
non-recurring costs have been spread over a certain number of Satellites
and that number had now been decreased through termination, the
repricing would respread the non-recurring over the lesser number of
Satellites remaining; and (2) the prices of certain Subcontractors'
goods and services have been increased to Hughes on a per unit basis
retroactively based on the decreased quantity buy.
Page 82
<PAGE> 83
17.2 Termination for Hughes' Default
A. I-COGC may issue a written notice of default (the "Default Notice") to
Hughes if:
1. Subject to the prior operation of the provisions of ARTICLE 11,
CONSEQUENCES OF LATE DELIVERY as modified by ARTICLE 17.2.A(3),
hereof, any of the following Satellite(s) is not delivered by a
date which is nine (9) Months after the date specified in ARTICLE
3, DELIVERY SCHEDULE, as such date may be adjusted by ARTICLE 10,
FORCE MAJEURE, or as otherwise mutually agreed for such
Satellite(s):
(a) F2
(b) F7
(c) F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15 and, if
exercised, any of F16-F20; or
2. Hughes shall (A) commence a voluntary case under the US
Bankruptcy Code (as now or hereafter in effect) (the "Code"); (B)
file a petition seeking to take advantage of any other laws,
domestic or foreign, relating to bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, winding up or composition or adjustment of debts;
(C) consent to or fail to contest in a timely and appropriate
manner any petition filed against it in an involuntary case under
the Code or other laws or such a case shall not have been
dismissed or stayed within thirty (30) days of the filing of the
petition commencing the same; (D) apply for, or consent to, or
fail to contest in a timely and appropriate manner, the
appointment of, or the taking of possession by, a receiver,
custodian, trustee, liquidator or the like of itself or of a
substantial part of its assets, domestic or foreign; (E) admit in
writing its inability to pay, or generally not be paying its
debts (other than those that are the subject of a bona fide
disputes) as they become due; (F) make a general assignment for
the benefit of creditors; or (G) Hughes or the Hughes Parent
Company sells,
Page 83
<PAGE> 84
transfers or otherwise disposes of all or substantially all of
its assets (other than for full consideration) and as a result
the Parent Company Guarantee provided by Hughes is prejudiced
and adequate security, in a form reasonably acceptable to
I-COGC, is not additionally provided; or (H) take any action for
the purpose of effecting any of the foregoing; or (I) a case or
other proceeding shall be commenced against Hughes in any court
of competent jurisdiction seeking (i) relief under the Code or
under any other laws, domestic or foreign, relating to
bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, winding up or adjustment
of debts; or (ii) the appointment of a trustee, receiver,
custodian, liquidator or the like of Hughes or of all or any
substantial part of its assets, domestic or foreign and such
case or proceeding shall continue undismissed or unstayed for a
period of 30 days, or an order granting the relief request in
such case or proceeding (including, but not limited to, an order
for relief under the Code) shall be entered;
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of ARTICLE 11, CONSEQUENCES OF
LATE DELIVERY, it is demonstrable by I-COGC that Hughes will be
unable to deliver any of the following Satellites F2, F7, F8, F9,
F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, or F15 or, if exercised, any of F16-F20
by a date which is nine Months after the relevant date specified
in ARTICLE 3, DELIVERY SCHEDULE, as such date may be adjusted by
ARTICLE 10, FORCE MAJEURE, or as otherwise agreed by the Parties.
The determination of Hughes ability to deliver any Satellite
within the applicable time period will be subject to dispute in
accordance with ARTICLE 30, DISPUTE AND ARBITRATION.
B. I-COGC's service of a Default Notice on Hughes shall operate to
terminate this Contract forthwith in whole or in part with respect to
the Work which is in default under ARTICLE 17.2.A, as I-COGC shall
elect. In the event I-COGC terminates this Contract, or any part
thereof, as provided in ARTICLE 17.2.A, then the Contract Price stated
in ARTICLE 4.1 will be adjusted downward as follows:
Page 84
<PAGE> 85
1. If the Contract is terminated in whole, then all payments made to
Hughes under this Contract are immediately refundable and no
further payments will be due to Hughes.
2. If the Contract is terminated in part, then the total Contract
Price shall be reduced by the price of the Work terminated. That
price shall be (a) for all Work other than Satellites F8-F12, the
price determined by I-COGC. Such determination shall be subject
to dispute in accordance with ARTICLE 30, DISPUTES AND
ARBITRATION; and (b) for any of Satellites F8-F12, as per the
following tables:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Contract Price Reduction
Item(s) Terminated Per Satellite
--------------------------------------
<S> <C>
Satellite F8 *
Satellites F9-F12 *
</TABLE>
Within 30 Days of receipt of the aformentioned termination
notice, Hughes shall refund to I-COGC the difference, if any,
between the revised total Contract Price and the total amount of
the payments received by Hughes under the Contract.
In addition to the Contract Price reduction and refund described
above, I-COGC shall be entitled, at its option, to either:
1. receive a payment of its excess direct costs of
reprocurement of the terminated Work to materially similar
specifications up to a maximum amount of forty percent
(40%) of the price of the terminated Work; or
2. receive, if I-COGC elects not to reprocure, payment of
interest on the amount refunded at LIBOR. Under a full
termination, interest shall be calculated on each payment
made by I-COGC from the date of payment to the date of the
termination. Under a partial termination, such interest
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has
been separately filed with the Commission.
Page 85
<PAGE> 86
shall be calculated as if the amount refunded for each
Satellite terminated hereunder had been paid to Hughes in
a lump sum on a date sixteen (16) Months before the
Delivery Date specified for that Satellite in ARTICLE 3,
DELIVERY SCHEDULE, as such date may be adjusted by ARTICLE
10, FORCE MAJEURE, or as otherwise mutually agreed for
such Satellite(s) provided always that interest shall not
be payable in respect of the refund for of any launched
Satellites which are terminated.
C. In the event I-COGC terminates this Contract as provided in ARTICLE
17.2.B, then, with the exception of launched Satellites, Hughes shall be
entitled to retain title to any and all terminated Work, work in
progress, parts, material, or other items used in the performance of
this Contract, together with any associated warranties, and any
subcontracted items which Hughes has specifically produced or acquired
or entered into in accordance with this Contract.
D. If, after termination of this Contract under the provisions of this
ARTICLE 17.2, it is determined by arbitration or admitted in writing by
I-COGC that Hughes was not in default under the provisions of this
ARTICLE, or that the default was excusable under the provision of
ARTICLE 10, FORCE MAJEURE, such termination shall be considered a
termination for convenience of I-COGC and Hughes shall be paid in
accordance with the calculations set forth in ARTICLE 17.1 hereof.
E. The rights and remedies provided to I-COGC under this ARTICLE 17.2 shall
be exclusive and in lieu of any other rights and remedies under this
Contract or otherwise provided by law or in equity in relation to the
termination of this Contract for Hughes' default of its obligations to
perform the Work.
F. Should I-COGC terminate the Contract after one or more Satellite(s) have
been launched, and notwithstanding that I-COGC is refunded monies paid
for such Satellite(s), then I-COGC shall retain title to such launched
Satellite(s) which have been
Page 86
<PAGE> 87
terminated provided always that any net profits derived by I-COGC from
such Satellite(s) shall be shared between Hughes and I-COGC in
proportion to the monies refunded by Hughes in respect of the
Satellite(s) and the monies expended by I-COGC for launch and insurance
costs (as adjusted to take account of interest at LIBOR from the date of
payment by I-COGC to the date of termination) until such time as Hughes'
refund of monies has been defrayed.
G. Prior to Delivery of F7, I-COGC may terminate previously delivered
Satellites under this ARTICLE 17.2B and be repaid monies in respect
thereof, but after Delivery of F7, delivered Satellites may not be
terminated, and I-COGC shall not be entitled to be repaid monies in
respect thereof.
H. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this ARTICLE, a termination for
Hughes' default shall not relieve the Parties of their obligations with
respect to previously delivered Satellites which have not been
terminated.
17.3 Termination for Default of I-COGC
A. Hughes may terminate this Contract in whole upon written notice to
I-COGC at any time after the occurrence of any of the following:
1. Failure of I-COGC to make any payment validly due to Hughes
hereunder when due, provided such failure is not cured within a
period of thirty (30) Days following receipt of written notice
thereof from Hughes.
2. I-COGC passes a resolution for winding-up or a petition is
presented for I-COGC's winding-up (unless such resolution or
petition for winding up is pursuant to a scheme of corporate
reconstruction or amalgamation and there is no adverse effect on
the payment obligations to Hughes hereunder) and, unless granted,
is not dismissed within thirty (30) Days from presentation; or
I-COGC
Page 87
<PAGE> 88
becomes unable to pay its debts as they become due; or a receiver
is appointed over all or a substantial part of I-COGC's assets
and the appointment is not discharged within thirty (30) Days; or
I-COGC or I-COGC's Parent Company sells, transfers, or otherwise
disposes of all or the greater part of its assets (other than for
full consideration) and as a result the Parent Company Guarantee
provided by I-COGC is prejudiced and adequate security in a form
reasonably acceptable to Hughes is not additionally provided.
B. If a termination occurs under ARTICLE 17.3.A above, the termination will
be treated as if a Termination for I-COGC's Convenience (ARTICLE 17.1)
except that Hughes shall have the following additional rights:
1. I-COGC shall pay to Hughes the amounts specified in ARTICLE
17.1.C, except that I-COGC shall pay three and six-tenths percent
(3.6%) profit on the uncompleted Work.
2. Hughes shall have the right to immediately stop any Work, the
delivery of which has not been completed.
3. For launched Satellites, all unpaid a) Satellite Performance
Incentives Payments, b) * Incentive Payments, and c)
Incentives * under ARTICLE 5, shall be deemed earned and
immediately due and payable to Hughes. Such payments shall be
calculated using the presumption that all Satellites would have
continued to operate at the performance level in effect on the
date preceding the date of termination, or if such termination
occurred prior to establishing such level, then Satisfactory
Operation shall be presumed.
C. The rights and remedies provided to Hughes under this ARTICLE 17.3 shall
be exclusive and in lieu of any other rights and remedies under this
Contract or otherwise
Page 88
<PAGE> 89
provided by law or in equity in relation to the termination of this
Contract for I-COGC's default of its obligations under this Contract.
Page 89
<PAGE> 90
ARTICLE 18 DATA RIGHTS
18.1 Subject to the provisions of ARTICLE 21, CONFIDENTIALITY and ARTICLE 7,
PERMITS AND LICENSES: GOVERNMENT APPROVALS, I-COGC shall have the
royalty-free, world-wide, non-exclusive right to use and to have used by
others:
A. the data delivered by Documentation under the Contract or data
generated under the Contract for the I-CO Program; and
B. any other data furnished under the Contract required for the
purposes of using, maintaining, operating, modifying and
repairing the Work.
I-COGC shall also have the right to make copies of the Documentation for
its own use or for third parties granted rights to use under this
ARTICLE; provided, however, that if any of the written Documentation is
copyrighted by Hughes, Hughes does hereby grant to I-COGC a
royalty-free, non-exclusive right and license under Hughes' copyrights
to make such copies for the I-CO Program. With respect to all written
Documentation that is copyrighted, I-COGC shall apply the appropriate
copyright notice to all copies made thereof. All rights to Documentation
not owned by Hughes or to which Hughes has no transmissible right of use
now or hereafter are limited to the extent of Hughes' rights and
interests therein.
Page 90
<PAGE> 91
18.2 Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, the ownership and title to
copyrights in computer programs, and their related Documentation,
delivered to I-COGC by Hughes in accordance with this Contract shall
remain in Hughes or its licensor. Hughes shall grant to I-COGC a paid-up
non-exclusive non-transferable license solely for the I-CO Program to
use and to have used by others and make additional copies of the
deliverable computer programs and related documentation specified in the
Contract and required for the I-CO Program.
18.3 Hughes agrees to grant to I-COGC, only for the subsequent generation
follow-on programs for fixed and mobile communications, data, and
ancillary services, a royalty-free license to make, have made, and use
any component or invention developed primarily under this Contract. This
license grant shall not apply to any component or invention developed
before this Contract, or developed primarily with Hughes Internal
Research and Development funds. Furthermore, this license does not
include any rights to any drawings, schematics, manufacturing
documentation or any other documentation of any kind, except that Hughes
will provide a top level summary description which shall include the
nature, purpose, operation and general physical characteristics of such
component or invention.
Page 91
<PAGE> 92
ARTICLE 19 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
19.1 Hughes agrees to indemnify and defend at its own expense any claims,
actions, or proceedings or request for royalty payments or any claims
for equitable relief or damages against I-COGC based on an allegation
that the manufacture of the Work under this Contract or the use, lease,
or sale thereof infringes any intellectual property rights including,
but not limited to, Letters Patent or trade mark, or any copyright, in
the U.S. or place of manufacture or delivery of the Work where such
infringement directly results solely from the manufacture, use, lease,
or sale of the Work. In such event, Hughes agrees to pay any royalties
and other costs related to the settlement of such request and to pay the
costs and damages, including reasonable legal fees, finally awarded as
the result of any suit based on such claim, provided that Hughes is
given prompt written notice of such request or claims by I-COGC and
given authority and such assistance and information as is available to
I-COGC for resisting such request or for the defense of such claim. Any
such assistance or information which is furnished by I-COGC at the
written request of Hughes is to be at Hughes' expense. In no event shall
Hughes' entire liability under this ARTICLE exceed ONE HUNDRED MILLION
US Dollars (US$100,000,000.00) and the existence of one or more claims
or lawsuits shall not extend this amount. Nothing in this Contract shall
be construed as requiring Hughes to defend a suit or pay royalties,
costs or damages if the infringement claim is based upon the
manufacture, use, lease, or sale of any Work that has been modified,
altered or used in combination with other components or systems to the
extent the infringement would not have occurred but for such
modification, alteration or combined use. If the use of any Work is
enjoined in said suit, Hughes shall at its option and with the
limitation of liability for damages stated above use best efforts to
procure for I-COGC the right to use the Work or modify (such
modification to comply with the requirements of the Contract) the same
to render them non-infringing. Hughes shall have no liability or
responsibility for incidental, special, or
Page 92
<PAGE> 93
consequential damages incurred by I-COGC save and insofar they are
included in any claim by a third party for which I-COGC is indemnified
under this ARTICLE 19.1.
19.2 I-COGC agrees to indemnify and defend at its own expense any claims,
actions, or proceedings or request for royalty payments or any claims
for equitable relief or damages against Hughes based on an allegation
that the Satellite(s) being a component of a larger system, mandated by
I-COGC requirements such as, for example, a Satellite constellation or
multiple Satellite configuration, or the use, lease, or sale thereof
infringes any intellectual property rights including, but not limited to
Letters Patent or trade mark, or any copyright in the U.S. or place of
manufacture or delivery of the Work, and to pay any royalties and other
costs related to the settlement of such request and to pay the costs and
damages, including reasonable legal fees, finally awarded as the result
of any suit based on such claim, provided that I-COGC is given prompt
written notice of such request or claims by Hughes and given authority
and such assistance and information as is available to Hughes for
resisting such request or for the defense of such claim. Any such
assistance or information which is furnished by Hughes at the written
request of I-COGC is to be at I-COGC's expense. In no event shall
I-COGC's entire liability under this ARTICLE exceed ONE HUNDRED MILLION
US Dollars (US$100,000,000.00) and the existence of one or more claims
or lawsuits shall not extend this amount, and in no event shall I-COGC
be liable for incidental, special, or consequential damages incurred by
Hughes save and insofar they are included in any claim by a third party
for which Hughes is indemnified under this ARTICLE 19.2.
19.3 Hughes agrees to provide reasonable internal assistance to I-COGC
regarding certain patent claims made by TRW. Should Hughes decide to
solicit external assistance relative to these claims, Hughes shall
notify I-COGC for purposes of reaching agreement on the expected budget
and expenditures for the above stated external assistance. After the
Page 93
<PAGE> 94
notification and upon I-COGC agreement, I-COGC shall reimburse Hughes
for such external costs.
Page 94
<PAGE> 95
ARTICLE 20 RIGHTS IN INVENTIONS
20.1 As used in this Contract, "Invention" shall mean any invention,
discovery or improvement conceived in the performance of Work under this
Contract. Information relating to Inventions shall be treated as
confidential information in accordance with the provisions of this
Contract.
20.2 In the case of joint Inventions, that is, Inventions conceived jointly
by one or more employees of both Parties hereto, the following shall
apply:
A. Each Party shall have an equal, undivided one-half interest in
and to such joint Inventions, as well as in and to patent
applications and patents thereon in all countries.
B. In the case of such joint Inventions, Hughes shall have the first
right of election to file patent applications in any country, and
I-COGC shall have a second right of election. Each Party in turn
shall make its election at the earliest practicable time, and
shall notify the other Party of its decision. All filings shall
be in the joint names of both Parties.
C. The expenses for preparing, filing and securing each joint
Invention application, and for issuance of the respective patent
shall be borne by the Party which prepares and files the
application. The other Party shall furnish the filing Party with
all documents or other assistance that may be necessary for the
filing and prosecution of each application. Where such joint
Invention application for a patent is filed by either Party in a
country which requires the payment of taxes, annuities or
maintenance fees on a pending application or on an issued patent,
the
Page 95
<PAGE> 96
Party which files the application shall, prior to filing,
request the other Party to indicate whether it will agree to pay
one-half of such taxes, annuities or maintenance fees. If within
sixty (60) Days of receiving such request, the non-filing Party
fails to assume in writing the obligation to pay its
proportionate share of such taxes, annuities or maintenance
fees, or if either Party subsequently fails to continue such
payments within sixty (60) Days of demand, it shall forthwith
relinquish to the other Party, providing that said other Party
continues such payments, its share of the title to such
application and patent, subject, however, to retention of a
paid-up, non-exclusive, non-assignable license in favor of the
relinquishing Party, its parent, and any subsidiary thereof to
make, use, lease and sell, apparatus and/or methods under said
application and patent.
20.3 Each owner of a jointly-owned patent application or patent resulting
therefrom shall, provided that it shall have fulfilled its obligation,
if any, to pay its share of taxes, annuities or maintenance fees on such
pending application or patent, have the right to grant non-exclusive
licenses thereunder and to retain any consideration that it may receive
therefor without obligation to account therefor to the other Party. In
connection therewith, each of the Parties hereby consents to the
granting of such non-exclusive licenses by the other Party and also
agrees not to assert any claim with respect to the licensed application
or patent against any licensee of the other Party thereunder during the
term of any such license.
20.4 Sole inventions conceived of solely or jointly by one or more employees
of Hughes shall be the exclusive property of Hughes and sole inventions
conceived of solely or jointly by one or more employees of I-COGC shall
be the exclusive property of I-COGC.
20.5 For the avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall or be deemed to grant
to either Party any license or right of use to intellectual property
rights owned or created by third parties.
Page 96
<PAGE> 97
Without limiting the foregoing, the Parties recognize that no such
rights as are owned or created by a customer for the navigation payload
are intended to be included under this Article 20.
Page 97
<PAGE> 98
ARTICLE 21 CONFIDENTIALITY
21.1 The Parties may provide or exchange proprietary information during the
performance of the Work, in oral or written form, which may include
specifications, drawings, sketches, models, samples, computer programs,
reports, data, techniques, designs, codes, documentation, and financial,
statistical or other technical information ("proprietary information")
essential to the objectives of this Contract. All disclosures will be
treated as proprietary in accordance with this ARTICLE 21 if marked as
"Proprietary" by the Party (or in accordance with ARTICLE 21.11, by the
Hughes Subcontractor, if applicable) making the disclosure at the time
of disclosure.
21.2 Subject to the provisions of ARTICLE 21.3 below, the Party receiving the
proprietary information of the other Party shall maintain such
information in confidence and shall not use such information except as
expressly authorized by this Contract. Each Party agrees to use the same
care and discretion to avoid unauthorized disclosure, publication or
dissemination of the other's proprietary information and the
unauthorized use thereof as the receiving Party uses with respect to
similar information of its own, but in no event, less than reasonable
care. Should it become legally necessary for either Party to disclose
certain of the other's proprietary information to a third party (such as
licensing or regulatory activities, or for filing with and reporting to
government agencies, stock exchanges, securities market systems and
similar bodies), it shall be disclosed only to the extent required by
law and after a three (3) Business Day prior written notification to the
other Party (or to Subcontractor, if applicable, in accordance with
ARTICLE 21.11) of the requirement for disclosure.
21.3 The obligations of confidentiality and restrictions on use specified in
this ARTICLE shall not apply to any information that:
Page 98
<PAGE> 99
A. is already in the possession of the receiving Party without
obligation of confidentiality at the time of disclosure;
B. is independently developed by the receiving Party or any of its
Affiliates or subcontractors prior to disclosure as evidenced by
appropriate documents;
C. is or becomes publicly available without breach of this Contract
and without the fault of the receiving Party;
D. except as provided in ARTICLE 21.11, is lawfully and rightfully
received by the receiving Party from a third party; or
E. is released for public disclosure by the disclosing Party.
Specific information shall not be deemed to be available to the public
or in possession of the receiving Party merely because it is embraced by
more general information so available or in the receiving Party's
possession.
21.4 Hughes shall take best efforts necessary, including the appropriate
contractual provisions in subcontracts, to ensure the confidentiality of
all proprietary information of I-COGC which may be disclosed to
Subcontractors.
I-COGC shall take best efforts necessary, including the appropriate
contractual provision in consulting agreements, to ensure the
confidentiality of all proprietary information of Hughes which may be
disclosed to Consultants.
Page 99
<PAGE> 100
21.5 Except as otherwise provided in this Contract including but not limited
to ARTICLE 18, DATA RIGHTS herein, the receiving Party agrees that: (i)
any proprietary information disclosed hereunder shall be used by the
receiving Party solely for the purpose of performing its functions in
connection with the Parties' relationship with respect to the Work; (ii)
it will not use the proprietary information disclosed hereunder for any
other purpose; and (iii) it will not distribute, disclose or disseminate
to anyone such proprietary information of the disclosing Party, except
that either Party may disclose to its own employees or subcontractors on
a need-to-know basis, provided that such employees and subcontractors
have agreed in advance and in writing to protect proprietary information
in accordance with terms consistent with that provided herein; and
further except that either Party may disclose proprietary information to
a third party with the consent of the disclosing Party, which consent
will not be given unless such third party executes a proprietary data
protection agreement with terms consistent with the requirements herein
prior to receiving such proprietary information.
21.6 The Parties will specify individuals in writing as the point for
receiving proprietary information exchanged between the Parties pursuant
to this Contract.
21.7 Hughes shall maintain EXHIBIT B, SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS in
strict confidence in accordance with this ARTICLE 21 as if it is
proprietary information.
21.8 The confidentiality obligations in this ARTICLE 21 shall survive
expiration or termination of this Contract for whatever cause.
21.9 Nothing herein shall require a Party to disclose proprietary information
to another.
21.10 The obligations imposed by this ARTICLE 21 shall be limited in time only
by the events listed in ARTICLE 21.3, A through E.
Page 100
<PAGE> 101
21.11 I-COGC may, upon the request of I-COGC, have access to proprietary
information of a Subcontractor with respect to its performance of the
Work hereunder. Either Hughes may, at the request of I-COGC, disclose
proprietary information of its Subcontractor to I-COGC or Hughes may
request that its Subcontractor discloses its proprietary information
directly to I-COGC. I-COGC agrees to treat such proprietary information
of such Subcontractor, whether disclosed to I-COGC directly by such
Subcontractor or indirectly by Hughes, in accordance with the terms of
this ARTICLE 21 for the benefit of such Subcontractor.
21.12 Except as otherwise provided in ARTICLE 7, PERMITS AND LICENSES:
GOVERNMENT APPROVALS, on a need-to-know basis:
(i) each Party shall have the right to disclose proprietary
information of the other, subject to non-disclosure agreements
having terms and conditions comparable to those herein, to
Teledesic and persons and entities under common control with
Teledesic and to The Boeing Company and persons and entities
under common control with Boeing; and
(ii) I-COGC shall have the right to disclose the proprietary
information of Contractor, subject to non-disclosure agreements
having terms and conditions comparable to those herein, to actual
and potential investors, service providers, lenders, insurers and
other financing advisors and analysts; provided that the
disclosed information is limited to top-level satellite
information (e.g., block diagrams), status and schedule
information, and performance information. Any other disclosures
of proprietary information shall require the prior consent of
Contractor (not to be unreasonably withheld), which, if not
denied within two Business Days of notice to the designee
identified in ARTICLE 24 NOTICES of a request to disclose such
information, shall be deemed to have been granted.
Page 101
<PAGE> 102
ARTICLE 22 INTERPRETATION
22.1 Applicable Law
This Contract, and any performance related thereto shall be interpreted
and construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the Laws of
England; it being understood that the UN Convention on the International
Sale of Goods shall not be applicable.
22.2 Amendments
The Contract may not be modified except by written amendment signed by
duly authorized representatives of both Parties.
For the purpose of administration of this Contract, including
amendments, any communication between I-COGC and Hughes shall be
enforceable and binding upon the Parties only if signed by the
appropriate responsible authorized representatives.
22.3 Changes Requested by Hughes or I-COGC
A. Any changes requested by Hughes during the performance of this
Contract, within the general scope of this Contract, which will
or may add or delete Work, affect the design of the Satellite, or
place or time of delivery, or will affect or may affect any other
requirement of this Contract, shall be submitted in writing to
I-COGC within an acceptable time period prior to the proposed
date of the change. Such submittal shall allow I-COGC a
reasonable period of time to evaluate Hughes' requested change.
If such Hughes' requested change causes an increase or decrease
in the total Contract Price, Hughes shall submit a proposal to
I-COGC.
Page 102
<PAGE> 103
B. I-COGC shall notify Hughes in writing within thirty (30) Days
after receipt of the requested change and price adjustment, if
any, whether or not it agrees with and accepts such change. If
I-COGC agrees with and accepts the Hughes' requested change,
Hughes shall proceed with the performance of the Contract as
changed and an amendment to the Contract reflecting such change,
and price adjustment, if any, shall be issued. If I-COGC does not
agree with such Hughes' requested change, the Parties shall
attempt to reach agreement on such change. In the event the
Parties are unable to reach agreement on such change, or price
adjustment, if any, or both, Hughes shall proceed with the
performance of the Contract, as unchanged.
C. For any changes requested by I-COGC during the performance of
this Contract, within the general scope of the Contract, which
will or may add or delete Work, affect the design of the
Satellite, change the method of shipment or packing, or place or
time of delivery, or will affect any other requirement of this
Contract, Hughes shall respond to that request in writing to
I-COGC within thirty (30) Days after such request. If such I-COGC
requested change causes an increase or decrease in the total
Contract Price, Hughes shall submit to I-COGC, at the time the
response to the requested change is submitted, the details of
such increase or decrease. I-COGC shall notify Hughes in writing,
within a reasonable time after receipt of Hughes' response,
whether or not it agrees with and accepts Hughes' response. If
I-COGC agrees with and accepts Hughes' response, Hughes shall
proceed with the performance of the Contract as changed and an
amendment to the Contract reflecting such change, and price
adjustment, if any, shall be incorporated into the Contract. In
the event the Parties are unable to reach agreement on such
change, or price adjustment, if any, or both, I-COGC may direct
Hughes to perform the said change, pending resolution of such
dispute
Page 103
<PAGE> 104
subject to I-COGC paying any undisputed amounts to Hughes and
any disputed amounts into escrow at such time as they would have
been paid under Hughes' response. The mechanism for escrow shall
be as set forth in ARTICLE 4.11, save that in calculating
amounts due from escrow, account shall be taken of the proposed
milestones for payment of the disputed change. If I-COGC does
not direct such change, then Hughes shall proceed with the
performance of the Contract as unchanged.
D. If requested, Hughes shall provide I-COGC with the basic
rationale and methodology used in developing a proposal pursuant
to this ARTICLE 22.3 to the same level of detail in respect of
Hughes' costs for this change proposal as were granted to I-COGC
in respect of the prices set forth in Hughes' original proposal
for this Contract, so as to demonstrate that the prices of the
proposal are fair and reasonable.
Page 104
<PAGE> 105
ARTICLE 23 PUBLICITY
Each Party shall obtain the prior written approval of the other Party, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, concerning the content
and timing of news releases, articles, brochures, advertisements, prepared
speeches and other information releases concerning the Work performed or to be
performed hereunder, within a reasonable time prior to the release of such
information. For the avoidance of doubt, Hughes shall be allowed to publicize
the award of the Contract and the general capabilities of the Satellites,
subject to the approval process stated above.
Page 105
<PAGE> 106
ARTICLE 24 NOTICES
All notices, demands or other communications required or permitted to be
given or made hereunder shall be in writing and delivered personally or
sent by prepaid first class post, or by telex, telefax or cable
addressed to the intended recipient thereof at its address set out below
or to such other address or telex or telefax number as either Party may
from time to time duly notify the others.
A. In respect of I-COGC, to: ICO Global Communications (Operations) Ltd.
c/o I-CO Services Limited
1 Queen Caroline Street
Hammersmith, London W6 9BN
United Kingdom
Telephone: 44 (208) 600-1203
Facsimile: 44 (208) 600-0775
Attention: Paul Regulinski
cc: Space Segment Contracts Administrator
ICO Program Office
Hughes Space and Communications
MS: SC/S10/S354
PO Box 92919
Los Angeles, CA. 90009
Phone: (310) 364-9407
Facsimile: (310) 364-9495
B. In respect of Hughes, to: Hughes Space & Communications
International, Inc.
Bldg. S10, M/S S350,
Post Office Box 92919 Airport Station
Los Angeles, California 90009
Telephone: (310) 364-5729
Facsimile: (310) 364-7990
Attention: Dennis R. Beeson
Manager, Contracts
Page 106
<PAGE> 107
Any notice or other document if served by post, shall be deemed to have
been served at the expiration of 7 Days after the time when the letter
containing the same was posted, and in proving such service it shall be
sufficient to prove that the letter containing the notice or document
was properly addressed, stamped and posted. A notice sent by telex,
telefax or cable is deemed to have been served: (1) two hours after
dispatch, if dispatched on a Business Day before 3:00 PM; or (2) in any
other case, at 10:00 AM on the Business Day after the date of dispatch.
Here a Business Day means a Business Day in the city or other location
to which the notice is sent, and the times mentioned are those in that
location.
Page 107
<PAGE> 108
ARTICLE 25 INTEGRATION
This Contract, together with the EXHIBITS, contains the entire agreement
between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All prior
understandings, representations and warranties (including those
contained in sales, promotional and/or marketing materials) by and
between the Parties, written or oral, which may be related to the
subject matter hereof in any way, are superseded by this Contract.
Page 108
<PAGE> 109
ARTICLE 26 ASSIGNMENT
26.1 Hughes shall not assign, novate or transfer this Contract or any of its
rights, duties or obligations thereunder to any person or entity, in
whole or part without the prior written consent of I-COGC (which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or unduly delayed) except
that Hughes may assign or transfer this Contract, and its duties and
obligations thereunder either in whole or in part, to any Hughes
Affiliate which is not engaged in business competitive to I-COGC
provided always that Hughes shall remain liable with respect to
performance of all duties and obligations set forth in this Contract,
including compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and
provided further that the Parent Company Guarantee referred to in
ARTICLE 4.10 hereof remains in full force and effect.
26.2 I-COGC has the right to assign, novate or transfer this Contract, or any
of its rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any I-COGC Affilliate
or to a third party financing the Satellites provided that no such
assignment, novation or transfer shall have a material adverse effect on
a material obligation of I-COGC including, but not limited to, payment
obligations to Hughes under this Contract.
In those cases where an assignment, novation or transfer of this
Contract by I-COGC shall in I-COGC's reasonable opinion create a
material adverse effect on a material obligation of I-COGC under this
Contract, I-COGC shall obtain the prior written consent of Hughes,
(which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or unduly delayed) to
any such assignment, novation or transfer providing that I-COGC can
demonstrate to Hughes' reasonable satisfaction that:
(1) its successor or assignee posesses the financial resources to
fulfill all I-COGC's obligations under this Contract; and
Page 109
<PAGE> 110
(2) any such assignment, novation or transfer shall not jeopardize
Hughes data rights or be in favor of a competing satellite
manufacturer, or violate U.S. laws related to export or
technology transfer.
If I-COGC cannot so demonstrate, Hughes agrees to negotiate in good
faith suitable modifications and new provisions to this Contract which
would mitigate the above risks.
26.3 I-COGC shall give fifteen (15) Business Days prior notice to Hughes of
any assignment, novation or transfer and brief details explaining the
proposed transaction.
26.4 This Contract shall be binding upon the Parties hereto and their
successors and permitted assigns.
Page 110
<PAGE> 111
ARTICLE 27 SEVERABILITY
In the event any one or more of the provisions of this Contract shall,
for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions of this Contract shall be unimpaired, and the invalid or
unenforceable provision shall be replaced by a mutually acceptable
provision which, being valid and enforceable, comes closest to the
intention of the Parties underlying the invalid or unenforceable
provision.
Page 111
<PAGE> 112
ARTICLE 28 CORRECTIVE MEASURES IN UNLAUNCHED SATELLITES
28.1 Without limiting the obligations of Hughes under other provisions of
this Contract, if the data available from the Satellites delivered
hereunder or any HS-601 satellite shows that there is a material
deficiency in the design or manufacture of such satellite which, in the
reasonable opinion of Hughes, based on the data available could
adversely affect the Satellites produced under this Contract, Hughes
shall notify I-COGC of any such material deficiency coming to Hughes'
attention and shall, promptly upon written request of I-COGC, take
appropriate corrective measures to the Work, at its own expense, with
respect to all unlaunched Satellites so as to satisfactorily eliminate
from each unlaunched Satellite all such material deficiencies discovered
in such satellites.
28.2 In the event that corrective measures taken pursuant to this ARTICLE
cause a delay, there shall be an equitable adjustment to the time for
performance of the affected Work.
28.3 If Hughes, in accordance with this ARTICLE, replaces any equipment or
any part which was determined to be deficient, such deficient equipment
or part shall remain or become the property of Hughes.
28.4 Nothing in this ARTICLE requires Hughes to disclose in-orbit data from
satellites owned by others.
Page 112
<PAGE> 113
ARTICLE 29 I-COGC'S RESPONSIBILITIES
29.1 The responsibilities of I-COGC, which will be discharged at no cost to
Hughes are contained in or are to be identified in EXHIBIT A, STATEMENT
OF WORK, and as set forth below:
A. Beneficial access shall be furnished to all necessary facilities
(buildings, power, phones, etc.), services, and interface
hardware at the ground station sites so as to enable Hughes to
install and test the deliverable equipment in accordance with
EXHIBIT A, STATEMENT OF WORK, EXHIBIT E, GCE IMPLEMENTATION AND
TEST PLAN, and EXHIBIT K, PCS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AND TEST
PLAN. All installation and checkout of I-COGC-provided SCC, NMC,
and SAN equipment which is necessary to allow completion of
Hughes' tasks (which includes installation, local checkout and
system checkout) shall also be completed by I-COGC prior to these
dates. The schedule for this access is as follows: (For the PCS,
I-COGC shall identify the SAN site locations by name at least
sixty (60) days prior to the dates specified below.)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
GCE* PCS*
---- ----
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
SCC Site 1 5 Dec 97 SCC Site 1 5 Aug 98
SCC Site 2 19 Jan 98 SCC Site 2 5 Aug 98
SAN Site 1 2 Jan 98 Brewster, WA., USA 1 July 98
SAN Site 2 16 Jan 98 SAN Site 2 17 July 98
SAN Site 3 13 Feb 98 SAN Site 3 5 Aug 98
SAN Site 4 27 Feb 98 SAN Site 4 17 Aug 98
SAN Site 5 13 Mar 98 SAN Site 5 31 Aug 98
SAN Site 6 27 Mar 98 SAN Site 6 14 Sep 98
</TABLE>
* Access to the Chhattarpur, India, SAN site was previously
granted. I-
Page 113
<PAGE> 114
COGC may designate another SAN site to be utilized in lieu of
the Indian SAN site. At I-COGC's direction, and in compliance
with any required US Government authorizations, Hughes will
relocate and install the GCE at such new site. Hughes will be
compensated for any such relocation pursuant to Article 7.1
herein.
B. Pursuant to the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched
into Outer Space (TIAS 8480), I-COGC shall be responsible for
registration of any and all Satellites launched. In addition
I-COGC shall be responsible for obtaining any license required
for radio telecommunications with any and all Satellites after
separation from the Launch Vehicle.
C. I-COGC shall, if it obtains launch insurance, include within its
policy terms waivers of subrogation rights against Hughes and its
Associates.
D. I-COGC shall provide the final ICDs which will describe all
necessary information required for the PCS to function properly
with external systems. The specifications in the PCS interface
control documents shall be mutually agreed upon by I-COGC and
Hughes by the time of the PCS CDR.
29.2 In the event that I-COGC procures the Launch Services for any of the
Satellites delivered hereunder (other than those Launch Services
procured through Hughes), then I-COGC and their Launch Service
Provider(s) shall have the following additional responsibilities as
applicable:
A. Launch Vehicle(s) and Launch Services, together with standard
support equipment and interface documentation for all Satellites.
Page 114
<PAGE> 115
B. Coupled loads and coupled thermal analyses data relating to the
Launch Vehicle furnished to Hughes no later than twelve (12)
Months after PCD or four (4) Months after receipt of coupled
loads and thermal models from Hughes, whichever is later.
C. All separation hardware and the flight adapter for a fit check of
the flight adapter delivered to Hughes' plant in El Segundo
within eighteen (18) Months after PCD.
D. Beneficial access shall be furnished to all necessary facilities
(buildings, power, phones, data lines, etc.), services
(transportation, storage, fueling, photo, x-ray special test
facility, etc.), and interface hardware at the Designated Launch
Site.
29.3 In the event that the above I-COGC furnished facilities, equipment or
services are not suitable for the intended purpose and/or are not timely
provided, and Hughes is delayed as a result thereof, then Hughes shall
be given an equitable adjustment to the delivery schedule for the
affected Work and any reasonable costs directly resulting therefrom plus
a reasonable profit.
Page 115
<PAGE> 116
ARTICLE 30 DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION
30.1 If, during the course of performance hereunder, a dispute arises between
I-COGC and Hughes as to the rights or obligations of either Party under
this Contract, either Party may give written notice of its objections
and the reasons therefor ("Dispute Notice") and may recommend corrective
action. Hughes' Program Manager shall consult with I-COGC's authorized
senior program management representative in an effort to reach a mutual
agreement to overcome such objections. In the event mutual agreement
cannot be reached within five (5) Business Days of such notice, the
respective positions of the Parties shall be forwarded to I-COGC's Chief
Executive and Hughes' President, for discussion and an attempt to reach
mutual agreement.
30.2 If mutual agreement cannot be reached within fifteen (15) Business Days
of the Dispute Notice such dispute may be referred on the application of
either Party for final determination to an arbitration tribunal convened
by the London Court of International Arbitration which shall be
conducted by three arbitrators in the English language.
30.3 The place of arbitration shall be London, England.
30.4 The award rendered by the arbitration tribunal shall be binding on both
Parties, and shall be enforceable by any court of competent
jurisdiction. The cost of arbitration, including the fees and expenses
of the arbitrators, will be shared equally by the Parties, unless the
award otherwise provides. Each Party shall bear the cost of preparing
and presenting its own case, unless the award otherwise provides.
30.5 Notwithstanding anything else contained herein, the Parties agree that
time is of the essence with regard to the time limits imposed by this
ARTICLE 30 in resolving such dispute.
Page 116
<PAGE> 117
ARTICLE 31 MISSION OPERATIONS AND LAUNCH SUPPORT
The Contract Price identified in ARTICLE 4 includes all required Satellite
launch support and mission operations for the F1 through F12 Satellites. If
requested by I-COGC, Hughes will provide the required Satellite launch support
and mission operations for the F13 through F15 Satellites and for any of the
optional F16 through F20 Satellites, if exercised by I-COGC.
With respect to the F13 through F20 Satellites, if any of the Atlas IIAS, Delta
III, Sea Launch Zenit 3SL, or Proton D-1e launchers is utilized and the mission
operations are provided from the Backup Control Center (BCC) located in the El
Segundo, California, area, the following firm fixed pricing shall apply in 2000
year dollars and subject to escalation from 1 January 2001 until the date of
option exercise at an escalation amount equal to the greater of the * .
Mission Operations: *
Launch Support: *
Launch Support: *
The above pricing is based upon a nominal minimum separation of * between
Launches (following the previous launched Satellite).
In accordance with ARTICLE 22.3 "Changes Requested by Hughes or I-COGC", Hughes
agrees to prepare a contract change proposal in response to a request by I-COGC
to provide mission operations and launch support for a different launch vehicle
other than the Atlas IIAS, Zenith 3SL, Delta III or Proton D-1e launch vehicles.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 117
<PAGE> 118
Page 118
<PAGE> 119
ARTICLE 32 STORAGE
If I-COGC requests for its convenience that Hughes deliver a Satellite or
Satellites into storage, Hughes agrees that it will store up to two (2)
Satellites at any one time for up to a period of 6 Months for each Satellite.
Such storage shall be at no additional cost to I-COGC if storage occurs at
Hughes' premises in El Segundo, and Hughes will exercise reasonable efforts to
effect storage on said premises. If storage occurs at a place other than Hughes
premises, I-COGC's sole storage expense shall be the cost of transit to and from
the storage location.
Page 119
<PAGE> 120
ARTICLE 33 OPTIONS
33.1 Hughes hereby grants to I-COGC the below listed options to be exercised
at I-COGC's sole discretion in accordance with the terms specified for
each option.
A. Additional Satellites F16 through F20
I-COGC may direct Hughes via exercise of this option to manufacture,
test, and deliver ("Build") Satellites F16 through F20 (i.e., from one
to five additional Satellites) for the prices and on the Delivery Dates
indicated below, which price(s) shall be in addition to the prices shown
in ARTICLE 4.1 hereof. Delivery, for the purpose of this ARTICLE 33,
shall mean Delivery at the Designated Launch Site. These Satellites
shall be procured sequentially in order of option exercise (F16-F20).
I-COGC will designate whether the Satellite is to undergo launch
processing or be placed into storage no later than six months prior to
scheduled Delivery.
Unless otherwise indicated in this Contract, all other relevant ARTICLES
and EXHIBITS of this Contract shall apply to the order of a 16th, 17th,
18th, 19th, and 20th Satellites, mutatis mutandis, including the * .
Satellite Offer Terms:
1. I-COGC may exercise the following F16 Satellite option on or
before 31 December 2004, and the specified firm fixed
pricing and Delivery criteria will apply:
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 120
<PAGE> 121
F16:
*
*
*
*
*
* Construction pricing in 2000 year dollars and subject to
escalation from 1 January 2001 until the date of option
exercise at an escalation amount equal to the greater of the
*
F16 Delivery Date: 30 Months after option exercise
In the event I-COGC elects to proceed with a long lead
authorization for F16 (in lieu of a full option exercise),
Delivery will occur within twenty-four Months after the F16
full-build authorization is received (assuming this
full-build authorization is received six months or more
after the long lead authorization is received, but in any
event, no later than 31 December 2004). Long lead
authorization is defined as the receipt by Hughes of
I-COGC's payment for F16's long lead parts. The long lead
price for F16 is * with such pricing in 2000
year dollars and subject to escalation from 1 January 2001
until the date of option exercise at an escalation amount
equal to the greater of the *.
2. Should I-COGC proceed with the full-build authorization
prior to 31 December 2004, then the long lead price will be
credited against the F16 Satellite price. In the event that
Hughes does not receive the full-build authorization prior
to 31 December 2004 and Hughes subsequently elects to use
any of the long lead parts on other programs, Hughes will
reimburse I-COGC for the cost of such long lead parts. If
I-COGC notifies Hughes
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has
been separately filed with the Commission.
Page 121
<PAGE> 122
prior to 31 December 2004 that I-COGC desires to defer the
continuation of the F16 full-build, Hughes will provide a
proposal to I-COGC for such deferment under ARTICLE 22.3.
The intent is to provide schedule and cost adjustments for
completion of the Satellite, taking into account any useable
residual material that may have been previously procured
under the F16 long lead authorization.
3. In addition to the F16 Satellite option specified above,
I-COGC may exercise options for up to four additional
Satellites (F17-F20) any time prior to 31 December 2004. A
firm fixed price of * for construction and * for
Satellite Performance Incentives) each shall apply to these
Satellites with such pricing in 2000 year dollars and
subject to escalation from 1 January 2001 until the date of
option exercise at an escalation amount equal to the greater
of the * . Delivery will occur thirty (30) Months after
I-COGC's option exercise is received.
4. The above F16-F20 Satellite option pricing includes the
* as delineated in the EXHIBIT B SATELLITE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION.
5. Deliveries are anticipated to be nominally no closer than
* .
6. The payment schedule for the optional Satellites will be
based upon mutually agreed to milestones and amounts to be
determined by the Parties upon option exercise. Consequences
for late Delivery of the F16-F20 optional Satellites are
addressed in ARTICLE 11.1.G.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has
been separately filed with the Commission.
Page 122
<PAGE> 123
7. I-COGC may procure the Launch Services for the optional
Satellites independently from Hughes or under the
interrelated Launch Services Contract between I-COGC and
Hughes.
B. Long Term Storage (F2 through F12 Satellites)
In addition to the storage provisions of ARTICLE 32, STORAGE, if I-COGC
requests for its convenience that Hughes deliver any of the F2 through
F12 Satellites into storage at Hughes' facility, Hughes will provide
long term storage (not to exceed 60 Months) for a price of * in
accordance with the following pricing and terms:
1. Placement of Satellite into storage price: * .
(Price includes but is not limited to the following
non-deliverable items and services: storage tent, support cart,
unique systems test support equipment and cables, Satellite
disassembly and battery storage, Satellite transport to storage
location and setup and use of remote telemetry, command and power
checkout equipment.)
2. Monthly storage price: no charge
3. Post storage (removal) price: * . (Price includes
but is not limited to the following non-deliverable items and
services: removal of Satellite from storage tent, Satellite
re-assembly, flight re-finalization, cleaning, post-storage
testing (same as launch site functional tests) and subsystem
tests and checkout, and also includes multiple transportation of
Satellite, equipment and crew if required.)
Long Term Storage Offer Terms (F2 through F12 Satellites):
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 123
<PAGE> 124
1. The specified prices are in January 1995 U.S. dollars.
Actual prices will be increased at an annual rate of five
(5) per cent compounded monthly from 1 January 1995.
2. The placement into storage price shall be invoiced upon
completion of placement into storage. The removal from
storage price shall be invoiced upon completion of all
activities and testing associated with removal from
storage. The escalation referred to in term 1 above shall
be applied individually to these invoices.
C. Long Term Storage (F13 through F20 Satellites)
In addition to the storage provisions of ARTICLE 32, STORAGE, if I-COGC
directs Hughes to deliver any of the F13-F20 Satellites into storage at
Hughes' facility, Hughes will provide long term storage (not to exceed
60 Months) in accordance with the following terms:
1. Placement of Satellite into storage price: * each,
subject to escalation from 1 January 2001 until the date of
placement into storage at an annual rate of five percent (5%)
compounded monthly. Price includes the following non-deliverable
items and services: storage location, support cart, unique
systems test support equipment and cables, Satellite disassembly
and battery storage, Satellite transport to storage location and
setup and use of remote telemetry, command and power checkout
equipment.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 124
<PAGE> 125
2. Annual storage price: * per year, or amortized fraction
thereof, for each stored Satellite. These prices are subject to
escalation from 1 January 2001 at an annual rate of five percent
(5%) compounded monthly.
3. Post storage (removal) price: * each. Price includes
the following non-deliverable items and services: removal of
Satellite from storage location, Satellite re-assembly, flight
re-finalization, cleaning, post-storage testing (same as launch
site functional tests), subsystem tests and checkout, and
transportation of Satellite, equipment and crew if required. This
price is subject to escalation from 1 January 2001 at an annual
rate of five percent (5%) compounded monthly. This price does not
include the post storage thermal stress test (TST). In the event
I-COGC requests additional testing, Hughes agrees to provide a
price proposal for such testing.
D. Additional Satellite Batteries
Relative to the F2 through F12 Satellites, I-COGC may direct Hughes at
any time prior to 5 September 2005 to provide replacement Satellite
batteries at a price of * each plus escalation from 5 September 2000
at an annual rate of 5%, compounded monthly. Delivery of the Satellite
batteries shall be no later than 18 Months after receipt of order. In
the event I-COGC requests replacement batteries for any of the F13
through F20 Satellites, Hughes agrees to provide a price proposal in
accordance with ARTICLE 22.3 for such batteries.
E. Battery Precharge Reset
Should I-COGC desire to extend an F2-F12 Satellite's battery warranty
beyond 36 Months after activation to a total battery warranty of 54
Months, I-COGC may direct Hughes at any time prior to thirty (30) Months
after activation or six (6) Months prior to the Satellite's planned
completion date, whichever is earlier, to reset the precharge on an
F2-F12
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 125
<PAGE> 126
Satellite battery for * each. In addition, I-COGC may direct
Hughes to reset the precharge on additional Satellite batteries (beyond
F12) prior to thirty (30) Months after activation, but in any event no
later than six (6) Months prior to the Satellite's planned completion
date, for * each, subject to escalation from 1 January 2001 at
an annual rate of five percent (5%) compounded monthly.
33.2 Any modifications, agreed subsequent to the date of this Contract, to
any item above shall, upon written request of I-COGC, be incorporated
subject to a mutually agreed adjustment to the price of the relevant
item.
33.3 Exercise of any option in this ARTICLE 33 shall be accomplished in
writing in accordance with ARTICLE 24, NOTICES.
33.4 Should I-COGC exercise any or all of the options described above, the
Parties shall amend the Contract as soon as is reasonably possible after
option exercise to incorporate the changes to the Contract which are
made necessary by such exercise.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 126
<PAGE> 127
ARTICLE 34 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
34.1 Hughes makes no warranty, express or implied, to any person or entity
other than I-COGC concerning the Satellites, the Ground TT&C Hardware or
the performance of the I-CO Program, and I-COGC shall defend and
indemnify the Hughes from any claims made by any third party against
Hughes arising from any misrepresentation by I-COGC or any of its
Affiliates to any third party in connection with this Contract.
34.2 The Parties to this Contract expressly recognize that the I-CO Program
is a commercial space venture and as such, it involves substantial
risks. Therefore, the Parties recognize the commercial need to define,
apportion and limit contractually all of the risks associated with this
commercial space venture.
THE WARRANTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES OF HUGHES AND REMEDIES
AGAINST HUGHES WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY SET OUT IN THIS CONTRACT ARE
EXCLUSIVE. ALL OTHER REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES, CONDITIONS AND
ASSURANCES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, ARE
HEREBY EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED (SAVE FOR ANY LIABILITY FOR FRAUDULENT
MISREPRESENTATION). WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING,
THERE ARE EXCLUDED IN PARTICULAR ANY OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS AS
TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR,
PURPOSE AND AS TO DESCRIPTION AND/OR PERFORMANCE AS REGARDS THE I-CO
PROGRAM INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE SATELLITES AND GROUND TT&C
HARDWARE TO BE PROVIDED BY HUGHES HEREUNDER. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
FOREGOING, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE 34.2 SHALL APPLY WITH RESPECT
TO ANY BREACH OF THIS CONTRACT FOR WHICH THERE IS A STATED REMEDY,
INCLUDING DELAY OR DEFAULT, AND WITH RESPECT TO ANY DEFECT
Page 127
<PAGE> 128
NON-CONFORMANCE OR DEFICIENCY IN ANY PRODUCT DELIVERED UNDER THIS
CONTRACT OR IN ANY INFORMATION, INSTRUCTIONS, SERVICES OR OTHER THINGS
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.
34.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties shall not have any liability
to the other Party for any special, collateral, punitive, exemplary,
consequential, indirect and/or incidental damages (including but not
limited to, lost profit or revenues, loss of goodwill, loss of savings,
loss of use, interruptions of business or for any other form of economic
loss).
34.4 The provisions of this ARTICLE 34 shall survive the termination or
expiration of this Contract for whatever reason or cause.
Page 128
<PAGE> 129
ARTICLE 35 MISCELLANEOUS
35.1 Regulatory Support
Hughes agrees that it will, if so requested by I-COGC, render at Hughes'
own cost reasonable assistance to I-COGC in relation to the obtaining of
regulatory and governmental approvals for the successful implementation
in the United States of America of mobile satellite communications
services by I-COGC or its Affiliates or its or their major service
providers. Such assistance shall normally be provided from the internal
resources of Hughes Telecommunications and Space Company of which Hughes
is a subsidiary and shall not, unless otherwise agreed, require Hughes
to provide assistance of its external consultants or advisors. Hughes
and I-COGC acknowledge that, for the avoidance of doubt, the provision
of regulatory support by Hughes or its Affiliates to American Mobile
Satellite Corporation and its subsidiaries shall not constitute a breach
of Hughes' obligations under this ARTICLE 35.1.
35.2 Cancellation for Non-Allocation of Frequencies
I-COGC may terminate the Contract for its convenience under ARTICLE 17,
TERMINATION, if WRC 95 does not advance the availability of the 2GHz
band, or does not allocate the feeder link for the space segment, or if
as a result of WRC 95, it appears that the allocation of frequencies
will be sufficiently delayed so as to jeopardize the I-CO Program
provided however I-COGC may terminate the Contract for these reasons by
written notice to Hughes between 1 December 1995 and 31 March 1996 as if
for Force Majeure (ARTICLE 10), (except that the six (6) month duration
requirement will be waived), if written notice is given to Hughes
between 1 December 1995 and 31 March 1996.
Page 129
<PAGE> 130
35.3 Insurance
Hughes agrees to provide All Risks Insurance for the Satellites (to
their full replacement value) at no additional cost to I-COGC and will
provide evidence of such insurance if so requested by I-COGC. With
regard to risk insurance for damage caused by earthquake, Hughes will
provide coverage up to the limits and premiums which are commercially
feasible.
35.4 Excess Mass
Should a Satellite(s) exceed the launch mass specified in EXHIBIT B,
SATELLITE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION, Hughes agrees to bear any resultant
increased launch and other associated costs incurred by I-COGC ("Mass
Cost Increase") resulting from such mass increase, provided that if
I-COGC directs that Hughes utilize the services of a specific Launch
Services Provider where Hughes is otherwise able to procure Launch
Services which meet the mass capability requirements from an alternative
Launch Services Provider at a lower Mass Cost Increase, and where such
alternative Launch Services are of a comparable heritage and reliability
and meet the key schedule and other requirements of (a) this Contract,
(b) the interrelated Launch Services Contract referred to in the
Recitals, and (c) the I-CO Program, then I-COGC shall bear the
difference between the Mass Cost Increase with the said Hughes suggested
alternative Launch Services Provider and the Mass Cost Increase with the
Launch Services Provider directed by I-COGC. The Parties agree to
consult with one another in order to minimize such costs, subject to
schedule and other requirements of the I-CO Program.
Page 130
<PAGE> 131
35.5 Key Personnel
Hughes agrees that the following individuals are necessary for the
successful completion of the Work to be performed under this Contract
and shall not be removed from the performance of the Work without the
consent of I-COGC, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. In
the event that these personnel become unavailable for any reason and
consent is given, Hughes shall select suitable replacement personnel who
possess comparable levels of experience, qualifications and ability.
Notwithstanding its role in approving key personnel and their
replacements, I-COGC shall have no supervisory control over their work,
and nothing in this ARTICLE shall relieve Hughes of any of its
obligations under this Contract, or of its responsibility for any acts
or omissions of its personnel.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name Title
---- -----
<S> <C>
K. Reiley ICO Program Director
T. Lamb ICO Space Segment Program Director
W. Scanlon Tropo IPT Leader
</TABLE>
35.6 Disclaimer of Agency
None of the provisions of this Contract shall be construed to mean that
either Party hereto is appointed or is in any way authorized to act as
an agent of the other Party. This Contract does constitute, create, give
effect to, or otherwise recognize a joint venture, partnership or formal
business organization of any kind, and the rights and obligations of the
Parties shall be limited to those expressly set forth herein.
Page 131
<PAGE> 132
35.7 Waiver of Breach of Contract
A waiver of any breach of a provision hereof shall not be binding upon
either Party unless the waiver is in writing and such waiver shall not
affect the rights of the Party not in breach with respect to any other
or future breach. No failure or delay by any Party or time or indulgence
given by it in or before exercising any remedy or right under or in
relation to this Contract shall operate as a waiver of the same nor
shall any single or partial exercise of any remedy or right preclude any
further exercise of the same or the exercise of any other remedy or
right.
35.8 Term of Contract
This Contract shall be in full force and effect as long as either Party
is or may be required to perform any obligation pursuant to this
Contract.
35.9 Language
With respect to all correspondence relating to this Contract and to all
material, including labels and markings of equipment, submitted by
Hughes hereunder, the English language shall be used. Controlling
language for this Contract shall therefore be the English language.
Page 132
<PAGE> 133
ARTICLE 36 MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS
The following companies are identified as potential Major Subcontractors under
this Contract:
Saab Ericsson Space AB
NEC Corporation
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
In addition, any Subcontractor with a subcontract in excess of $US30,000,000
will be deemed to be a Major Subcontractor under this ARTICLE 36.
Hughes shall incorporate the substance of ARTICLE 12, ACCESS TO WORK IN PROGRESS
AND DATA and ARTICLE 18, DATA RIGHTS, into all subcontracts with Major
Subcontractors, and shall use reasonable efforts to incorporate the same into
all subcontracts between Hughes and any Subcontractor performing Work pursuant
to this Contract.
Page 133
<PAGE> 134
ARTICLE 37 SPECIAL PROVISION APPLICABLE TO SATELLITE F15
The following special (additional) terms apply to the F15 Satellite:
37.1 Hughes agrees to defer all F15 invoices and I-COGC will not be required
to make any F15 payments until 1 February 2002.
37.2 I-COGC may place the manufacture of F15 on hold in accordance with the
following:
A. Should I-COGC elect to place F15 on hold as of * ,
Hughes will store the F15 parts and material until 31 December
* and invoice I-COGC for * in accordance with ARTICLE
37.1. Should I-COGC provide a restart notice directing Hughes to
proceed with the manufacture of F15 prior to * ,
Hughes will complete and Deliver F15 within * of
receiving I-COGC's F15 restart notice. Upon restart of F15, the
Parties will agree on an equitable adjustment of billing
milestones associated with F15 over the remaining Delivery
schedule. The remaining * of the price of F15 will be subject
to escalation during the hold period at an escalation amount
equal to the greater of the * .
B. Should I-COGC elect to place F15 on hold as of * ,
Hughes will store the F15 parts and material until * , and
invoice I-COGC for * in accordance with ARTICLE 37.1, if
applicable. Should I-COGC provide a restart notice directing
Hughes to proceed with the manufacture of F15 prior to * ,
Hughes will complete and Deliver F15 within * of receiving
I-COGC's F15 restart notice. Should I-COGC provide a restart
notice directing Hughes to proceed with the manufacture of F15
after *
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 134
<PAGE> 135
* , but prior to * , Hughes will complete and
Deliver F15 within * of receiving I-COGC's F15 restart
notice. Upon restart of F15 the Parties will agree on an
equitable adjustment of billing milestones associated with F15
over the remaining Delivery schedule. The remaining * of
the price of F15 will be subject to escalation during the hold
period at an escalation amount equal to the greater of the
* .
C. In the event I-COGC elects to terminate F15 for convenience prior
to * , the provisions of ARTICLE 17.1 shall apply, except
that (i) no F15 termination payment will be due to Hughes until
* , and (ii) in no event will I-COGC's termination
settlement exceed the following:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Termination Termination Liability
Date (US$ Million)
------------------ ---------------------
<S> <C> <C>
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
</TABLE>
D. Should I-COGC proceed with the full-build authorization prior to
* , then the long lead price will be credited against the
F15 Satellite price. In
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 135
<PAGE> 136
the event that Hughes does not receive the full-build
authorization prior to * and Hughes subsequently
elects to use any of the long lead parts on other programs,
Hughes will reimburse I-COGC for the cost of such long lead
parts. If I-COGC notifies Hughes prior to * that
I-COGC desires to defer the continuation of the F15 full-build,
Hughes will provide a proposal to I-COGC for such deferment
under ARTICLE 22.3. The intent is to provide schedule and cost
adjustments for completion of the Satellite, taking into account
any useable residual material that may have been previously
procured under the F15 production authorization.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 136
<PAGE> 137
ARTICLE 38 ADDITIONAL SATELLITES OF THE SAME GENERATION AND DESIGN
I-COGC agrees that Hughes will be the sole source for any additional Satellites
(including ground spares) procured by I-COGC, or any of its Affiliates, if such
satellites are of both the same current generation and design as the Satellites
delivered hereunder, but only if such additional satellites are ordered by
I-COGC or any of its Affiliates prior to the earlier of (i) 1 January 2004 or
(ii) the order of the F16 Satellite. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Hughes
agrees that, prior to such date, any of I-COGC and its Affiliates is entitled to
take delivery of any satellites that are either of a different generation or of
a different design from the Satellites delivered hereunder, including any
Satellite operating wholly or significantly in the Ka-Band.
Page 137
<PAGE> 138
ARTICLE 39 FINALIZATION OF RADAR SPECIFICATION AND MODIFICATION
39.1 Hughes and I-COGC acknowledge that radar systems exist in the I-COGC
frequency allocation. Hughes' design approach, as defined under Exhibit
B (the "Radar Design"), is intended to mitigate the impact of radar
systems on the Satellites when illuminated by radar pulses having a
radar pulse duration, magnitude, and repetition as defined by I-COGC.
39.2 The Parties agree to conduct further analysis to characterize the
performance of the Radar Design. Therefore, the Parties agree to proceed
as follows:
39.2.1 Hughes will perform an analysis (the "Hughes Study") to verify
the disturbance duration of a satellite with the Radar Design
that is illuminated by a radar pulse as defined by I-COGC. The
analysis and results of the Hughes Study will be completed and
presented to I-COGC on or before *. At the same time the analysis
and results are presented to I-COGC, Hughes will provide a radar
pulse disturbance duration commitment and, if accepted by I-COGC,
the specification will be amended to incorporate the radar pulse
disturbance duration commitment. If the analysis, results and
radar pulse disturbance duration commitment are not presented to
I-COGC on or before *, then Hughes shall continue to perform all
its obligations under the Contract (including all work necessary
to maintain the schedule), and *
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 138
<PAGE> 139
39.2.2 I-COGC shall conduct an analysis in parallel with the Hughes
Study to characterize the system impacts of radar pulse
disturbance duration. The results of such analysis shall be
presented to Hughes no later than September 21, 2000.
39.3 Within seven (7) Days from the receipt of the analysis and results of
the Hughes Study and commitment to a radar pulse disturbance duration,
I-COGC will provide written notification directing Hughes to do one of
the following:
39.3.1 Implement the specification (as amended to include the radar
pulse disturbance duration commitment) resulting from the Hughes
Study with no change to the Contract price, schedule, or terms;
or
39.3.2 Prepare a contract change proposal in accordance with Article
22.3(B), Changes Requested by Hughes or I-COGC, to change the
design approach to mitigation of radar pulses or to conduct
further analysis and testing of the Radar Design. Such new
design or further analysis and testing shall be completed and
presented to I-COGC no later than forty-five (45) days after
receiving such written notification from I-COGC. After receiving
the results of such new design or further analysis and testing,
I-COCG shall have the right to exercise the same options as set
forth in this ARTICLE 39.3.1, 39.3.3, and 39.3.4, or the Parties
will mutually agree on further studies or other actions; or,
39.3.3. Terminate the Contract for Convenience. Such termination shall
be subject to Article 17.1, Termination for I-COGC's
Convenience, * or,
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 139
<PAGE> 140
39.3.4. Terminate * for Convenience. Such termination shall be
subject to ARTICLE 17.1, TERMINATION FOR I-COGC'S CONVENIENCE, *
and all termination liability under such article will in no
event exceed * (the " * Termination Liability"). If *
is terminated for convenience, the January 25th Memorandum of
Agreement (as amended) between the Parties, the Stipulation and
Agreement between the Parties dated 1 December 1999 (as
amended), the Stipulation and Order regarding Cure Payment and
Terms and Conditions of Assumption of Contract with Hughes Space
and Communications International, Inc. dated 3 May 2000, and
this Contract * will continue in full force and
effect as if * had never been entered into.
39.4 In the event that I-COGC's written notification required under Article
39.3. above is received after the seven (7) Day requirement, the
* Termination Liability shall increase as reasonably required
to maintain the Delivery schedule.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 140
<PAGE> 141
ARTICLE 40 RESERVED
Page 141
<PAGE> 142
ARTICLE 41 SPACE SEGMENT SUPPORT TO SEIT
41.1 This Article sets forth the terms under which Hughes, as the ICO Program
Space Segment provider, will support the ICO Program System Engineering,
Integration, and Test (SEIT) efforts. Hughes shall provide a nominal
level of effort consisting of six (6) engineers for a period of three
years commencing 25 August 2000 to provide Space Segment technical
support to SEIT and assist in evaluating Space Segment impacts arising
from the revision of the ICO Program Ground Segment. This effort will be
supplemented, as required, by limited managerial and administrative
support to assure that proper attention is applied to the SEIT support
effort by the scientific support team. Hughes will consult with I-COGC
concerning the assignment of key team members prior to being assigned to
the space segment support to SEIT effort. The Hughes team may include
selected vendor or subcontracted effort, as appropriate, to ensure
timely completion of required tasks. Hughes will furnish to I-COGC on a
quarterly basis a description of the work in process and a summary of
Hughes' financial expenditures to date versus current I-COGC funding,
including a budgetary forecast of anticipated expenditures for future
work. Hughes and I-COGC will mutually agree on the planned tasking and
estimated staffing levels on a quarterly basis.
41.2 Hughes will provide such support and perform such tasks as I-COGC may
request from time to time. Without limiting the foregoing, Hughes
support to the SEIT effort may include, without limitation, the
following:
(a) Performance of detailed system level integration planning and
testing with the first and subsequent spacecraft launches.
(b) Support to system level analyses, integration planning and
testing for the spacecraft, PCS and GCE systems interface to the
ICO system.
Page 142
<PAGE> 143
(c) Participation in trade-offs as the system gets further designed
and integrated.
(d) Support to system test bed changes and additions.
(e) Review and provide assessment of new requirement flowdown.
(f) Support of Operations.
(g) Provide on the job training.
41.3 Estimated Support to SEIT Price
The estimated funding required for the support to SEIT effort is
( * over three years).
(b) All Hughes' support to SEIT effort will be performed on a cost
reimbursement basis, to include a * fixed fee.
41.4 Invoices and Payment
(a) Hughes will submit invoices to I-COGC on a quarterly basis. Each
invoice will reflect the labor and non-labor costs incurred
during the previous quarter. Hughes will make a good faith effort
to notify I-COGC if Hughes expenditures appear to be materially
inconsistent with the budgeted forecast. Labor and non-labor
costs shall be invoiced at a price that includes applicable
burden(s), plus * fixed fee.
(b) I-COGC shall pay each invoice within fifteen (15) Days after
receipt of invoice. Invoices shall include a certification from
Hughes stating that the invoiced amount reflects an accurate
account of the charges incurred while performing the support to
SEIT effort under this Contract for the previous quarter.
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
Page 143
<PAGE> 144
Page 144
<PAGE> 145
24 August 2000- Amendment 7
CONTRACT NUMBER ICOO/95-1002/NR
-----------------------------
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF WORK
-----------------------------
24 AUGUST 2000
<PAGE> 146
Exhibit A Statement of Work 24 August 2000- Amendment 7
Satellite Contract Contract Number: ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
1. Summary................................................................................1
2. Deliverable Equipment, Documentation and Services......................................2
2.1 Flight Spacecraft.............................................................2
2.2 Ground Control Equipment (GCE) System.........................................2
2.3 Engineering Model Payload.....................................................5
2.4 Deliverable Documentation.....................................................7
2.4.1 General..............................................................7
2.4.2 Contract Documentation Requirements List (CDRL)......................8
2.4.3 CDRL "Information", "Review" and "Approval Definitions"..............8
2.5 Additional Deliverable Services and Equipment.................................8
2.5.1 LVI and Launch Support Activities....................................8
2.5.2 TT&C Compatibility Tests.............................................8
2.5.3 On-Orbit Commissioning and Testing...................................9
2.5.4 Mission Operations and Support.......................................9
2.5.5 Training............................................................10
2.5.6 Initial Operational and Maintenance Support.........................11
2.5.7 Communications Network Support......................................11
2.5.8 Spacecraft Shipment and Storage.....................................11
2.5.9 GCE Post Delivery Support and Spares................................13
2.5.10 Radar Emitter Study................................................14
2.5.11 Additional Racks for CFE Equipment.................................14
2.5.12 Remote IOT Operations..............................................14
2.5.13 PCS Modem Compatibility Test.......................................14
2.5.14 PCS Post Delivery Support and Spares...............................16
2.6 Payload Control System (PCS).................................................16
3. Program Management....................................................................18
3.1 Program Management Plan......................................................18
3.2 Documentation and Data Management............................................18
</TABLE>
i
<PAGE> 147
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
3.3 Progress and Technical Meetings..............................................18
3.3.1 Weekly Progress Meetings............................................18
3.3.2 Quarterly Progress Meetings.........................................19
3.4 Action Item Control..........................................................19
3.5 Progress Reports.............................................................19
3.6 Milestone and Invoice Payment Status and Forecast............................19
3.7 Customer Residents...........................................................20
3.7.1 Office Accommodations and Facilities................................20
3.7.2 Attendance at Technical Reviews and Tests...........................21
3.8 Spacecraft Scroll............................................................21
3.9 Program Planning Networks and Schedule Charts................................21
4. Product Assurance Activities..........................................................22
4.1 General......................................................................22
4.2 Qualification Matrix.........................................................22
4.3 Systems Safety...............................................................22
4.4 Requests for Deviation/Waiver................................................22
4.5 PA Documentation.............................................................23
5. Design, Manufacturing, and Test Reviews...............................................23
5.1 General......................................................................23
5.1.1 Conduct of Reviews..................................................24
5.1.2 Review Data Packages................................................25
5.1.3 Completion of Review................................................25
5.2 Spacecraft, Communications Payload and GCE Design Reviews....................25
5.2.1 General.............................................................25
5.2.2 Preliminary Design Reviews..........................................26
5.2.3 Critical Design Reviews.............................................26
5.2.4 System Final Design Review..........................................26
5.2.5 PCS System Requirement..............................................27
</TABLE>
ii
<PAGE> 148
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
5.3 Subsystem Level Design Reviews...............................................27
5.3.1 General.............................................................27
5.3.2 Preliminary.........................................................27
5.3.3 Critical............................................................28
5.4 Equipment Level Design Reviews...............................................28
5.4.1 General.............................................................28
5.4.2 Preliminary.........................................................29
5.4.3 Critical............................................................29
5.5 Flight Software Reviews......................................................29
5.5.1 General.............................................................29
5.5.2 Preliminary.........................................................29
5.5.3 Critical............................................................29
5.5.4 Code................................................................30
5.5.5 Flight PROM Burn-In.................................................31
5.6 Manufacturing Readiness Reviews..............................................31
5.7 Test Reviews.................................................................31
5.7.1 General.............................................................31
5.7.2 Test Readiness......................................................32
5.7.3 Test Review Board...................................................32
5.8 Pre-Shipment Review..........................................................32
5.9 Launch Readiness Review......................................................32
Appendix A: Contract Documents Requirements List (CDRL)
</TABLE>
iii
<PAGE> 149
EXHIBIT A: STATEMENT OF WORK
1. SUMMARY
This Statement of Work (SOW) defines the work to be performed by Hughes
Space and Communications, International, Inc. (HSCI), referred to
hereafter as the Contractor, in implementation of the Space Segment
under contract with ICO Global Communications (Operations) Limited,
referred to hereafter as the Customer.
The Contractor shall design, develop, manufacture, test and deliver the
following equipment.
a) Fifteen (15) Spacecraft delivered to Designated Launch Sites. The
first spacecraft (ICO F1) delivered shall not include the Tropo/Radar
modification. ICO F2 to F15 shall be configured to include the
Tropo/Radar modification.
b) A compatible, fully integrated and operational Spacecraft Ground
Control Equipment (GCE) system delivered to facilities designated and
provided by the Customer. The GCE includes central control computer
systems located at a Customer provided primary satellite control center
(SCC), a back-up satellite control center (BCC) located at Contractor's
facility in El Segundo, California, and remotely located TT&C baseband
and interface equipment installed at 6 Customer TT&C SAN sites. The GCE
shall operate up to twelve (12) satellites (expansion of the design to
14 satellites shall also be possible). The deliverables also includes 2
dynamic software simulators (DSS) with host computer hardware located
and interfaced at the SCC and BCC, and two in-orbit test (IOT) systems,
one primary and one back-up spare, located in Chhattarpur, India and
Brewster, Washington USA. Only one of the IOT systems can be operated at
any one time. Contractor agrees to relocate the BCC to a site in Japan
or other comparable location to be designated by Customer at a later
date.
c) An Engineering Model (EM) communications payload and associated
support equipment as set forth in herein.
d) A Payload Control System (PCS) to support traffic related
configurations of the ICO payload. The PCS will be comprised of an
integrated suite of hardware, software, and operations products that
collectively will be used to support normal, on-station, ICO payload
traffic control operations for up to twelve (12) satellites. It shall be
possible to extend the number of supported satellites to 24 with
additional hardware and software. The PCS will provide data to assist in
operations relating to satellite diagnostics, calibration, payload
trending, and short-term storage. PCS will also assist IOT and satellite
failure investigation efforts as required.
page 1
<PAGE> 150
The above equipment shall be delivered by the dates defined in the
Spacecraft Contract. The SOW also defines associated documentation and
services including: training, launch vehicle interface and preparation,
mission operations and post-launch commissioning, testing and support.
page 2
<PAGE> 151
2. DELIVERABLE EQUIPMENT, DOCUMENTATION AND SERVICES
2.1 FLIGHT SPACECRAFT
The Contractor shall deliver fifteen (15) complete spacecraft fulfilling
all requirements of the Contract, compatible with the required launch
vehicles and including propellants, and airborne support equipment as
applicable.
The first spacecraft to be delivered, called the protoflight model,
shall be subjected to a series of qualification tests using protoflight
levels, as specified in Exhibit-D, entitled Acceptance Test Plan. The
first spacecraft configured with the Tropo/Radar modification shall be
subject to a series of protoflight tests as specified in Exhibit D, to
validate the Tropo/Radar design and its consequences to the overall
payload and spacecraft design.
2.2 GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT (GCE) SYSTEM
The fully operational GCE system shall comprise:
- Two (2) satellite control centers, comprising one primary center
(SCC) and one backup center (BCC). The BCC will initially be
located at Contractor's facility in El Segundo, California. At
Customer's request, Contractor will relocate the BCC to a site in
Japan or another comparable location selected by Customer.
Interface equipment at the SCC and BCC will allow interfaces for
communication with at least six (6) TT&C out-station facilities.
The GCE shall operate up to twelve (12) satellites (expansion of
the design to 14 satellites shall also be possible.)
- Six (6) SAN sites equipped with TT&C equipment, switching,
ranging and baseband equipment adequate to control three (3)
satellites through five (5) antennas at each SAN site.
- Two (2) Dynamic Software Simulators (DSS), one located at each of
the satellite control centers.
- Two (2) In-Orbit Test (IOT) systems, one primary and one back-up
spare, located at two of the TT&C/SAN sites. One in Brewster,
Washington USA, the other in Chhattarpur, India.
To facilitate operator training, one satellite control center and it's
associated DSS shall be installed and operational four months prior to
overall GCE acceptance.
The Customer shall provide:
- Facilities for installation at the primary center as well as at
the backup center in Japan or at another comparable location
determined by Customer
- SAN site availability at six (6) designated sites to allow
installation of TT&C out-station equipment
- Communications links
- Six (6) SAN sites suitably located to support near continuous TC,
ranging and TM control of at least 12 satellites during early
launch operations of F1 onwards through to in-service operations
of the complete constellation
page 3
<PAGE> 152
The Contractor shall ensure that the hardware and software deliverables
are adequate to cover in-orbit operations, for example, normal
in-service operations concurrent with a dual launch operations mission
and intensive monitoring of at least one "anomalous" satellite.
The Customer shall provide communication links between all facilities.
The Contractor's equipment shall interface with these links for all
necessary site to site communications. Interfaces with these links and
with all other customer furnished equipment shall be defined in
interface control specifications called up in the CDRL. Responsibility
for control of these specifications (Items G1, G2, and G3 of the CDRL)
was transferred to the Customer on 1 July 1996.
In addition to the software required to control satellites, the
Contractor shall supply a SAN antenna control facility (as part of an
Automatic Planning and Control System) which, based on satellite
measured ephemeris data, will manage and control SAN antenna/satellite
link acquisitions at the six (6) TT&C SAN sites equipped with 5 antennas
per site. (Note, this will take account of antennas removed from service
for maintenance and will also assume that autonomous SAN antenna
satellite autotracking will occur after satellite acquisition). Recovery
algorithms for reacquisition if loss of levels occurs is also required.
Coupled with this SAN antenna management, selection of TT&C sites for
continuous real time telemetry collection and TC routing will be
included.
In-Orbit Test (IOT) hardware and software shall be delivered to two (2)
of the TT&C SAN sites. This equipment shall be installed, commissioned
and acceptance tested at the SAN site following facility pre-acceptance
at the factory. The IOT equipment shall offer local and remote (from SCC
and BCC) control capabilities and shall be capable of verifying correct
satellite performance of all major communications, TT&C rf and SRMS rf
unit parameters in accordance with Contract Exhibit F (GCE Technical
Specifications).
Two sets of DSS hardware and software shall be delivered, installed and
acceptance tested, one at each SCC site in accordance with the
specification. The DSS shall be interfaced with the SCC such that flight
operations procedures and training can be performed at the SCC using the
DSS to emulate the satellite. Correct operations of real time safety
related procedures (e.g.: ACS normal and anomalous operations) is a
paramount requirement. The spacecraft bus operation should be fully
simulated. Payload redundancy management and processor configuration
through the TT&C subsystem should be emulated. The simulator does not
have to emulate Resource Management Operations.
The Customer shall provide prepared facilities for the installation of
the GCE at the satellite control centers and TT&C SAN sites. This
includes all reasonable services necessary for installation, test and
commissioning of the GCE. It shall include all interfaces to customer
furnished equipment and suitable facilities for physical installation
such as power, air conditioning, cable trays, and appropriate security
provisions for encryption hardware. Specific details shall be defined in
CDRL interface control and facility documents to be jointly agreed.
page 4
<PAGE> 153
Details of the GCE system implementation and test are defined in Exhibit
E of the Contract. Specific test plans for DSS and IOT equipment
subsystems shall be jointly agreed.
During spacecraft upgrade for the Tropo/Radar modification, the BCC,
located at the Contractor's facility in El Segundo, California shall be
maintained. Periodic maintenance by Contractor's system administrators
shall be conducted to insure equipment health.
2.3 ENGINEERING MODEL PAYLOAD
The Engineering Model Communications Payload (EM Payload) shall be a
deliverable item. Contractor will act as custodian of the EM Payload for
Customer and will maintain the EM Payload to ensure that it is at all
times in "operational condition" at Contractor's facilities in El
Segundo, CA until one year after delivery of the F12 spacecraft (at
which time Customer will either take custody of the EM Payload subject
to US Government approval, or will mutually agree with Contractor on
such other disposition of the EM Payload). "Operational condition" is
defined as ready for use by Customer or its designee within two weeks
notification. Only one configuration of the EM Payload will be
maintained by Contractor, and such configuration will be updated to
reflect any changes from tropo/radar or other satellite modifications.
The Contractor is permitted to store the EM Payload in appropriate
facilities provided the EM Payload can be assembled and ready for use
within two weeks.
Basic control and support equipment for the EM Payload shall be provided
by the Contractor. Interface and test equipment for the EM Payload to be
used in "Ground System Trials" with development SAN and User Terminal
(UT) equipment shall be the responsibility of the Customer. The precise
definition of interfaces shall be mutually agreed and documented in an
interface control document. The Contractor, upon Customer request, shall
also provide options for these "Ground Systems Trials" to be conducted
at the Contractors facilities and to provide appropriate Contractor
support.
The Customer plans to use the EM Payload for network and traffic
development trials including development of the Resource Management and
HPSMS operations.
The EM Payload shall incorporate at least the following hardware:
- Full S-band forward and return antennas including all radiating
elements and filters
- S-band and IF electronics for 32 forward and return chains
- One forward (internally complete) payload processor, (processing
half the antenna elements) and one equivalent return processor
- Two chains (one for each polarization) of C-band feeder
electronics using commercial equivalent construction
- Brassboard payload control processor (not built to EQM standards)
- Non-flight mounting and support
page 5
<PAGE> 154
- Frequency reference generator/distribution
- Test emulators, which shall be delivered with the payload, will
be used for the following:
- Spacecraft telemetry and command interfaces
- Spacecraft control processors interface with payload control
processor
- Power supplies
The EM Payload shall provide a fully functional path, forward and
return, between C-band feeder test couplers and S-band antenna aperture.
Low gain commercial construction C-band antennas (e.g.: C-band horn)
shall be provided for radiated coupling to SAN antennas.
All equipment on the EM Payload shall be built to an Engineering
Qualification Model standard (EQM), unless otherwise stated. EQM unit
equipment shall be designed and fabricated with the objective of being
identical in electrical and mechanical design, physical layout and
construction to a flight model unit, including any functional redundancy
within the unit, but generic equivalents to flight standard parts may be
used and, where applicable, non-flight materials.
An exception to this is the C-band feeder equipment which may be
commercial equivalent construction.
EQM equipment shall be tested to full qualification levels in the case
of first article units, and to flight acceptance procedures for later
units in the EM program. In the case of new equipment produced in
relatively large quantities, testing on later units shall be performed
with the objective of verifying the flight production test equipment
hardware, procedures, and software.
Where possible, the subsystem panel level testing shall be performed
with the intended flight procedures, but with additional performance
testing to verify the payload design.
The EM Payload shall undergo a complete set of performance tests as
described in Exhibit D, Acceptance Test Plan
As well as verifying the basic proof of design of the payload, the EM
Payload shall also verify the proof of concept of the S-band antenna
calibration and diagnostic facility.
The EM Payload shall be upgraded to verify proof of design of the
Tropo/Radar modification. The Tropo/Radar upgrade shall incorporate at
least:
- S-band return path, 8 element chains, configured for the
Tropo/Radar modification.
- One return processor configured for the Tropo/Radar modification.
page 6
<PAGE> 155
- One return BCA element slice configured for the Tropo/Radar
modification.
- Frequency reference generator/distribution configured for the
Tropo/Radar modification.
- All remaining, non-redundant hardware incorporated on the payload
as a consequence of the Tropo/Radar modification.
All new EM Payload equipment shall be EQM or flight quality to satisfy
payload development objectives. If mutually agreed to by the Customer
and Contractor, the use of brass-board equipment may be authorized.
2.4 DELIVERABLE DOCUMENTATION
2.4.1 GENERAL
All deliverable documentation shall be written in the English language,
and all deliverable top level and operational documentation and drawings
dealing with interfaces shall use the international system of units
(SI). Drawings for fabrication of equipment except for interfaces are
exempt from using SI units.
Documentation shall be delivered to the office or the Customer's
resident manager unless specified otherwise.
2.4.2 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL)
The documents which require submittal to the Customer are listed in the
CDRL in Appendix A. Items G1, G2, and G3 are no longer the Contractor's
responsibility but the Contractor will review changes to those documents
as required. As required, the Contractor shall update relevant documents
to reflect changes to engineering design and analyses due to the
Tropo/Radar modification.
2.4.3 CDRL "INFORMATION", "REVIEW" AND "APPROVAL" DEFINITIONS
Documents supplied for "Information" require no responding action by the
Customer.
Documents supplied for "Review" require a Customer response on their
acceptability in a timely manner as required to permit continuous
program progress. Lack of Customer response shall be deemed as
acceptance.
Documents supplied for "Approval" must be explicitly approved by the
Customer. This shall normally take the form of a Customer signature on
the document approval page. This approval shall be determined by the
Customer as required to permit continuous program progress.
page 7
<PAGE> 156
2.5 ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLE SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT
The Contractor shall supply the following additional services and
equipment:
2.5.1 LAUNCH VEHICLE INTERFACES AND LAUNCH SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
The Contractor shall perform all the launch vehicle technical interface
design and interface activities required by the launch service agencies
and all other activities required to ensure compatibility with the
launch vehicles in this Contract. The Contractor shall also be
responsible for transportation of the spacecraft to the launch sites.
The Contractor shall perform all launch site operations required for
post shipment checkout and launch preparations. The integration and test
activities at the launch site shall be as described in Exhibit D
Acceptance Test Plan.
2.5.2 TT&C COMPATIBILITY TESTS
During the system level test program, the Contractor shall link the PF1
spacecraft to the BCC and a suitable set of TT&C commands and telemetry
parameters agreed to by the Customer shall be exercised to verify
compatibility. If significant design changes occur after F1 spacecraft
launch, the next spacecraft implementing the changes shall undergo a
"delta" compatibility test. The Tropo/Radar modification does not
involve any changes to the TT&C subsystem or GCE and, consequently, a
"delta" compatibility test shall not be required for the Tropo/Radar
test program.
2.5.3 ON-ORBIT COMMISSIONING AND TESTING
The Contractor shall perform the on-orbit post launch operations,
through the completion of in-orbit test activities for each spacecraft
on behalf of the Customer. The commissioning and test activities are
described in the Acceptance Test Plan (Exhibit D).
The IOT program shall enable spacecraft to be tested ready for service
within 6 weeks after arrival on station in the case of the first two
successful launches, and within 1 month after arrival on station for the
remainder of the spacecraft.
2.5.4 MISSION OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
The Contractor shall perform the following mission and support
activities for the Customer:
- Preparation of the Operations and Mission Manuals.
- Satellite Recommended Operating Procedures (ROPs). This document
shall contain detailed recommended operating procedures,
operating constraints, a mission description, and satellite
operating configurations for prelaunch,
page 8
<PAGE> 157
launch, deployments and on-station operations. Command callouts
and expected telemetry responses shall be included.
- Preparation, including validation, of Flight Operating Procedures
and appropriate GCE automated procedures.
- Preparation and performance of mission operations during launch,
early orbit operations, initial commissioning and all activities
leading up to and including in-orbit acceptance testing of each
spacecraft.
As needed, manuals and procedures regarding mission operations and
support will be updated or developed to support operations of spacecraft
configured with the Tropo/Radar modifications. Hand-over of the
spacecraft to Customer operations staff shall occur after successful
completion of the in-orbit test program.
2.5.5 TRAINING
The Contractor shall develop and conduct a training program that shall
provide customer personnel the knowledge and skills necessary to operate
the spacecraft independently throughout its on-station lifetime. The
training program shall include classroom and structured on-the-job (OJT)
training, and training will be conducted at the BCC located at the
Contractor's facility. If updated training is required due to changes in
satellite operations, the Contractor shall provide such training at the
Customer's SCC. A complete training program, appropriate for initial
training, training of replacement staff, and on-going replacement
training, shall be provided, including student guides, transparencies,
instructor notes and training video tapes (of the Spacecraft Subsystem
course). The Dynamic Satellite Simulator (DSS) shall be used extensively
throughout the training program to provide realistic experience in
routine and contingency spacecraft operations. The training shall
utilize appropriate spacecraft and GCE operating instructions (OIs) and
procedures (PROCs) to be provided by the Contractor. The training
program, combined with the Contractor's initial operations support
program, shall ensure that the Customer staff achieve a safe, efficient
transition to independent operations.
Individualized training program tracks shall be provided for satellite
engineers; orbital analysts; satellite controllers; and ground equipment
and software specialists and technicians.
The Contractor shall prepare and deliver, at the time of the PDR, a
detailed training plan for Customer approval. This plan shall describe
the specific content of courses and other training activities, as well
as the schedule, the facilities required for each activity, and other
details of the training program. The training program shall cover the
spacecraft and all Contractor furnished equipment and software including
the DSS, IOT equipment system, SCC and SAN GCE.
page 9
<PAGE> 158
The Contractor shall also supply appropriate training and associated
operations and maintenance procedures for the EM Payload upon delivery.
The Contractor shall supply appropriate training for the PCS at the
Hughes Facilities in El Segundo, California and/or other Subcontractor
facilities as needed. The training will be limited to two classes with
up to 10 students for each class. Each class will not exceed 15 days.
2.5.6 INITIAL OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
For a twelve (12) month period after the first successful launch, the
Contractor shall supply 24 hour operational support with Contractor
staff present at the SCC, and/or on immediate local on-call support. The
local support shall be supported by 24 hour telephone on-call detailed
operational support from the Contractor's satellite manufacturer's
facility.
The Contractor shall also supply:
- On-call technical support to the spacecraft control center for
satellite operations through the entire life of the spacecraft
constellation.
- On-call technical support and maintenance of the GCE through the
entire life of the spacecraft constellation, per section 2.5.9.
- On-call technical support and maintenance of the PCS through the
entire life of the spacecraft constellation, per section 2.5.14.
- The contractor shall supply operational support plans or these
activities.
2.5.7 COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK SUPPORT
The Contractor shall support development and validation of the overall
communications system. This support shall be provided by attending
appropriate technical interface meetings and by working with SANs and
handset providers under the Customer's guidance and direction, to help
assure the integrity and satisfactory operation of the integrated
system.
2.5.8 SPACECRAFT SHIPMENT AND STORAGE
The Contractor shall be responsible for shipping the spacecraft to the
launch sites.
The Contractor shall provide short and long term storage as stipulated
in the basic Contract.
The Contractor shall provide detailed shipment and storage plans for
customer approval.
The Contractor shall provide storage for partially integrated spacecraft
during the period of the Tropo/Radar modifications.
page 10
<PAGE> 159
2.5.9 GCE POST DELIVERY SUPPORT AND SPARES
In accordance with a ground control operating philosophy approved by the
Customer, the Contractor shall recommend GCE system sparing ground rules
and a specific recommended spares list. Spares will be procured
separately. Post warranty maintenance support shall be provided on a
time and materials cost basis.
2.5.10 RADAR EMITTER STUDY
The Contractor shall perform a radar emitter study consisting of the
following tasks:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Task Description Due Date
---- ----------- --------
<S> <C> <C>
1. a. Update prior environmental analysis over 1900 to 2100 MHz
using template of S-band receive payload characteristics. 12/20/96
b. Evaluate data bases and incorporate all
potential radar down to the equivalent
of 1 W at passband for all frequencies
(peacetime scenario).
c. Create cumulative vs. orbit time graph.
d. Identify other hot spots.
e. Identify which part of frequency band (lower or higher)
has worse interference
2. Re-evaluate S-band utilization factors for non-peacetime scenario
and incorporate into simulation model. 2/15/97
3. Assuming the availability of appropriate data: 5/15/97
a. Redo Task 1 adding communications systems for EIRPs
greater than 10 dBW (equivalent at passband).
b. Find maximum aggregate levels for each 5 MHz segment of
1965-2035 MHz.
c. Identify troposcatter fixed station locations, power,
directivity in the 100 MHz passband.
</TABLE>
2.5.11 ADDITIONAL RACKS FOR CFE EQUIPMENT
The Contractor shall provide a spare rack for CFE equipment at the SCC,
BCC, and the six (6) TT&C SAN sites (a total of eight spare racks).
2.5.12 REMOTE IOT OPERATIONS
The Contractor shall provide for the dedicated capability for remote IOT
operations at both the BCC and the SCC.
page 11
<PAGE> 160
2.5.13 PCS MODEM COMPATIBILITY TEST
The Contractor shall perform a PCS modem to payload modem check via
system test equipment. The Contractor is not required to include the PCS
L-band IF up and down converters or Customer equipment from the SANs.
Successful completion of PCS modem compatibility test will be limited to
what is required to confirm the compatibility of the modems and the
correctness of the command and TM structure.
2.5.14 PCS POST DELIVERY SUPPORT AND SPARES
In accordance with a ground control operating philosophy approved by the
Customer, the Contractor shall recommend PCS system sparing ground rules
and a specific recommended spares list. Spares will be procured
separately. Post warranty maintenance support shall be provided on a
time and materials cost basis.
The Contractor shall provide one PCS engineer to participate in the
ICONET system integration activity for a six (6) month period to be
completed no later than 1 December 2002.
2.6 PAYLOAD CONTROL SYSTEM (PCS)
The PCS equipment will consist of the following:
- Six (6) sets of Remote PCS elements, one (1) element installed at
the following six (6) ICO PCS SANs:
- Brewster, Washington, USA
- Chhattarpur, India
- Brisbane, Australia
- Longovillo, Chile
- Usingen, Germany
- Hartebeesthoek, South Africa
- One (1) redundant Central PCS element installed at the Backup SCC
in El Segundo, CA.
- One (1) redundant Central PCS element installed at the Primary
SCC in London, England.
- One (1) non-redundant Display PCS element installed at the
Primary SCC in London, England.
- One (1) non-redundant Display PCS element installed at the Backup
SCC in El Segundo, CA.
The Customer shall provide:
- Facilities for installation at the two SCCs
- SAN site availability at six (6) designated sites to allow
installation of PCS equipment
- Communication links
page 12
<PAGE> 161
- Six (6) SAN sites suitably located to support near continuous
telemetry and command of 12 satellites during early launch
operations of F1 onwards through to in-service operations of the
complete constellation.
The Customer shall provide communications links between all facilities.
The Contractor's equipment shall interface with these links for all
necessary site to site communications. Interfaces with these links and
with all other Customer furnished equipment shall be defined in the
interface control document described in the Contract's General
Provisions, Article 29.1 paragraph D.
The Customer shall provide prepared facilities for the installation of
the PCS at the satellite control centers, and the PCS SAN sites (the
same sites used for the TT&C GCE equipment). This includes all
reasonable services necessary for installation, test and commissioning
of the PCS. It shall include all interfaces to Customer furnished
equipment and suitable facilities for physical installation such as
power, air conditioning, and cable trays. ICO shall make available
integration support personnel to the Contractor for the purpose of PCS
installation and test. Post installation, proper maintenance, security,
and operation will be provided by the Customer. Specific details shall
be defined in the interface control document described in the Contract's
General Provisions, Article 29.1 paragraph D.
The PCS shall support traffic related configurations of the ICO payload.
The PCS will be comprised of an integrated suite of hardware, software,
and operations products that collectively will be used to support
normal, on-station, ICO payload traffic control operations. The PCS will
provide data to assist in operations relating to satellite diagnostics,
calibration, payload trending, and short-term storage. PCS will also
assist IOT and satellite failure investigation efforts as required. It
is assumed that the PCS system will not interface to the GCE system
except for a network connection. It is also assumed that the PCS system
will not perform HPN commanding or interface to the HPN system.
Relocation services for the PCS elements shall be provided by Contractor
on a time and materials cost basis, except that costs associated with
the transportation of the Backup SCC PCS equipment from El Segundo, CA.
to Japan or to another comparable location selected by Customer shall be
borne by Contractor.
page 13
<PAGE> 162
3. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
This section defines the program management and reporting activities to
be performed by the Contractor in execution of the Contract.
Central to definition of these activities is the assumption that the
Customer will have an on-site resident team co-located with the
Contractor program office. This team should be given full program
visibility and accessibility; and have a highly interactive and largely
informal real time interface with the Contractor.
3.1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Contractor's management of the program shall comply with the
requirements defined in the Program Management Plan to be agreed with
the Customer as required by the CDRL in Appendix A.
3.2 DOCUMENTATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
The Contractor shall establish and maintain a centralized documentation
system to facilitate reduction in delivered paperwork, and implement a
method of configuration management and control which provides ready
access of documentation to the resident Customer team. The Contractor
shall implement, on the Program, automated processes wherever available
as part of the Hughes IT systems subject to the Corporate security
guidelines.
The system shall provide to the Customer the same access and up-to-date
Program information provided to the Contractor's program staff subject
to the Corporate security guidelines.
Full documentation access shall be provided to the Customer resident
team up to and including in-orbit commissioning of the last delivered
satellite.
After departure of the Customer resident team, the Contractor shall
continue to provide reasonable access to all documentation and data
which may be needed for in-orbit operations of the spacecraft, including
detailed anomaly investigation and recovery.
3.3 PROGRESS AND TECHNICAL MEETINGS
3.3.1 WEEKLY PROGRESS MEETINGS
The resident team shall be invited to the project's regular (weekly)
progress and technical meetings. These meetings should follow normal
Contractor practices, but allow Customer participation. This shall
include subcontractor meetings where applicable, and shall include
subcontractor progress or technical status
page 14
<PAGE> 163
reviews requested by the Customer. The frequency of progress meetings
shall be adjusted as necessary.
3.3.2 QUARTERLY PROGRESS MEETINGS
Progress meetings shall be held by Customer request at approximately
quarterly intervals and will consist of plenary sessions, which will
afford Customer non- resident staff a periodic review of the complete
status of the program. The Quarterly Progress Meeting can be in lieu of
any weekly progress meeting and can be combined with major design
reviews.
3.4 ACTION ITEM CONTROL
To facilitate closure of action items raised at major design reviews or
similar meetings, an action item status list shall be maintained and
reviewed at regular intervals in weekly meetings with the objective of
ensuring closure dates are achieved.
3.5 PROGRESS REPORTS
A weekly progress report (one or two pages suitable for transmission to
the Customer's offices in London) shall be provided to the Customer
resident office. This summary shall highlight schedule status and
significant issues or achievements in the past week. The frequency of
this report will be reviewed and adjusted, as appropriate, through the
course of the program.
A detailed monthly progress report shall also be provided to the
Customer resident office. The format of the report shall be jointly
agreed between the Contractor and Customer and shall be adjusted over
the life of the program to appropriately emphasize the evolution of the
program from design through manufacture, test, delivery and
commissioning.
In preparing these reports, it is intended that maximum use be made of
the Contractor's format for internal status reporting to senior
management.
3.6 MILESTONE AND INVOICE PAYMENT STATUS AND FORECAST
- The Contractor shall present one copy of the monthly status of
invoices and payments relating to the Contract. The status of
invoices and payments may be combined in one report, but should
contain:
- milestone identification number and description;
- nominal milestone due date;
- milestone amount in US dollars;
- invoice date and invoice number;
- amount of approved payment;
- cumulative payment up to the month of issue of the report;
page 15
<PAGE> 164
- a monthly forecast of anticipated milestone accomplishments for a
period of one year form the month of issue of the report; and
- the forecast shall include the anticipated completion dates of
future milestones, as well as of late milestones, if applicable.
3.7 CUSTOMER RESIDENTS
3.7.1 OFFICE ACCOMMODATIONS AND FACILITIES
The Contractor will provide office space for up to ten Customer
residents at the spacecraft contractors facility. This includes
furnished walled offices for three senior managers and up to seven
individual furnished module offices for other Customer residents. These
offices will be co-located in the same facility with the Contractor
Program team. On-site open parking will also be provided. The Customer
residents will have available a turnaround office for visiting team
members, a conference room, fax, reproduction machine, refrigerator,
microwave, coffee and documentation storage facilities. The Contractor
shall provide access to bulk printing facilities if required. All
offices and modules will be wired for PC (personal computer) hookup,
connected to the on-site local server and able to transmit over the
international network. The on-site senior staff will be connected to the
phone intercom system. All phones shall have direct dial long distance
calling capability. All facility security services, cleaning and
maintenance will be provided by the Contractor. All Customer residents
will be covered by the Contractor liability insurance policy. The
Customer will provide its own on-site secretarial support.
The Contractor offers to the Customer's residents the same information
systems service used by the Contractor, assessed on a pro rata cost
basis. This service includes all necessary client (PC) hardware,
software, maintenance; and all information system infrastructure
capabilities, including communications, server disc storage and back-up
and network printing. The information system services provided by the
Contractor shall be compliant with the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR).
If the Customer chooses to purchase their own PCs, the Contractor will
connect the PC to the network as long as the purchased hardware and
software is compatible with the existing information system
infrastructure. The required compatibility will be defined by the
Contractor. The Customer will then be responsible for their own PC
maintenance, and will be required to upgrade their hardware and software
as necessary to maintain compatibility with the Contractor information
system infrastructure. The Customer will also be charged for their pro
rata costs of the information systems infrastructure.
The Contractor will invoice the Customer monthly for their prior month's
long distance calls and information systems and data processing service
costs. Payments will be due and payable to the Contractor within 30 days
of the invoice date.
page 16
<PAGE> 165
The Contractor shall, upon customer request, also provide options for
suitable office accommodation and facilities for Customer residents at
Major Subcontractors, and at the Contractors GCE facility.
The Contractor shall arrange and provide access passes for the Customer
resident team, for the program duration, which enables free access to
all relevant areas.
3.7.2 ATTENDANCE AT TECHNICAL REVIEWS AND TESTS
Customer resident representatives shall be afforded the opportunity to
participate in regular progress meetings between the Contractor and his
subcontractors, as well as other meetings on technical and schedule
matters. Customer resident staff or visiting representatives may witness
development, qualification and acceptance tests at unit, panel or
subsystem level and at system level at the Contractor's and
subcontractors' premises; they shall have access to all test results and
shall be free to participate in the preparations for tests and the test
evaluation. The tests which are of interest to the Customer are
essentially those which verify performance requirement and those
development tests which are used to demonstrate qualification validity
at equipment, panel, subsystem and system level.
3.8 SPACECRAFT SCROLL
A hardware matrix shall be prepared for all spacecraft control items
showing designation, quantities, and utilization.
3.9 PROGRAM PLANNING NETWORKS AND SCHEDULE CHARTS
The Contractor shall provide appropriate planning networks, summary and
detailed schedule charts to assist in the planning and preparation of
critical program events and for progress evaluation.
page 17
<PAGE> 166
4. PRODUCT ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
4.1 GENERAL
The Contractor shall establish and implement a Product Assurance (PA)
program in accordance with the requirements defined in Exhibit C for
Spacecraft related work and Exhibit G for GCE related work. The Product
Assurance Plans describe the tasks, policies, controls and procedures
which will be implemented at Contractor, subcontractor and supplier
levels to ensure that program objectives are successfully met. These
Plans, together with the Statement of Work, identify the principal areas
of Customer involvement in the product assurance program.
4.2 QUALIFICATION MATRIX
The Contractor shall prepare a document that summarizes, for each
control item, the test requirements, and the manner by which a qualified
status compliant with the program requirements is achieved. The report
shall provide references to the appropriate build specifications and
test data packages. It shall also include information for all equipment
already qualified on other programs including evidence of heritage,
qualification tests performed, summary test results and a summary
comparison with the Contract requirements. The report will be maintained
current until the completion of all unit, and subsystem qualification
tests. The report shall be updated to reflect the qualification status
of hardware designed or upgraded for the Tropo/Radar modification.
4.3 SYSTEMS SAFETY
The Contractor shall demonstrate compliance with the safety requirements
of the agencies responsible for the designated launch vehicles by
implementing the required design controls and test programs which will
be followed throughout the Contract. System safety and hazard analyses
and compliance data which demonstrate compliance with the requirements
of the applicable launch agency shall be provided in support of each
spacecraft. System safety activities, analyses and reviews shall comply
with the requirements of Exhibit C Section 7 of the Product Assurance
Plan. A specific Launch Site Safety Plan and associated documentation
shall be prepared to meet Launch site and range safety requirements and
constraints of the launch agency. As needed, system safety plans and
documentation shall be updated to reflect design changes due to the
Tropo/Radar modification.
4.4 REQUESTS FOR DEVIATION/WAIVER
Requests for Deviation/Waiver shall be promptly submitted to the
Customer for approval whenever a departure from requirements is
preplanned or whenever a non-conformance to Customer controlled
requirements is recommended for acceptance without rectification.
page 18
<PAGE> 167
4.5 PRODUCT ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION
The Contractor shall prepare the Product Assurance documents and
analyses which are identified in the Contract Data Requirements List,
Appendix-A of this SOW, and detailed in the Product Assurance Plan.
page 19
<PAGE> 168
5. DESIGN, MANUFACTURING AND TEST REVIEWS
5.1 GENERAL
The Contractor shall conduct or support a series of reviews to be
performed during the program concerning the status of the development of
the spacecraft hardware, software, ground support equipment and
services; the reviews are occasions where the responsible parties for
each item under review formally concur about its status.
The following reviews shall be conducted by the Contractor.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufact- Launch
Prelimin- Critical Final uring Test Read- Test Pre Read-
ary Design Design Design Readiness iness Review Ship iness
Review Review Review Review Review Board Review Review
(PDR) (CDR) (FDR) (MRR) (TRR) (TRB) (PSR) (LRR)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
SPACECRAFT
- Equipment (Unit) Level [X] [X] [X]1,2 [X]2 [X]2
- Bus Subsystem level [X] [X] [X]2 [X]2
- Flight Software [X] [X] [X]3 [X]3
- Communications Payload [X] [X]
- Spacecraft [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X]
System
TROPO/RADAR MODIFICATION
- Equipment (Unit) Level [X]4 [X]4 [X]1,2 [X]2 [X]2
- Communications Payload [X]4 [X]4 [X]2
- Spacecraft System [X]4 [X]4 [X]2 [X] [X] [X]
GCE SYSTEM [X] [X]
- Equipment [X] [X]
- Subsystem [X] [X] [X]
- System [X] [X] [X] [X] [X]
PCS SYSTEM [X] [X] [X]2 [X]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
1 First article only
2 Informal review except for key equipment
3 Based on Software Qualification Test (SQT)
4 Delta review only for tropo/radar impacts
5.1.1 CONDUCT OF REVIEWS
Equipment and subsystem level design reviews may be "informal" using
working documentation in place of presentation documentation or other
material
page 20
<PAGE> 169
specifically prepared for the review. Equipment reviews may be merged
with subsystem reviews, particularly for "heritage" equipment.
Similarly, bus subsystem reviews may be merged with the spacecraft
system reviews.
In general, the Preliminary Design Reviews are reviews to determine the
flow-down of specification requirements, hence, the System Review should
precede the Subsystem and Equipment Reviews. The Critical Design Reviews
are intended to verify designs meet requirements, hence, the Equipment
and Subsystem Reviews should precede the Communications Payload and
Spacecraft System Reviews.
The Communications Payload and Spacecraft System Reviews represent major
program milestones and hence, require a more formal presentation
approach. These reviews will be arranged by the Contractor, co-chaired
by the Contractor and Customer representatives and the outcome of the
review will be in the form of a summary report prepared by the Customer
and agreed by the Contractor.
5.1.2 REVIEW DATA PACKAGES
The typical documentation required to support design reviews is listed
in the CDRL in Appendix-A. A specific list of analyses and supporting
documentation shall be jointly agreed 1 month in advance of each review.
For equipment and subsystem and software reviews, data packages shall be
delivered two (2) weeks prior to the review. For the Communications
Payload, Spacecraft System and GCE Reviews, data packages shall be
delivered four (4) weeks prior to the review. The Customer and his
consultants will review the data packages and prepare action items to be
presented prior to or at the review.
5.1.3 COMPLETION OF A REVIEW
A review shall be considered complete when an Action Item Closure Plan
is agreed between the Contractor and the Customer. In very exceptional
circumstances, a review may be sufficiently incomplete to warrant, in
the opinion of the Customer, a reconvening of the review at a later
date. The review shall only be considered complete after the follow up
review is successfully held and completed with an Action Item Closure
Plan.
At the completion of each critical design review, the appropriate design
shall be frozen and placed under formal change control.
5.2 SPACECRAFT SYSTEM, COMMUNICATIONS PAYLOAD, PCS, AND GCE DESIGN REVIEWS
5.2.1 GENERAL
The Contractor shall be responsible for arranging and conducting
preliminary and critical design reviews at these levels.
page 21
<PAGE> 170
Except for the System Preliminary Design Review, the Contractor shall
not hold a system design review until the corresponding design reviews
for all subsystems have been completed.
5.2.2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEWS
The purpose of Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR) is to allow the
Contractor to satisfy the Customer formally on the baseline concept,
configuration and design of the spacecraft. They shall include a
Specification Requirements Review where the Contractor's system level
specifications shall be reviewed by the Customer; subsequent changes to
these specifications shall be subject to Customer approval, in those
cases where Contract requirements are affected.
PDRs shall establish the compatibility of external and internal
interfaces and the compliance of the design with Contract requirements.
The Spacecraft System PDR shall establish the compatibility of the
spacecraft with the launch vehicles, as specified in Exhibit B, and with
the GCE System.
All system level budgets shall be reviewed at PDRs. The selected design
concept and its feasibility shall be presented, together with the
trade-off analyses performed in the design selection process.
Partitioning of system requirements into subsystem and equipment
requirements must be provided at the reviews. Completion of these PDRs
shall establish the initial design baseline and permits the detailed
design to proceed with minimum risk of major changes being required
later.
5.2.3 CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEWS
At Critical Design Reviews (CDR), the Contractor shall formally satisfy
the Customer on the final design of the spacecraft when the detail
design is complete. These CDRs shall verify the compatibility of
subsystem/system interfaces and the compliance of the final spacecraft
design with the design and performance established at the equivalent
PDRs, based on available engineering model tests, design studies and
analyses. The reviews further establish the adequacy of plans and
preparations for integration, test and operation of the system.
5.2.4 SYSTEM FINAL DESIGN REVIEW
At the System Final Design Review (FDR), the Contractor shall formally
satisfy the Customer on the readiness of the Protoflight Model
Spacecraft for system level testing. The System FDR shall verify
conformance of the spacecraft system to Contract requirements, based on
design studies and analyses, and based on the results of all
qualification or protoflight tests at equipment and subsystem levels,
including failure reports and their analyses. The System FDR shall
establish the completeness and adequacy of the flight model acceptance
test plan, procedures and operations documentation. Any differences
between the "as-built" status of the spacecraft at FDR and the
"as-designed" status
page 22
<PAGE> 171
declared at the CDR shall be explained and justified. All analyses shall
be updated to reflect the "as-built" design. The system FDR shall
precede protoflight testing of the first spacecraft.
5.2.5 PCS SYSTEM REQUIREMENT REVIEW
The purpose of the PCS System Requirement Review (SRR) is to review the
final requirements for the Payload Control System with the Customer. The
SRR will address the technical specifications, architecture, and
external interfaces for the PCS. The focus of the SRR will be to review
the functional requirements and interfaces and not the detailed design
of the PCS. At the conclusion of the SRR, the PCS requirements and
functional requirements for external interfaces shall be considered
final. The SRR shall be conducted at the Hughes Facilities in El
Segundo, California.
5.3 SUBSYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN REVIEWS
5.3.1 GENERAL
The Contractor shall be responsible for arranging and conducting
Preliminary and Critical Design Reviews at subsystem level. Each design
review held for a particular subsystem shall represent the completion of
a stage in the overall development and qualification process of that
subsystem and shall act as decision milestone before proceeding to the
next phase. The Contractor shall not hold a critical design review for a
subsystem until its preliminary design review has been completed and all
actions have been closed.
With the exception of the PDR, subsystem design review shall not be
considered completed until all equipment in that subsystem have
completed their corresponding design review. This exception shall also
apply to equipment level reviews of subcontractor "plug compatible"
designs to be used in later flight spacecraft.
5.3.2 SUBSYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEWS
At Subsystem Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR), the Contractor shall
satisfy the Customer on the baseline concept, configuration,
specification and design of that item. At the PDR, all subsystem level
specifications shall be reviewed by the Customer and placed under formal
configuration control. The credibility of the proposed design concept
and its ability to satisfy the requirements placed on it shall also be
formally reviewed. Completion of the PDR shall permit the detailed
design to proceed with a minimum risk of major changes being required
later.
5.3.3 SUBSYSTEM CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEWS
At Subsystem Critical Design Reviews (CDR), the Contractor shall satisfy
the Customer on the adequacy of the subsystem design and performance
based on
page 23
<PAGE> 172
available engineering model tests, design studies and analyses, and on
the adequacy of the subsystems qualification and acceptance test plans.
Unless otherwise agreed by the Customer, the qualification tests of any
subsystem shall not start before completion of the corresponding CDR.
5.4 EQUIPMENT LEVEL DESIGN REVIEWS
5.4.1 GENERAL
The Contractor shall be responsible for arranging and conducting
preliminary and critical design reviews at equipment level. Design
reviews at equipment level may be conducted as working reviews in which
the Contractor's staff and Customer's representatives together with the
equipment manufacturer's staff work jointly on the review material until
it is in a satisfactory state and it becomes the formally accepted
review package.
5.4.2 EQUIPMENT PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEWS
The purpose of an Equipment Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR) shall be to
allow the supplier responsible for the item under review formally to
satisfy the Customer on the baseline concept, configuration,
specification and design of that item. The PDR shall include a
Specifications Requirement Review, at which specifications for the
equipment and in particular the "flow-down" of higher level requirements
shall be reviewed. The credibility of the proposed design concept and
its ability to satisfy the requirements placed on it shall also be
reviewed. Equipment PDR's shall not be held until the corresponding
Subsystem PDR has been completed. Completion of the PDR shall permit the
detailed design to proceed with a minimum risk of major changes being
required later.
5.4.3 EQUIPMENT CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEWS
At Equipment Critical Design Reviews (CDR) the supplier shall satisfy
the Customer on the adequacy of the item's design and performance based
on engineering model tests, design studies and analyses and on the
item's qualification and acceptance test plans. The Contractor shall not
hold a Critical Design Review for equipment until its Preliminary Design
Review has been completed, and all actions have been closed. Unless
otherwise agreed by the Customer, the assembly of flight equipment shall
not start before completion of the corresponding CDR.
5.5 FLIGHT SOFTWARE REVIEWS
5.5.1 GENERAL
The Flight Software Reviews shall conform with the requirements of the
Software Development Plan (SDP) and shall be agreed with the Customer.
page 24
<PAGE> 173
The overall review criteria which apply to any subsystem as defined in
this document shall apply to all software reviews, in addition to the
specific requirements defined in the MIL-STD documents.
At the Flight Software Reviews, the Contractor shall demonstrate that
all requirements, including development, testing and documentation
requirements, have been met for all parts of the software, including
third party software (e.g., operating systems) and software already
developed by the Contractor on other programs.
5.5.2 FLIGHT SOFTWARE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
The purpose of the Flight Software Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR)
shall be to allow the Contractor to satisfy the Customer on the baseline
concept, configuration, specification and design of the flight software
The PDR shall include a Specifications Requirement Review, at which
specifications for the Flight Software and in particular the "flow-down"
of higher level requirements shall be reviewed in detail.
The credibility of the proposed design concept and its ability to
satisfy the requirements placed on it shall also be formally reviewed.
Completion of the PDR shall permit the detailed design of the Flight
Software to proceed with a minimum risk of major changes being required
later.
5.5.3 FLIGHT SOFTWARE CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW
At the Flight Software Critical Design Reviews (CDR) the Contractor
shall satisfy the Customer on the adequacy of the software design and
performance based on development tests, design studies and analyses.
At the Flight Software CDR the Contractor shall formally satisfy the
Prime Contractor and Customer on the adequacy of the item's
qualification and acceptance test plans.
The Contractor shall not hold a Critical Design Review for the Flight
Software until its Preliminary Design Review has been completed and all
actions have been closed. The CDR shall precede release of requirements
for code generation.
At the completion of the Flight Software CDR, the baseline design shall
be frozen and the data package updated to reflect all agreed changes;
subsequent changes to the design and/or documents included in the CDR
data package shall be subject to the Customer approval.
page 25
<PAGE> 174
For the purpose of configuration management flight software design
reviews may be held on a computer software unit (CSU) basis.
5.5.4 SOFTWARE CODE REVIEWS
At the Software Code Reviews, the Contractor shall "walk through" the
code in order to allow the Customer to ascertain that the code as
designed will meet all the specified requirements.
5.5.5 FLIGHT PROM BURN-IN
Burn-in of software into flight PROM's shall not proceed without
Customer approval. Sufficient flight software qualification testing
(FQT), shall be completed prior to burn-in to minimize the risk of
flight RAM patches being required.
5.6 MANUFACTURING READINESS REVIEWS
A working level Manufacturing Readiness Review (MRR) shall be held for
units to be mutually agreed with the Customer. These shall normally only
be held for first article builds.
The MRR shall address the following:
- confirmation that all development work has been completed;
- confirmation that all parts, materials and processes have been
approved;
- readiness of formally released drawing sets including workmanship
standards and procedures;
- confirmation that all manufacturing facilities have been
identified and approved; and
- acceptibility of manufacturing flow documentation, which shall
show all activities in their proper call-up procedures and
processes as required and shall identify critical operations and
all mandarory and key inspection points in which the customer may
elect to participate, on a non interference basis.
- The Contractor shall ensure that all subsequent changes to the
manufacturing documentation are reviewed and controlled in
compliance with the Contractor's documentation control procedure
described in the Program Management Plan.
5.7 TEST REVIEWS
5.7.1 GENERAL
In general, working level test reviews shall be organized by the
Contractor before and after each test. Exceptions may be agreed with the
Customer for large volume equipments, where alternative review
approaches may be substituted.
page 26
<PAGE> 175
It is intended that these reviews be conducted in the normal course of
work, making use of the Contractor's standard processes, procedures, and
data display to the maximum extent practicable.
5.7.2 TEST READINESS REVIEWS
The purpose of the Test Readiness Reviews is to assess the readiness of
the spacecraft panel, subsystem or equipment to be tested, as well as
the readiness of the test environment to support the testing. This
applies to acceptance, protoflight or qualification tests. For the
protoflight spacecraft, the TRR shall not to be held before the system
Final Design Review.
5.7.3 TEST REVIEW BOARD
A more formal Test Review Board (TRB) shall convene following major test
phases of key equipment, panel, subsystem and system level testing for
the purpose of examining the adequacy of the test results, and to define
the actions required in response to any discrepancies encountered during
the test.
5.8 PRE-SHIPMENT REVIEW
Each spacecraft shall undergo a pre-shipment review (PSR) in accordance
with Article 8 of the Contract. A pre-shipment review shall also be held
for the GCE following FAT.
An End Item Data Package (EIDP) consisting of the following data shall
be provided for the review:
- "As-built" configuration
- Reconciliation of "as-built" vs "as designed" configuration
- Summary of "open items"
- Copies of Non-conformance Reports, Failure Reports, Waivers and
deviations available on request
- Mate/Demate logs and Installation/Removal logs available for
review
- Test data compliance matrix
5.9 LAUNCH READINESS REVIEW
Prior to integration of the spacecraft to the Launch Vehicle, a Launch
Readiness Review (LRR) shall be held in accordance with Article 8 of the
Contract. The LRR shall also address the readiness of the GCE system to
support launch and subsequent operations.
page 27
<PAGE> 176
Exhibit A Statement of Work 24 August 2000 - Amendment 7
Satellite Contract Contract Number: ICOO/95-1002/NR
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
M1 Program Management Plan At EDC, and whenever updated Approved at EDC 10 Including organizational charts
(PMP) and IPT structure
M2 Spares Plan System PDR Approval 10 Update to PMP
M3 Shipping, Transportation System PDR Approval 10 Included in PMP
and Storage Plan
M4 Review Action Item Within one week of review Approval 10
Closure Plan meeting
M5 Action Item Responses In accordance with action Review or approval, as 10
due date applicable
M6 Weekly Progress Report Weekly Information 10
M7 Monthly Program Progress Monthly, each progress Information 15 Including:
Reports report, or on request Action Item Status List
Summary Program Schedule
Critical Equipment Schedule
Analysis
Milestone and Invoice Payment
Status
Milestone Payment Forecast
M8 Contract Change Notice As required, or within 30 Approval 3
(CCN) days of receipt of a Change
Request (CR)
M9 Spacecraft Scroll At EDC Approved at EDC 10 Included in PMP
M10 Training Plan PDR and whenever updated Approval
M11 Mission Operations Plan Preliminary at EDC and Approved at CDR 25
whenever updated
M12 Detailed Program Schedules Upon request Information --
M13 System Interface Schedules Upon request Information -- Includes Customer/Contractor key
interface schedule milestone
</TABLE>
1
<PAGE> 177
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS (CONTD.)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
M14 Communication Network At PDR Approval 10
Support Plan
M15 Life Time Support Plan At EDC,and whenever updated Review 10
</TABLE>
2
<PAGE> 178
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBMISSION NO OF
NO. ITEM REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
E1 Subsystem Specifications Appropriate design Review 10
review data
packages and
whenever updated
E2 Equipment Specifications Appropriate design Review 10
review data
packages and
whenever updated
E3 Design Review Data Package Appropriate design Review 10
review data
packages and
whenever updated
E4 Stress, Fracture and Dynamic Appropriate design Review 10
Analysis review data
packages and
whenever updated
E5 Antenna Pointing Error Analysis Appropriate design Review 10
review data
packages and
whenever updated
E6 Antenna Pointing Error Budget Appropriate design Review 10 Summary in MPR
review data
packages and
whenever updated
E7 Propellant Budget Analysis Appropriate design Review 10 Summary in MPR
review data
packages and
whenever updated
E8 Mass Properties Analysis Appropriate design Review 10 Summary in MPR
review data
packages and
whenever updated
E9 DC Power Budget Analysis Appropriate design Review 10 Summary in MPR
review data
packages and
whenever updated
E10 Mission Analysis Appropriate design Review 10
review data
packages and
whenever updated
</TABLE>
3
<PAGE> 179
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS (CONTD.)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
E11 Electromagnetic Appropriate design Review 10
Compatibility (EMC) review data packages
Analyses and whenever updated
E12 Radiation Effect Analyses Appropriate design Review 10
review data packages
and whenever updated
E13 Spacecraft Charging Appropriate design Review 10
Analysis review data packages
and whenever updated
E14 Spacecraft Contamination Appropriate design Review 10
Analysis review data packages
and whenever updated
E15 Spacecraft Venting Appropriate design Review 10
Analysis review data packages
and whenever updated
E16 Communications Subsystem Appropriate design Review 10
Analyses review data packages
and whenever updated
E17 Telemetry, Telecommand Appropriate design Review 10
and Ranging Subsystem review data packages
Analyses and whenever updated
E18 Thermal Control Subsystem Appropriate design Review 10
Analyses review data packages
and whenever updated
E19 Structure Subsystem Appropriate design Review 10
Analysis review data packages
and whenever updated
E20 Electrical Power Appropriate design Review 10
Subsystem Analysis review data packages
and whenever updated
</TABLE>
4
<PAGE> 180
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS (CONTD.)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
E21 Attitude Determination & Appropriate design Review 10
Control Subsystem Analysis review data packages
and whenever updated
E22 Propulsion Subsystem Appropriate design Review 10
Analysis review data packages
and whenever updated
E23 Mechanisms Analysis Appropriate design Review 10
review data packages
and whenever updated
E24 EGSE and MGSE Analyses Appropriate design Review 10
review data packages
and whenever updated
E25 Worst Case Analysis Appropriate design Review 10
review data packages
and whenever updated
E26 System Summary Preliminary at EDC, Review 25 Spacecraft including GCE
System Review design interfaces
reviews and whenever
updated
E27 Recommended Operating Outline at PDR, first Review 25 Including mission and
Procedures issue at CDR, final at on-station operations
FDR
E28a Spacecraft-Ground Appropriate design Draft at EDC + 2 mos 25
Interface Control review data packages Preliminary at PDR
Document: TT&C and whenever updated Final at CDR
Interfaces
E28b Spacecraft-Ground Appropriate design Draft at EDC + 2 mos 25
Interface Control review data packages Preliminary at PDR
Document: Payload and whenever updated Final at CDR
Control Interfaces
</TABLE>
5
<PAGE> 181
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS (CONTD.)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
E29 Fracture Control Plan Appropriate design Review 5
review data packages
and whenever updated
E30 Spacecraft Interface Appropriate design Review 25 Parfitt type diagrams
Schematics review data packages
and whenever updated
E31 Detailed unit level Appropriate design Review 10
design description review data packages
and whenever updated
E32 Training Course for 1 month before course Review 25
Spacecraft Operations
Personnel
E33 EM Payload O&M Manual At EM payload delivery Review 3
E34 EM Payload ICD At spacecraft PDR Approval 10
E35 Spacecraft On-station Draft at FDR Review 15 Including associated
and Mission Procedures First issue at PSR automated GCE based
Final at LRR procedures and software
E36 Operating Instructions First issue at SAT Review 15 Including nominal and
(OIs) Final at S/C handover contingency
E37 Operating Procedures First issue at SAT Review 15 Including nominal and
(PROCs) Final at S/C handover contingency
E38 Satellite Data Book First issue at PSR Review 15 One for each spacecraft
Final at S/C handover
E39 Satellite Telemetry, Draft at PDR Review 15
Command Lists First issue at CDR
Updates as needed
E40 Design Verification Draft at System PDR Review 10
Matrix First issue at System
CDR
</TABLE>
6
<PAGE> 182
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
SPACECRAFT TEST DOCUMENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBMISSION NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
T1 Equipment and Subsystem 2 weeks before start of Review 2
Test Procedures testing
T2 Equipment Test At working reviews Review 2 Customer will have
Data/Reports access to all testing
in progress and real
time test results
T3 Panel and Subsystem Test At test review boards Review 5 Customer will have
Data/Reports access to all testing
in progress and real
time test results
T4 Spacecraft Test Procedures Preliminary 30 days before Review
CDR
Final 30 days before FDR
T5 Spacecraft Test At test review boards Review 5
Data/Reports
T6 EGSE/MGSE Design Appropriate design review Review 5
Descriptions data packages and whenever
updated
T7 Launch Operation and Detailed report, within 1 Review 5
Deployment and IOT Report month
Summary report within 1 week
T8 System/Bus IOT Test First issue, 1 month before Review 5
Procedures rehearsals Review
Final, 1 month before launch
T9 Spacecraft Payload IOT Initial at IOT system Review --
Procedures installation Including associated
Update at launch - 1 month applications software
Final at completion of IOT
</TABLE>
7
<PAGE> 183
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
- GCE SYSTEM SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA NO OF COPIES COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
G1 Facilities Requirements N/A N/A 10
Document*
G2 TT&C Ground to NMC N/A N/A 10
Interface Control
Document (ICD)*
G3 TT&C Ground to SAN N/A N/A 10
Interface Control
Document*
G4 Ground System Design PDR, CDR Approval 10 Final at CDR
Specification
G5 In-Orbit Test Subsystem PDR, CDR Approval 10
Design Specification
G6 PDR and CDR Data Packages PDR, CDR Review 10
G7 PDR and CDR Minutes PDR, CDR Review 10
G8 FAT and SAT Test 1 month before test Review 10
Procedures
G9 FAT and SAT Test Reports Summary report, 1 week after test Review 10
Detailed report, 1 month after test
G10 Site Installation Plan 2 months before installation Approval 10
G11 Interconnect Drawings PDR, CDR, FAT Review 10
G12 As-Built Drawings FAT Review 10
G13 Ground Software Manuals CDR, SAT Review 10 Outline at CDR
G14 COTS Software Vendor CDR, FAT Review 10
Supplied Manuals
G15 Ground Equipment Vendor CDR, FAT Review 10
Supplied Manuals
G16 Hughes Ground Equipment CDR, SAT Review 10 Outline at CDR
O&M Manuals
</TABLE>
* No longer a Contract Deliverable Document (Customer has assumed
responsiblility for these Documents)
8
<PAGE> 184
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
GCE SYSTEM SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS (CONTD.)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
G17 System O&M Manuals CDR, SAT Review 10 Outline at CDR
G18 Ground System Training 1 month before course Review 25 Includes all equipment
Course hardware and software
G19 Recommend GCE Spares List PDR Review 10
G20 Operations Concept PDR Information 10
G21 DSS Test Plan Draft PDR Approval 5 Final at CDR
G22 IOT Subsystem Test Plan Draft PDR Approval 5 Final at CDR
</TABLE>
9
<PAGE> 185
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
PRODUCT ASSURANCE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
P1 Product Assurance Plan By CCN, as required Approval 10 Basic document approved
at EDC
P2 Audit Results Upon request Information 1 Available on request
P3 Subcontractor 30 days EDC Review 2 Resubmit as revised
Requirements Matrix
P4 Subtier PA Plans As received Review 1 Provide to on-site
Customer Office
P5 Failure Status Monthly Information -- Included in progress
reports
P6 PA Status Reports Monthly Information -- Included in progress
reports
P7 Key Inspection Points At MRR Review 1 Provide to on-site
Customer Office
P8 Non-conformance Reports As issued Review 1 Provide to on-site
Customer Office
P9 Software Quality Plan 60 days EDC Approval 10
P10 Reliability Analysis 30 days before design review Review 10 Include in design review
Package
P11 Failure Rate Data 30 days prior to design Review 1 Customer concurrence
review
P12 Parts Derating Analysis 30 days before CDR/FDR Review 10 Include in design review
Package
P13 Parts Derating Exceptions As issued to PMPCB Approval 1 Provide to on-site
Customer Office
P14 Derating Exceptions List 30 days prior to CDR/FDR Review 10 Include in design review
Package
P15 FMECA 30 days prior to design Review 10 Include in design review
review Package
P16 Single Point Failure List 30 days prior to design Approval 10 Include in design review
review Package
</TABLE>
10
<PAGE> 186
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
PRODUCT ASSURANCE (CONTD.)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
P17 Wearout Analysis 30 days prior to design Review 10 Include in design review
review Package
P18 Critical Items List 30 days prior to design Review 10 Include in design review
review Package
P19 Failure Notification Within 24 hours of reported Information 1 E-Mail or hard copy to
failure on-site Customer Office
P20 Failure Reports As issued; within 7 days of Review 1 Provide to on-site
notification Customer Office
P21 Failure Analysis Reports As issued; within 7 days Review 2 Provide to on-site
completion Customer Office
P22 Failure Review Board As issued Information 1 Provide to on-site
Minutes Customer Office
P23 Authorized Parts Lists As issued Review 5 Provide to on-site
Customer Office
P24 Summary Parts Lists As issued Information 1 Available for design
review
P25 Authorized Materials & As issued Review 5 Provide to on-site
Processes List Customer Office
P26 Parts & Materials As issued Review 1 Concurrence at PMPCB
Approval Requests
P27 System Safety Program 30 days prior to PDR Information 5 Provide as revised
Tasks
P28 System Safety Compliance 30 days prior to Safety Review 5
Data and Hazard Analysis Reviews
P29 Launch Site Safety Plan 6 months prior to launch Review 5
P30 Qualification Status Draft at PDR Review 10 Resubmit as revised
Reports
P31 Flight Hardware IT As hardware is delivered Information 10 Contains hardware summary
Delivery Notices data
</TABLE>
11
<PAGE> 187
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
PRODUCT ASSURANCE (CONTD.)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO OF
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA COPIES COMMENTS REFERENCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
P32 Requests for As issued Approval 2
Deviation/Waiver
P33 Eng Change Notices As issued Information 1 Review at program level CRB
P34 Specification Tree As issued Information 5
</TABLE>
DRL Notes 1) The number of copies to be supplied may be reduced if electronic
document transfers are used.
12
<PAGE> 188
APPENDIX A: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT LIST (CDRL)
PCS SYSTEM SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NO. ITEM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT SUBMISSION CRITERIA NO OF COPIES COMMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
PCS 1 PDR and CDR Data Packages PDR, CDR Review 10
PCS 2 PDR and CDR Minutes PDR, CDR Review 10
PCS 3 Detailed PCS Equipment Scroll CDR Review 10
PCS 4 Interconnect Drawings Preliminary: CDR Review 10
Final: FAT
PCS 5 Recommend PCS Spares List CDR Information 10
PCS 6 PCS Test Plan CDR Review 10
PCS 7 FAT and SAT Test Procedures 1 month before test Review 10
PCS 8 FAT and SAT Test Reports Summary report, 1 week after Review 10
test
Detailed report, 1 month
after test
PCS 9 COTS Software Vendor SAT Information 10
Supplied Manuals
PCS 10 Ground Equipment vendor Preliminary: SAT Information 10
and/or O&M Manuals Final: SAT + 40 WD
PCS 11 PCS User Manual Preliminary: SAT Information 10
Final: SAT + 40 WD
PCS 12 PCS Training Materials At training class Information 20
</TABLE>
13
<PAGE> 189
Exhibit B Satellite Technical Specification 25 August 2000 - Amendment 7
Satellite Contract Contract Number: ICOO/95-1002/NR
CONTRACT NUMBER ICOO/95-1002/NR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT B
SATELLITE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 AUGUST 2000
<PAGE> 190
TABLE OF CONTENTS
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
ACRONYMS XV
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SPACECRAFT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 1
2.1 General 1
2.2 Orbital Requirements 1
2.2.1 Orbit Definition 1
2.2.2 Orbital Life 2
2.2.3 Orbit Acquisition and Reconfiguration 2
2.3 Launch Requirements 3
2.3.1 Launch Vehicles 3
2.3.2 Launch Vehicle Users' Manual 3
2.3.3 Launch Mass 3
2.3.4 Airborne Support Equipment 3
2.3.5 Launch Windows 3
2.4 Definition of Coordinate Axes, Attitude Angles and Torques 4
2.4.1 Spacecraft Axes 4
2.4.2 Attitude Angles 4
2.4.3 Torques 4
2.5 Antenna Beam Pointing Accuracy 5
2.5.1 Functional Requirements 5
2.5.2 Design Requirements 5
2.6 Spacecraft Reliability Requirements 6
2.6.1 General 6
2.6.2 Spacecraft Services 6
2.6.3 Reliability 6
2.6.4 Outages 6
2.6.5 Single Point Failures 7
2.6.6 Safe Modes 7
2.6.7 Software Reliability 8
2.6.8 Safe Disposal 8
2.6.9 Space Debris 8
2.7 Radiation Environment 8
2.8 Operational Requirements 8
2.8.1 Spacecraft Autonomy 8
2.8.2 Automatic Functions 9
3. COMMUNICATIONS SUBSYSTEM 10
3.1 General 10
3.2 Overall Communications Payload Characteristics 11
3.2.1 General 11
</TABLE>
ii
<PAGE> 191
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
3.2.2 Transponder Characteristics 11
3.2.3 Frequency Bands 12
3.3 Antenna Coverage 14
3.3.1 S-band Coverage 14
3.3.2 S-band Beam Congruence 15
3.3.3 S-band Beam Polarisation Axial Ratio 15
3.3.4 S-band Beam Isolation 16
3.3.5 C-band Coverage 17
3.3.6 C-band Polarisation Axial Ratio 17
3.4 EIRP and G/T Performance 18
3.4.1 S-band EIRP Requirements 18
3.4.2 S-band EIRP Flexibility 20
3.4.3 S-band G/T Requirements 20
3.4.4 C-band EIRP Requirements 21
3.4.5 C-band G/T Requirements 22
3.5 Payload Performance 23
3.5.1 Intermodulation Product 23
3.5.2 Transponder Channelisation 24
3.5.3 C-to-C Transponder Channelisation 28
3.5.4 HP-SMS Transponder Channelisation 28
3.5.5 Signal Dynamics 29
3.5.6 Transmission Channel Gain Requirements 32
3.5.7 Frequency Accuracy 34
3.5.8 Phase Linearity 34
3.5.9 Phase Noise 35
3.5.10 In-band and Close-to-Band Spurious Emissions 36
3.5.11 Self Interference Criterion 36
3.5.12 Out-of-Band Emissions 36
3.5.13 Out-of-Band Response 37
3.5.14 Overload Capability 38
3.5.15 Multi-Carrier Operational and Test Condition 41
3.6 Payload Resource Management System 41
3.6.1 Resource Management Functions 41
3.6.2 Resource Management System Communications Links 45
3.7 HP-SMS Management System 46
3.7.1 HP-SMS Management Functions 46
3.7.2 HP-SMS Management System Command Link 49
3.8 On-board Test and Correction 49
3.8.1 DRA Chain Autonomous Calibration 49
3.8.2 DRA Chain Diagnostics 50
3.8.3 Channeliser/Beamforming Diagnostics 50
3.8.4 Health and Status Information 50
3.9 Interface Requirements 50
3.9.1 Main Power Bus 50
3.9.2 Telecommand Requirements 50
</TABLE>
iii
<PAGE> 192
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
3.9.3 Telemetry Requirements 51
3.10 Reliability Requirements 51
3.10.1 Reliability Approach 51
4. TELEMETRY, TRACKING AND COMMAND SUBSYSTEM 52
4.1 Functional Description 52
4.2 Radio Frequency Requirements 52
4.2.1 General Requirements 52
4.2.2 Downlink 52
4.2.3 Uplink 54
4.2.4 Antenna Requirements 55
4.3 Telemetry Subsystem 56
4.3.1 General Requirements 56
4.3.2 Telemetry Baseband Requirements 57
4.3.3 Telemetry Format - General Requirements 57
4.3.4 "Normal Mode" Telemetry Format 58
4.3.5 "Dwell Mode" Telemetry Format 58
4.3.6 Spare Capacity 59
4.4 Command Subsystem 59
4.4.1 General Requirements 59
4.4.2 Telecommand Baseband Parameters 61
4.4.3 Command Link Performance 61
4.4.4 Command Security 61
4.4.5 Command Message Format 62
4.4.6 Command Execution 62
4.4.7 Time-tagged Command Facility 62
4.4.8 Spare Capacity 63
4.5 Ranging 63
4.5.1 Functional Requirements 63
4.5.2 Performance Requirements 64
4.6 Interface Requirements 64
4.6.1 General 64
4.6.2 Main Power Bus 64
4.6.3 Telecommand Requirements 64
4.6.4 Telemetry Requirements 64
4.6.5 TT&C Ground-to-Spacecraft Interface 65
5. ATTITUDE AND ORBIT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (AOCS) 67
5.1 Functional Description 67
5.2 Attitude Determination 67
5.2.1 General 67
5.2.2 Operational Orbit 67
5.3 Attitude and Orbit Control 67
5.3.1 General 67
</TABLE>
iv
<PAGE> 193
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
5.3.2 Operational Orbit 67
5.3.3 Design Margins 68
5.3.4 Control Bias Capability 68
5.3.5 Unit and Reference Switching 68
5.4 Fault Protection 69
5.4.1 Redundancy 69
5.4.2 Automatic Failure Detection & Switching 69
5.4.3 Safe Modes 70
5.4.4 Reacquisition 71
5.5 Interface Requirements 71
5.5.1 Propulsion Interfaces 71
5.5.2 Main Power Bus 71
5.5.3 Telecommand Requirements 71
5.5.4 Telemetry Requirements 72
5.5.5 Mechanical 73
6. PROPULSION SUBSYSTEM 74
6.1 Functional Description 74
6.2 Functional Requirements 74
6.2.1 Liquid Propellant Subsystems 74
6.2.2 Liquid Propellant Storage & Feed Components 75
6.2.3 Liquid Propellant Thrusters 76
6.2.4 Redundancy 77
6.3 Propellant Budgets 78
6.3.1 General 78
6.3.2 Liquid Propellants 78
6.3.3 Budgeting Methodology 78
6.4 Subsystem Interfaces 80
6.4.1 AOCS 80
6.4.2 Main Power Bus 80
6.4.3 Telemetry Requirements 80
6.4.4 Telecommand Requirements 81
6.4.5 Thermal 81
7. ELECTRICAL POWER SUBSYSTEM 82
7.1 Functional Description 82
7.2 Functional Requirements 82
7.2.1 Power Budget 82
7.3 Solar Array 83
7.3.1 Array Capability 83
7.3.2 Array Drive and Power Transfer Assembly 83
7.4 Battery 84
7.4.1 Battery Configuration 84
7.4.2 Battery Capacity 84
</TABLE>
v
<PAGE> 194
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
7.4.3 Battery Charge Management 84
7.4.4 Battery Storage 85
7.5 Power Conditioning 85
7.5.1 General 85
7.5.2 Main Bus Ripple 85
7.6 Power Distribution and Protection 86
7.6.1 General 86
7.6.2 Automatic Loadshed Facility 86
7.7 Interface Requirements 87
7.7.1 Telecommand Requirements 87
7.7.2 Telemetry Requirements 87
8. THERMAL CONTROL SUBSYSTEM 88
8.1 Functional Description 88
8.2 Subsystem Performance Requirements 88
8.2.1 General 88
8.2.2 Analytical Margins 89
8.3 Subsystem Design Requirements 89
8.3.1 General 89
8.3.2 Analysis 90
8.3.3 Implementation 90
8.4 Interface Requirements 90
8.4.1 Main Power Bus 90
8.4.2 Telecommand Requirements 90
8.4.3 Telemetry Requirements 90
9. STRUCTURE SUBSYSTEM 92
9.1 Functional Description 92
9.2 Subsystem Performance Requirements 92
9.3 Subsystem Design Requirements 92
9.3.1 Load Conditions 92
9.3.2 Load Factors and Safety Margins 92
9.3.3 Composites and Bonded Structures 94
9.3.4 Fracture Control 94
9.3.5 Materials 94
10. MECHANISMS 95
10.1 Functional Description 95
10.2 Design Requirements 95
10.2.1 General 95
10.2.2 Design Margins 95
10.2.3 Lifetime 95
10.2.4 Deployment Mechanisms 96
</TABLE>
vi
<PAGE> 195
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
10.2.5 Bearings 96
10.3 Interface Requirements 96
10.3.1 Main Power Bus 96
10.3.2 Telecommand Requirements 96
10.3.3 Telemetry Requirements 97
11. PYROTECHNIC SUBSYSTEM 98
11.1 Functional Description 98
11.2 Design Requirements 98
11.2.1 Redundancy 98
11.2.2 Initiators 98
11.2.3 Actuators 98
11.2.4 Firing Circuits 98
11.3 Interface Requirements 99
11.3.1 Main Power Bus 99
11.3.2 Telecommand Requirements 99
11.3.3 Telemetry Requirements 99
12. SPACECRAFT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 100
12.1 General 100
12.1.1 Configuration 100
12.1.2 Maintainability, Interchangeability and Accessibility 100
12.1.3 Zero-g Testing 101
12.1.4 Contamination Control 101
12.1.5 Operation Following Storage 102
12.2 Reliability Design 102
12.2.1 General 102
12.2.2 Reliability Analysis 102
12.2.3 Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) 103
12.2.4 Contingency Analysis 103
12.2.5 Software & Firmware Reliability 103
12.2.6 Reliability Modelling 104
12.2.7 Redundancy 104
12.3 Mechanical Design Requirements 105
12.3.1 Requirements for Units and Assemblies 105
12.4 Thermal Design Requirements 105
12.4.1 Requirements for Units and Assemblies 105
12.5 General Electrical Design Requirements 106
12.5.1 Worst Case Analysis 106
12.5.2 Electrical Grounding Scheme 106
12.5.3 Main Bus Power Interfaces 107
12.5.4 Secondary Power Distribution 107
12.5.5 Signal Interfaces 107
12.5.6 Testability 108
</TABLE>
vii
<PAGE> 196
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
12.5.7 Use of Connectors 108
12.5.8 Harness Design 109
12.5.9 Spacecraft-Level Test Connections 109
12.6 Design Criteria for Microprocessor Systems 110
12.6.1 Software Design Requirements 110
12.6.2 Software Telemetry 111
12.6.3 Hardware 111
12.6.4 Fault Management 112
12.6.5 Self-Test Mode 112
12.7 Radiation Design Requirements 112
12.7.1 Total Dose 112
12.7.2 Single Event Phenomena - Single and Multiple Upsets 113
12.7.3 Electrostatic Charging 113
12.8 General Telecommand and Telemetry Requirements 114
12.8.1 Telecommand 115
12.8.2 Telemetry 115
13. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISIONS 118
13.1 Quality Assurance Requirements 118
13.1.1 General 118
13.1.2 Quality Systems 118
13.2 Component Parts 118
13.2.1 General 118
13.2.2 Radiation Sensitivity 118
13.2.3 Custom Devices 118
13.2.4 Travelling Wave Tube Amplifiers 119
13.3 Materials and Processes 119
13.3.1 General 119
13.3.2 Materials 119
13.3.3 Processes 120
13.4 Limited-life Items 120
13.5 Producibility 121
A. APPENDICES A-1
1. APPENDIX 1 RESERVED A-2
2. APPENDIX 2 -RADIATION ENVIRONMENT SPECIFICATION A-3
2.1 ICO Orbit Radiation Environment A-3
2.1.1 Geomagnetically Trapped Radiation A-3
2.1.2 Energetic Solar Particles A-4
2.1.3 Environment Interactions A-5
2.1.4 Transient Environments A-8
2.1.5 Single Event Effects Radiation Environment A-8
2.1.6 Solar Spectral Irradiance A-17
</TABLE>
viii
<PAGE> 197
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
2.1.7 Spacecraft Charging A-18
3. APPENDIX 3 -DYNAMIC SPACECRAFT SIMULATOR SPECIFICATION A-20
3.1 Functional Description A-20
3.2 Functional Requirements A-20
3.2.1 General A-20
3.2.2 Scope of Simulation A-21
3.2.3 Performance Requirements A-21
3.3 Design Requirements A-22
3.3.1 Language A-22
3.3.2 User Interface A-22
3.3.3 Maintainability A-22
3.4 Environment Model Requirements A-23
3.4.1 Rotational Dynamics A-23
3.4.2 Translational Dynamics A-23
3.4.3 Models of Elements Sensed by the Spacecraft A-24
3.4.4 Models Affecting Spacecraft Behaviour A-24
3.5 Satellite Model Requirements A-24
3.5.1 Electrical Power Subsystem (EPS) A-24
3.5.2 AOCS A-25
3.5.3 Telemetry, Tracking and Command Subsystem A-26
3.5.4 Thermal Control Subsystem (TCS) A-27
3.5.5 Communications Subsystem A-27
3.5.6 Pyrotechnic Subsystem Model A-28
3.5.7 Flight Software Subsystem Model A-28
3.6 Simulator Control A-28
3.6.1 General A-28
3.6.2 Initialisation A-28
3.6.3 Run Mode A-29
3.6.4 Pausing the Simulation A-30
3.6.5 Exiting the Simulation A-30
3.7 Simulator Monitoring A-30
3.7.1 Trace Groups A-30
3.7.2 Diagnostics A-31
3.7.3 Simulation Log A-31
3.7.4 Other Printouts A-31
4. APPENDIX 4 -RADIATION DOSE MONITOR A-32
4.1 Functional Description A-32
4.2 Functional Requirements A-32
4.2.1 General A-32
4.2.2 Main Power Bus A-32
4.2.3 Telecommand Requirements A-32
4.2.4 Telemetry Requirements A-32
</TABLE>
ix
<PAGE> 198
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
4.2.5 Redundancy A-33
4.2.6 Quality Assurance A-33
4.3 Performance Requirements A-33
4.3.1 General A-33
</TABLE>
x
<PAGE> 199
Exhibit C Product Assurance Plan 25 August 2000 - Amendment 7
Satellite Contract Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
TITLE NUMBER REV
ICO
Product Assurance Plan A [HUGHES LOGO]
Exhibit C
CAGE CODE TOTAL PAGES
9E831 61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUGHES PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
Source: Hughes Space and Communications Company
This document contains proprietary information and, except with written
permission of Hughes Space and Communications Company, such information
shall not be published or disclosed to others, or used for any purpose
and the document shall not be copied in whole or in part.
COPYRIGHT (C) 1999 - HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION - UNPUBLISHED WORK -
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVALS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE DATE
S. Merrell S. Schmidt
Revised by Payload System Engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Lamb
Product Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE> 200
TABLE OF CONTENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
<S> <C> <C>
1. BASIC PROVISIONS............................................................................................1-1
1.1 Basic Provisions.....................................................................................1-1
1.1.1 Program Content......................................................................1-1
1.2 Program Functions....................................................................................1-1
1.3 Applicable Documents and Guidelines..................................................................1-1
2. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT.................................................................................2-1
2.1 Basic Provisions.....................................................................................2-1
2.2 Management Responsibility............................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Reliability Engineering..............................................................2-1
2.2.2 Parts, Materials, and Processes......................................................2-1
2.2.3 Quality Assurance....................................................................2-2
2.2.4 Subcontractor PA Program Control.....................................................2-2
2.3 Reviews..............................................................................................2-2
2.4 Audits...............................................................................................2-3
2.5 Documentation........................................................................................2-3
2.6 Subcontractor/Supplier PA Programs...................................................................2-3
2.6.1 Basic Provisions.....................................................................2-3
2.6.2 High Reliability Parts Suppliers.....................................................2-4
2.6.3 Materials and Fabricated Item Suppliers..............................................2-4
2.6.4 Major Subcontractors.................................................................2-4
2.7 Progress Reporting...................................................................................2-4
2.8 Customer Interface...................................................................................2-5
2.8.1 Involvement in and Access to Program Activities......................................2-5
2.8.2 Involvement in Review Board Proceedings..............................................2-5
3. QUALITY ASSURANCE...........................................................................................3-1
3.1 Basic Provisions.....................................................................................3-1
3.2 Function Administration..............................................................................3-1
3.2.1 Responsibilities.....................................................................3-1
3.2.2 Tasks................................................................................3-2
3.2.3 Audits...............................................................................3-2
3.3 Procurement Controls.................................................................................3-2
3.3.1 Responsibility.......................................................................3-2
3.3.2 Subcontractor/Supplier Evaluation....................................................3-3
3.3.3 Procurement Document Requirements....................................................3-3
3.3.4 Source Surveillance/Inspection.......................................................3-3
3.3.5 Receiving Inspection.................................................................3-3
3.4 Manufacturing Controls...............................................................................3-3
3.4.1 Fabrication and Assembly Operations..................................................3-3
3.4.2 Stores Control.......................................................................3-4
3.4.3 Process Control......................................................................3-4
3.4.4 Process and Personnel Certification..................................................3-4
3.4.5 Workmanship Standards................................................................3-4
3.4.6 Cleanliness and Contamination Control................................................3-5
3.4.7 Configuration Control................................................................3-5
3.4.8 Electrostatic Discharge Control......................................................3-5
3.5 Testing and Inspection...............................................................................3-5
3.5.1 In-Process Inspections...............................................................3-5
3.5.2 Final Test and Inspection............................................................3-6
3.5.3 Subsystem/Vehicle Assembly Inspection and Records....................................3-6
3.5.4 Test Participation...................................................................3-6
3.6 Nonconforming Article and Material Control...........................................................3-7
</TABLE>
i
<PAGE> 201
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
<S> <C> <C>
3.6.1 Material Review Action and Control...................................................3-7
3.6.2 Nonconformance Definitions and Classifications.......................................3-8
3.6.3 Corrective Action....................................................................3-8
3.6.4 Subcontractor Material Review........................................................3-9
3.6.5 Database.............................................................................3-9
3.7 Measurement Processes and Calibration................................................................3-9
3.7.1 Basic System.........................................................................3-9
3.7.2 Calibration Controls.................................................................3-9
3.7.3 Remedial and Preventive Action......................................................3-10
3.7.4 Subcontractor Controls..............................................................3-10
3.8 History Records and Traceability....................................................................3-10
3.8.1 History Records.....................................................................3-10
3.8.2 Photographs.........................................................................3-10
3.8.3 Traceability........................................................................3-11
3.9 Stamp Controls......................................................................................3-11
3.10 Sampling Plans, Statistical Planning, and Analysis..................................................3-11
3.11 Handling and Shipping...............................................................................3-11
3.11.1 Handling............................................................................3-11
3.11.2 Shipping............................................................................3-12
3.11.3 Transportation......................................................................3-12
3.12 Software Quality Assurance..........................................................................3-12
3.13 Launch Site Activities..............................................................................3-13
4. RELIABILITY ENGINEERING....................................................................................4-1
4.1 Basic Provisions....................................................................................4-1
4.2 Function Administration.............................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Responsibilities....................................................................4-1
4.2.2 Tasks...............................................................................4-1
4.3 Reliability Assessments.............................................................................4-2
4.3.1 Spacecraft Design Reliability.......................................................4-2
4.3.2 Analyses............................................................................4-2
4.3.3 Part Application Derating...........................................................4-3
4.3.4 Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis....................................4-4
4.3.5 Single Point Failures...............................................................4-4
4.3.6 Wearout Analysis....................................................................4-4
4.3.7 Worst Case Analysis.................................................................4-5
4.3.8 Critical Items List.................................................................4-5
4.4 Failure Reporting and Corrective Action.............................................................4-5
4.4.1 Basic Provisions....................................................................4-5
4.4.2 Failure Definition and Documentation................................................4-6
4.4.3 Failure Analysis....................................................................4-6
4.4.4 Failure Review Board................................................................4-7
4.4.5 Subcontractor Failure Reporting.....................................................4-7
5. PARTS, MATERIALS, AND PROCESSES CONTROL....................................................................5-1
5.1 Basic Provisions....................................................................................5-1
5.2 Function Administration.............................................................................5-1
5.3 Program Requirements................................................................................5-1
5.3.1 Authorized Lists....................................................................5-1
5.3.2 Selection...........................................................................5-1
5.3.3 Parts and Materials Application Review..............................................5-3
5.3.4 Materials and Processes Specifications..............................................5-3
5.3.5 Parts Specifications................................................................5-4
5.3.6 Parts and Materials Qualification...................................................5-4
5.3.7 Parts and Materials Transfer........................................................5-4
5.4 Parts Screening and Acceptance......................................................................5-5
5.4.1 Basic Provisions....................................................................5-5
</TABLE>
ii
<PAGE> 202
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
<S> <C> <C>
5.4.2 Internal Visual Inspection..........................................................5-5
5.4.3 Environmental Screening and Conditioning............................................5-5
5.4.4 Burn-in.............................................................................5-6
5.4.5 Destructive Physical Analysis.......................................................5-6
5.4.6 Radiation...........................................................................5-7
5.5 PM&P Qualification Status List......................................................................5-7
5.6 Parts and Materials Handling and Storage............................................................5-7
5.7 Part Quality Levels for Qualification Hardware......................................................5-7
5.8 Subcontractor PMP Program Control...................................................................5-7
6. CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT...................................................................................6-1
6.1 Basic Provisions....................................................................................6-1
6.2 Function Administration.............................................................................6-1
6.2.1 Responsibilities....................................................................6-1
6.2.2 Tasks...............................................................................6-2
6.3 Activities..........................................................................................6-2
6.3.1 Configuration Identification........................................................6-2
6.3.2 Configuration Control...............................................................6-3
6.3.3 Configuration Status Accounting.....................................................6-4
6.3.4 Subcontractor Configuration Management..............................................6-5
6.3.5 Engineering Documentation Control...................................................6-5
7. SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM PLAN.................................................................................7-1
7.1 Basic Provisions....................................................................................7-1
7.2 Responsibilities....................................................................................7-1
7.2.1 Program Manager.....................................................................7-1
7.2.2 System Safety Engineer..............................................................7-1
7.2.3 External System Safety Interfaces...................................................7-1
7.3 System Safety Tasks.................................................................................7-2
7.4 Organizational Roles................................................................................7-2
7.4.1 Engineering.........................................................................7-2
7.4.2 System Operations...................................................................7-2
7.4.3 Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs (SHEA......................................7-3
7.4.4 Product Assurance...................................................................7-3
7.4.5 Quality Assurance...................................................................7-3
7.5 Scope of System Safety Program......................................................................7-3
7.6 Applicable Documents................................................................................7-3
7.7 Integration and Coordination of Delegated Activities................................................7-4
7.8 Hazard Control Order of Precedence..................................................................7-4
7.9 Hazard Analysis.....................................................................................7-4
7.9.1 Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)...................................................7-4
7.9.2 Subsystem and System Hazard Analysis (S&SHA)........................................7-5
7.10 Verification and Documentation of Requirements Compliance...........................................7-5
7.11 Deliverable Documentation...........................................................................7-5
7.12 Non-Deliverable Data................................................................................7-5
7.13 Procedure Review and Approval.......................................................................7-5
7.14 Test and Operational Safety.........................................................................7-5
7.15 Training............................................................................................7-6
7.16 Audit Program.......................................................................................7-6
</TABLE>
iii
<PAGE> 203
LIST OF FIGURES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
<S> <C> <C>
FIGURE 2-1. PROGRAM PRODUCT ASSURANCE MANAGEMENT REPORTING......................................2-7
FIGURE 2-2. PROGRAM PRODUCT ASSURANCE MANAGER'S STAFF...........................................2-7
FIGURE 3-1. QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERFACES.......................................................3-13
FIGURE 4-1. FAILURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM...........................................................4-8
FIGURE 6-1. PROGRAM CONFIGURATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS................................6-6
FIGURE 6-2. CUSTOMER/HUGHES/SUBCONTRACTOR INTERFACES............................................6-6
FIGURE 6-3. PROGRAM CMO FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.............................................6-7
</TABLE>
iv
<PAGE> 204
LIST OF TABLES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
<S> <C> <C>
TABLE 1-1 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS..................................................................1-2
TABLE 1-2 APPLICABLE HUGHES MANUALS AND PROCEDURES..............................................1-3
TABLE 2-1 REVIEW BOARDS.........................................................................2-6
TABLE 2-2. CUSTOMER INVOLVEMENT IN REVIEW BOARD PROCEEDINGS.....................................2-7
TABLE 3-1, FLIGHT HARDWARE MATERIAL REVIEW AUTHORITY...........................................3-14
TABLE 4-1. RELIABILITY ENGINEERING TASK RESPONSIBILITIES........................................4-8
TABLE 5-1. HIGH RELIABILITY PARTS SCREENING MATRIX1 (PAGE 1 OF 2)...............................5-8
TABLE 5-1. HIGH RELIABILITY PARTS SCREENING MATRIX (Page 2 of 2)................................5-9
</TABLE>
v
<PAGE> 205
1. BASIC PROVISIONS
1.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
1.1.1 PROGRAM CONTENT
Hughes shall conduct, from program inception to delivery of each
spacecraft, a product assurance effort compliant with the provisions of
this plan, which shall constitute the master planning and requirements
document for the spacecraft product assurance program. This effort shall
comprise, in addition to a program of quality assurance activities that
includes software control activities, programs of reliability
engineering; parts, materials, and processes control; configuration
management; and system safety assurance activities. Responsibility
within Hughes for ensuring the application of these disciplines shall be
assigned as prescribed by Hughes' management directives.
1.2 PROGRAM FUNCTIONS
The primary functions of the spacecraft product assurance program shall
be to:
1. Ensure the effective and timely implementation (one consistent
with the program master phasing schedule) of the tasks
prescribed by this plan.
2. Define and implement the product assurance tasks and controls
required in the design, manufacture, testing, storage, delivery,
and launch of the spacecraft to ensure accomplishment of the
mission objectives.
3. Ensure the implementation of a reliable design based upon proven
design practices.
4. Ensure proper selection, application, evaluation, and control of
parts, materials, and processes.
5. Provide full integration of product assurance requirements and
controls throughout the program and ensure continuous compliance
by conducting appropriate audits and inspections.
6. Ensure early and prompt detection and reporting of actual or
potential deficiencies, marginal quality, and trends or
conditions that could result in unsatisfactory performance, and
ensure that prompt and effective action is taken to correct such
conditions.
7. Provide regular program status reports to program management.
1.3 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS AND GUIDELINES
Existing product line documents and guidelines shall be used to the
maximum extent possible to preclude duplication of effort and ensure
consistent application of sound practices. The documents listed in Table
1-1 shall be considered a part of this plan to the extent described.
Unless otherwise noted, the latest issues of the documents cited in
Table 1-1 shall be the applicable documents.
The guidelines cited in Table 1-2 shall govern the implementation of the
provisions of this plan. These guidelines shall be periodically revised
to the extent necessary to reflect the latest Hughes practices and shall
be available for review upon customer request.
1-1
<PAGE> 206
TABLE 1-1 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Title Contents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
Hughes
SCG PS 22010 Protection of Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Established requirements for processing of
Sensitive Devices and Assemblies static sensitive devices and assemblies
SCG PS 32023 Space Equipment Electrical Assembly and Establishes workmanship standards for
Soldering soldering
APL ICO 1 Approved Parts List for the ICO Program Documents the list of parts approved by
the program PMPCB
AMPL Approved Materials and Processes List for Documents the list of materials and
the ICO Program processes approved by the PMPCB
PA9000 Product Assurance Requirements Specifies product assurance requirements
Specification for subcontactors
Standards
ANSI/ASQC Z1.4 Sampling Procedures and Tables for Prescribes procedures for statistical
Inspection Attributes sampling of materials to specified levels of
quality
ANSI/ASTM Total Mass Loss of Collected Volatile Provides testing requirements of materials
E 595-84 Condensable Materials from Outgassing in vacuum environment
in a Vacuum Environment
ANSI/NCSL Z540-1 Calibration Laboratories and Measuring and Provides general requirements for
Test Equipment - General Requirements calibration activities
MIL-HDBK-217 Reliability Predictions of Electronic Provides failure rate data and
Equipment methodology for performing reliability
predictions
MIL-M-38510 Microcircuits, General Specification for Provides general technical requirements for
microcircuits (heritage parts)
MIL-PRF-38534 Hybrid Microcircuits, General Specification for Provides general technical requirements
for hybrids
MIL-PRF-38535 Integrated Circuits (Microcircuits) Provides general requirements for
Manufacturing, General Specification for microcircuits
MIL-PRF-19500 Semiconductor Devices, General Provides general technical requirements
Specification for for semiconductors
MIL-S-19500 Semiconductor Devices, General Provides general technical requirements
Specification for for semiconductors (heritage parts)
MIL-STD-1547 Electronic Parts & Materials Requirements for Establishes requirements for electronics
Space and Launch Vehicles parts and materials
MFSC-SPEC-522 Design Criteria for Controlling Establishes design requirements for stress
Stress Corrosion Cracking corrosion cracking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
1-2
<PAGE> 207
TABLE 1-2 APPLICABLE HUGHES
MANUALS AND PROCEDURES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guideline Contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C>
Engineering
Worst Case Circuit Analysis Establishes minimum worst case circuit analysis requirements
Stress Derating Analysis Establishes minimum electronic component electrical derating analysis
requirements
Numerical Reliability Analysis Establishes minimum reliability analysis requirements and approved failure
rates
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Establishes procedures for conducting failure modes and effects analysis
Component Data Book Presents part stress derating, radiation design criteria, and part
degradation data for designers
Drafting Standards Manual Establishes engineering requirements for drawings
Shelf Life Manual Establishes shelf life and recertification requirements for life limited
materials
Product Assurance
Subcontractor Requirements Defines requirements that selectively apply to subcontractors
Program Authorized Parts List Lists program authorized parts and requirements
Program Authorized Materials Lists program authorized materials and processes
and Processes List
Program Quality Requirements Designates applicable program quality requirements
Failure Reporting and Corrective Describes requirements and responsibilities for reporting analysis,
Action corrective action, closeout of problems, and failures occurring during test
of equipment
Hughes Quality Manual Documents quality practices and procedures implemented by major
organizations through quality instructions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
1-3
<PAGE> 208
2. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
2.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
The satellite product assurance program prescribed by this plan shall be
managed, and responsibilities for implementing its various elements
shall be distributed, as described herein.
2.2 MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A program product assurance manager vested with the authority delegated
that office by the Hughes Space and Communications Company (HSC) Product
Assurance support staff shall be assigned to the HSC program office and
report directly to the program manager. As an integral member of both
the program management team and the Product Assurance support staff, he
shall have the direct, independent, and unimpeded access to top HSC
management shown in Figure 2-1. It shall be his responsibility to
implement management procedures and establish command media requirements
that ensure that product assurance disciplines are effectively utilized
in the design, procurement, manufacturing, and test activities. His
authority shall derive from Hughes management directives that establish
responsibilities and guidelines for implementation of the product
assurance discipline. The program product assurance manager is a
designated key person who shall be dedicated full-time to the program.
The program product assurance manager's staff shall include the
specialist personnel identified in Figure 2-2, as required to ensure
that program product assurance requirements are appropriately
implemented. The program product assurance manager shall participate in
program engineering and management meetings and reviews to the extent
required to maintain cognizance of the overall progress of the program.
He shall be responsible for ensuring immediate attention to and
resolution of any situation that appears to jeopardize the achievement
of product assurance objectives or fulfillment of the requirements of
this plan, and shall have the authority to suspend, until a satisfactory
resolution is achieved, any activities related to such a situation.
Product assurance program tasks shall be functionally distributed.
Personnel skilled in the appropriate product assurance disciplines
(hardware/software quality assurance, reliability,
parts/materials/processes, etc.) are assigned to program tasks.
Program product assurance requirements shall be communicated to
performing organizations through the issuance of command media and
statements of work. Compliance with the requirements of this plan shall
be ensured by maintaining a comprehensive program of regularly scheduled
program product assurance coordination meetings, ongoing task reviews,
audits, and program control board activities.
Personnel assignments shall be tailored to ensure achievement of the
program milestones and satisfactory completion of each product assurance
program task. The program PA functions shall have the responsibilities
and interfaces with other organizations described below.
2.2.1 RELIABILITY ENGINEERING
Reliability disciplines shall be used in the design, procurement,
manufacturing, and test activities. The reliability engineering function
shall report to the program product assurance manager. Reliability
assessment tasks shall be performed jointly by systems engineering,
design engineering, and staff reliability specialists. Staff specialists
shall assist the design activities in the evaluation and documentation
of the design reliability assessments required by this plan. Reliability
assessment results shall be presented at design reviews. The failure
reporting system shall be managed by the program product assurance
manager. Specialists in failure reporting shall be assigned to implement
the failure reporting requirements.
2.2.2 PARTS, MATERIALS, AND PROCESSES
2-1
<PAGE> 209
Program product assurance and engineering personnel shall be jointly
responsible for managing parts, materials, and processes activities. The
design engineer shall bear primary responsibility for the selection,
application, specification, and qualification of parts, materials, and
processes. Specialists with expertise in the application, specification,
and qualification of parts, materials, and processes shall provide
support as required. The performing organizations shall ensure that the
program PA manager is cognizant of the status of these activities.
A program Parts, Materials, and Processes Control Board shall review all
requests for new parts, materials, and processes to be used on the
program and issue the program authorized parts and materials lists. A
senior specialist representing the program product assurance manager
shall schedule PMPCB meetings and follow action items to completion. His
responsibility shall include monitoring and auditing parts operations to
ensure continued compliance with program parts requirements.
2.2.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The program PA manager shall be responsible for communicating program
quality requirements to performing organizations and for ensuring
compliance. QA personnel in each performing operations shall implement
the QA requirements of this plan using appropriate quality practices,
instructions, and procedures. Responsibility for product conformance to
drawings and standards shall be delegated to the cognizant product
operations QA organizations.
A product assurance engineer reporting to the program product assurance
manager shall act as the principal interface with the performing quality
assurance organizations. It shall be the responsibility of the product
assurance engineer to monitor and audit the quality operations in
sufficient depth to ensure continued compliance with program
requirements.
2.2.4 SUBCONTRACTOR PA PROGRAM CONTROL
The program product assurance manager shall review subcontractor
specifications and statements of work for communication of appropriate
requirements. Subcontractor documents shall be reviewed to ensure that
contractual and performance commitments are met. Quality assurance
surveillance personnel shall support this activity by performing audits
and inspections to ensure compliance with requirements. Subcontractor
evaluation and approval shall be performed as a coordinated effort
between subcontract product assurance and the responsible product
operations quality organization. The practices of any subcontractor or
supplier who is a new source of procurement shall be audited.
Hughes shall perform on-site audits, upon award of contract to major
subcontractors and critical item suppliers. Audits shall be conducted
for any subcontractor or supplier who is a new source of procurement or
who has not been surveyed or audited within twelve months of the date of
contract award. Supplier and subcontractor survey and audit results
shall be available, on site, for review by the Customer representative.
The customer product assurance representative shall be invited to
participate in scheduled audits. Post award audits by the customer
product assurance representative will be scheduled and conducted when
requested.
2.3 REVIEWS
The program product assurance manager shall recommend procedural changes
that facilitate the implementation of the product assurance program
wherever, in his judgement, objectives are in danger of not being met.
He shall take prompt action to alert responsible task managers of
deficiencies detected and follow through as necessary to ensure
corrective measures are implemented. Program product assurance personnel
shall participate in program reviews as noted in Table 2-1 and as
described throughout this plan.
2-2
<PAGE> 210
2.4 AUDITS
Systematic audits of systems, procedures, and operations designed to
implement Hughes practices and program requirements shall be conducted
in accordance with Hughes' command media. Product assurance personnel
assigned to the program shall ensure that program PA requirements are
being met by regularly reviewing and auditing hardware and associated
documentation to verify compliance with QA and engineering requirements.
Performing operations shall be audited to establish compliance with
command media and contractual requirements. The results of audits shall
be documented and reported to higher management, together with
recommendations for correction of noted deficiencies. Management action
shall be taken, and follow-up reviews shall be held, to ensure that
adequate corrections are implemented. Hughes audit results shall be made
available to the customer for review, on site, upon request.
The customer may independently audit the effectiveness and
implementation of Hughes' product assurance program in the event of
persistent problems. All such audits shall be coordinated with Hughes'
program product assurance manager for purposes of scheduling and
coordination. The results of Customer audits shall be documented and
made available to program product assurance management for corrective
action. The customer shall be notified of any corrective actions taken.
Audits at subcontractor or vendor facilities shall include Hughes
product assurance representatives as observers. The customer shall
notify Hughes at least 7 working days in advance of a planned visit to a
subcontractor facility.
2.5 DOCUMENTATION
Program Control Documentation shall be an integral part of the
activities and tasks performed under this plan. It shall be prepared
throughout the program and made available for approval, review, or
information in accordance with contract requirements. Product assurance
documentation generated under the contract shall be identified as being
program unique and shall be maintained in and retrievable from the
program data bank system. All program related documentation shall be
subject to on site review by the customer representative.
Documents at the manufacturing level not normally submitted through
program management review process shall be subject to review under the
cognizant quality operation to assure appropriate incorporation of
program quality requirements.
2.6 SUBCONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER PA PROGRAMS
2.6.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
The program product assurance manager shall ensure that program
procurement documentation includes applicable program product assurance
requirements. He shall accomplish this objective by issuing command
media that communicate program product assurance requirements and by
reviewing, and exercising approval authority over the release of,
specifications and statements of work issued to major subcontractors.
Subcontractor and major supplier requirements shall include the
provision for prime customer access and participation in progress
reviews, review boards, and control boards. Work in progress, data, and
documentation generated for the program, including design,
manufacturing, test, and quality assurance documentation, shall be
subject to examination, evaluation, and inspection by Hughes and
Customer representatives. This shall include the right to monitor
compliance to the provisions of the approved plans and procurement
specifications, and to perform hardware inspections/audits.
Subcontractors and major suppliers of spacecraft equipments shall be
required to meet the requirements of PA9000, Product Assurance
Requirements Specification. Hughes product assurance shall prepare a
Requirements Matrix which stipulates the flowdown of all product
assurance requirements to all suppliers and subcontractors of spacecraft
equipments. The Requirements Matrix shall be subject to formal review by
the customer to assure conformance to customer requirements.
2-3
<PAGE> 211
The product assurance requirements to be imposed on vendors and
suppliers shall be communicated to each responsible quality assurance
organization, and each such organization shall be directly responsible
for ensuring compliance of delivered articles to applicable procurement
requirements.
2.6.2 HIGH RELIABILITY PARTS SUPPLIERS
The PMPCB shall be responsible for ensuring that high reliability parts
meet the requirements of this plan and shall interface directly with the
responsible operationS to establish appropriate requirements for source
surveillance and receiving inspection and test. The responsible quality
assurance organization shall make assignments to perform inspections and
monitor supplier activities to ensure compliance. The PMPCB shall be
responsible for final resolution of problems which involve conformance
of high reliability parts to program requirements.
2.6.3 MATERIALS AND FABRICATED ITEM SUPPLIERS
Each product operation shall be responsible for ensuring that procured
materials and fabricated items receive adequate quality assurance
support to allow implementation of applicable program requirements.
Supplier performance shall be audited to establish and maintain an
acceptable vendor quality rating for the item procured. Source
inspections and/or receiving inspections shall be performed to the
degree necessary to ensure that critical drawing and specification
requirements are met.
2.6.4 MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS
Each major subcontractor shall be required to maintain a well defined
program of product assurance controls during the design, development,
procurement, fabrication, inspection, testing, handling, storage, and
shipment of spacecraft hardware. Major subcontractors shall be required
to implement program plans consistent with the basic requirements of
this plan. Requirements appropriate to the item being procured shall be
defined jointly by the program product assurance manager, the
responsible engineering activity, and the responsible quality assurance
manager.
Each subcontractor plan shall be reviewed and approved by the cognizant
quality assurance manager and the program product assurance manager to
ensure compliance with program requirements. Source engineers shall
perform surveillance of subcontractor operations to identify potential
problems for resolution and report status to the program office.
Documentation requirements shall be controlled by specific subcontractor
data requirements lists (SCDRLs). Survey results shall be evaluated and,
where appropriate, used during follow-up audits of subcontractors to
ensure proper action. Major subcontractors shall be required to make
their plans available to Hughes personnel on-site for review.
Subcontractor and major supplier plans shall be made available, on site,
for review by customer representatives through the Hughes program
product assurance manager.
2.7 PROGRESS REPORTING
Product assurance program status shall be regularly reported to program
management. Reports shall include status of reliability assessments;
failure reports filed and corrective actions taken; the status of parts,
materials, and processes activities; problems; and any other significant
information regarding the progress of the product assurance program and
its implementation. Product assurance status shall be reported to the
customer.
The Hughes program product assurance manager shall conduct regular
product assurance reviews of internal, major supplier, and subcontractor
operations to monitor and document progress of the product assurance
program. Product assurance program status reviews, as a minimum, shall
be held monthly. Meeting frequency shall be subject to change by mutual
agreement of the customer representative and the Hughes program product
assurance manager consistent with task progress. An agenda shall be
issued prior to each meeting and minutes
2-4
<PAGE> 212
issued with assigned action items and expected completion dates. The
customer product assurance representative shall be invited to
participate in these reviews.
2.8 CUSTOMER INTERFACE
2.8.1 INVOLVEMENT IN AND ACCESS TO PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Customer product assurance representatives shall have access to program
product assurance activities and related program documentation. Access
to subcontractor or supplier facilities, documentation, and operations
shall also be facilitated. The customer may request direct surveillance
of supplier or subcontractor activities at any time. The customer
representative shall give reasonable notice prior to any requested
audit, inspection, or evaluation.
Facilities, equipment, and assistance adequate to accommodate resident
customer product assurance representatives shall be provided. Access to
subcontractor and supplier facilities and related program documentation
shall be coordinated through the program product assurance manager.
All information, documentation, reports and other data to be transferred
to the customer must be within the scope of existing export licenses or
exemptions.
2.8.2 INVOLVEMENT IN REVIEW BOARD PROCEEDINGS
Customer product assurance representatives shall be invited to attend
review board meetings convened in accordance with the provisions of this
plan and shall receive timely notification of the scheduling of such
meetings. The degree of their involvement in board proceedings shall
extend to the activities and functions cited in Table 2-2. This table
does not supersede any review or approval right cited elsewhere in this
plan or in the contract. The customer product assurance representative
shall be invited to participate in program progress reviews and those
review and control boards conducted at major suppliers and
subcontractors.
2-5
<PAGE> 213
TABLE 2-1 REVIEW BOARDS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Composition Function
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
Design Review Board - Program systems engineering manager (SEM) Chairman
- Product assurance representative Support
- Responsible engineering activity (REA) Present review data
- Responsible manufacturing activity (RMA) Support
- Specialists (thermal control, stress, etc) Support (as requested)
Parts Control Board (PCB) - Program PA manager Chairman
- PA parts specialist Alternate chairman
- Responsible design engineer Presents request for review
- Technology engineer Support (as requested)
Materials and Processes - Program PA manager Chairman
Control Board (MPCB) - PA M&P specialist Alternate chairman
- REA Presents request for review
- Technology engineer Support (as requested)
Change Review Board (CRB) - SEM Chairman
- Program configuration control representative Support
- Product assurance representative Support
- REA Defines change, etc
- RMA Support
Material Review Board - Program PA manager Chairman
(MRB) (contract specified - Quality assurance Support
requirements) - REA Defines requests
- Specialists (thermal control, stress, etc) Support
Failure Review Board - Program PA manager Chairman
- Reliability engineer/P.A. Engineer Support
- Failure report (FR) specialist Presents reports for review
- Cognizant system/subsystem engineer Support
- REA Support
- Specialists Support (as requested)
Test Review Board - SEM Chairman
(subsystem/system) - Cognizant task manager Presents required information/data
- Product assurance representative Support
- Quality assurance representative Support
- RMA Support
Shipment Readiness Review Board - SEM Chairman
- Spacecraft manager Presents required information/data
- Program manager Support
- Program PA manager Support
- Quality assurance representative Support
- RMA Support
- Systems test director Support
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
NOTE: Refer to Table 2-2 for customer participation.
2-6
<PAGE> 214
TABLE 2-2. CUSTOMER INVOLVEMENT IN
REVIEW BOARD PROCEEDINGS
[FLOW CHART]
FIGURE 2-1. PROGRAM PRODUCT ASSURANCE MANAGEMENT REPORTING
[FLOW CHART]
FIGURE 2-2. PROGRAM PRODUCT ASSURANCE MANAGER'S STAFF
2-7
<PAGE> 215
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board Activity/Function
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C>
Parts Control Board Participation in discussion; recommendation of action taken
Materials and Processes Control Participation in discussion; recommendation of action taken
Board
Change Review Board Participation in discussion; recommendation of action taken; customer
will have approval rights for all changes that affect contractual
requirements
Material Review Board Participation in discussion of quality and design/ manufacturing related
issues
Failure Review Board Participation in discussion; recommendation of action taken
Manufacturing Readiness Review Board Participation in discussion; recommendation of action taken
Design Review Board Design Review Board member; participation in discussion; ask formal
questions
Test Review Board Participation in discussion; recommendation of action taken
Shipment Readiness Review Participation in discussion; recommendation of action taken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
2-8
<PAGE> 216
3. QUALITY ASSURANCE
3.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
Hughes shall conduct a comprehensive program of quality assurance
activities that ensure that quality is built into the hardware produced
on the program. The program quality assurance function shall establish
and ensure the proper use of systems that facilitate the close teamwork
between engineering, manufacturing, and quality assurance personnel that
is necessary to successful implementation of the quality assurance
program. The customer shall have the option to actively monitor the
contractors quality assurance effort on a day to day basis and to
perform inspections when requested on a non-interference basis. This
activity shall be coordinated through the program product assurance
manager.
3.2 FUNCTION ADMINISTRATION
3.2.1 RESPONSIBILITIES
The program quality assurance effort shall be administered within the
framework of the organizational relationships shown in Figure 3-1, in
which each Hughes product operations includes a quality assurance
function whose manager reports to the product operations unit leader and
is responsible for 1) ensuring that product assurance requirements
relating to equipment within the product line are met and 2) that
applicable quality assurance requirements are communicated to suppliers
and subcontractors.
The managers of these quality assurance functions shall ensure
conformance of program items to applicable product assurance
requirements by conducting the necessary inspections and audits. Quality
assurance personnel shall perform the inspections/audits required to
verify that hardware and associated documentation meet the workmanship
and quality provisions of this plan from initial procurement through
delivery of flight hardware. Each quality assurance organization shall
be required to review, assess, and report the status of the quality
program at scheduled operations reviews.
The independent line of reporting shown (dotted) in Figure 3-1 shall be
established between each quality assurance manager and HSC Product
Assurance. The PA support staff shall have approval authority over all
quality assurance management appointments and quality practices. The
program product assurance manager, in the functional reporting
relationship he maintains to both HSC Product Assurance and to the
program office, shall issue appropriate requirements of this plan to
each performing product line organization and conduct follow-up audits
to ensure compliance.
Program product assurance management, jointly with product operations
quality representatives, shall coordinate the communication of
contractual requirements to the engineering, procurement, and
manufacturing functions early in the program design phase and clarify
the intent of these requirements where and as necessary. Their
activities shall include the issuance of the directives, instructions,
procedures, and specifications needed to properly implement program
requirements internally and at suppliers and major subcontractors.
3-1
<PAGE> 217
3.2.2 TASKS
Quality assurance tasks shall be planned and scheduled to support the
procurement, manufacturing, and test activities. These tasks shall be
designed to ensure conformance of the hardware to drawing and
specification requirements. Quality assurance tasks shall include:
1. Implementing the contractual program quality assurance
requirements of this plan.
2. Ensuring that supplier surveys and procurement document
reviews are conducted.
3. Ensuring source surveillance and inspection activities.
4. Ensuring that receiving inspection on incoming supplies
and articles are performed, as applicable.
5. Ensuring maintenance of manufacturing and stores
controls.
6. Ensuring in-process, assembly, and final inspections as
required by manufacturing planning documentation or
specific inspection procedures are performed.
7. Controlling nonconforming supplies and material review
activities, including the assignment of authorized
personnel.
8. Monitoring and surveillance of test activities.
9. Ensuring the use of calibrated measuring and test
equipment.
10. Ensuring the maintenance of quality disciplines
throughout the integration and testing of subsystem
hardware and of the spacecraft.
11. Ensuring launch site activities are performed as
governed by the launch site operations plan and as
augmented by requirements established during the joint
review meetings.
Quality assurance tasks shall be planned and scheduled to support the
procurement, manufacturing, and test activities. These tasks shall be
designed to ensure conformance of the hardware to drawing and
specification requirements. Quality assurance tasks shall include:
3.2.3 AUDITS
The product operations quality assurance organizations shall conduct
audits of the adequacy of the quality assurance system and its related
procedures and inspection instructions and report the results of these
audits to leadership, to the HSC Product Assurance support staff
leadership, and to program product assurance management. These reports
shall include identification of deficiencies and corrective action
responsibilities and a schedule for completion. Deficiencies shall be
evaluated for hardware impact, and open actions shall be tracked to
ensure that they are accomplished in a timely and proper manner.
3.3 PROCUREMENT CONTROLS
3.3.1 RESPONSIBILITY
Product operations quality assurance personnel shall be responsible for
ensuring that materials and articles procured for this program conform
to engineering requirements.
3-2
<PAGE> 218
3.3.2 SUBCONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER EVALUATION
Subcontractors and suppliers shall be evaluated and approved in
accordance with Hughes' requirements for quality and management systems
and facilities capabilities prior to procurement award. Surveys of
facilities and of quality assurance and management systems shall be
conducted. Each supplier shall be approved on the basis of his ability
to meet requirements. Approved suppliers shall be listed in Hughes'
vendor information system. Supplier or subcontractor surveys concerning
hardware shall be available on-site for customer review.
3.3.3 PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS
The program product assurance manager, in cooperation with each of the
quality assurance managers, shall establish the minimum product
assurance requirements for procured items. These requirements shall be
imposed in accordance with established quality procedures. Quality
assurance, or personnel certified by quality assurance, shall audit
procurement documents to ensure program requirements are included.
Procurement shall be made from sources approved by HSC Product
Assurance. Approved sources shall be identified on one or more of the
following documents: Hughes' vendor information system; the program
approved parts list; the PROGRAM approved materials and processes list;
or the applicable component or material specification.
3.3.4 SOURCE SURVEILLANCE/INSPECTION
The cognizant quality assurance managers, in cooperation with the
program product assurance manager, shall establish mandatory source
inspection and surveillance requirements for the procurement of items
from major subcontractors. Source inspection requirements for other
procured items will be imposed when the required inspections can be more
effectively accomplished at the supplier's facilities than at Hughes to
verify conformance to requirements. Itinerant or resident source
surveillance shall be employed as necessary to control the reliability
and quality of the flight equipment.
3.3.5 RECEIVING INSPECTION
Parts and materials shall be inspected upon receipt or at the supplier's
facilities to ensure compliance with the requirements of technical
documents and purchase orders. The amount of inspection or testing
performed upon receipt shall be determined by the type of product, its
end use, the amount of source inspection performed by Hughes, and the
supplier's history. Emphasis shall be placed on verifying the
conformance to specification of those characteristics whose
nonconformance may not be detectable during subsequent inspections and
testing. Results of inspections and/or tests shall be recorded on
quality history records.
3.4 MANUFACTURING CONTROLS
3.4.1 FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS
Articles and materials shall be controlled at all times to ensure that
inspection status is maintained and not compromised. Established
controls shall include adequate handling and packaging of items during
all operations. Quality records maintained for in-process materials and
articles shall identify the item and indicate its inspection,
fabrication, and configuration status. The completed articles shall be
identified in accordance with engineering requirements. A final
inspection and review of documentation shall be performed to ensure that
all required operations and inspections have been satisfactorily
completed.
Fabrication, assembly, and rework operations shall be performed in
accordance with planning documentation based on engineering technical
requirements and prepared by the responsible engineering/manufacturing
activities. Assembly planning documentation shall be screened to
3-3
<PAGE> 219
ensure that the inspections prescribed therein are adequate to ensure
product compliance with engineering requirements. Screening shall be
performed by quality assurance personnel or by authorized planning
screeners. Prescreened master planning documentation may be used.
Approval of planning documentation by quality assurance or other
certified personnel shall be indicated by the application of an
appropriate stamp or signature. Quality assurance personnel shall
conduct scheduled audits of the fabrication and assembly areas and
planning documents to ensure that operations are performed in accordance
with established practices.
3.4.2 STORES CONTROL
Parts and materials used in flight items shall be issued from controlled
stores. Stores controls shall include maintenance of traceability,
limited shelf life material control, and handling of items sensitive to
contamination or to electrostatic discharge. An inspection status that
indicates acceptability and includes the required traceability
information shall be used to provide evidence of acceptance and
traceability for high reliability parts, materials, bulk parts and
materials, or assemblies entering a controlled stores. Limited shelf
life items shall be stored in appropriate controlled environments.
Quality assurance personnel shall ensure utilization of life-limited
items within the constraints specified by engineering requirements.
Periodic storeroom surveys by quality assurance personnel shall ensure
that adequate measures are taken to protect the product and retain
traceability. Discrepant articles and materials shall be suspended and
dispositioned by material review action.
3.4.3 PROCESS CONTROL
Process control requirements and quality assurance provisions shall be
contained in specifications referenced in engineering drawings and on
manufacturing planning documents. When complex processes require
detailed work instructions for their implementation, laboratory or
manufacturing engineering instructions shall be generated. Manufacturing
activities shall implement the requirements, and quality assurance
operations shall ensure satisfactory implementation and compliance.
Records shall indicate the results of inspections and process
verifications. Where processes must be conducted in special
environments, process controls shall include means for maintaining and
measuring the required environment.
3.4.4 PROCESS AND PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION
Quality assurance personnel shall ensure that processes are approved,
that equipment operating parameters are satisfactory, that personnel are
certified when required, and that area controls are established as
specified. Special processes shall be monitored to ensure that process
steps, temperatures, immersion times, solutions, equipment, personnel
qualifications, etc, are as specified in the process document. Logs
shall be maintained, as required, in the area of process performance and
shall be monitored by quality assurance personnel. Items resulting from
discrepant processes shall be subject to material review action. Records
of personnel and equipment certification shall be maintained.
3.4.5 WORKMANSHIP STANDARDS
Standards of workmanship shall be specified in engineering drawings by
reference to Hughes, industry, or government documents that establish
engineering requirements and quality assurance provisions, including
workmanship criteria. Planning documents shall reference applicable
workmanship criteria. Acceptance criteria shall be as specified in
Hughes standards. Quality assurance personnel shall validate that
hardware is fabricated and assembled in accordance with the applicable
workmanship requirements specified in engineering and planning
documents. Solder workmanship criteria shall be those defined by Hughes'
process documents, which reflect the requirements of SCG PS32023 for
soldered electrical connections.
3-4
<PAGE> 220
3.4.6 CLEANLINESS AND CONTAMINATION CONTROL
Special requirements for hardware cleanliness levels shall be referenced
in engineering drawings. These requirements shall be met by maintaining
controlled area environments and workmanship standards established to
control hardware contamination. Quality assurance personnel shall
perform periodic surveys and inspections to ensure compliance with these
requirements. Responsible personnel shall be notified in writing of any
conditions not in compliance with stated requirements and shall be
required to implement corrective action when so notified. Flight items
exposed to conditions not meeting specified environmental/cleanliness
requirements shall be dispositioned through appropriate material review
action.
3.4.7 CONFIGURATION CONTROL
Quality assurance personnel shall support the configuration control
system during assembly and test by:
1. Inspecting hardware against engineering requirements and
documentation.
2. Administering the material review activities for
processing of minor waivers.
3. Verifying that items of equipment are marked in
accordance with engineering requirements.
4. Verifying that items procured from subcontractors and
suppliers comply with the applicable engineering
requirements.
5. Maintaining and issuing flight inspection status for
items conforming to engineering requirements.
The manufacturing planner and responsible engineering activity shall
ensure that the as-built configuration is compliant with the as-designed
configuration. Configuration audits conducted by the program
configuration management office shall validate compliance.
3.4.8 ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE CONTROL
Hughes process specification SCG PS 22010 will be used in controlling
electrostatic discharge, compliant to the guidelines of military
standards. Requirements will be flowed down to subcontractors and
suppliers. This process will establish the requirements for the
protection of static sensitive devices and static sensitive assemblies
from damage or degradation due to exposure to static fields, discharges,
and voltage transients. Personnel will complete a static awareness
certification program.
3.5 TESTING AND INSPECTION
3.5.1 IN-PROCESS INSPECTIONS
In-process inspections shall be performed at preselected points during
the fabrication, processing, and assembly operations to provide positive
verification of product compliance with requirements. Such inspections
shall be documented on the manufacturing planning or other applicable
history records. Mandatory inspections shall be performed prior to any
operation that obscures inspectable characteristics. Crimped, soldered,
and welded electrical connections shall be inspected to established
criteria before these connections are covered by subsequent operations.
Key inspection points shall be identified at manufacturing readiness
reviews and incorporated into manufacturing planning documents. The
customer may elect to participate in selected key inspections. The
contractor task manager shall provide for coordination and timely
notification wherever the customer has exercised the option to
participate. Requests for participation shall be coordinated with the
program product assurance manager.
3-5
<PAGE> 221
Critical dimensions of machined parts shall be inspected, if they have
not previously been inspected, when such dimensions are identified on
drawings. The tooling used for inspection and product acceptance shall
be inspected and controlled.
3.5.2 FINAL TEST AND INSPECTION
A final inspection of completed units and articles to be delivered to
flight stores or spacecraft integration shall be performed to ensure
that each item conforms to requirements. Quality assurance personnel
shall review open documentation for completeness to ensure that work
sequences have been satisfactorily completed and that all
nonconformances have been resolved. Accepted items shall be identified
and appropriately controlled and protected prior to release for storage
or shipment.
After completion of final tests and inspections, any replacement of
parts, rework, or other modification of the hardware configuration shall
necessitate a reinspection and retest to the extent determined necessary
by the REA and cognizant quality assurance personnel and the customer.
3.5.3 SUBSYSTEM/VEHICLE ASSEMBLY INSPECTION AND RECORDS
Quality assurance or certified personnel shall perform in-process
inspections during structural buildup, integration, unit installation,
and test. Inspection milestones shall include pre- and post-test
inspections for each environmental exposure. Final acceptance inspection
shall be performed following the test program to confirm compliance with
requirements and specifications.
Hughes shall prepare and maintain records (logs) during the integration
and test program. These records shall comprise at least the following
documentation:
1. Configuration Summary--An installation and removal log
used to record the installation and removal history of
control items on the spacecraft. Each entry shall
include the subsystem or assembly identification, serial
number, flight weight, and location.
2. Systems Test Log--A chronological record of the test
history maintained by the spacecraft manager.
3. Mate/Demate Log--A record of connector mate/demate
operations during spacecraft integration and tests.
4. Parameter measurements--Test data recorded during
spacecraft test program.
5. Planning documentation--Records that identify the
assembly and inspection operations performed, including
approved repairs and modifications and the "as-built"
configuration.
3.5.4 TEST PARTICIPATION
Control item (unit) acceptance tests shall be conducted in accordance
with an approved test procedure to determine functional compliance.
Subsystem and spacecraft level tests shall be performed in accordance
with the approved test plan and its associated detailed test procedures.
Test procedures shall indicate the parameters to be tested, the
equipment to be used, the environment in which the test is to be
conducted, and the acceptance criteria. Recorded test data and/or
computer reduced data shall become part of the required documentation
for record retention and shall constitute evidence of conformance to
requirements.
Test area surveillance shall be imposed at all levels of qualification
and acceptance testing as a minimum. The test area surveillance activity
shall be accomplished by auditing test operations in progress to ensure
that
1. Items are properly identified and handled.
2. Test procedures are available and being followed.
3-6
<PAGE> 222
3. Test equipment is calibrated.
4. Test data and discrepancies are recorded.
5. Failure reports are initiated, if failures occur.
6. Test results are within the specified limits.
On an audit basis, this effort, in conjunction with other quality
assurance activities, shall be of sufficient scope to ensure that
delivered flight articles conform to requirements.
3.6 NONCONFORMING ARTICLE AND MATERIAL CONTROL
3.6.1 MATERIAL REVIEW ACTION AND CONTROL
The identity and inspection status of all nonconforming items shall be
documented on the appropriate quality history record or process anomaly
report at the point of discovery. The purpose of material review action
shall be to disposition nonconformances.
Material review action shall determine whether the departure is due to
hardware or documentation discrepancies. All review and closure actions
shall be documented in accordance with existing Contractor quality
assurance practices.
Material review actions shall be final, requiring no further action.
Items dispositioned as acceptable shall be processed thereafter as
conforming items. The material review members and allowable dispositions
shall be those cited in Table 3-1.
Quality assurance personnel shall maintain a list of quality and
engineering representatives authorized to perform material review
actions. This list shall be available in all program areas that support
material review actions. Members may call upon other Hughes personnel,
such as reliability, stress, and thermal personnel, to act in an
advisory capacity.
The system shall ensure that all nonconformances detected by Hughes
and/or its subcontractor are fully documented. Program related process
anomaly reports entered into the Hughes electronic database shall be
accessible by the customer for review. Nonconformance reports submitted
for formal MRB action shall be provided to the customer when raised.
3.6.1.1 PRELIMINARY REVIEW
An initial review is conducted upon the discovery of a nonconformance.
Workmanship errors and minor out of tolerance situations which can be
reworked to specification conditions are dispositioned by authorized
personnel through this preliminary review process. Preliminary review
nonconformances are processed by any material review activity (MRA)
certified personnel. Engineering and/or manufacturing input may be
solicited for this action. During preliminary review, it shall be
determined whether 1) a nonconforming item can be made to conform by
rework or standard repair, if such has been previously authorized by the
Material Review Board (MRB); 2) the item should be scrapped (low cost
items only); or 3) the item must be submitted for higher level material
review action.
3.6.1.2 ENGINEERING DISPOSITION
Any discrepancy, deficiency, or defect in fabricated piece parts below
the assembly level (including microwave integrated circuit [MIC]
carriers, substrates, and modules) may be dispositioned by engineering
disposition. This is a material review action performed by engineering
personnel responsible for the nonconforming item. The responsible
engineer shall determine the disposition from both an engineering and a
quality point of view, and may solicit the advice of other expert
personnel. Nonconformance dispositions shall be documented on the
3-7
<PAGE> 223
appropriate records/traveler for the item(s). Quality assurance
personnel shall conduct regular audits to ensure that appropriate
dispositions are made.
3.6.1.3 ENGINEERING REVIEW
Engineering review action shall apply to all nonconformances not
dispositioned by preliminary review, engineering disposition, or MRB
action. It shall be performed jointly by the responsible quality
assurance and engineering personnel who shall determine the
acceptability of nonconforming items submitted for review. The
responsible engineer shall document and justify the disposition. The
quality assurance representative shall signify concurrence with the
disposition on the material review documentation.
3.6.1.4 MATERIAL REVIEW BOARD
A formal MRB shall be established to review and disposition
nonconforming material or hardware which cannot be dispositioned under
lower level material review authority. The MRB consists of
representatives from quality assurance, engineering, Customer
representatives and/or program product assurance. The quality assurance
member of the MRB shall pursue all nonconforming material actions until
disposition and closeout are complete. MRB action shall be required for
the following:
1. Any nonconforming item referred to the MRB for final
disposition (as any may be).
2. Any item found discrepant after its integration into the
spacecraft structure (subsystem integration) when the
disposition is use-as-is, repair, downgrade, or scrap.
3. Initial review and approval of standard repair
instructions (SRIs).
3.6.2 NONCONFORMANCE DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
The following terms, definitions, and classifications shall apply:
1. Nonconforming material--Any item, part, or product with
one or more characteristics that depart from the
requirements of the contract, specification, drawing, or
other approved product description. Functional
nonconformances must be processed through the failure
reporting system.
2. Minor nonconformance--A departure from the requirements
specified in the approved product description that does
not adversely affect contractual spacecraft performance.
Material nonconformances are processed through material
review action.
3. Major nonconformance--A departure from contractual
spacecraft performance that cannot be eliminated by
authorized material review actions or reduced to a minor
nonconformance by repair. Major nonconformances are
processed by submitting a request for deviation/waiver
to the Customer for approval.
3.6.3 CORRECTIVE ACTION
Quality assurance personnel shall ensure that prompt action is taken to
resolve nonconformances. Nonconformance documentation shall include
cause and corrective action, when it is beneficial to the program.
Defect data from manufacturing records compiled into a database shall be
used to determine quality trends and the need for corrective action.
Causes and recommended corrective actions shall be investigated by
corrective action boards (CABs). Nonconformance data shall be reviewed
for trends, corrective action assignments shall be made, and follow-up
actions shall be taken. Management shall be kept informed of progress
and completion of corrective action assignments through regularly
published reports. Corrective action is taken in accordance with Hughes
policy as defined in the quality assurance procedures.
3-8
<PAGE> 224
Action taken to correct minor nonconformances shall not be required
unless such action is beneficial to the program. It shall not normally
be taken if:
1. The operation is monitored and discrepancies do not
exceed the established limits.
2. A discrepant item/operation has been discontinued or
modified because of a design change.
3. Items are no longer being manufactured.
4. An assignable cause cannot be determined.
3.6.4 SUBCONTRACTOR MATERIAL REVIEW
Hughes may delegate limited material review authority to selected
subcontractors of complex articles. Subcontractors considered for
material review authority shall be required to submit written plans for
material review to Hughes for approval prior to implementation. Material
review requirements for documentation, segregation, review, corrective
action, and reporting need not be identical but shall be consistent with
those described in this plan.
3.6.5 DATABASE
Hughes shall establish and maintain a database of failures and
inspection nonconformances occurring at the unit and subsystem levels.
The database shall serve as an effective means of retrieval of data to
support status reporting, trend analysis, failure assessments, and the
effectiveness of the nonconformance material control operation.
3.7 MEASUREMENT PROCESSES AND CALIBRATION
3.7.1 BASIC SYSTEM
Hughes' approved and documented metrology system shall be used to
control measurement processes. This system provides for the selection,
approval, calibration, maintenance, and control of inspection and test
measuring equipment in accordance with ANSI/NCSL Z540-1.
Hughes shall be responsible for maintaining the required calibration and
measurement standards and for providing traceability to approved primary
or secondary reference standards. Inspection and test measuring
equipment used to establish acceptance of flight articles through
quantitative measurements shall be periodically calibrated in a manner
that ensures conformance to requirements.
Local control points within each operations shall maintain a mandatory
recall system that ensures adequate periodic calibration of equipment.
The recall system shall provide adequate follow-up for reporting and/or
servicing of delinquent items.
3.7.2 CALIBRATION CONTROLS
Unique labels or codes that identify and cite the last and the next
calibration dates shall be affixed to measuring and test equipment.
Intervals for calibration shall depend on use, accuracy, type, and other
conditions that affect measurement control. Calibration intervals shall
be established for each model or type of equipment. Items not used for
quantitative measurements shall not require calibration or indication of
calibration status. When a piece of equipment's accuracy is verified by
another piece of equipment that is fully calibrated, an NCR (no
calibration required) sticker shall be used in its identification.
3-9
<PAGE> 225
If the calibration period of an article of test equipment has expired, a
limited extension of its period may be authorized by the cognizant
quality assurance organization.
3.7.3 REMEDIAL AND PREVENTIVE ACTION
A data feedback system shall be employed to advise the using activity
and responsible quality organizations when test equipment is determined
to be risk defective (marginal or inaccurate) at the time of periodic
calibration. Engineering personnel shall determine whether such
measuring and test equipment has affected the quality of measurements
and initiate appropriate corrective action. Quality assurance personnel
shall conduct audits to verify that measuring and test equipment is
calibrated and properly maintained.
3.7.4 SUBCONTRACTOR CONTROLS
The requirements for measuring and inspection equipment control shall be
implemented through the quality requirements invoked in procurement,
quality, or engineering documents. Such requirements shall be consistent
with the requirements of this plan.
3.8 HISTORY RECORDS AND TRACEABILITY
3.8.1 HISTORY RECORDS
The following records establish the procurement, manufacturing,
inspection, and test histories for flight articles and provide the
historical documentation for each item:
1. Procurement packages.
2. Material certifications.
3. Fabrication quality records.
4. Kit requisitions with traceability data.
5. Quality control history records.
6. Manufacturing and assembly planning documents.
7. Drawings.
8. Inspection and test documents.
9. Test data sheets.
10. Material review actions/deviations/waivers.
11. Test anomaly reports/process anomaly.
12. Configuration summary lists.
Documentation accompanying flight hardware shall indicate the inspection
status. The results of inspections and tests, discrepancies, statements
of rework accomplished, and the acceptance of operations shall be
entered on the quality history records and authenticated by the
appropriate inspection stamp, test stamp, or signature. History records
shall be maintained by Hughes to support internal selloff and spacecraft
selloff to the customer.
3.8.2 PHOTOGRAPHS
Closeout photographs shall be taken as required of assemblies and units
in their final configuration prior to installation of covers.
3-10
<PAGE> 226
3.8.3 TRACEABILITY
Hughes' traceability system shall ensure the capability to correlate
historical records during procurement, assembly, and test. It shall
permit the tracing of the quality histories of assemblies, components,
and parts to the procurement document and shall provide for 1)
cross-referencing of traceability information to assembly documentation
and 2) the storage of the accumulated history and data. All flight
electronic piece parts shall be traceable to the date code and
manufacturer's inspection lot. Carbon composition resistors from
Allen-Bradley and mechanical feed-throughs are traceable only to the
supplier. Die, packages, and substrates used in custom hybrids and MIC
modules shall be traceable to their production lot. Materials used in
the hardware shall be traceable to manufacturer and batch number or lot
number. Standard hardware, such as nuts, screws, washers, etc, procured
to military standards need not be traceable.
The traceability system shall use Hughes assigned traceability numbers.
Quality assurance shall be responsible for ensuring initial traceability
of parts and materials so that configuration status can be related to
source data. Quality assurance personnel shall be responsible for
auditing the traceability system to ensure that hardware configuration
and quality history are maintained during the manufacturing and test
cycle.
3.9 STAMP CONTROLS
Hughes' standard system shall be used to control inspection stamps or
signatures used to signify acceptance of flight items or documentation.
These controls include the issuance, maintenance, and recall of
inspection stamps to qualified personnel authorized to use them within
the product quality assurance functions. Stamp possession shall be
verified periodically by cognizant quality assurance management
personnel. Signature authority shall be identifiable through published
lists released through the authorizing quality organization.
3.10 SAMPLING PLANS, STATISTICAL PLANNING, AND ANALYSIS
Hughes' sampling plans shall be used when inspections or tests are
destructive or when inherent characteristics or noncritical application
indicate that a reduction in inspection or testing can be achieved.
ANSI/ASQC Z1.4 shall be used as applicable.
The degree and quantity of required inspections and tests shall be
determined by review and analysis of previous inspection and test
results. Rejected lots and resubmitted lots shall be
screened/re-inspected at a sampling level that is higher than that
prescribed by the original plan.
3.11 HANDLING AND SHIPPING
3.11.1 HANDLING
Engineering drawings, procedures, and program instructions shall define
requirements for the preservation, packaging, handling, storage, and
shipping of articles and materials. These requirements shall be
incorporated in work authorizations, planning documents, operating
procedures, and engineering drawings.
Fabricated parts and subassemblies shall be placed in kits, containers,
or protective bags. Units shall remain in their protective containers
until installation. Adequacy of the packaging, handling, and storage
shall be audited by quality assurance personnel.
3-11
<PAGE> 227
3.11.2 SHIPPING
Articles shipped shall be accompanied by technical and shipping
documents required by the contract. Items shipped shall be subject to
Hughes' final packaging and shipping inspection requirements. The
spacecraft shall be packaged in containers that protect the hardware
during shipment to the launch site.
3.11.3 TRANSPORTATION
The Spacecraft quality assurance representative shall monitor the
spacecraft packaging process and perform inspections to ensure that the
spacecraft is packaged in accordance with the applicable packaging and
handling procedures. As part of this process, these people shall ensure
that all environment control equipment and monitors are in place and
functioning.
Spacecraft shall be safely instrumented, packaged for shipment, handled,
transported, and checked in-route in accordance with the provisions of
Hughes' standard spacecraft transportation plan.
3.12 SOFTWARE QUALITY ASSURANCE
The following software development and control procedures shall be
implemented by the responsible task managers through Software Quality
Assurance (SQA) personnel:
1. A SQA program plan addressing the mechanism of
verification and validation of software requirements in
the deliverable products, as well as the in-process
evaluations and other SQA tasks.
2. A mechanism to assure that applicable software quality
requirements are flowed down to subcontractors.
3. A review of software documentation for adherence to
engineering requirements from a quality perspective.
4. A review of the software configuration management system
to ensure proper management of changes to software and
its related technical documentation.
5. A review of software test plans, procedures, and
instructions, and witnessing the subsequent testing
process itself for compliance to contractual
requirements.
6. A verification that contract qualification requirements
are performed in accordance with the previous phase's
specifications, including certification of the
validation process via documented objective evidence.
The procedure shall include a method for verifying the
product in terms of storage, handling, packing, marking,
and delivery, to prevent damage, loss, deterioration,
degradation, or substitution of the product.
7. A SQA documentation system to record objective evidence
and traceability trail to SQA activities.
8. A software corrective action and trend analysis program
to span the breath of the software life cycle process,
where the findings and concerns are documented and
corrective action taken to avoid repetitive failures.
Hughes shall prepare and submit a software quality plan applicable to
all firmware and deliverable software for customer approval. This plan
shall identify the tasks to be performed, systems, and procedures to be
used, and quality assurance evaluation methodology to be employed
throughout the firmware and software development and test process.
Configuration control of firmware and deliverable software shall be
maintained after the baseline configuration is established.
3-12
<PAGE> 228
3.13 LAUNCH SITE ACTIVITIES
The Spacecraft quality assurance representatives shall be present at the
launch site to monitor all launch site activities to ensure that product
assurance and quality assurance requirements are complied with
throughout this period.
These quality assurance representatives shall be a key member of the
launch team and attend coordination and planning meetings throughout the
launch campaign.
These quality assurance representatives shall maintain the required
quality records and perform the necessary inspections and surveillance
during receipt, test, final assembly, and installation of the spacecraft
onto the launch vehicle. Spacecraft storage and assembly areas,
equipment calibration, and adherence to safety and cleanliness
procedures shall be monitored. The quality assurance representative
shall also be responsible for conducting failure and material review
activities at the launch site, coordinating the activities with the
program product assurance manager, and for interfacing with the customer
launch site representative on quality related issues.
[FLOW CHART]
FIGURE 3-1. QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERFACES
3-13
<PAGE> 229
TABLE 3-1, FLIGHT HARDWARE MATERIAL
REVIEW AUTHORITY
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Function Members Disposition
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
Preliminary Quality Rework/complete to drawing or specification requirements (i.e.,
review Assurance resolder, replace, rewire)
Low cost scrap
Authorized standard repair
Submit to engineering review or Material Review Board
Engineering Engineering Use as is--minor nonconformances
disposition
Rework/complete to drawing or specification requirements (i.e.,
resolder, replace, rewire)
Scrap--unfit for use or uneconomically repairable
Return to supplier
Authorized standard repair
Submit to engineering review or Material Review
Downgrade to nonflight
Engineering Quality Rework/complete to engineering drawing and specification
review Assurance requirements
Engineering
Return to supplier
Downgrade to nonflight
Rework to Material Review Board approved repair instructions
Use as is--minor nonconformances
Scrap--obviously unfit for use or uneconomically repairable
Submit to Material Review Board
Material Review Quality Rework/complete to engineering drawing and specification
Board Assurance requirements
Engineering
Return to supplier
Program Product Repair (includes initial approval of standard repair)
Assurance
Use as is (includes dropped or stressed hardware)
Customer
Upgrade to flight status
Downgrade to nonflight
Scrap--hardware declared unfit to use
Submit to the customer for deviation or waiver approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
3-14
<PAGE> 230
4. RELIABILITY ENGINEERING
4.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
Hughes shall conduct a program of reliability engineering activities
that ensures that the reliability requirements of the satellite
technical specification are met during all program phases. The baseline
analysis documentation for existing designs shall be those provided to
the customer as Exhibit A deliverables. The activity during the design
and development process of new and modified designs shall consist
primarily of determining hardware reliability and lifetime
characteristics by performing analyses of these designs, participating
in design reviews, and updating spacecraft reliability assessments.
Existing analyses shall be reviewed to the extent necessary to assure
that the impact of the modifications being implemented do not invalidate
the conditions of these heritage analyses.
Activity during the flight hardware manufacturing phase shall consist
primarily of identifying, analyzing, reporting, and correcting failures.
4.2 FUNCTION ADMINISTRATION
4.2.1 RESPONSIBILITIES
Reliability engineering specialists assigned to the program and
reporting to the program product assurance manager shall be responsible
for ensuring that reliability disciplines are effectively applied in the
design, manufacturing, and test activities. Completion of reliability
assessment tasks shall be a joint responsibility of the assigned
reliability engineering specialists and responsible engineering
personnel. Reliability engineering specialists shall perform subsystem
and system level analyses. They shall provide expertise in methodology
and documentation of unit level reliability assessments.
Responsibility for performing program reliability engineering tasks
shall be distributed as shown in Table 4-1. The program reliability
engineer shall maintain cognizance of the status of the reliability
assessment program by convening and attending meetings at which reports
are given by the reliability specialists. These specialists shall work
in concert with the program product assurance manager to maintain
contact with customer consultants and to satisfy contractual
requirements pertaining to the failure reporting system.
4.2.2 TASKS
Reliability engineering specialists assigned to the program product
assurance manager, working in close coordination with the responsible
engineering activities, shall be responsible for:
1. Preparing requirements for and assisting responsible
engineering design activities with system, subsystem,
unit, and component level reliability tasks.
2. Establishing reliability models, apportionments, and
assessments of reliability with recommendations for
design improvements.
3. Supporting engineering evaluation and documentation of
parts application derating and failure modes, effects,
and criticality analysis of hardware.
4. Participating in design reviews.
5. Ensuring that failures occurring during the hardware
test program are adequately documented, analyzed,
evaluated, reported, and presented to the program
Failure Review Board (FRB) for closure.
6. Defining reliability requirements for procurement
specifications, statements of work, and other
subcontractor documentation.
7. Maintaining a direct interface with the program product
assurance manager to ensure compliance with program
requirements.
4-1
<PAGE> 231
4.3 RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS
4.3.1 SPACECRAFT DESIGN RELIABILITY
Assessments of the reliability of existing designs shall be based, to
the extent possible, on existing documentation to preclude duplication
of analyses and reporting efforts. These existing analyses shall be
reviewed by the assigned reliability engineering personnel to verify
that the environmental and electrical stress conditions cited in them
continue to be valid for the program. This reliability assessment data
shall be summarized at the appropriate design review.
Equipment that has previously been qualified, but which requires
significant design modification to meet program requirements, shall be
analyzed in sufficient detail to ensure that
1. The new or significantly modified design is executed in
accordance with the current design requirements.
2. The design modifications do not introduce overstress
conditions or failure modes in the unmodified portions
of the equipment.
The reliability assessments for new hardware shall be performed and
documented to ensure conformance to the requirements cited herein.
Reliability analyses shall be made during the design and development
program as necessary to identify potential problem areas and to support
tradeoff analyses; to evaluate alternative design approaches; and to
assess the reliability margin and confidence in achieving the system
reliability requirements. Reliability assessments and evaluations shall
be presented at appropriate design reviews to confirm compliance with
requirements.
4.3.1.1 REQUIREMENTS
The spacecraft design shall meet the reliability and lifetime
requirements specified in the system performance specification.
4.3.1.2 APPORTIONMENT
The reliability requirement shall be apportioned to each unit and
subsystem to establish target reliability values. The reliability
apportionment, when compared to predicted reliability, shall be used to
measure achievement of the reliability objective.
4.3.2 ANALYSES
Reliability analyses shall be performed concurrent with the design
process to provide analytical evidence of spacecraft design compliance
with the specified reliability requirements. Reliability predictions
shall employ parts count, temperature estimate, and derating methods
using mathematical models for the equipment under consideration derived
from the mission success criteria. The mathematical treatment utilized
in the reliability analyses shall be presented in sufficient detail to
make the analysis techniques clear.
Initial reliability predictions for equipment with new or significantly
modified designs shall be based upon complexity, operational and
functional considerations, and parts count data, using the best
available stress and temperature estimates to establish part failure
rates. Such factors as redundancy and duty cycles shall be considered.
The probability that the system will operate within specified limits at
given points in time shall be computed for the mission profile.
A final reliability prediction shall be made when the equipment design
is firm and sufficient data are available to enable a comprehensive
assessment of the design reliability to be made. The final reliability
analyses shall consider electrical stress deratings, predicted operating
temperatures, redundancy, and equipment operating cycles. Each
reliability analysis shall include
4-2
<PAGE> 232
a statement of the mission success criteria, equipment duty cycles,
stress analyses, mission times or cycles, and environmental factors
considered. Existing reliability analysis results shall be utilized when
appropriate.
4.3.2.1 FAILURE RATES
The failure rate data used, as well as the applicable environmental and
application stress factors, shall be based on the mutually agreed
revision of MIL-HDBK-217 for parts contained in the authorized parts
list. Where experience has indicated that modification of MIL-HDBK-217
failure rates for satellite applications is appropriate, such modified
failure rates shall be incorporated in applicable engineering
procedures. Parts or items for which representative failure rates are
not listed shall be taken from the best available source of data and
justified in the analyses documentation. Historical failure data
relevant to the spacecraft design shall be made available to the
customer product assurance representative for on-site review upon
request. Failure rates and source data other than MIL-HDBK-217 shall be
subject to customer review and concurrence. Failure rates assigned to
ASICs and MCMs also require customer concurrence. Failure rates used for
supplier equipments shall be based upon approved source data which shall
be consistent with the data used throughout the spacecraft design
evaluation process.
Parts in an "on" state shall be considered to exhibit an "active"
failure rate; parts in an "off" state shall be considered to exhibit a
"dormant" failure rate. Dormant adjustment factors shall be generally
specified as 10% of active failure rates. Failure rate data shall be
included in the reliability documentation.
4.3.2.2 ANALYSIS RESULTS
Reliability shall present the spacecraft reliability assessment at
system PDR and CDR. Assessments for new and modified designs shall be
presented at the unit level PDR and CDR. The System PDR data package
shall include results from existing designs and preliminary results for
new designs. Reliability shall update the PDR data package and provide
the final detailed results on new designs, and modified designs at CDR.
4.3.3 PART APPLICATION DERATING
Part application derating requirements are those defined for specific
part types and stress levels in Contractor's engineering derating policy
for parts applied under "preferred" and "acceptable" regions of
temperature and electrical stresses. Part application in areas of high
reliability risk are identified in the policy as "restricted" regions.
The implementation of this derating policy in the design process shall
be monitored by the program reliability engineering specialists.
Parts application derating analyses shall be prepared for new and
significantly modified designs to indicate actual stress and the
relative derating of each part. This analysis shall establish that the
required steady state derating levels of applied voltage, current,
temperature, and power dissipation have not been exceeded. The results
of steady state stress derating analyses shall be used as an input for
the final reliability predictions. Worst case transient conditions shall
be considered in the derating analyses to ensure that no part is
overstressed. Undervoltage-overvoltage conditions during ground testing
shall be included in stress analyses to ensure design adequacy.
The use of parts in "approval required" regions shall require review and
approval by the program Parts and Materials Control Board (PMPCB).
Justification for approval shall include verification that reliability
is not compromised and that the part is not overstressed in either
steady state or transient operation. The unit engineer shall be required
to reduce the application stress by appropriate redesign or by choice of
an alternative part for those exceptions not approved by the PMPCB. The
parts derating criteria shall be available to the customer for on-site
review. Deviations from derating criteria shall be submitted to the
program PMPCB.
4-3
<PAGE> 233
Parts derating and stress analyses need not be conducted on any
electronic equipment that has been previously designed and qualified to
environments and stress levels compliant with the requirements for this
mission. Evidence of adequate design derating margin shall be derived
from existing derating analysis documentation and subsequent unit
modification data. It shall be verified by the assigned reliability
engineering specialist. The parts derating criteria shall be available
for on-site review by Customer representatives, upon request. The
criteria shall be consistent with the requirements of MIL-STD-1547. Any
deviations from this requirement shall be identified and submitted to
the customer for review. Exceptions to the derating policy shall be
identified, documented and submitted to the customer product assurance
representative for approval.
4.3.4 FAILURE MODES, EFFECTS, AND CRITICALITY ANALYSIS
Failure modes, effects, and criticality analyses (FMECAs) shall be
conducted to evaluate the spacecraft bus and payload designs in
conjunction with design reviews. The primary function of these analyses
shall be to identify critical failure modes in the design and mitigate
the susceptibility of the spacecraft to such failures or their effects.
A significant further function shall be to identify, document, and
eliminate single point failures insofar as is practical.
All single point failures identified in the FMECA shall be listed as
part of the critical items list. FMECAs shall be updated prior to each
design review to reflect latest design changes or available data. When
major design changes after the system CDR are determined to
significantly affect system FMECA data, the FMECA shall be revised to
show the latest design assessment.
The FMECAs shall establish functional unit level failure modes. The
FMECAs shall be performed to the unit interface level or when necessary
down to internal redundancy. Details of single point failures,
catastrophic failures, and failures that will result in degraded
performance and outages shall be identified. The FMECAs shall also
include a study of circuit elements sensitive to single event upsets and
possible effects on spacecraft performance. The impact upon performance
of the propagation of failure modes through units, subsystems, and
interfaces shall be assessed. The system level FMECA shall consider also
the effects of various subsystem failure modes on the performance of the
system and on mission success and the incorporation of fault isolation
provisions where they may be appropriate.
4.3.5 SINGLE POINT FAILURES
The FMECAs shall identify single point failures in the design at the
unit and higher levels of assembly. A single point failure shall be
defined as the failure of any nonredundant single element that causes
failure of the spacecraft mission.
The spacecraft shall be designed such that the total probability of
occurrence of single point failures during the spacecraft mission is
minimized. The implementation of redundancy shall be considered when a
function is deemed critical or when a single point failure mode exists
that cannot be practically eliminated within the design and performance
constraints. Each identified single point failure shall be included in a
list, along with supporting rationale, and presented at design reviews.
The baseline lists shall be Tables 11, 12 and 13 of the Systems
Reliability Analysis Report, RA80447-H00-001, dated June 1999.
4.3.6 WEAROUT ANALYSIS
The reliability analyses shall include an evaluation of designs subject
to degradation or wearout. Where possible, the life dependent
mechanism(s) shall be identified, and test data shall be used to
determine margin for achievement of the mission lifetime requirements.
The evaluation shall also consider such factors as deterioration
mechanisms, outgassing of materials, processing, storage, and aging
effects. Operational limitations and controls or methods used in the
design and manufacture of the hardware to preclude degradation during
the mission shall be considered.
4-4
<PAGE> 234
The baseline list shall be Table 14 of the Systems Reliability Analysis
Report, RA80447-H00-001, dated June 1999.
4.3.7 WORST CASE ANALYSIS
A worst case analysis shall be performed at the unit level to determine
critical parameter performance effects due to tolerance, aging,
electrostatic discharge (ESD) effects, temperature, and radiation
exposure under worst case parameter limits. Standard Contractor's
Engineering Procedures for performance of worst case analysis shall be
invoked on electronic equipment.
The worst case analysis shall consider the adequacy of the performance
margins in electronic circuits, optics, and mechanical and
electromechanical items, and shall assess the adequacy of stress
derating of the design as applicable. Critical parameters to be
considered in the analysis shall be identified by the responsible
engineering activity (REA). Parameters shall be set at worst case limits
and worst case environmental stresses for the parameter or operation
being evaluated. These analyses may be demonstrated analytically,
through engineering designated tests, or through a combination thereof.
Worst case analyses shall be developed for new units as part of the
design process and the required design review documentation. Maximum
operating stresses shall be based on worst case environment and
parameter variations with operating modes and bus extremes, including
transient conditions such as post-eclipse, turn-on, and turn-off. As
part of the worst case analysis, the possible effects of soft errors
(upsets) in digital logic devices shall be evaluated and methods
identified for the prevention of occurrence.
4.3.8 CRITICAL ITEMS LIST
The baseline list shall be Table 15 of the Systems Reliability Analysis
Report, RA80447-H00-001, dated June 1999. This list shall be the
baseline reference for monitoring the status and progress of each
critical item identified. Controls for procuring, manufacturing,
inspecting, testing, and handling critical items shall be specified in
the specifications and procedures concerning such items.
Critical items identification shall be a task of the spacecraft
reliability analysis prescribed by Section 4.3.1 of this plan. New Items
determined by such analysis to be 1) nonredundant major elements or
items with single point failures; 2) major items not previously
qualified; 3) life limited items shall be considered critical items; or
4) process sensitive items. Other items which, during the progress of
the program, are found to be of significant risk, shall be added to the
list. Items that, as a result of design change or for other reason, are
no longer considered critical may be deleted from the list.
A critical items data file shall be maintained by reliability
engineering specialists and made available for review.
4.4 FAILURE REPORTING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
4.4.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
Customer product assurance representatives or their designated
alternates shall be notified of functional failures that occur in
qualification and acceptance testing of equipment at the unit,
subsystem, or system level within 24 hours of the receipt by a Hughes
program PA failure control point of notice of such failure. Notification
shall be effected through e-mail and/or through submittal of a copy of
the initial report.
4-5
<PAGE> 235
A formal, controlled failure reporting, analysis, and corrective action
system shall be implemented. This system shall be designed to maximize
product reliability and quality through effective analysis and feedback
of failure data during the test program.
The program product assurance manager shall be responsible for the
failure activities, including overseeing the functioning system as
defined herein to ensure that failure reporting is compliant with the
provisions of this plan. Overall responsibility for implementing the
system rests with the reliability engineer. The failure reporting task
is performed as a joint activity between the program assigned
reliability specialists and the cognizant engineering activities. The
basic failure management system is illustrated in Figure 4-1.
The program product assurance manager shall provide for the coordination
of the failure reporting activities, including overseeing the
functioning system to ensure that:
1) Failures are correctly documented and analyzed.
2) Failures are adequately reviewed and proper corrective
action is taken.
3) Failures are closed by Failure Review Board (FRB)
action.
4) Failure data are disseminated to responsible personnel
by the program office.
5) Failure trends are identified.
Test anomaly reports shall be required on failures that occur during
unit, subsystem, or spacecraft level qualification, protoflight, or
flight acceptance testing and on-orbit satellite anomaly. A formal
review of each failure shall be conducted by a program established FRB.
Reporting and reviewing failures shall be consistent with Contractor
established policies and instructions. Verified failures shall be
subjected to analysis to determine cause, mechanisms, and corrective
action. Failures attributed to hi-rel parts shall be reported at any
level of test and copies of reports provided to the customer. The
customer shall be invited to participate in the FRBs which address
failure of hi-rel parts.
4.4.2 FAILURE DEFINITION AND DOCUMENTATION
A failure shall be defined as the occurrence of anomalous performance
resulting from any condition causing the article of equipment under test
to deviate from the performance specified as acceptable by the satellite
system specification and/or the applicable test procedure. All failures
shall be documented in a report containing at least the following
information:
1. The name of the program on which the failure occurred
and the number of the contract under which work on that
program is conducted.
2. The date of failure occurrence, the test phase during
which the article under test failed, and the environment
in which the test was being conducted.
3. The symptoms by which the failure was identified (the
conditions observed as opposed to those expected).
4. The identity, in terms of part name, part number, and
part serial number, of the failed item.
5. The results of the failure analyses conducted and the
nature of the rework/retest action taken in response.
6. The part number, date code, part type, and reference
designator of any high reliability part removed as a
result of the failure.
7. An indication of whether the failure of the part or item
in question constitutes a primary or a secondary
failure.
8. The identified cause of the failure; the data and
reasoning that led to its identification as the cause;
and the substance of the corrective action taken.
4.4.3 FAILURE ANALYSIS
4-6
<PAGE> 236
Failure analysis is initiated at the site of failure, and considers
physical conditions prior to failure, sequence of the test being
performed, and symptoms at the time of failure. Evaluation of each
failure shall be documented in detail by engineering on the test anomaly
report form, using continuation sheets and attachments as required.
Detailed analyses of failed parts shall be performed when deemed
necessary by the responsible engineer, the reliability engineering
specialist, or the FRB. Part failure analyses results shall be submitted
to the FRB as part of the failure closeout documentation.
Any failure occurring after qualification of a given unit may justify
revision of the design or fabrication/control procedures. Design
modifications shall be incorporated into all flight units.
Potential overstress of other components shall be considered as part of
the failure investigation to ensure that no other items were damaged by
the failure. Analysis results shall be included as part of the failure
report documentation.
Generic or lot related problems detected as a result of either part or
material failure analyses performed on active contractor programs or
when received through an industry alert bulletin, shall be disseminated
via the contractor's alert bulletin system. These alerts shall be
reviewed by appropriate contractor functions to verify and purge suspect
items.
Existing data processing systems shall be used to review and analyze
failure data for trends and to determine when corrective action is
required. Failure trend data shall be made available to the customer for
review.
4.4.4 FAILURE REVIEW BOARD
The contractor shall convene and conduct periodic FRB meetings to review
reported failures and to determine actions to be taken to investigate,
follow-up, and close out failures. The program product assurance manager
or his designee shall chair the FRB. Other members shall include the
responsible unit or subsystem engineer, system engineer, customer and
reliability engineer. Specialist support shall be provided as necessary
to adequately present and review the failures under consideration. A
failure report shall be closed when the FRB has agreed to closure. As
chairman, the program product assurance manager shall ensure that:
1. Failure reports are timely, accurate, and complete.
2. Open reports are reviewed regularly and closure plans
are developed and executed.
3. Causes of failures are determined and proper analysis
has been conducted.
4. Effective corrective action is being taken.
5. Each Test Anomaly report and failure analysis report is
reviewed and accepted.
6. Closeout actions are completed.
4.4.5 SUBCONTRACTOR FAILURE REPORTING
Selected subcontractors shall be required to implement a failure
reporting system in support of the contractor's system. Subcontractor
failure report forms may be used to report failures and corrective
action when approved by the contractor. When failures occur during
acceptance testing, the subcontractor shall be required to notify the
contractor within 24 hours. An initial copy of a failure report, if not
submitted as part of the 24 hour notification, must be submitted to the
contractor within 5 working days after occurrence of failure. The
documentation, investigation, analysis, and closeout of failures shall
meet the same basic requirements as are prescribed for the contractor
herein. Subcontractor failure reports and closeout actions shall be
reviewed by the program FRB.
4-7
<PAGE> 237
[FLOW CHART]
FIGURE 4-1. FAILURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
TABLE 4-1. RELIABILITY ENGINEERING TASK
RESPONSIBILITIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility
----------------------------------------------------------
Task Primary Support
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
Reliability apportionment Reliability engineer
System reliability analysis Reliability engineer Systems engineer
Unit reliability analysis Reliability engineer Unit engineer
Part application derating Unit engineer Reliability engineer
Worst case analysis Unit engineer Reliability engineer
Systems FMECA Reliability engineer System engineer
Subsystem FMECA Subsystem engineer Reliability engineer
Interface/unit FMECA Unit engineer Reliability engineer
Single point failures Reliability engineer Unit/systems engineers
Wearout analysis Unit engineer Reliability engineer
Unit maintainability Unit engineer Reliability engineer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
4-8
<PAGE> 238
5. PARTS, MATERIALS, AND PROCESSES CONTROL
5.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
Hughes shall establish and maintain on the program, a comprehensive
program of activities for controlling the specification, selection,
approval, application, qualification, screening, and acceptance of all
parts, materials, and processes to be used in flight hardware.
5.2 FUNCTION ADMINISTRATION
The program product assurance manager shall establish and maintain
appropriate controls over all parts, materials, and processes used on
the program. The required controls shall be implemented through the
program Parts, Materials, and Processes Control Board (PMPCB), which
shall be chaired by the program product assurance manager or his
designee. This board shall approve or disapprove the use of all new
parts, materials, and processes considered for use on the program. The
PMPCB shall ensure compliance of all parts, materials, and processes
with both technical and quality requirements and shall require maximum
standardization with minimum use of nonstandard parts, materials, and
processes. It shall also oversee the review of discrepancies that result
from destructive physical analyses of part samples and determine actions
to be taken, but may delegate routine dispositive actions to responsible
personnel.
PMPCB membership shall include the program product assurance manager,
customer designated parts and materials engineers, a representative of
logistics management, and the responsible engineering authority (REA).
Technical specialists shall assist the PMPCB in the evaluation of new
items and provide support in the selection, specification, and
qualification of new parts, materials, and processes, as required.
Approval by the PMPCB chairman of a part, material, or process shall
constitute authority for its use in the flight hardware.
5.3 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
5.3.1 AUTHORIZED LISTS
Product assurance shall maintain a program authorized parts list (APL)
designated as ICO1 and the ICO authorized materials and processes list
(AMPL) which identify those items approved by the PMPCB for use on the
program. New items shall be placed on the appropriate list following
PMPCB approval. The program APL shall reference for each part cited the
latest approved version of the applicable procurement specification. The
program AMPL, which shall be considered the baseline declared materials
and processes list, shall similarly reference for each item the latest
approved version of the applicable procurement specification.
The program APL (ICO1) shall be used as the basis for parts selection
and shall be submitted to the customer for review. Parts not contained
in ICO1 shall be selected first from the Hughes Preferred Parts List
(HSCPPL) and then from other sources and standards which conform the
selection criteria of this plan. Subsequent changes shall be reviewed by
the customer representative as part of the PMPCB activity. Minutes of
the PMPCB will provide evidence of approved changes between issuance of
updates. Revised and updated versions of the APL shall be made available
to the customer for review as issued.
5.3.2 SELECTION
Each design activity shall be responsible for selecting the parts,
materials, and processes used in implementing the element of the
spacecraft design over which it has cognizance. Its selection shall be
based on demonstrated performance, including qualification and
reliability histories and/or flight performance. Special emphasis shall
be placed on the control of special parts and state-of-
5-1
<PAGE> 239
the art parts and on control of critical processes, including
metallurgical and chemical bonding, plating, and coating and surface
treatment processes.
All parts used in flight hardware shall have been either 1) qualified to
Hughes specified space application requirements imposed on previous high
reliability space programs or 2) approved by the PMPCB. Parts approved
for use but having no history of use on space projects shall be
considered nonstandard. The PMPCB shall maintain a list of all
nonstandard parts used. This list shall include a qualification
completion date and other data ensuring traceability. Requests for PMPCB
approval to use nonstandard parts in flight hardware shall include
technical justification for their use. Requests for the use of
nonstandard parts that are approved by the PMPCB shall be available to
the customer representative on site. All requests for the use of
non-standard parts which do not conform to the selection, screening, and
burn-in requirements of this plan shall be subject to approval by the
customer parts representative.
It shall be the responsibility of the cognizant engineering authority
and the PMPCB to determine whether a particular need can be filled by an
already approved item or whether a new item must be added to the list of
those authorized for the program. Such decisions shall be made in the
interest of minimizing the number of parts of different types used,
ensuring the early determination of a need for parts evaluation and
additional specifications, and providing the timely information required
for procurement.
HSC shall use S-level and other categories of parts, ensuring in all
cases that end-item reliability and mission life requirements are
satisfied. HSC shall select military specification parts from QPL/QML
suppliers. Qualified microcircuits procured to MIL-PRF-38535 Class V or
MIL-M-38510, Class S requirements and qualified semiconductors procured
to MIL-PRF-19500 JAN S or MIL-S 19500, JAN S requirements may be used
without additional screening and burn-in. Hybrids shall be procured to
MIL-PRF-38534, Class K or equivalent, without additional screening.
When qualified S-level microcircuits and semiconductors are not
available, parts shall be procured and up-screened to S-level screening
and burn-in requirements. Exceptions may be approved by the customer
parts representative. The Hughes HSP parts specifications, quality level
"S" or "H," implement appropriate high reliability screening, burn-in
requirements which are also acceptable and preferred procurement
standards. ASICs and hybrids shall be treated as non-standard parts and
multi-chip modules (MCMs) as assemblies. The PMPCB shall review and
approve the qualification, screening, burn-in, DPA, test, acceptance,
and process control requirements of these non-standard items which shall
be added to an appropriate section of the APL when approved.
Parts shown on the summary parts lists (SPLs) for each assembly
contained in the PDM system shall be considered the declared parts in
the design and shall constitute the basic program declared parts list.
The SPLs shall be used as the basic source for declared parts
information and provided to the customer for review prior to the design
reviews.
Space quality level passive parts (Class S) and established reliability
(ER) military specification parts (QPL listed) qualified to the lowest
available failure rate, R or S, are acceptable and preferred.
QPL listed JANTXV diodes of double slug construction may be used when
upscreened to a procurement specification that specifies 100% upgrade
screening tests to Class S requirements. These are considered as
non-standard parts requiring PMPCB approval and customer concurrence.
Electronic parts may be procured to the ESA SCC standards: SCCG Class B
for active devices and SCCG Class C for passive devices as a minimum.
ESA parts shall have a current qualified status and shall be referenced
in the latest ESA QPL. Lot qualification testing shall be performed as
required by the ESA specification system.
5-2
<PAGE> 240
Materials and processes considered acceptable and preferred for use
shall be those listed in the program AMPL. Any additional materials and
processes required shall be selected from the following, in order of
preference:
1. Established government and industry standards.
2. Hughes' basic materials and processes selection list.
The list of materials authorized by the PMPCB shall be issued as the
program AMPL. Requests for the inclusion of other materials and
processes shall be submitted to the PMPCB by the responsible engineering
authorities for review and approval.
Parts, materials, and processes specified by the detailed engineering
drawings and support documentation shall be entered on the appropriate
list prior to their use in flight equipment. The program AMPL shall
include items approved by Hughes for major subcontractors' use.
5.3.2.1 PROHIBITED MATERIALS
The following materials shall be generally prohibited from use in
mechanical or high reliability electronic devices:
1) Pure Tin plating used in electronic applications.
2) Cadmium and Zinc plating and Silver brazing alloys
containing Cadmium and Zinc.
3) Brass containing Zinc used in a vacuum environment above
121 degrees C, unless plated with an approved material.
Use on an application-specific, case-by-case basis, shall be allowed
only with prior approval by the PMPCB.
5.3.3 PARTS AND MATERIALS APPLICATION REVIEW
Hughes shall conduct a thorough application review to verify proper
application of parts and materials in the system design. This
requirement for parts shall be met by performing the part application
derating analyses prescribed in Section 4 of this plan. Materials and
processes application shall be in accordance with the best current
practice in the space industry. Application review shall address
corrosion prevention, structural adequacy and integrity, and minimum
susceptibility to environmental factors prior to, during, and after
launch.
Materials and processes specialists shall support the design activities
during design definition. This support shall include consultation in the
selection and application of materials and processes, specification
preparation and control, and testing of materials. The materials and
processes selected shall be identified, and appropriate application
notes included, on the detailed design drawings. Application review
shall be accomplished by an audit of the design drawings by materials
and processes specialists. Drawings shall be audited for designation and
application of materials and processes and for compliance with the
program AMPL. Results of the audit shall be documented and shall provide
for correction of deficiencies or discrepancies noted. The status of all
audits performed shall be reported to program management as part of the
regular reporting activity. The PMPCB shall be notified of the results
of materials and processes application review audits to ensure program
requirements are met.
5.3.4 MATERIALS AND PROCESSES SPECIFICATIONS
All materials and processes used shall be defined and controlled by
engineering drawings, specifications, or standards. Hughes shall use
government, industry, and internal specification systems, as
appropriate. Hughes' materials and processes specifications shall
specify
5-3
<PAGE> 241
engineering requirements and quality assurance provisions, along with
appropriate accept/reject criteria.
All materials shall meet the stress corrosion cracking requirements as
documented in MSFC-SPEC-522C for stress corrosion. All nonmetallic
material used in the satellite shall be reviewed by the PMPCB for
conformance to the outgassing requirements of ANSI/ASTM E595.
5.3.5 PARTS SPECIFICATIONS
Electronic and electromechanical parts intended for use in flight
hardware shall be procured to controlled specifications
(Hughes/government/industry standards) or source control drawings. These
specifications or drawings shall identify the parts; state the
applicable physical, electrical, and environmental requirements; and
note the quality assurance provisions controlling the manufacture and
acceptance of the parts.
5.3.6 PARTS AND MATERIALS QUALIFICATION
The PMPCB shall be responsible for ensuring that all parts and materials
used in flight hardware are qualified. Those parts, materials, and
processes qualified in the authorized lists for this program shall be
considered qualified. A new part or material shall be considered
qualified when sufficient evidence exists to show that it meets the
requirements of its intended application. For new parts and materials
for which adequate qualification data are not available, Hughes shall
design and conduct qualification tests to confirm their ability to meet
specified requirements. The cognizant engineering activity shall be
responsible for developing, with the appropriate specialists, the
qualification plans required. Requalification shall be conducted where
necessary to ensure control over changes after initial qualification
approval. One or more of the following methods, in combination, may be
used to establish qualification:
1) Initial selection using applicable federal and military
specifications from qualified lists
2) Previous spaceflight experience
3) Qualification by similarity to a qualified generic part
or family
4) Test reports provided by the government, Hughes, a
subcontractor, or other responsible agency
5) Supplier tests or certification
6) Qualification testing
Qualification approval of new parts, materials, and processes shall
include an evaluation of supporting data and testing of critical
parameters where it is necessary to confirm the data. Final
qualification approval of new materials and processes may be based upon
successful completion of applicable unit and/or system level tests.
The PMPCB shall review the basis for qualification of new items,
determine the need for additional tests, and certify approval upon
satisfactory completion of the qualification process. Plans for specific
qualification tests shall be submitted to the PMPCB for review.
A plan for qualification testing of new materials and processes
determined to require testing to qualify for use on the program shall be
submitted to the PMPCB.
5.3.7 PARTS AND MATERIALS TRANSFER
Parts and material inventory transfers shall be reviewed by the PMPCB or
its designee for compliance with requirements where the potential exists
for a transfer to the program of parts that may not meet contract
requirements. Parts and material from specific programs, designated by
the board, that conform to program requirements may be transferred with
approval of the
5-4
<PAGE> 242
responsible engineering authority. Deviations from burn-in requirements
may be granted on an individual basis when justified by appropriate data
and approved by the PMPCB.
The PMPCB shall establish a recertification program commensurate with
the generic part type. Recertified parts which are found to not be
within specified tolerances or which show a parameter drift variance
such that use of such parts will jeopardize mission performance life
shall not be used.
Parts exceeding five years from date of manufacture to installation in
equipment shall be considered for recertification by the PMPCB. The
parts failure history, DPA history and industry alerts shall be reviewed
and a recommendation made to the PMPCB. Concurrence with the
recommendations by the Customer parts representative is required. Lot
traceability of recertified parts shall be maintained.
5.4 PARTS SCREENING AND ACCEPTANCE
5.4.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
Electrical and electromechanical parts shall be screened and accepted
against the criteria contained in Hughes' procurement specifications.
Parts screening requirements shall be those cited in Table 5-1. The
tests and inspections specified may vary in accordance with the detailed
requirements of the individual part type specifications. Parts screening
and functional testing shall be performed on 100% of the parts as
specified herein, either by the supplier or by another approved
facility.
Microwave assemblies on ceramic substrates which include sealed
transistors or diodes shall not be considered parts and shall not be
subjected to the tests of Table 5-1. All parts used in these assemblies
shall, however, be subject to the screening tests cited for the
applicable device in the table. Microwave assemblies utilizing chip
components shall be subjected to appropriate screening tests as deemed
necessary by the responsible engineer and PMPCB.
5.4.2 INTERNAL VISUAL INSPECTION
A detailed internal visual inspection (pre-encapsulation) for
contamination and construction anomalies shall be required for parts
with hollow cavity type packages. For lidded devices such as
microcircuits, the pre-encapsulation visual inspection shall be
performed at a level of magnification that allows detection of such
defects as inadequate bonds, smeared metallization, and particulate
contamination. Devices such as glass diodes and sapphire lidded
transistors shall be inspected following lidding, under the
magnification needed to disclose internal contamination.
5.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND CONDITIONING
Part screening and conditioning shall include the following tests, as
applicable, to the specific part types listed in Table 5-1:
1) High temperature reverse bias--A high temperature
reverse bias test shall be specified on selected
transistors susceptible to surface leakage effects.
Post-test measurements shall be performed, and parts
exceeding the specified limits shall be rejected.
Parameters shall be defined in the procurement
specification and shall include leakage current.
2) High temperature storage--High temperature conditioning
at the maximum specified storage temperature of the part
shall be required for semiconductors and microcircuit
devices. Temperature accelerated high temperature
storage in accordance with military standard procedures
may be used.
5-5
<PAGE> 243
3) Temperature testing--Temperature cycling or thermal
shock shall be specified as a prescreening test for
detection of mechanical construction defects in parts.
The number of cycles and temperature extremes shall be
those specified in the applicable specification for each
generic part type, as a minimum.
4) Acceleration--Acceleration in a direction perpendicular
to the bond surface shall be required on semiconductors
and microcircuits. The acceleration level selected shall
be one ensuring adequate internal bonding.
5) Particle impact noise detection test--This test shall be
applied as a parts screening test to detect the presence
of loose particles in hollow, unpassivated, cavity type
packages. It shall be performed either at the vendor's
facility or at Hughes' during incoming inspection in
accordance with Contractor approved procedures. It shall
not be performed on part types that have transparent
(sapphire) windows or which are susceptible to internal
damage as a result of the test. Parts exhibiting
anomalies during this test shall be rejected.
6) Seal test--A fine and gross leak test shall be performed
on all hermetically sealed components to the applicable
military standard.
7) X-ray inspection--X-ray inspection for defects shall be
required on selected part types. Inspection shall be
made with the assistance of image magnification, through
photographic enlargement, projection, or examination
through a microscope. X-ray testing shall not be
performed on part types susceptible to damage (e.g., MOS
devices). Visual examination may be substituted for
X-ray when conditions allow inspection by this method
(e.g., when glass diodes have been examined prior to
painting, or when devices have transparent windows).
5.4.4 BURN-IN
All electronic parts shall be subjected to the burn-in tests of Table
5-1 after the applicable prescreening tests. The minimum burn-in hours
and stress conditions for each part type shall be as shown in the table.
Parts specifications shall specify the lot acceptance criteria
appropriate to each part type and the percent defectives allowable
(PDA). Primary parameters (Group A) shall be measured by the supplier.
Critical parameters shall be measured and recorded before burn-in and at
completion of burn-in. Parameter readings shall be analyzed for
conformance to specification limits, and performance stability shall be
determined where applicable.
Hughes may elect to extend the burn-in period to enhance the stability
of parameters and the reliability of lots failing PDA. Deviations from
these requirements may be granted on an individual basis when justified
by appropriate data and approved by the PMPCB. Parts inventory transfers
shall be reviewed by the PMPCB or its designee for compliance with Table
5-1 requirements; any exceptions shall require the approval of the
program product assurance manager.
5.4.5 DESTRUCTIVE PHYSICAL ANALYSIS
Hughes shall perform a lot sample construction analysis for those
generic part families indicated in Table 5-1. Destructive physical
analysis procedures shall define the methods of inspecting part design,
construction, materials, and workmanship, and the accept/reject
criteria. Samples shall be evaluated by external and internal
examination to verify lot integrity and conformance to requirements. The
degree of analysis performed shall be based on experience with the
supplier and generic part type. Metallization integrity, bond strength,
and die attach strength shall be confirmed on semiconductors and
microcircuits. The specific types and sample sizes of parts requiring
construction analysis shall be as defined in the program APL by the
PMPCB. Anomalies and discrepancies noted during destructive physical
analyses shall be reviewed and dispositioned by technical specialists
designated by the PMPCB. Analyses results shall be made available to the
customer for review, upon request.
5-6
<PAGE> 244
5.4.6 RADIATION
Parts shall be selected which can survive the radiation environment for
the proposed system design and the specified mission time while still
permitting the units in which they are installed to meet their
performance specification. Lot acceptance radiation testing shall be
required for parts which experience has shown to have significant
lot-to-lot parameter variations due to radiation exposure. These parts
shall be tested to ensure they meet the design criteria for the expected
mission radiation level. Requirements to test these and other part types
shall be identified by the PMPCB and specified in the program APL.
Verification of the results of supplier conducted testing of radiation
hardened parts may be substituted for the performance of lot acceptance
radiation tests.
5.5 PM&P QUALIFICATION STATUS LIST
The qualification status of electronic parts shall be identified in the
program APL published by the program product assurance manager. The
qualification status of new materials and processes shall be reported in
the PMPCB minutes.
5.6 PARTS AND MATERIALS HANDLING AND STORAGE
Parts and materials shall be handled and stored in accordance with
requirements for a high reliability space program. Parts and materials
for deliverable hardware shall be placed in program designated bonded
stores or work-in-process stores. Appropriate packaging and
electrostatic discharge control measures shall be taken to protect
critical parts and materials during handling. Fabricated parts and
subassemblies shall be placed in kits, containers, or protective bags.
Completed units issued to the spacecraft shall remain in their
protective containers until installation. The adequacy of the packaging,
handling, and storage procedures and measures taken shall be confirmed
by quality assurance audits.
5.7 PART QUALITY LEVELS FOR QUALIFICATION HARDWARE
Qualification hardware shall use the same parts as flight equipment,
except that the product assurance, part screening, and burn-in
requirements may be relaxed. The minimum requirements implemented shall
ensure that neither performance nor test results are compromised. Relief
from specific requirements may be granted in the interest of
facilitating the early acquisition of qualification test results.
5.8 SUBCONTRACTOR PMP PROGRAM CONTROL
The parts, materials, and processes requirements defined herein shall be
imposed by Hughes on its subcontractors. Off-the-shelf assemblies shall
be reviewed to ensure acceptable parts and material selection. The
program product assurance manager shall ensure that these requirements
are implemented by his subcontractors through review of instructions,
specifications, and statements of work referenced in procurement
documents. Subcontractor parts, materials, and processes operations
shall be reviewed and/or subject to audit to ensure compliance with
subcontract requirements.
5-7
<PAGE> 245
TABLE 5-1. HIGH RELIABILITY PARTS
SCREENING MATRIX(1) (PAGE 1 OF 2)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal Particle
Internal Shock/ Impact
Visual Temperature Temperature Noise
Type of Device Inspection Storage Cycling(7) Acceleration Test(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Semiconductors
Diode(14) X X X X
Transistors(12) X(10) X X X(3) X
Active dies(21)
Microwave + GaAs X(10) X X X X
FET
Integrated circuit X X X X X
(digital linearizer +
MMIC)
ASIC X X
Hybrids (standard) x X x X(4) x
Capacitors (fixed)
Ceramic x
Glass(15) x
Mica, high voltage
Plastic (film)
Solid tantalum x
Nonsolid tantalum x
Feedthrough x
Chip (ceramic) x
Chip (glass) x
Temperature x
compensating
Filters, EMI x x
Resistors
Carbon
composition
Film x
Wirewound, power x
Wirewound, precise x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destructive Minimum Burn-In,
Seal Physical Typical Test
Type of Device Tests X-ray Analysis(19) Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Semiconductors
Diode(14) X X(2) X 240 hr, 100% rated power
Transistors(12) X X(11) X 240 hr, 100% rated power
Active dies(21)
Microwave + GaAs X X(11) X 240 hr, 100% rated power
FET
Integrated circuit X X X 240 hr, 100% rated power
(digital linearizer +
MMIC)
ASIC X X(20) 240 hr, +125 (degrees) C
Hybrids (standard) X x X 240 hr, 100% rated power
Capacitors (fixed)
Ceramic x X 96 hr, 200% rated voltage,
125 (degrees) C
Glass(15) X 50 hr, 150 Vdc, +85 (degrees) C
Mica, high voltage x(6) 96 hr, 120% rated voltage,
+85 (degrees) C
Plastic (film) X 48 hr, 140% rated voltage,
+85 (degrees) C
Solid tantalum X x X 96 hr, 100% rated voltage,
+85 (degrees) C
Nonsolid tantalum X X 96 hr, 100% rated voltage,
+85 (degrees) C
Feedthrough x X 96 hr, 100% rated voltage,
+85 (degrees) C
Chip (ceramic) X 96 hr, 100% rated low voltage,
+125 (degrees) C
Chip (glass) 96 hr, 100% rated voltage,
+125 (degrees) C
Temperature X 96 hr, 200% rated voltage,
compensating +85 (degrees) C
Filters, EMI X x X 96 hr, rated voltage
Resistors
Carbon No testing required
composition
Film X(6) 96 hr, rated power, +125 (degrees) C
Wirewound, power x 96 hr(8), rated power, +125 (degrees) C
Wirewound, precise x 96 hr, rated power, +125 (degrees) C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
5-8
<PAGE> 246
TABLE 5-1. HIGH RELIABILITY PARTS SCREENING
MATRIX (PAGE 2 OF 2)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal Particle
Internal Shock/ Impact
Visual Temperature Temperature Noise
Type of Device Inspection Storage Cycling(7) Acceleration Test(5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Networks x
Chip x
Magnetics x
RF coils, x
unencapsulated(17)
Crystal x x(13)
SAW filter x x X
Relays, dc x x x(6)
RF switches x x
Thermistors x
Fuses x x
---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --------------
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destructive Minimum Burn-In,
Seal Physical Typical Test
Type of Device Tests X-ray Analysis(19) Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Networks x X 96 hr, +125 (degrees) C
Chip 96 hr, temperature soak
Magnetics x(6) 96 hr(8)
RF coils, 96 hr, ac pulse at +125 (degrees) C
unencapsulated(17)
Crystal X X 720 hr +65 degrees C to +85
degreesC(18)
SAW filter x X 240 hr, rated temperature
Relays, dc X X 5000 operations
RF switches Number of operations specified in
individual specification
Thermistors x 168 hr1(16)
Fuses X x(2) X 168 hr, 50% rated at +85 (degrees) C
----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------
</TABLE>
NOTES:
1) Detail part specifications will denote explicit requirements.
2) Internal visual inspection may be substituted for X-ray for
glass bodied diodes and fuses.
3) TO5 or smaller devices with aluminum bond wires are exempt.
4) Mechanical shock may be substituted for acceleration.
5) Not required for devices with surface protected elements or for
non-cavity devices.
6) When required in the specification.
7) Thermal shock or temperature cycling as required per detail part
specification.
8) Temperature cycling or thermal shock per Hughes specs may be
substituted for burn-in.
9) Temperature cycling and vibration per acceptance test procedure.
10) Postcap inspection on devices with sapphire windows.
11) X-ray not required on devices with sapphire windows.
12) High temperature reverse bias as required by individual
transistor specifications.
13) Crystals used in LO circuit applications shall have 50 thermal
cycles from at least -55 (degrees) C to +85 (degrees) C; other
crystals shall have minimum of 25 thermal cycles.
14) Does not include beam lead diodes, which are screened at
assembly level.
15) Burn-in shall be at 4 times rated voltage <300 Vdc; and 1500 Vdc
for >300 Vdc capacitors.
16) Negative Tc thermistors stored at rated temperature; positive Tc
thermistors burn-in 1.5 times rated power at 25 (degrees) C.
17) Unencapsulated RF coils do not require burn-in but will have
unit assembly screening.
18) 720 hours of high temperature aging for crystals at +65
(degrees) C or higher; time may be reduced to 360 hours if
parameters stay within 1/2 tolerances; after aging and thermal
cycling, crystal frequency shall be monitored over its specified
operation range to verify its stability.
19) Destructive physical analysis sample quantity is 3 pieces,
unless otherwise specified by prime contractor PMPCB.
20) Pre-cap evaluation in lieu of DPA.
21) Element evaluation per procurement specification/document.
5-9
<PAGE> 247
6. CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
6.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
Hughes shall establish and maintain a configuration management system
that ensures compliance with 1) company configuration management (CM)
directives and practices and 2) the provisions of this plan. The
policies defined in Hughes' Space and Communications Company (HSC)
manuals shall govern the program CM effort. Program unique requirements
specified by the Customer shall be defined in program instructions
(PIs). These PIs, when approved by the program manager, shall be binding
on all organizations supporting the program.
6.2 FUNCTION ADMINISTRATION
6.2.1 RESPONSIBILITIES
The program manager shall be responsible for ensuring that all
contractual requirements relating to configuration management are
adequately defined for and understood by affected program personnel. The
program manager shall delegate responsibility for administering the
execution of CM tasks to the leader of the Hughes HSC Configuration and
Data Management Operations (CDMO), the focal point for the integration,
implementation, and administration of CM functions on Hughes HSC
administered programs. CDMO is responsible for configuration
identification, control, and accounting and functions within the
framework of the organizational relationships shown in Figure 6-1.
The leader of CDMO shall delegate responsibility for defining and
implementing the procedures required to execute program CM tasks to a
member of the CDMO organization whom he designates program configuration
management operations (CMO) leader. The PCMO shall report to the CDMO
leader on the status of the tasks he is charged with executing.
The Hughes HSC Contracts organization shall relay communications on
contractual matters between Hughes' program management and the customer.
Similarly, an assigned subcontracts administrator (SCA) shall relay
communications on contractual matters between Hughes' program management
and program subcontractors. The PCMO shall work with an assigned
contract administrator or subcontracts administrator to ensure the
receipt and delivery of all communications and monitor the status of
subcontract configuration requirements, as shown in Figure 6-2.
The configuration management schedule shall be phased to be compatible
with the program master schedule. Detailed configuration milestones
shall be identified and submitted to the Customer after publication of
the program master phasing schedule. Changes to the master schedule
shall necessitate corresponding changes in the detailed configuration
management milestones.
6-1
<PAGE> 248
6.2.2 TASKS
The planning, development, administration, implementation, and
monitoring of program configuration management policies shall be
distributed between the PCMO and performing organizations as follows:
The PCMO shall:
1) Prepare management plans and program instructions
associated with configuration management.
2) Support design reviews.
3) Provide administrative personnel for receiving,
recording, analyzing, and processing proposed changes
through the appropriate change control activities.
4) Establish formats for numbering assignment.
5) Monitors release procedures for engineering
documentation (drawings, specifications, engineering
orders, requests for deviation/waiver, engineering
change requests, etc).
6) Verify as-designed vs as-built hardware status.
7) Acts as change control board secretary.
8) Audit the compliance of major subcontractors with CM
requirements.
9) Receive as-built configuration data from product
operations
10) Audit compliance of product operations with CM
requirements.
The performing organizations shall:
1) Prepare engineering, planning, and as-built
configuration data.
2) Resolve the difference between the as-designed and
as-built configurations.
3) Release engineering data and documentation.
4) Support the processing of proposed changes.
5) Implement program-management-flowed-down requirements.
6) Implement approved changes
6.3 ACTIVITIES
The program configuration management function shall comprise the
activities described below and shown in Figure 6-3.
6.3.1 CONFIGURATION IDENTIFICATION
All configuration identification documentation shall be released and
maintained in the Product Data Management (PDM) system.
6.3.1.1 BASELINE IDENTIFICATION
Hughes shall establish allocated and product baselines to facilitate
tracking of changes to configuration items.
6.3.1.2 CONFIGURATION ITEMS DEFINITION
A configuration item shall be understood to be an item changes to which
can be and are tracked against an established baseline and to be
synonymous with "control item."
6.3.1.3 SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS IDENTIFICATION
6-2
<PAGE> 249
Configuration identification shall be maintained by the generation and
issuance of specifications, standards, and drawings that define the
spacecraft and its equipment. The PCMO shall assign a unique block of
configuration identification numbers to be issued to program
specifications, procedures, and drawings. Each control item shall be
assigned a unique identification number. Previously released drawings of
proven designs, standard specifications, and common hardware may retain
previously assigned numbers. New drawings and associated lists shall
conform to HSC engineering standards and procedures and to HSC Drafting
Room Standards Manual.
Subcontractor or vendor items shall be identified by the manufacturer's
part number or by the assigned contractor part number. The initial
configuration identification shall be established by specifications that
define the technical requirements from the system level down to the
subsystem and control item level.
Hardware shall be identified in accordance with the applicable drawing.
Markings shall consist of, minimally, part numbers and serial numbers.
Serial numbers shall be assigned to all control items, to items
containing high reliability parts, and to items requiring traceability
of test data. Hughes' Drafting Standards Manual, which defines types and
grades of drawings and specifies conventions, shall be the guide for the
preparation of drawings.
6.3.1.4 SPECIFICATION TREE
The PCMO shall prepare a specification tree listing the spacecraft
specification and subordinate specifications. The spacecraft
specification shall be the basis of agreement between Hughes and the
customer on the statement of technical requirements. Subtier
specifications shall be the basis of agreement between the program
office and the responsible engineering activities (REAs) with respect to
technical requirements.
All specifications shall be prepared, approved, and released in
accordance with command media and the appropriate program instructions.
Maintenance after release shall be effected by specification change
notices (SCNs). Both the specifications and SCNs shall be released
through the Product Data Management System (PDM).
6.3.1.5 MASTER INDEX
A master index (MI) of contract deliverable control items shall be
prepared. This MI shall define the control items in terms of drawing
number, indenture level, and quantity required for next assembly. It
shall, when approved by the program manager, become an internal baseline
configuration document. The MI shall be maintained by normal change
control procedures.
6.3.1.6 COMPUTER SOFTWARE CONFIGURATION IDENTIFICATION
The development of computer software configuration identification (CSCI)
software shall be managed by systems engineering. Software configuration
management shall be under the direction of the program office and meet
the requirements of applicable Hughes command media. The PCMO shall
monitor the software configuration process.
6.3.1.7 FIRMWARE CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
Firmware baseline design shall be established and controlled by the
subsystem engineering activity during the development process. The REA
shall be responsible for engineering configuration release and control
and for keeping the status of the hardware. The PCMO shall monitor the
firmware configuration process.
6.3.2 CONFIGURATION CONTROL
6-3
<PAGE> 250
Configuration change control shall begin with the establishment of the
allocated baseline. Changes to the baseline configuration shall be
processed through the REA or PCMO. This process shall involve the
uniform and systematic origination, analysis, preparation, review,
approval, authorization, and release of engineering changes.
The change control system shall be based on a precisely defined
classification of changes. Change classification shall be the primary
means of indicating how a change shall be processed. The process of
configuration control defined in succeeding paragraphs shall apply
equally to hardware, software, and firmware.
6.3.2.1 CHANGE CLASSIFICATION
To ensure that the extent of analysis and approval action required to
implement a proposed engineering change is consonant with the nature,
magnitude, and effect of the change, engineering changes shall be
classified Class I or II as defined in Hughes' command media. Class I
changes which are major nonconformances affecting contract end item
requirements shall require customer approval prior to implementation.
6.3.2.2 REQUESTS FOR DEVIATIONS/WAIVERS (RDWS)
It shall be possible, by means of requests for deviations/waivers
(RDWs), to depart from the requirements specified in engineering
documents without altering the documents. Deviations must be authorized
prior to hardware manufacture. Waivers shall be requested for
nonconformances found during or after manufacture. Both deviations and
waivers shall be documented on the RDW form. Minor waivers shall be
processed by Material Review action. Deviations and/or waivers that
affect contractual stipulations shall require customer concurrence for
approval.
Requests for deviations and waivers shall be classified and approved in
the same manner as engineering change proposals. RDWs shall not be used
to circumvent the normal change or material review procedures.
6.3.2.3 ENGINEERING CHANGE PROCESSING
The PCMO shall be responsible for coordinating proposed changes through
the change control process. The REA and his control point shall be
responsible for processing all engineering changes from the point of
origination through the required approval or rejection.
6.3.2.4 CHANGE CONTROL BOARD
A program Change Control Board (CCB) shall review and disposition
(approve or reject) all proposed Class I and Class II changes as well as
those SCNs for unit level and above specifications routed to it by the
REA and PCMO. The program manager, or his designee, shall chair the CCB.
The CCB secretary shall be a member of the PCMO. Board members shall
include representatives of program management, product assurance,
customer, systems engineering, component engineering, manufacturing
engineering, and other activities, as required, to review the proposed
change. The CCB shall review changes to each item at the conclusion of
its design phase. The design phase of each unit of prototype flight
model hardware shall be considered to extend from the time of initiation
of the contract until one of the following occurs:
1) The design is qualified for flight use.
2) An acceptance flight unit is delivered to spacecraft
integration.
3) The program manager signifies completion of the design
phase.
6.3.3 CONFIGURATION STATUS ACCOUNTING
The PCMO shall maintain configuration indices and issue configuration
reports. Records of the hardware configuration (as-built) shall be
compared to the released (as-designed) configuration.
6-4
<PAGE> 251
The as-designed configuration shall be derived from released engineering
documentation. An as-designed report shall be maintained and updated as
changes are approved. The PCMO shall act in conjunction with the
engineering, manufacturing, and other organizations, as required, to
resolve identified differences between the as-designed and as-built
configurations.
An as-built configuration index shall be prepared by the PCMO for each
deliverable system at the control item level. Each control item shall be
identified in terms of location, part number, and serial number. The
index shall be initially prepared at the start of control item
integration and maintained through completion of integration and test
activities.
The PCMO shall be responsible for auditing the software configuration
process and the firmware configuration process.
6.3.4 SUBCONTRACTOR CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
Subcontractors shall be required to participate in the configuration
management program by establishing a configuration management system
that ensures that:
1) The as-built configuration reflects the released design
data.
2) Data are maintained to show the status of hardware at
all times.
3) Change incorporation is verified.
4) Configuration interfaces are in accordance with the
design requirements.
5) The conformity of the as-built configuration to the
as-designed configuration is verified.
To ensure compliance, Hughes' configuration management requirements
shall be specifically identified and issued to subcontractors with the
subcontract statements of work.
When subcontractors desire to implement a change after the establishment
of a Hughes approved baseline, they shall be required to submit an
engineering change proposal (ECP) to Hughes for disposition. They shall
also be required to submit requests for deviations/waivers wherever they
desire to make changes without altering documentation. Such requests
shall be processed by the Contractor's REA/PCMO. Subcontractors shall be
notified of acceptance or rejection of their requests by the program
subcontract administrator.
6.3.5 ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION CONTROL
6.3.5.1 ENGINEERING RELEASES AND RECORDS
Use of the Product Data Management system shall be mandatory. Initial
release may be accomplished by the REA in cooperation with Document
Control Center (DCC) or Engineering Data Control (EDC) personnel.
Program management may authorize the REA to designate EDC or an
appropriate DCC as the control point for the recording, maintenance,
storage, retrieval, microfilming, reproduction, release, and controlled
distribution of engineering documentation. Release of the drawings and
specifications shall constitute establishment of the as-designed
configuration of the hardware/software.
6-5
<PAGE> 252
[FLOW CHART]
FIGURE 6-1. PROGRAM CONFIGURATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS
[FLOW CHART]
FIGURE 6-2. CUSTOMER/HUGHES/SUBCONTRACTOR INTERFACES
6-6
<PAGE> 253
[FLOW CHART]
FIGURE 6-3. PROGRAM CMO FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
6-7
<PAGE> 254
7. SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM PLAN
7.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
This plan establishes the System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) describing
the tasks and activities that will be performed and the documentation
that will be prepared to effectively satisfy Hughes, customer, launch
site, launch vehicle and other system safety requirements.
A system safety task schedule shall be provided to the customer.
7.2 RESPONSIBILITIES
7.2.1 PROGRAM MANAGER
The ultimate responsibility for system safety resides with the specific
Program Manager who is responsible for ensuring that the system safety
program operates in accordance with the SSPP. The Program Manager will
be given sufficient data to make safety critical decisions affecting
level of risk, cost, or schedule. Review and approval of the safety
submissions will ensure program management is cognizant of the final
resolution of all such issues.
7.2.2 SYSTEM SAFETY ENGINEER
System Safety is assigned as an integral part of Systems Engineering.
The manager of Launch Systems Engineering and Operations is responsible
for assigning a Program Responsible System Safety Engineer to perform
system safety activities in accordance with the requirements of the
contract, launch site and Hughes command media. The designated System
Safety Engineer is responsible for implementation of the system safety
program including hazard analyses, hazard control implementation, safety
coordination, documentation and approvals and has access to the Program
Manager on matters affecting the safety of equipment and personnel. The
System Safety Engineer also interfaces with the program System
Engineering Manager and Launch Services/Mission Manager, who in turn
report to the program office. The System Safety Engineer also interfaces
with the Product Assurance Manager.
Within Hughes, System Safety interfaces with all required disciplines to
coordinate the implementation of applicable system safety requirements.
7.2.3 EXTERNAL SYSTEM SAFETY INTERFACES
In all cases the System Safety Engineer will work closely with the
Launch Services Subcontractor, or equivalent, and Launch Site Safety
Organization. The specific interface is dependent upon the selected
launch vehicle and the launch vehicle procuring organization. In most
cases the LVI/Safety engineer will provide this interface role and
responsibility, especially for recurrent HSC product lines. In some
cases, where appropriate, a System Safety Core Engineer may be assigned
to a specific program.
7-1
<PAGE> 255
7.3 SYSTEM SAFETY TASKS
System Safety performs hazard analyses, ensures implementation of hazard
controls, interprets safety requirements, provides verification of
hazard control implementation, supports design and other program
reviews, produces safety documentation and provides continuing technical
consultation on safety related issues. Specific tasks of the System
Safety program include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) Provide safety management and conduct a system safety
program.
2) Hazard analysis and hazard control implementation for
the spacecraft, GSE, ground operations and facilities.
3) Coordination of safety critical launch vehicle design
and operational interfaces with the Launch Services
Subcontractor.
4) Coordination of system safety issues with the Launch
Site Safety Organization.
5) Documentation of compliance with Launch Site Safety
Organization system safety requirements.
6) Review and approval of hazardous procedures and test
plans.
7) Definition and implementation of required facility and
operational safety training. 7.4 ORGANIZATIONAL ROLES
In addition to System Safety, many organizations are involved in the
overall safety program. The roles and responsibilities of the
organizations include, but are not limited to the following:
7.4.1 ENGINEERING
The Systems Engineering Manager, System Engineers, LVI Engineer, and
REAs, in cooperation with the System Safety Engineer, are responsible
for ensuring the following:
1) Appropriate system safety requirements and derived
requirements are incorporated into the system and
subsystem level specifications, control documents and
procedures.
2) Safety related engineering changes, deviations, waivers
and Material Review Board (MRB) actions receive
appropriate System Safety review and approval.
3) Safety critical procedures receive appropriate System
Safety review and approval.
7.4.2 SYSTEM OPERATIONS
In cooperation with the System Safety Engineer and the Safety, Health
and Environmental Affairs (SHEA) representative, are responsible for
ensuring the following:
1) Test and ground support equipment receives appropriate
system safety assessment review and approval to
safeguard personnel and Hughes high value products.
2) All hazardous operations are accomplished in accordance
with procedures coordinated and approved by system
safety. Previous safety assessments result in procedural
hazard controls.
3) Assisting in the development and implementation of
facility and operational safety training for
test/operational personnel and supervisors.
7-2
<PAGE> 256
7.4.3 SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS (SHEA
SHEA is responsible for ensuring adherence with company and governmental
occupational health and safety requirements. SHEA and System Safety will
closely coordinate their efforts to ensure coverage of all program
safety issues without duplication of effort.
7.4.4 PRODUCT ASSURANCE
Product Assurance is responsible for assuring product integrity and high
reliability.
7.4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality Assurance is responsible for verifying that hardware, equipment
and operations conform with program requirements.
7.5 SCOPE OF SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM
System Safety tasks, activities, and documentation apply to, but are not
limited to, safety program management, spacecraft design, ground support
equipment (GSE) design, spacecraft ground processing operations and
launch activities. The system safety program is structured to achieve,
as a minimum, the following:
- Provide the organization, personnel and resources to
effectively satisfy applicable system safety
requirements.
- Assign specific responsibilities for all program system
safety tasks to ensure compliance with applicable system
safety requirements.
- Define and coordinate spacecraft program system safety
requirements, compliance and approvals with the
designated Launch Services Subcontractor and appropriate
Launch Site Safety Organization(s).
- Ensure that safety critical elements of the spacecraft
design, GSE design, launch vehicle interfaces, ground
processing operations and launch activities are analyzed
to identify hazards that could result in personnel
injury or system damage.
- Verify all identified hazards have been eliminated,
controlled or accepted such that program risk to
personnel and hardware is minimized.
- Document compliance with program system safety
requirements as required by program unique contract and
launch site requirements.
- Provide safety review of procedures and supervision of
factory, payload processing facility and launch site
hazardous operations.
- Ensure adequate safety training is developed and
implemented for factory, payload processing facility and
launch site hazardous operations.
- Adapt the system safety program to a more streamlined
but adequate system safety process when recurrent HSC
products are used for multiple programs and several
customers. This specific safety process is referred to
as the generic spacecraft safety process and is already
in place with the launch site Range Safety
organizations. This process takes advantage of previous
system safety assessments and safety
certifications/approvals with respect to safety
deliverables and data submitted and on file with the
appropriate launch site agencies.
7.6 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
The current editions of the following documents are applicable to all
Hughes spacecraft programs:
- Hughes Space and Communications Company Practice 5-0-7, System
Safety
The current edition of the applicable launch site documents shall apply.
7-3
<PAGE> 257
7.7 INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION OF DELEGATED ACTIVITIES
The system safety program will not duplicate other program analyses but
may utilize data produced by them. Other analyses and reports that may
be applicable to safety include, but are not limited to, stress
analysis, thermal analysis, electromagnetic interference (EMI), etc.
This data will be reviewed and used, as appropriate, by System Safety to
assist in the identification of all potential hazards and hazard
controls. Likewise, when appropriate, System Safety personnel will
provide feedback to ensure that supporting organizations are aware of
applicable safety issues and requirements.
7.8 HAZARD CONTROL ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
Hazard controls shall be implemented in the following order of
precedence:
1) Design to minimize hazards (design for minimum risk).
2) Incorporate safety devices, such as barriers or
inhibiting mechanisms to reduce risk (failure
tolerance).
3) Provide warning devices when the existence or occurrence
of a hazard cannot be eliminated.
4) Develop procedures and training to reduce risk where it
is impractical to eliminate the hazard through design,
reduce risk using safety devices, or reduce risk by
providing warning devices.
7.9 HAZARD ANALYSIS
System Safety analyses identify hazards associated with the spacecraft
design, ground support equipment (GSE) design, spacecraft ground
processing operations and launch activities. The results of these hazard
analyses are documented in the appropriate launch site safety
documentation as determined by the selected launch vehicle. To the
greatest extent possible, existing hazard analyses will be utilized for
previously proven flight hardware, GSE and operations. For proven
spacecraft buses, existing hazard analyses will be supplemented, as
required, with hazard analyses of new and modified subsystems and
incorporated in the applicable safety documentation. Maximum usage of
the generic safety data process will be made as already permitted by and
accepted by the particular launch site Range Safety organizations.
Hazard analysis involves the performance of a Preliminary Hazard
Analysis (PHA) and a System & Subsystem Hazard Analysis (S&SHA) covering
the following:
1) Spacecraft and GSE design
2) Design of interfaces with the launch vehicle
3) Handling and transportation of the spacecraft
4) Ground operations
5) Pre-launch testing and interface with the launch vehicle
The PHA and S&SHA are not deliverable documents; however, the results of
the PHA and S&SHA will form the basis of the appropriate deliverable
safety documentation as determined by launch vehicle/launch site
requirements.
7.9.1 PRELIMINARY HAZARD ANALYSIS (PHA)
The PHA is the initial effort in the iterative system safety analysis
program. The objective of the PHA is to identify hazards to provide a
basis for system safety program efforts. The primary objectives of the
PHA are as follows:
1) Identify all significant hazards in preliminary terms
including hazard causes
2) Identify, in preliminary terms, the requirements for
hazard controls
7-4
<PAGE> 258
3) Initial identification of any operational constraints
7.9.2 SUBSYSTEM AND SYSTEM HAZARD ANALYSIS (S&SHA)
To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the risk being assumed, a
subsystem and system level hazard analysis will be performed. The S&SHA
will identify accident risk and establish design criteria and
operational constraints to eliminate or control hazards to an acceptable
level. The analysis will consider spacecraft design, interface design,
and operations including handling, transportation, testing, assembly,
check-out and launch site processing operations. Also software safety
issues or questions may be addressed.
7.10 VERIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE
The data collected from the hazard analysis will be documented in the
appropriate safety documentation submissions as determined by the launch
vehicle selection coupled with the specific launch site requirements.
The closure/approval of the final submission will provide verification
that all safety critical issues are positively closed. Where
appropriate, closure/approval will be referenced to design analysis,
qualification/acceptance test reports, approved procedures, etc., which
demonstrate proper application of system safety requirements. The safety
documentation submission, in its final form, is the certification of
compliance with all program system safety requirements. The final
approved safety documentation submission will provide traceability that
all required hazard control actions have been taken and approved by the
System Safety Engineer, Program Manager and Launch Site Safety
Organization. Data submissions, where authorized, will maximize the
generic spacecraft approval process that is already in-place, i.e.,
changes only in the form of supplements.
7.11 DELIVERABLE DOCUMENTATION
Deliverable safety documentation is determined by the selected launch
vehicle and the associated Launch Site Safety Organization requirements.
Additional deliverable documentation requirements are determined by the
specific program unique contract requirements.
7.12 NON-DELIVERABLE DATA
Any non-deliverable system safety data including the SSPP, additional
hazard analyses, correspondence, notes, etc., may be requested through
the specific program office or as part of a specific program contract
requirement, when specified. This would also apply to a customer request
for a specific program-unique SSPP to be prepared.
7.13 PROCEDURE REVIEW AND APPROVAL
All factory, payload processing facility and launch site procedures
shall be reviewed by the system safety engineer and labeled as either
hazardous or non-hazardous. Hazardous procedures require System Safety
approval prior to their release and implementation.
7.14 TEST AND OPERATIONAL SAFETY
System Safety is responsible for defining the test and operational
safety program. Implementation of the test and operational safety
program is shared among several organizations.
System Safety will participate in factory and launch site hazardous test
and operational planning in conjunction with SHEA. Hazardous test and
operational procedures will be reviewed and hazardous tests/operations
will be monitored to ensure incorporation of appropriate hazard
controls. Pre-test/operation functions will include the following:
1) Establishment of training and operational requirements
for personnel and equipment safety.
2) Analysis, review and approval of hazardous
test/operation objectives and procedures for compliance
with safety requirements and incorporation of
appropriate hazard
7-5
<PAGE> 259
controls. Specific programs may attach to this generic
SSPP a specific launch site schedule and a specific
spacecraft launch site processing flow.
3) Monitoring of selected hazardous tests/operations using
the safety provisions of approved procedures and Hughes
standard practices as checklists to ensure compliance
with established safety criteria.
4) Assistance in the development of a safety briefing that
will be presented by the test conductor prior to the
start of each hazardous test/operation. The briefing
will consist of the hazards associated with the
operation, required hazard controls and emergency
back-out procedures to follow in the case of an
accident.
Hazardous procedures that will be used at the launch site require the
approval of the System Safety Engineer and Launch Site Safety
Organization (depending on launch vehicle) prior to implementation.
Deviations from approved safety controls during procedures will require
reassessment of the test/operation procedure and signature approval by
the System Safety Engineer or his designee prior to implementation.
7.15 TRAINING
System Safety will interface with SHEA , HSC technical organizations,
and Systems Operations to ensure that adequate safety training is
developed and implemented for factory, payload processing facility and
launch site hazardous operations. Systems Operations maintains employee
training records and certifications for all required training.
Safety training for factory operations is the responsibility of Hughes
Systems Operations and Safety Health and Environmental Affairs (SHEA).
Safety training required by the Launch Site Safety Organization will be
coordinated through the Launch Services Subcontractor. For launch sites
where safety administration is insufficient or nonexistent, the Hughes
prepared Facility and Operational Safety Program (FOSP) has been
developed to provide safety training and awareness for operational
personnel and supervisors. FOSP training encompasses the following:
1) Hazards related to spacecraft launch site processing
facilities and operations.
2) Hazard controls, operational constraints and protective
equipment necessary to mitigate spacecraft facility and
operational hazards.
3) Emergency and contingency procedures that may be
required during spacecraft processing operations.
7.16 AUDIT PROGRAM
System safety audits will be accomplished consistent with Hughes command
media and any program unique requirements.
System safety engineering and management have the responsibility for
performing periodic system safety functional audits on programs and
subcontractor program areas to measure the thoroughness and
effectiveness of system safety program implementation. Specific program
reviews along with safety technical interchange meetings, also
contribute to this process.
System Safety will assess the progress and accomplishment of planned
system safety tasks against the SSPP by means of informal audits. These
informal audits will include subcontractor safety efforts in addition to
the internal safety tasks. The results of these audits will be reported
to program and line management to alert them of safety program
developments that may require decisions with respect to changes in plans
or schedules. These informal audits can occur through the implementation
of the concurrent engineering process including the integrated product
development (IPD) activities.
7-6
<PAGE> 260
Exhibit D Acceptance Test Plan 25 August 2000 - Amendment 7
Satellite Contract Contract Number: ICOO/95-1002/NR
CONTRACT NUMBER ICOO/95-1002/NR
EXHIBIT D
ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN
24 AUGUST 2000
<PAGE> 261
TABLE OF CONTENTS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
----
<S> <C> <C>
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1-2
1.1 PLAN SCOPE.............................................................................. 1-2
1.2 INTEGRATED TEST PLAN FLOW............................................................... 1-2
2. DEVELOPMENT TEST PROGRAM........................................................................ 2-2
2.1 PAYLOAD DEVELOPMENT TEST PROGRAM........................................................ 2-2
2.2 BUS DEVELOPMENT TEST PROGRAM............................................................ 2-3
2.2.1 ACS Development Hardware Interface Test......................................... 2-3
2.2.2 Software Test................................................................... 2-4
2.2.3 Methodology and Approach........................................................ 2-4
2.2.4 Software Requirements Definition and Analysis................................... 2-5
2.2.5 Software Preliminary Design..................................................... 2-5
2.2.6 Software Detailed Design........................................................ 2-6
2.2.7 Coding and Unit Testing......................................................... 2-6
2.2.8 CSU Integration and Test........................................................ 2-6
2.2.9 Design Verification Test........................................................ 2-6
2.2.10 Formal Qualification Test....................................................... 2-6
3. UNIT LEVEL PROTOFLIGHT AND ACCEPTANCE TESTING................................................... 3-2
3.1 UNIT PROTOFLIGHT TESTING REQUIREMENTS................................................... 3-2
3.2 UNIT ACCEPTANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS.................................................... 3-3
3.3 TEST PHASES............................................................................. 3-3
3.3.1 Initial (Reference) Unit Performance Test (UPT 1)............................... 3-3
3.3.2 Vibrational Stress Test......................................................... 3-3
3.3.3 Second (Post vibration) Unit Performance Test (UPT 2)........................... 3-4
3.3.4 Rapid Depressurization Tests.................................................... 3-4
3.3.5 Thermal-vacuum/Thermal Cycling Tests............................................ 3-4
3.3.6 Final Unit Performance Test (UPT 3)............................................. 3-4
3.4 TESTS................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.1 Mechanisms...................................................................... 3-5
3.4.2 Electrical Power Subsystem Units................................................ 3-6
3.4.3 Attitude Control Subsystem Units................................................ 3-13
3.4.4 Propulsion Subsystem Units...................................................... 3-19
3.4.5 Digital T&C Units............................................................... 3-24
3.4.6 Telemetry and Command Subsystem RF Units........................................ 3-27
3.4.7 Communications Subsystem Units.................................................. 3-29
3.4.8 Digital Processor............................................................... 3-44
</TABLE>
Page i
<PAGE> 262
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
----
<S> <C> <C>
4. SUBSYSTEM AND SYSTEM LEVEL PROTOFLIGHT AND ACCEPTANCE TESTING................................... 4-2
4.1 SUBSYSTEM AND SYSTEM PROTOFLIGHT TESTING REQUIREMENTS................................... 4-2
4.2 SUBSYSTEM AND SYSTEM CLASSICAL AND FUNCTIONAL ACCEPTANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS........... 4-3
4.3 TEST PHASES............................................................................. 4-4
4.3.1 Subsystem Testing............................................................... 4-4
4.3.2 System Testing.................................................................. 4-5
4.4 TESTS................................................................................... 4-8
4.4.1 Mechanisms...................................................................... 4-8
4.4.2 Electrical Power Subsystem...................................................... 4-11
4.4.3 Attitude Control Subsystem...................................................... 4-14
4.4.4 Propulsion Subsystem............................................................ 4-17
4.4.5 T&C Subsystem Digital Equipment................................................. 4-19
4.4.6 T&C Subsystem RF Equipment...................................................... 4-21
4.4.7 Forward Payload Panel........................................................... 4-23
4.4.8 Transmit Antenna/SSPA Panel..................................................... 4-24
4.4.9 Return Payload Panel............................................................ 4-25
4.4.10 Transmit Passive Antenna........................................................ 4-26
4.4.11 Receive Passive Antenna......................................................... 4-27
4.4.12 Receive Antenna/LNA Panel....................................................... 4-28
4.4.13 Intermediate Panel.............................................................. 4-29
4.4.14 Communications Subsystem........................................................ 4-30
5. IN-ORBIT TESTING................................................................................ 5-2
5.1 OVERVIEW................................................................................ 5-2
5.2 TESTS................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.1 Electrical Power Subsystem...................................................... 5-3
5.2.2 Attitude Control Subsystem...................................................... 5-3
5.2.3 Communications Subsystem........................................................ 5-4
5.2.4 Telemetry and Command Subsystem................................................. 5-6
5.2.5 RF Telemetry and Command Subsystem.............................................. 5-6
6. TROPO TEST PROGRAM................................................................................ 6-1
6.1 Plan Scope and Test Program Philosophy.................................................. 6-1
6.2 Payload Development Test Program........................................................ 6-1
6.3 Tropo Unit Protoflight Testing Requirements............................................. 6-5
6.4 Tropo Unit Acceptance Testing Requirements.............................................. 6-5
6.5 Tropo Modification Return and Receive Panel Test Plan................................... 6-5
6.6 Tropo Modification System Level Test Plan............................................... 6-5
</TABLE>
Page ii
<PAGE> 263
LIST OF FIGURES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
----
<S> <C> <C>
2-1 EM Payload Integration and Verification Plan............................................ 2-8
2-3 Transmit EM Antenna Integration and Test................................................ 2-10
2-4 Receive EM Antenna Integration and Test................................................. 2-11
2-5 Digital Processor EM Unit Test Flow..................................................... 2-12
2-6 Hughes Software Development Process Overview............................................ 2-13
4-1 Bus Module Protoflight and Acceptance Integration and Test Flow......................... 2-31
4-2 Forward Transponder Panel Protoflight and Acceptance Flow............................... 4-32
4-3 Return Transponder Panel Protoflight and Acceptance Integration and Test Flow........... 4-33
4-4 SSPA Panel Protoflight and Acceptance Integration and Test Flow......................... 4-34
4-5 Transmit Antenna Module Protoflight and Acceptance Assembly and Test Flow............... 4-35
4-6 Receive Antenna Module Protoflight and Acceptance Assembly and Test Flow................ 4-37
4-7 System Test Flow (F1, F2)............................................................... 4-39
4-8 Functional Acceptance Test Flow (F3 - F12).............................................. 4-38
6-1 Return and Receive Panel test Flows Prior To Tropo To Tropo Mod Retrofit................ 6-6
6-2 Tropo System Level Test Flow............................................................ 6-7
</TABLE>
LIST OF TABLES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PAGE
----
<S> <C> <C>
1-1 Test Phase Description and Test Objectives for ICO Integrated Test Plan................. 1-4
2-1 Engineering Model Hardware Complement................................................... 2-14
2-2 EM Baseline Test Program*............................................................... 2-15
3-1 Cumulative Number of Unit Thermal Cycles at Ambient Pressure............................ 3-47
3-2 Cumulative Number of Unit Thermal Cycles at Vacuum Pressure............................. 3-48
3-3 Total Number of Unit Thermal Cycles for Ambient and Vacuum Pressure..................... 3-50
6-1 Tropo Engineering Model Hardware Complement............................................. 6-3
6-2 Tropo Engineering Model Payload Tests................................................... 6-4
</TABLE>
Page iii
<PAGE> 264
CONTRACT NUMBER ICOO/95-1002/NR
EXHIBIT E
GCE IMPLEMENTATION
AND TEST PLAN
3 OCTOBER 1995
I-CO GLOBAL HUGHES SPACE AND
COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS
(OPERATIONS) LIMITED INTERNATIONAL, INC.
----------------------------- -------------------------------
Olof Lundberg Donald L. Cromer
Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE> 265
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF Contents
1. OVERVIEW 1
1.1 Scope 1
1.2 Purpose 1
1.3 Testing Philosophy 1
1.3.1 Test Director 1
2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS 3
3. TEST PROCESS 4
3.1 Test Readiness Reviews 4
3.2 Test Procedures 4
3.3 Post Test Data Review 5
3.4 Test Reports 5
3.5 Test Anomalies 5
3.6 Quality Assurance 5
4. REQUIREMENTS FLOWDOWN 7
4.1 Verification Methods 7
4.2 Integration & Test Flow 7
4.2.1 Burn-in Tests 7
4.2.2 Subsystem 8
4.2.3 Subsystem Sell-Off 9
4.2.4 System Integration and Checkout 9
4.2.5 Fat Test Readiness Review 9
4.2.6 FAT 9
4.2.7 Preshipment Review (PSR) 10
4.2.8 Pack and Ship 10
4.2.9 Site Installation 10
4.2.10 SAT Readiness Review 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i
<PAGE> 266
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.2.11 SAT 11
4.2.12 Final Review 11
4.2.13 Subsystem Test Notebooks/Informal Test Procedures 11
4.2.14 System Test Notebook 11
5. TEST IDENTIFICATION 13
5.1 UNIT TESTS 13
5.2 SUBSYSTEM TESTS 14
5.2.1 AC Power Test 14
5.2.2 Baseband and Subsystem Test 14
5.2.2.1 Telemetry Test 14
5.2.2.2 Command Test 14
5.2.2.3 T&C IF Ranging Calibration Test 14
5.2.2.4 Patch Panels Test 15
5.2.2.5 IF Matrix Switching Test 15
5.2.2.6 Baseband to satellite T&C Subsystem Compatibility test 15
5.2.3 RF Subsystem 15
5.2.4 Antenna Subsystem 15
5.2.5 Computer Subsystem Tests 15
5.2.5.1 On-line Software Tests 16
5.2.5.2 Status and Control Software 16
5.2.5.3 Off-line Software Tests 16
5.2.5.3.1 Orbital Analysis Software Test 16
5.2.5.4 Spacecraft Health & Performance Analysis Software Test 17
5.2.6 Inter-site Data Communications Interface (DCI) 17
5.2.7 Dynamic Satellite Simulator (DSS) Test 17
5.2.8 IOT Subsystem Test 17
5.3 FACTORY ACCEPTANCE TEST (FAT) 18
5.3.1 FAT System Configuration 18
5.3.2 Computer Checkout 18
5.3.3 Telemetry Processing 18
5.3.3.1 PCM Data Test. 19
5.3.3.2 Data Archiving 19
5.3.4 Transmission of Satellite Commands. 19
5.3.4.1 Hazardous Satellite Commanding 19
ii
<PAGE> 267
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
TABLE OF Contents
<S> <C>
5.3.5 Ranging 20
5.3.5.1 T&C IF Range Calibration Test 20
5.3.6 Computer Subsystem and Software 20
5.3.6.1 Computer to Timing Interface Test 20
5.3.6.2 On-line software Tests 20
5.3.6.3 Off-line software Tests 20
5.3.6.4 Status and Control Software Tests 20
5.3.7 Inter-Site Data Communications Interface (DCI) 19
5.3.7.1 SCC & BCC Communications to SAN TT&C sites 19
5.3.8 IOT subsystem test 19
5.3.9 Ground TT&C Equipment system loading and stress test. 19
5.4 SITE ACCEPTANCE TEST 20
5.4.1 Site Integration and Checkout 20
5.4.1.1 SAT System Configuration 20
5.4.1.2 Computer Checkout 20
5.4.1.3 Telemetry Processing 20
5.4.1.3.1 PCM Data Test. 20
5.4.1.3.2 Data Archiving 21
5.4.1.4 Transmission of Satellite Commands. 21
5.4.1.4.1 Hazardous Satellite Commanding 21
5.4.1.5 Ranging 21
5.4.1.5.1 T&C IF Range Calibration Test 21
5.4.1.6 Antenna Monitoring 22
5.4.1.7 Computer Subsystem and Software 22
5.4.1.7.1 Computer to Timing Interface Test 22
5.4.1.7.2 On-line software Tests 22
5.4.1.7.3 Off-line software Tests 22
5.4.1.7.4 Status and Control Software Tests 22
5.4.1.8 Inter-Site Data Communications Interface (DCI) 23
5.4.1.8.1 SCC & BCC Communications to SAN TT&C sites 23
5.4.1.9 Dynamic Satellite Simulator (DSS) 23
5.4.1.10 IOT Subsystem Test 23
5.4.2 Overall System Performance Demonstration 23
5.5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE REVIEW 23
5.6 SATELLITE TO SCC COMPATIBILITY TEST 23
ACRONYMS APPENDIX A
</TABLE>
________________________________________________________________________________
iii
<PAGE> 268
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. OVERVIEW
1.1 SCOPE
This document defines the implementation and test (I&T) plan that will be
utilized to verify the INMARSAT-P ground system equipment compliance with
the specifications of the contract. It identifies the verification methods
that shall be conducted in each phase of testing: unit testing, subsystem
testing, factory acceptance test (FAT), and site acceptance test (SAT).
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this I&T plan is to provide a process for the coordinated
and systematic verification of the requirements as recorded in the
INMARSAT-P GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION. This plan documents the
steps required to develop, integrate, install and test the INMARSAT-P
Ground equipment and software from the design baselines through final
installation and acceptance testing.
1.3 TESTING PHILOSOPHY
A progressive test philosophy shall be implemented to verify performance
specifications early in the integration process, without repeated testing.
For example, unit testing of the telemetry and command units will validate
the majority of baseband performance specifications, which will not be
retested as the system is integrated. Rather, at each subsequent level of
integration, new interfaces will be tested as will end-to-end
functionality. This test plan approach is intended to provide confidence in
system operability without unnecessary repeat testing.
The test program shall be directed by the program manager, and tests shall
be conducted, to the extent appropriate, by subsystem vendors or Hughes
responsible engineering activities (REAs). Formal tests may be witnessed by
I-CO representatives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
<PAGE> 269
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
1.3.1 TEST DIRECTOR
A designated Test Director (TD) is responsible for coordinating all
integration activities. The TD's specific responsibilities include:
- Tracking each integration checkout activity
- Ensuring successful completion of each activity
- Tracking Problem Report Forms (PRFs)
- Maintaining a system notebook
- Prioritizing activities
- Reporting daily (or as required) status
- Chairing the Test Readiness Review (TRR)
2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
TITLE
1. INMARSAT-P Ground Control Equipment Specification
2. On-line Software Test Procedures
3. Off-line Software Test Procedures
4. Status & Control Software Test Procedure
5. Factory Acceptance Test Procedure
6. Site Acceptance Test Procedure
7. DSS Test Plan
8. DSS Test Procedures
9. DSS System Requirements Document
10. T&C Simulator Users Guide
11. INMARSAT-P GCE Product Assurance Plan
12. INMARSAT-P Ground to Satellite ICD.
13. Verification Cross Reference Index (VCRI)
2
<PAGE> 270
GCE Implementation and Test Plan
Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
3. TEST PROCESS
The formal test program is conducted in the two phases: factory
acceptance test (FAT), and site acceptance test (SAT). Additionally,
unit, vendor, and subsystem tests are conducted on an informal basis
to standard test procedures.
The following steps illustrate the test process whether formal (SAT,
FAT) or informal subsystem level.
1. Test Readiness Review (TRR) - Verify that all necessary
preparation has been accomplished.
2. Test Execution - Test procedures are executed - problem report
forms (PRFs) and software discrepancy reports (SDRs) are generated.
3. Post Test Review - Results are reviewed, problem report forms
(PRFs) and software discrepancy reports (SDRs) are reviewed.
4. Action Item Closure - Any open PRFs and SDRs are worked off.
3.1 Test Readiness Reviews
Internal informal I&T reviews shall be conducted by REAs prior to
starting subsystem tests. The program manager or his designee, shall
conduct a formal review to verify that all the testing requirements
(for FAT and SAT) are addressed prior to the test start. I-CO shall be
notified at least 5 business days in advance of formal review. Test
approval will be granted only after review of the following items:
1. Compliance with the test program requirements
2. Configuration status of test and handling procedures
3. Calibration validity of test equipment
4. Configuration of test software
5. Configuration of hardware
6. Availability of test facilities
3
<PAGE> 271
GCE Implementation and Test Plan
Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Closure of action items that impact on the test
3.2 TEST PROCEDURES
FAT and SAT test procedures shall be prepared in accordance with the
verification cross reference index (VCRI) and submitted to I-CO 30
days prior to a test. These procedures will allow the authorized
personnel to perform the test in a organized, controlled manner. Test
procedures shall identify:
1. The scope of the test
2. The test sequence (step-by-step)
3. The test equipment configuration
4. Pass/fail criteria and associated measured parameter ranges
3.3 POST TEST DATA REVIEW
The project manager or Hughes subsystem REA shall conduct a post test
data review. Post test data reviews shall be scheduled at a time
mutually agreed upon between I-CO and Hughes as soon as possible after
test completion. Test results data for subsystem testing, FAT, and SAT
shall be submitted to I-CO within 30 days after test completion.
During the review, the program manager or his designee, shall assign
action items to resolve any discrepancies found in test data. Post
test data review meeting minutes and action items shall be submitted
to I-CO within five business days after the review meeting.
3.4 TEST REPORTS
Test reports shall be submitted to I-CO within 1 month of completion
of the FAT and SAT. Each test report shall comprise the applicable
test procedure, with completed test data forms, a test discrepancy
list (PRFs and SDRs), and notice of actions taken to clear test
discrepancies. Test reports shall be delivered per the statement of
work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
<PAGE> 272
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.5 TEST ANOMALIES
Informal PRFs and SDRs or other approved means such as log sheets or
action item lists will be used internally by the REA to track
anomalies at the subsystem level. Any anomaly resolutions involving
changes to the hardware configuration must be documented in the work
orders. Upon subsystem sell-off to the system level, any open
subsystem problem reports will be transferred to formal system PRFs.
Formal PRFs will be tracked as single, consecutive numbered list by
project system engineering and quality assurance personnel and will be
visible to both project management and the customer. Any issues of
concern to the customer will be recorded on a lien list. All PRFs
resulting from this list will be generated by Hughes personnel to
ensure adequate information for problem resolution and closure. Any
customer issues occurring after the final review will fall under
warranty support provisions.
3.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The HISD Product Assurance Plan listed in section 2, Applicable
Documents, shall be followed. Standard engineering processes,
practices, and procedures shall be used from design and development
through integration and test. Configuration management practices
shall be employed for control of hardware/software deliverables as
well as test equipment. All formal PRFs will be tracked on one
consecutively numbered list. Waivers and deviations are required for
all non-conformance. Minor non-conformance after final site sell-off
shall be tracked by an action item list with follow-up responsibility
to project management.
Software configuration management refers to the process of capturing
a software baseline, performing software builds (i.e. compiling
baseline versions of code, capturing databases, system logicals,
etc.), and placing the software baseline into a controlled operations
directory.
Configuration management will be performed by software quality
assurance personnel or their designee. Code changes in response to
informal problem reports would require no justification or approval
for
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
<PAGE> 273
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
implementation into the official build. Code changes in response to formal
PRFs would require the concurrence of the software system engineer and/or
test director prior to implementation into the official build.
Configuration changes will be documented in the test procedure. Changes
requiring retests will be coordinated with the software system engineer
and/or test director.
Starting with FAT, software backups will occur at least once a week (if not
daily). At a minimum, CM builds will be performed before software subsystem
tests in L.A. and/or Denver, before the FAT dry run in Denver, before FAT
in Denver, before SAT dry run and SAT at the customer's sites. Disk image
backups will be performed after the software tests in LA and/or Denver,
after FAT in Denver, and after SAT at the customer's sites. The baseline
plan includes no quality assurance personnel support on site.
4. REQUIREMENTS FLOWDOWN
The requirements of the INMARSAT-P TT&C INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIFICATION will
be translated into the Specification Flowdown and Verification Cross
Reference Index (VCRI) matrix. This matrix maps the translation of the
contract requirements to the system specification, flows down the
requirements to the subsystem level, and provides a first cut of the test
methods and phases under which each requirement shall be validated. The
VCRI will be in a constantly changing state throughout the duration of the
program. Prior to any acceptance testing the VCRI shall be updated and sent
to the customer for review. A final version of the VCRI shall be
incorporated in the Test Results package at the end of the program.
4.1 VERIFICATION METHODS
Requirements are verified by one or more of the following methods:
1. By Design: A statement of intent to comply by fulfillment of the
detailed requirements provided elsewhere.
2. Inspection: Visual checks of the completed item.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
<PAGE> 274
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Analysis: A paper proof that the requirement has been
satisfied, either by mathematical analysis or similarity to
other qualification testing.
4. Demonstration: A controlled experiment in which the function
is exercised and the qualitative characteristics are observed and
recorded.
5. Test: A controlled experiment in which the parametric
characteristics of a function are measured or otherwise
quantified.
4.2 INTEGRATION & TEST FLOW
Figure 1 indicates the flow of the I&T program, showing the
buildup from detailed unit and vendor tests through the
individual subsystem tests and on to the factory and site
acceptance tests. The locations where the various tests are
performed are also indicated. All reviews will be attended by the
appropriate responsible engineering activities (REA's), system
engineering and quality assurance.
4.2.1 BURN-IN TESTS
Hughes will not perform a formal burn-in of all delivered items.
Hughes will, in general, leave the units powered on during the
integration and testing phases at the factory to identify any
infant mortality failures. In addition, some vendors do perform a
formal burn-in test of their commercial units prior to delivery
to Hughes.
4.2.2 SUBSYSTEM
Hardware development will be controlled by work orders.
Software development will be controlled by configuration
management and process control procedures. Individual software
REAs are responsible for implementing these procedures.
Informal I&T reviews will be held prior to the beginning of
subsystem test. REAs are responsible for coordinating all
required test equipment/resources required for test.
7
<PAGE> 275
GCE Implementation and Test Plan
Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[SUBSYSTEM FLOW CHART]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 1: INTEGRATION AND TEST FLOW DIAGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
<PAGE> 276
GCE Implementation and Test Plan
Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Informal PRFs and software SDRs or other approved means such as log
sheets or action items lists will be used internally by the REA to
track anomalies. Any anomalies involving changes to the hardware
configuration must be documented in the work orders.
A software baseline will be established through configuration
management control.
Subsystem tests will use informal test notebooks and procedures. The
organization of the test notebook is described later in this section.
Test results will be recorded. Test equipment
configuration/calibration information will be recorded.
4.2.3 SUBSYSTEM SELL-OFF
Hardware/software tests results will be reviewed.
Hardware work orders/PRFs will be closed. Open issues will be
transferred to a system level work order or formal system level PRF.
Waivers/deviations will be reviewed.
Subsystem software SDRs and PRFs will be closed. Open SDRs and PRFs
will be transferred to formal system level PRFs. Waivers/deviations
will be reviewed.
Software system disk image backup will be performed.
4.2.4 SYSTEM INTEGRATION AND CHECKOUT
Hardware deliverable equipment will be recalibrated to ensure a firm
baseline for FAT.
Hardware and software subsystems will be fully integrated. A dry run
of the FAT procedure will occur.
A CM build will be performed to establish a controlled software
baseline for the beginning of the FAT.
4.2.5 FAT TEST READINESS REVIEW
A Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) will be held to determine the
exact hardware configuration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
<PAGE> 277
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Software configuration management control baselines will be reviewed.
PRFs will be reviewed.
Waivers / deviations will be reviewed.
4.2.6 FAT
The FAT procedures will be executed. The results will be recorded.
Test equipment configuration/calibration information will be recorded.
Formal PRFs will be generated to document all anomalies.
4.2.7 PRESHIPMENT REVIEW (PSR)
FAT results will be reviewed. A FAT report will be provided.
Information to be included in the test reports was provided in
section 3.4.
System level work order/PRFs will be closed. Waivers/deviations will
be reviewed. Open issues may require rework/retest prior to shipment.
A plan for closure of these open issues will be presented.
Results on updates to the PCA or software configuration management
baselines will be provided. A software disk image backup will be
performed.
Site installation plans will be reviewed.
4.2.8 PACK AND SHIP
Packing invoice/inventory of all deliverable and temporary equipment
shall be performed by planning aided by manufacturing/engineering. Any
dis-integration of equipment will be coordinated with REA.
4.2.9 SITE INSTALLATION
Hardware and software subsystems shipped from Denver will be fully
reintegrated at each of the customer's sites. Interfaces with the
customer furnished RF equipment and antennas subsystem will be
connected to the system. At the completion of the hardware integration
at each of the SAN TT&C sites, a "dry-run" of the SAT procedures will
be conducted to verify the hardware and software.
10
<PAGE> 278
GCE Implementation and Test Plan
Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
installation and the interfaces with the Data Communications Equipment
for that site.
CDRL documentation "library" will be established. The CDRLs will be
maintained by Hughes until completion of SAT. Prior to the final
review, the CDRLs will be inventoried and sold-off to I-CO.
PRFs will be utilized to document all anomalies.
A CM build will be performed to establish a controlled software
baseline for the beginning of SAT.
4.2.10 SAT READINESS REVIEW
Actions taken to close system level work orders/PRFs from FAT and
those remaining open shall be reviewed. Waivers/deviations will be
reviewed. Open issues may require rework/retest prior to SAT.
Status/updates to the physical configuration audit or software
configuration management baselines will be provided.
Configuration status of the SAT procedure shall be reviewed. Test
equipment configuration and calibration validity shall be reviewed.
4.2.11 SAT
The SAT procedures will be executed. Test results will be recorded.
Test equipment configuration/calibration information will be recorded.
Formal PRFs will be utilized to document all anomalies.
4.2.12 FINAL REVIEW
SAT results will be reviewed. A SAT report will be provided.
Any system level work orders/PRFs that are still open will be closed,
liens against system and plans to address them shall be generated.
Waivers/deviations will be reviewed.
Final results or updates to the PCA or software configuration
management baselines will be provided. A software system disk image
backup will be performed.
11
<PAGE> 279
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All CDRL documentation due at the completion of SAT will be provided.
The system VCRI will be reviewed with the customer to verify all
system requirements have been satisfied.
4.2.13 SUBSYSTEM TEST NOTEBOOKS/INFORMAL TEST PROCEDURES
Subsystem test notebooks or informal test procedures shall include:
1. Inspections / analyses
2. Demonstration / test outline
3. Test data sheets / plots
4. Test equipment configuration
5. Informal PRFs / SDRs (or action item list)
4.2.14 SYSTEM TEST NOTEBOOK
The system test notebook shall include:
1. System Specification
2. System I&T Plan
3. System Test Outline
4. System Test Procedures
5. System test log
6. PRFs
7. Customer lien list
8. Waivers or deviations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
<PAGE> 280
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. TEST IDENTIFICATION
5.1 UNIT TESTS
The Hughes-built units shall be tested at the Hughes facility in
Denver, Colorado. Standard Hughes test procedures shall be used.
Testing of units from other vendors (non-Hughes) shall be tested per
each vendor's standard practice.
Software units shall be tested at the Hughes facilities in Denver,
Colorado, or El Segundo, California. Standard Hughes test procedures
shall be used.
5.2 SUBSYSTEM TESTS
The subsystem tests shall be directed by the Hughes REA upon
conclusion of subsystem integration. The tests shall be conducted at
the Hughes facilities in Denver or El Segundo, depending upon origin
of the equipment or software. The subsystem tests shall verify that
the various subsystems are performing to specification and are ready
for systems integration.
Tests results are recorded in test notebooks. Test anomalies are
recorded on informal report forms. Material deficiencies are
recorded in the work orders.
5.2.1 AC POWER TEST
The AC power test shall verify that the proper AC voltage is being
distributed to each rack. It shall also verify the operation of the ac
power distribution panel in each rack and ensure that all AC power
strips in each rack are wired properly.
5.2.2 BASEBAND SUBSYSTEM TEST
The baseband subsystem tests shall use the telemetry and command (T&C)
simulator as a data source and shall demonstrate that the baseband
units are properly cabled and functioning. These units include the
remote telemetry & command units, IF Matrix Switch and associated
cabling. The local controller (PC) shall be used to control the remote
units for this test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
<PAGE> 281
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.2.1 TELEMETRY TEST
The telemetry test shall demonstrate that the remote telemetry
hardware performs the functions necessary to recover pulse code
modulation (PCM) using 70 MHz telemetry from the T&C simulator. The
functions required for PCM consist of receiver tuning, phase
demodulation, phase shift keyed (PSK) demodulation, bit
synchronization, and frame synchronization. This test shall be
demonstrated for on-line and backup hardware by appropriate patching.
5.2.2.2 COMMAND TEST
5.2.2.3 The command test shall demonstrate command operations of the remote
command hardware and FM modulator. The command tone output of the
command unit shall be verified using both an oscilloscope and the T&C
simulator. The FM modulator 70 MHz output modulation shall be verified
after adjusting frequency deviation in the operate mode. This test
shall be demonstrated for on-line and backup command hardware. NOTE:
The Command Encryptor/Decryptor is interfaced to the computer
subsystem and will be tested during the computer subsystem tests and
at the Factory Acceptance Test.
5.2.2.4 T&C IF RANGING CALIBRATION TEST
The 70 MHz range monitor output of the FM modulator shall be connected
to the telemetry unit input and the FM modulator shall be set to the
calibrate mode for reduced deviation. The FM modulator 70 MHz output
shall be verified for proper modulation after adjusting frequency
deviation in the calibrate mode and it shall be demonstrated that
proper phase delay measurements are made for each of the four range
tones. This test shall be demonstrated for on-line and backup
telemetry & command hardware.
5.2.2.5 PATCH PANELS TEST
The baseband subsystem patch panel test shall verify assigned signals
at the patch panels in the baseband rack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
<PAGE> 282
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.2.6 IF MATRIX SWITCHING TEST
The baseband subsystem IF Matrix switching will be tested to verify
all signal paths into the remote telemetry & command units.
5.2.2.7 BASEBAND TO SATELLITE T&C SUBSYSTEM COMPATIBILITY TEST
A test shall be conducted with a deliverable Baseband unit and the F1
satellite T&C subsystem to verify compatibility in all baseband
functions.
5.2.3 RF SUBSYSTEM
The RF subsystem equipment is all customer furnished equipment. No
subsystem testing will be conducted by Hughes.
5.2.4 ANTENNA SUBSYSTEM
The Antenna subsystem equipment is all customer furnished equipment.
No subsystem testing will be conducted by Hughes.
5.2.5 COMPUTER SUBSYSTEM TESTS
The computer subsystem integrator determines and documents the
environment/configuration and coordinates the efforts of the software
REs to install and integrate the computer software. The computer
equipment/configuration shall be as close to the final deliverable
configuration as possible. Once the computer system integrator agrees
that the software has been successfully integrated, a controlled
baseline of the computer system and software will be built/installed.
Problems encountered during subsystem testing are documented on Hughes
internal SDRs and/or PRFs. Test results will be documented in
subsystem test notebooks as defined in section 4.2.2.
5.2.5.1 ON-LINE SOFTWARE TESTS
The On-line software tests will demonstrate the ability to process
telemetry, command and ranging operator requests and data. Telemetry &
command hardware, as well as a T&C Simulator will be available to
support this testing. Functions such as telemetry history,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
<PAGE> 283
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
event logging, displays and the interpretive command language will
also be demonstrated.
5.2.5.2 STATUS AND CONTROL SOFTWARE
The status & control tests shall demonstrate the ability of the
workstation software to produce graphic control screens and
communicate with key hardware items (e.g., remote telemetry &
command units). Status & control interfaces to the customer
furnished equipment (CFE) (refer to 5.2.3 and 5.2.4) will be tested
utilizing an emulator and CFE provided test units.
5.2.5.3 OFF-LINE SOFTWARE TESTS
5.2.5.3.1 ORBITAL ANALYSIS SOFTWARE TEST
The following orbital analysis functions shall be demonstrated in
interactive and batch mode, where appropriate. Pregenerated data
files shall be used as input. All operator input shall be specified
in the test procedure. The test results shall be compared to actual
satellite data where available, otherwise they shall be compared to
previously validated output data. The following is a list of
typical functions that will be demonstrated:
- User Interface/HMI
- Database Utilities
Orbit Estimation Attitude Estimation Ephemeris Prediction
- Eclipse Prediction
- Station Keeping Maneuver Planning
- Sun and moon interference prediction
- Attitude Sensor Predictions & Calibration
5.2.5.4 SPACECRAFT HEALTH & PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SOFTWARE TEST
The analysis software tests shall demonstrate the ability to access
spacecraft history files to extract data for tabular and graphical
reports.
5.2.6 INTER-SITE DATA COMMUNICATIONS INTERFACE (DCI)
The Inter-site Data Communications Interface Subsystem test will
verify that the Hughes furnished Network interface equipment can
process each of the signal types at the appropriate data rates.
Software configurations for the equipment will be established,
verified
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
16
<PAGE> 284
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and documented. Inter-site communications tests, to include CFE
Communications equipment, will be performed on site during SAT.
5.2.7 DYNAMIC SATELLITE SIMULATOR (DSS) TEST
The DSS is tested at the subsystem level in El Segundo, California. It
has its own test plan and requirements (refer to applicable documents
in Section 2). Final acceptance and sell-off of the DSS will be
performed at the FAT and at site during the Site Acceptance test.
5.2.8 IOT SUBSYSTEM TEST
A subsystem test of the IOT system will verify proper operation and
integration of the IOT Test equipment, computers, test software and
test applications software/procedures.
5.3 FACTORY ACCEPTANCE TEST (FAT)
The Test Director (TD) is responsible for FAT execution and for
collection of test results. The system FAT shall be conducted at
Denver, and shall be witnessed by I-CO. The emphasis of FAT is to
verify successful integration of On-line software functions and the
subsystem to subsystem interfaces. The FAT shall verify, within the
constraints posed by the factory environment, that the integrated
system is performing to specifications and is ready for installation
at the site.
At the conclusion of FAT testing, the test data, PRFs and notes are
collected into a FAT test results report. The preshipment review shall
be held in conjunction with the test FAT data review. Upon successful
completion of the FAT the equipment shall be packed, shipped and
installed at the appropriate site.
5.3.1 FAT SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
The remote telemetry & command equipment, and computer On-line
software subsystem interfaces shall be established to the extent
possible in the factory environment. The Data Communications
Interfaces between the SCC and BCC computer equipment to each of the
SAN site's remote telemetry & command equipment will be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
<PAGE> 285
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
connected using direct connect test cables. T&C simulators shall be
utilized to provide a simulated spacecraft T&C interface to each of
the baseband systems. The T&C simulator receives command generator
tone outputs and decodes clear text commands. The T&C simulator also
generates and provides simulated PCM or Bi-phase modulated telemetry
inputs to the telemetry units. For more details about the T&C
simulator refer to T&C Simulator Users Guide, reference section 2
applicable documents.
5.3.2 COMPUTER CHECKOUT
The computer checkout tests shall demonstrate that the computers are
operationally ready to host the On-line software.
Each computer shall be boot loaded with the On-line software. The
operator shall log on to the control terminal and exercise the
interactive commands and display functions to demonstrate the
operational readiness of the On-line software.
A selected set of commands shall be entered to demonstrate the ability
to receive and process operator instructions. The message logger file
shall be examined to verify the ability to log operator actions. The
message logger file shall be examined at the end of the test to verify
the ability to log system activity and alarm messages.
The On-line software shall be initiated to verify the presence of
On-line software database files.
5.3.3 TELEMETRY PROCESSING
The functionality of the On-line software and the remote telemetry &
command subsystem interfaces shall be tested by supplying a simulated
spacecraft command reception and telemetry response to the baseband
subsystem. The following tests shall be performed to demonstrate
decommutation, conversion, and display of telemetry data from a given
encoder.
5.3.3.1 PCM DATA TEST.
T&C simulated PCM data received by each of the remote telemetry
units, shall be processed and displayed by the associated real time
software.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
<PAGE> 286
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
It shall be verified that the correct remote telemetry receiver/decom
module is receiving the PCM data signal and can lock to it.
Decommutation of PCM telemetry data shall be verified by observation
of minor frame count and time on the workstation display.
Conversion of raw data to engineering units shall be verified by
observation of selected parameters on the workstation display.
Limit checking of PCM telemetry data shall be verified by modifying
the alarm limits of selected parameters and observing the resulting
alarm messages.
5.3.3.2 DATA ARCHIVING
PCM data from the T&C simulator shall be received by the remote
telemetry units, processed and displayed by software. The satellite
attitude data shall be extracted from the PCM data and sent to the
satellite acquisition task to be placed in the archive queue. The
data queue display on the orbital operations workstation shall be
used to confirm the reception of archive data.
5.3.4 TRANSMISSION OF SATELLITE COMMANDS.
The commanding software functions that provide for the transmission,
verification, and execution of commands in various modes shall be
demonstrated. Both clear and encrypted modes will be tested, which
will also verify the interface to the Command Encryptor/Decryptor.
Several commands shall be transmitted to the T&C simulator, verified,
and executed. Command transmission shall be visually confirmed by the
displays on the workstation, and T&C simulator.
Additional commands shall be issued to verify the ability of the
software to update memorized LRVs.
5.3.4.1 HAZARDOUS SATELLITE COMMANDING
Hazardous commands shall be issued to demonstrate the ability of the
software to screen (i.e. inhibit) commands.
________________________________________________________________________________
19
<PAGE> 287
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3.5 RANGING
5.3.5.1 The ranging software functions which provide for calibration and
computation of range points shall be demonstrated.
5.3.5.2 T&C IF RANGE CALIBRATION TEST
The functionality of the IF T&C range calibration test has been done
at the subsystem level. The emphasis at FAT is the integration of the
real-time software. The software shall configure the baseband system
for T&C IF range calibration. As defined in subsystem testing the
deviation of the FM modulator will be reduced and the output signal
power level shall be reduced (i.e., calibration mode). The IF ranging
calibration shall be initiated and the phase counts shall be displayed
and stored.
5.3.6 COMPUTER SUBSYSTEM AND SOFTWARE
The computer subsystem and software tests shall include a test which
shall verify the consistency of essential operational databases in
each server. A concurrent test will be performed which shall verify
the operational capacity of computers under the operational conditions
such as simultaneous commanding, On-line/Off-line telemetry processing
and analysis. This test will establish a typical configuration of
system users and it will demonstrate that normal operations can be
sustained.
5.3.6.1 COMPUTER TO TIMING INTERFACE TEST
The timing test shall demonstrate the capabilities of the timing
equipment. The time code generator shall be set to the correct date
and time and proper updating of the display shall be verified. The
computers shall be commanded to read time from the time code
generator, and correct reception shall be verified.
5.3.6.2 ON-LINE SOFTWARE TESTS
The On-line software will have been tested and sold off during the
subsystem test phase. Selected On-line software functions will be
demonstrated to verify the proper installation of the software and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20
<PAGE> 288
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
associated databases. This software will be used extensively
throughout the SAT to verify the end to end functionality of the
entire system.
5.3.6.3 OFF-LINE SOFTWARE TESTS
The Off-line software will have been tested and sold off during the
subsystem test phase. Selected Off-line software functions will be
demonstrated to verify the proper installation of the software and
associated databases.
5.3.6.4 STATUS AND CONTROL SOFTWARE TESTS
The selected ground status and control software functions which
provide control and monitoring of ground station shall be
demonstrated. The following software functions shall be demonstrated:
1. Monitoring and controlling of selected equipment via TT&C computer
display screen
2. Monitoring and controlling of selected equipment via workstation
graphic displays
Each control parameter shall be set to desired states via the TT&C
control screen. The observed change in the target baseband or RF
equipment is reported. The change in the status parameter displayed on
the screen shall also be observed. For those status parameters that
cannot be altered from the computer, desired status shall be manually
induced and the resulting status display shall be observed.
NOTE: The status and control functions for the CFE are tested against
an emulator during subsystem tests. Due to the fact that this
equipment is not available during the FAT, these status and control
tests will be deferred to the SAT.
5.3.7 INTER-SITE DATA COMMUNICATIONS INTERFACE (DCI)
5.3.7.1 SCC & BCC COMMUNICATIONS TO SAN TT&C SITES
Proper operation of the inter-site Data Communications Interfaces will
be verified as part of the computer software tests. These tests
demonstrate the ability to transfer traffic between the SCC and BCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
<PAGE> 289
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sites to and from the remote telemetry & command equipment located at
each of the SAN TT&C sites. This traffic will include telemetry,
command and ranging data, along with equipment status & control.
5.3.8 IOT SUBSYSTEM TEST
The IOT Subsystem Test of the FAT will verify that the IOT hardware
and software meets the subsystem requirements and also verify proper
system performance when interfaced with the SCC computers and TT&C
software.
5.3.9 GROUND TT&C EQUIPMENT SYSTEM LOADING AND STRESS TEST.
A demonstration shall be conducted to verify that the worst case
computational load environment can be processed within the specified
margins for the complete GCE system. This will include simultaneous
control and status of the six simulated remote site RF/antennae
equipment sets, processing data from twelve simulated satellites. The
data transfer of backup data to the BCC and BCC control and status
switchover shall also be demonstrated.
5.4 SITE ACCEPTANCE TEST
The SAT shall be directed by a test conductor at the conclusion of
site installation. These tests shall be conducted at the appropriate
facilities and shall be witnessed by I-CO. The emphasis of SAT is to
verify:
1. The Hughes provided equipment was not damaged in shipment and is
properly installed.
2. Verify interfaces between the Hughes ground system equipment and
the customer provided facilities.
3. Demonstrate that the complete ground control system functions as
an integrated entity.
4. Demonstrate compatibility of the ground control system with the
INMARSAT-P spacecraft.
5. Verify the system interfaces that were not physically possible to
test during FAT (specifically the CFE RF and Antenna equipment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22
<PAGE> 290
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
5.4.1 SITE INTEGRATION AND CHECKOUT
5.4.1.1 SAT SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
All the delivered equipment and racks shall be installed in their
appropriate sites. The customer furnished equipment that was not
available at FAT, such as the RF and antenna subsystems, will be
interfaced to the system according to the system design drawings.
The network interface equipment will be connected to the customer
furnished communications lines.
5.4.1.2 COMPUTER CHECKOUT
The system computers shall be brought up with On-line software
and some high level integrity checks shall be performed to verify
that equipment damage during shipping has not occurred and that
the system computer connectivity has been re-established. The
usage of the system computers throughout the remaining SAT test
shall add additional confidence.
5.4.1.3 TELEMETRY PROCESSING
The functionality of the On-line software and the remote
telemetry & command subsystem interfaces shall be tested by
supplying a simulated spacecraft command reception and telemetry
response to each of the baseband subsystems utilizing the T&C
simulators. The following tests shall be performed to demonstrate
decommutation, conversion, and display of telemetry data from a
given encoder.
5.4.1.3.1 PCM DATA TEST
T&C simulated PCM data received by each of the remote telemetry
units shall be processed and displayed by the associated On-line
software.
It shall be verified that the correct telemetry receiver/decom
module is receiving the PCM data signal and can lock to it.
Decommutation of PCM telemetry data shall be verified by
observation of minor frame count and time on the workstation
display.
________________________________________________________________________________
23
<PAGE> 291
GCE Implementation and Test Plan
Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion of raw data to engineering units shall be verified by
observation of selected parameters on the workstation display.
Limit checking of PCM telemetry data shall be verified by
modifying the alarm limits of selected parameters and observing
the resulting alarm messages.
5.4.1.3.2 DATA ARCHIVING
PCM data from the T&C simulator shall be received by the remote
telemetry units, processed and displayed by software. The
satellite attitude data shall be extracted from the PCM data and
sent to the satellite acquisition task to be placed in the archive
queue. The data queue display on the orbital operations
workstation shall be used to confirm the reception of archive
data.
5.4.1.4 TRANSMISSION OF SATELLITE COMMANDS.
The commanding software functions that provide for the
transmission, verification, and execution of commands in various
modes shall be demonstrated. Both clear and encrypted commands
will be tested.
Several commands shall be transmitted to the T&C simulator,
verified, and executed. Command transmission shall be visually
confirmed by the displays on the workstation, and T&C simulator.
Additional commands shall be issued to verify the ability of the
software to update memorized parameters.
5.4.1.4.1 HAZARDOUS SATELLITE COMMANDING
Hazardous commands shall be issued to demonstrate the ability of
the software to screen (i.e., inhibit) commands.
5.4.1.5 RANGING
The ranging software functions which provide for calibration and
computation of range points shall be demonstrated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24
<PAGE> 292
GCE Implementation and Test Plan
Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.1.5.1 T&C IF RANGE CALIBRATION TEST
The functionality of the IF T&C range calibration test has been
done at the subsystem level. The emphasis at FAT is the integration
of the On-line software interfaces. The software shall configure
the baseband system for T&C IF range calibration. As defined in
subsystem testing the deviation of the FM modulator will be reduced
and the output signal power level shall be reduced (i.e.,
calibration mode). The IF ranging calibration shall be initiated
and the phase counts shall be displayed and stored.
5.4.1.6 ANTENNA MONITORING
The antenna control software to antenna subsystem interfaces, that
provide for monitoring of the antenna positions and status shall be
demonstrated.
5.4.1.7 COMPUTER SUBSYSTEM AND SOFTWARE
The computer subsystem and software tests shall include a test
which shall verify the consistency of essential operational
databases in each server. A concurrent test will be performed which
shall verify the operational capacity of computers under the
operational conditions such as simultaneous commanding,
On-line/Off-line telemetry processing and analysis. This test will
establish a typical configuration of system users and it will
demonstrate that normal operations can be sustained.
5.4.1.7.1 COMPUTER TO TIMING INTERFACE TEST
The timing test shall demonstrate the capabilities of the timing
equipment. The time code generator shall be set to the correct date
and time and proper updating of the display shall be verified. The
computers shall be commanded to read time from the time code
generator, and correct reception shall be verified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
<PAGE> 293
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.1.7.2 ON-LINE SOFTWARE TESTS
The On-line software will have been tested and sold off during
the subsystem test phase. Selected On-line software functions
will be demonstrated to verify the proper installation of the
software and associated databases. This software will be used
extensively throughout the SAT to verify the end to end
functionality of the entire system.
5.4.1.7.3 OFF-LINE SOFTWARE TESTS
The Off-line software will have been tested and sold off during
the subsystem test phase. Selected Off-line software functions
will be demonstrated to verify the proper installation of the
software and associated databases.
5.4.1.7.4 STATUS AND CONTROL SOFTWARE TESTS
The selected ground status and control software functions which
provide control and monitoring of ground station shall be
demonstrated. The following software functions shall be
demonstrated:
1. Monitoring and controlling of selected equipment via TT&C
computer display screen
2. Monitoring and controlling of selected equipment via
workstation graphic displays
Each control parameter shall be set to desired states via the
TT&C control screen. The observed change in the target baseband
or RF equipment is reported. The change in the status parameter
displayed on the screen shall also be observed. For those status
parameters that cannot be altered from the computer, desired
status shall be manually induced and the resulting status display
shall be observed.
These tests will include status & control of the CFE RF and
Antenna equipment.
5.4.1.8 INTER-SITE DATA COMMUNICATIONS INTERFACE (DCI)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26
<PAGE> 294
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.1.8.1 SCC & BCC COMMUNICATIONS TO SAN TT&C SITES
Proper operation of the inter-site Data Communications Interfaces
will be verified as part of the computer software tests. These
tests demonstrate the ability to transfer traffic between the SCC
and BCC sites to and from the remote telemetry & command
equipment located at each of the SAN TT&C sites. This traffic
will include telemetry, command and ranging data, along with
equipment status & control.
5.4.1.9 DYNAMIC SATELLITE SIMULATOR (DSS)
The DSS is used to simulate the detailed functioning of the
satellite and its interfaces for the SAT testing.
5.4.1.10 IOT SUBSYSTEM TEST
This will be rerun of the IOT FAT test to verify proper
installation of the IOT system in the selected SAN site and
proper performance over the communication network with the SCC.
5.4.2 OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION
This will be in essence a rerun of the System Loading and Stress
Test in Section 5.3.9 of this document. This will include
simultaneous control and status of the six remote site
RF/antennae equipment sets, processing data from twelve simulated
satellites at the remote sites. The data transfer of backup data
to the BCC and BCC control and status switchover shall also be
demonstrated.
5.5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE REVIEW
-----------------------
A final acceptance review shall be conducted at the completion
of SAT.
5.6 SATELLITE TO SCC COMPATIBILITY TEST
-----------------------------------
A Satellite to SCC compatibility test shall be conducted with the
F1 satellite (in the El Segundo factory) via a communication link
with the SCC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27
<PAGE> 295
GCE Implementation and Test Plan Exhibit E
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACRONYMS
--------
CDRL - Contract Data Requirements
CM Configuration Management
FAT Factory Acceptance Test
HISD Hughes Information Systems Division.
PCA Physical Configuration Audit
PRF Problem Report Form
SAT Site Acceptance Test
SDR Software Discrepancy Report
VCRI Verification Cross Reference Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
<PAGE> 296
CONTRACT NUMBER ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT F
GCE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION
-------------------------------------
3 OCTOBER 1995
I-CO GLOBAL HUGHES SPACE AND
COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS
(OPERATIONS) LIMITED INTERNATIONAL, INC.
----------------------- ------------------------
Olof Lundberg Donald L. Cromer
Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE> 297
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
1. SCOPE..................................................................... 1
2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS...................................................... 1
3. SYSTEM AND SEGMENT DESCRIPTION............................................ 1
3.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW 1
3.2 GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT (GCE) OVERVIEW 1
4. (INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)................................................ 6
5. ALLOCATION OF REQUIREMENTS................................................ 6
5.1 GENERAL 6
5.1.1 General Requirements......................................... 6
5.2 REMOTE TT&C EQUIPMENT 6
5.2.1 Functional Description....................................... 6
5.2.2 General...................................................... 7
5.2.3 Baseband Unit................................................ 10
5.2.4 Ground Equipment Control and Status Interface................ 11
5.2.5 Switching.................................................... 11
5.2.6 Data Processing Equipment.................................... 11
5.2.7 Communication and Multiplexing Equipment..................... 11
5.2.8 T&C Simulator................................................ 11
5.2.9 External Interface requirements.............................. 12
5.3 SATELLITE CONTROL CENTER/BACKUP CONTROL CENTER EQUIPMENT 12
5.3.1 Functional Description....................................... 12
5.3.2 Requirements................................................. 12
5.4 OFF-LINE SOFTWARE 17
5.4.1 Functional Description....................................... 17
5.4.2 Processing Requirements...................................... 18
<PAGE> 298
GCE Technical Specification
Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
<TABLE>
<S> <C> <C> <C>
5.4.3 Attitude Processing.................................................. 18
5.4.4 Orbit................................................................ 20
5.4.5 Injection............................................................ 21
5.4.6 Maneuver............................................................. 22
5.4.7 Orbit Keeping........................................................ 23
5.4.8 Propellant Budgeting................................................. 24
5.4.9 Long term Planning................................................... 24
5.4.10 Evaluation........................................................... 25
5.4.11 Planning & Scheduling................................................ 25
5.4.12 Visualization tools.................................................. 27
5.5 On-line software (Satellite Telemetry & Command) 27
5.5.1 Functional Description............................................... 27
5.5.2 General.............................................................. 27
5.5.3 Satellite Telemetry Processing....................................... 28
5.5.4 Satellite Command Processing......................................... 29
5.5.5 ON-LINE HMI (controls & displays).................................... 30
5.6 Ground System Status and Control (GSC) 32
5.6.1 Functional Description............................................... 32
5.6.2 GSC Processing Requirements.......................................... 32
5.7 Simulation 34
5.8 IOT Subsystem 34
5.8.1 Functional Description............................................... 34
5.8.2 General requirements................................................. 34
5.8.3 Test equipment....................................................... 34
5.8.4 Payload IOT requirements............................................. 35
5.9 Database 36
5.9.1 Description.......................................................... 37
5.9.2 Satellite command database........................................... 37
</TABLE>
<PAGE> 299
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
5.9.3 Satellite telemetry database:.......................37
5.9.4 Satellite database..................................37
5.9.5 Command procedures (PROCs)..........................38
5.10 QUALITY 38
5.11 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 38
5.11.1 Hardware...........................................38
5.11.2 Software...........................................38
<PAGE> 300
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
LIST OF TBD'S, TBR'S, TBS'S
---------------------------
TBR's
-----
none
<PAGE> 301
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SCOPE
This document defines the functional, performance, and design
requirements for the INMARSAT-P Ground Control Equipment (GCE) of the
INMARSAT-P mobile satellite system.
2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
2.1 Interface Requirements Specification
------------------------------------
2.2 Exhibit B Appendix 3- DSS Specifications
----------------------------------------
2.3 Exhibit G GCE Product Assurance Plan
------------------------------------
3. SYSTEM AND SEGMENT DESCRIPTION
3.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW
---------------
The INMARSAT-P mission is to provide world wide coverage for hand
held or on-vehicle cellular communication devices. The INMARSAT-P
satellite system consists of ten to twelve satellites in intermediate
circular earth orbit with a Semi Major Axis of 10,700 km which
provides an orbital period of 6 hours. There are two orbit planes
with five to six satellites per plane. The planes are inclined at 45
degrees and -45 degrees. The operational satellites are equally
spaced within the orbit plane and phased with the satellites in the
other plane to provide continuous visibility of the whole Earth.
The GCE consists of the primary Satellite Control Center (SCC), the
Backup Control Center (BCC), and Remote TT&C baseband equipment at
selected Satellite Access Node (SAN) sites. The GCE missions are:
- to support launch, deployment, and In Orbit Testing (IOT)
- to monitor and maintain the health of the satellite
- to maintain attitude, orbit, power, etc. within the needs of the
Communication payloads.
There are 12 (or more) Satellite Access Node (SAN) remote sites
containing five antennas, RF equipment and baseband equipment
1
<PAGE> 302
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
required to process the communication traffic and to control the
communication payload. Six to eight of these sites will be used for
the TT&C mission via inclusion of three dedicated baseband equipment
strings at each site. The TT&C SAN sites are connected to the SCC and
BCC via communication lines. All SAN sites are also connected to the
Network Management Center (NMC) which can control and status all the
sites. The SCC and BCC are connected via a communication network.
3.2 GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT (GCE) OVERVIEW
The purpose of the GCE is to provide hardware and software for an
integrated planning, execution, and evaluation system to interact with
the SAN sites, antenna and RF equipment, and TT&C baseband components
to accomplish C-band contacts with the INMARSAT-P satellites for
continuous monitoring. The GCE also provides simulation capabilities
for launch and training related activities. The GCE supports vehicle
state of health, data analysis, simulation for anomaly analysis and
resolution, command planning and verification and exercise and
rehearsal support.
The GCE consists of SCC, BCC, communication network between the SCC
and BCC, communication lines to the SAN sites, and the remote baseband
equipment at the SAN sites. Six of the 12 SAN sites will be used for
TT&C. The 6 SAN sites provide continuous monitoring capability for the
12 satellites. When a contact is planned, the SCC will predict which
SAN site is to be used and send pointing data. During contact, the SCC
will select the pointing data for each antenna, send command uploads,
and receive telemetry via the communication line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
<PAGE> 303
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
[12 REMOTE SAN SITES]
[GRAPHIC CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING CALL-OUTS]
Network Management Centre (NMC)
TT&C Segment
Backup Spacecraft Control Centre
Spacecraft Control Centre (SCC)
FIGURE 1 - SYSTEM OVERVIEW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
<PAGE> 304
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
TT&C SEGMENT
[GRAPHIC CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING CALL-OUT]
NETWORK MGMT. CENTER
FIGURE 2 - GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT OVERVIEW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
<PAGE> 305
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
[CHART FIGURE 3 - GCE SCC SOFTWARE]
________________________________________________________________________________
5
<PAGE> 306
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
4. (INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
5. ALLOCATION OF REQUIREMENTS
5.1 GENERAL
The contractor shall deliver TT&C Ground Control Equipment including
hardware, software, and procedures, that successfully supports
performance of the appropriate overall INMARSAT-P spacecraft control
functions. For the GCE the overriding purpose is that the
requirements contained in this specification will result in the
contractor delivering a GCE system that allows the customer to
operate the fleet of satellites over the life of the mission. This
includes:
- Injection, on-orbit acceptance, and final orbit operations
- Satellite on station O&M operations up to and including the full
12 satellite fleet
- Satellite anomaly investigation capability
- Ground equipment O&M
- Training exercises
________________________________________________________________________________
6
<PAGE> 307
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C>
5.1.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
5.1.1.1 Maximum number of satellites = twelve
5.1.1.2 Number of remote sites = six
5.1.1.3 Maximum number of antenna/site = five
5.1.1.4 All equipment provided as part of the GCE shall be able to
operate with 120v, 60Hz or 220/240v, 50Hz
5.1.1.5 The overall system shall be capable of easy expansion to seven
or eight remote sites.
5.1.1.6 The initial system shall be capable of operation with two
simultaneous DSS's.
5.1.1.7 Expansion of the design to 14 satellites shall also be possible.
5.1.1.8 The computers and baseband unit switching and patching shall
allow for a high degree of operational flexibility and
convenience.
5.1.1.9 Specifically, cables, switches and patches will be unambiguously
labeled and highlighted.
5.1.1.10 The complete system shall be provided with reasonable safeguards
to prevent unauthorized access.
5.1.1.11 Operational concept reviews shall be held during the design phase
with the goal of demonstrating adequate system automation so that
two controllers can operate the complete constellation.
5.1.1.12 Operational software shall be designed in general for easy change
and maintenance for such items as differences between S/C,
commonality between sites, and adding two more satellites to the
system.
5.1.2 During hardware and software selection, vendors shall be
evaluated and selected with due consideration for their service
and maintenance capability in all expected GCE system worldwide
geographic sites.
</TABLE>
________________________________________________________________________________
7
<PAGE> 308
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 REMOTE TT&C EQUIPMENT
5.2.1 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
The remote TT&C equipment consists primarily of baseband units,
communication and network equipment, and a front end IF switch. The
baseband units receive, demod, synch, buffer, and transfer the
telemetry data over the communications network to the SCC. Commands
are received from the SCC, buffered, the command tones are generated
and output to the IF interface. In addition, ranging tones can be
generated and output to the command IF interface and received back on
the telemetry link. The phase difference is determined and the data is
timetagged and transferred to the SCC. The IF switch can be remotely
controlled from the SCC to permit selecting the appropriate
antenna/satellite to interface to a particular baseband unit. All
three baseband units can be used simultaneously for satellite data
processing.
5.2.2 GENERAL
5.2.2.1 One TT&C Group at each TT&C site.
5.2.2.2 Three simultaneous baseband channels per TT&C group
5.2.2.3 No single point failure shall cause the loss of more than one baseband
function.
5.2.2.4 The system design shall allow manual commanding (clear mode) from the
remote sites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
<PAGE> 309
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[TT&C SITE FUNCTIONAL BLOCK DIAGRAM]
FIGURE 4 - REMOTE SITE EQUIPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
<PAGE> 310
GCE Technical Specification
Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERFACE IDENTIFICATION DIAGRAM
FIGURE 5 - REMOTE SITE INTERFACES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
<PAGE> 311
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.3 BASEBAND UNIT
5.2.3.1 Functional Description
5.2.3.2 Command Generation
5.2.3.2.1 Command buffer
5.2.3.2.2 Support Frequency Shift Key (FSK) Return to Zero (RZ) format
commanding for the I-COGC satellites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
<PAGE> 312
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.3.2.3 Frequency Modulate (FM) the baseband command tones onto a 70 Mhz
nominal IF output.
5.2.3.3 Downlink/Telemetry
5.2.3.3.1 Receive two telemetry streams at a nominal 70 Mhz IF.
5.2.3.3.2 Phase demodulate range tones and/or telemetry subcarriers.
5.2.3.3.3 Provide subcarrier demodulation for Phase Shift Key (PSK) Pulse
Code Modulation (PCM) telemetry data.
5.2.3.3.3.1 Bit synch
5.2.3.3.4 Frame synchronize, time tag, and buffer the telemetry data.
5.2.3.3.4.1 Output the telemetry frame to the communication interface.
5.2.3.4 Ranging
5.2.3.4.1 Generate Ranging tones.
5.2.3.4.2 Measure range delay to an accuracy of 15 meters random and bias.
5.2.3.4.3 Perform range calibration measurements.
5.2.3.4.4 Time stamp range value to an accuracy of +/-1 Millisecond.
5.2.3.5 CONTROL & STATUS (BASEBAND UNIT)
5.2.3.5.1 Command generator
5.2.3.5.2 Range Tone Processor
5.2.3.5.3 frame synchs
5.2.3.5.4 Baseband unit level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
<PAGE> 313
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.4 GROUND EQUIPMENT CONTROL AND STATUS INTERFACE
Note: these interfaces have been replaced with a single network interface
defined in Section 5.2.9.
5.2.5 SWITCHING
5.2.5.1 Simultaneously connect up to 3 sets of baseband equipment strings to
selected IF interfaces of six total (5 antenna plus T&C Simulator).
5.2.6 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
5.2.6.1 Provide computer resources for remote control of the Baseband
strings.
5.2.7 COMMUNICATION AND MULTIPLEXING EQUIPMENT
5.2.7.1.1 Provide a local area network for control, status, and data
(telemetry, command, and ranging) transfer to/from the baseband
units, IF switch, simulators, and remote data processing equipment.
5.2.7.1.2 Provide a local area network interface to the antenna & RF control &
status network.
5.2.8 T & C SIMULATOR
5.2.8.1 Functional description
The T&C simulator is used to verify proper functioning of the
baseband can generate a simulated PCM telemetry stream and also
process the command tones back to the digital level.
5.2.8.2 General requirements
5.2.8.2.1 Model the ICOG-C satellite telemetry and command functions as
necessary to test the baseband units.
5.2.8.3 Model the PCM telemetry
5.2.8.3.1 Convert the digital telemetry output of the computer to NRZ-L PCM IF
output.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16
<PAGE> 314
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.8.4 Command signal processing
5.2.8.4.1 Demodulate and convert the command IF input signal to a digital
command data input to the computer
5.2.8.5 Range tone processing
5.2.8.5.1 Input range tones and output the data on the phase modulated
telemetry IF output.
5.2.8.6 Telemetry and command digital processing
5.2.8.6.1 Generate a 1 or 4kbit telemetry stream with satellite ID, frame
synch patterns, and stored telemetry frames.
5.2.8.6.2 Accept clear commands, decode, and store for display
5.2.8.6.3 Accept secure commands and store for display.
5.2.8.7 Control and status
5.2.8.7.1 Permit direct operator control of telemetry data generation
including on/off, rates, frame synch patterns, and modes.
5.2.8.7.2 Display modes, telemetry data, and received commands.
5.2.9 EXTERNAL INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS
Refer to the INMARSAT-P Interface Requirements Spec for details.
5.2.9.1 SCC/BCC Communication Interface
5.2.9.1.1 Communication links with the SCC.
5.2.9.1.2 Communication links with the BCC.
5.2.9.2 Antenna and RF Equipment Interface
5.2.9.2.1 This shall be a local area network to local area network
interface.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
<PAGE> 315
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.9.3 Baseband data interface
5.2.9.3.1 Downconverted telemetry/ranging signal at a nominal IF of 70Mhz
from each antenna/RF set.
5.2.9.3.2 Modulated command/ranging signal at a nominal IF of 70 Mhz to
each antenna/RF set.
5.3 SATELLITE CONTROL CENTER/BACKUP CONTROL CENTER EQUIPMENT
5.3.1 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
The SCC/BCC Equipment includes the necessary COTS data
processing hardware and both COTS and contractor software to
support the INMARSAT Mission. In particular, this equipment will
support users of on-line, off-line and simulation software in
operational, maintenance, test, and development activities. This
equipment includes the network, network interconnect devices
(e.g., hubs and routers), intelligent workstations (user and
server platforms), peripheral devices (i.e., terminal servers and
printers), and Software (i.e., Operating Systems, Networking
Protocols, and Development Environment Support Tools).
5.3.2 REQUIREMENTS
5.3.2.1 General
5.3.2.1.1 Requirements are the same for the BCC as the SCC unless otherwise
noted.
5.3.2.2 System Availability
5.3.2.2.1 No single point failure shall prevent the capability (exclusive
of switchover time) to process 12 simultaneous satellite contacts
and control the supporting hardware.
5.3.2.2.2 It shall be possible to switchover processing (telemetry and
command) to a backup processing string in less than 5 minutes.
5.3.2.2.3 It shall be possible to warm transition the Satellite Control
Center (SCC) functionality to the BCC within 30 minutes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
<PAGE> 316
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3.2.2.4 A hot transition shall be possible in less than 10 minutes. This
transition shall be as seamless as possible.
5.3.2.2.6 In the event of an uncontrolled failure or switch-off, it shall
be possible to re-establish full operation within 30 minutes.
5.3.2.2.4 Provide the capability to transmit operational data from the SCC
to the BCC in a timely fashion in order to support the BCC's
ability to assume responsibility for on-line operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19
<PAGE> 317
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
[SCC HARDWARE CONFIGURATION GRAPHIC]
________________________________________________________________________________
20
<PAGE> 318
GCE Technical Specification
Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3.2.3 Processing Capacity
5.3.2.3.1 Provide capacity to process up to 12 live simultaneous commanding
and telemetry contacts plus a simulated (DSS) contact (with two
telemetry streams per contact).
5.3.2.3.2 Provide capacity for control and status of up to 6 remote TT&C
sites within a single computer platform.
5.3.2.3.3 Provide capacity to support launch, IOT, routine operations, backup
operations, maintenance, and training exercise activities
simultaneously.
5.3.2.3.4 At CDR, processing load on individual computer platforms shall not
exceed 50% of capacity of each processor.
5.3.2.3.5 At CDR, memory consumption on individual computer platforms shall
not exceed 50% of capacity.
5.3.2.4 Displays/HMI
5.3.2.4.1 Provide 21 interactive terminals.
5.3.2.4.2 Provide capacity to support a maximum of 20 added interactive
terminals.
5.3.2.4.3 Provide capability to capture and print workstation screen on user
request.
5.3.2.4.4 Provide capability to support printing requirements of all
operational and maintenance users.
5.3.2.5 Network Requirements
5.3.2.5.1 The network shall interface with the communication equipment
connected to the remote TT&C sites and transfer data, status and
control information between user workstations and the communication
equipment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
<PAGE> 319
GCE Technical Specification
Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3.2.5.2 The network shall interface with the communication equipment
connected to the BCC and provide remote logging capability, support
time and command data transfers, and support software and database
transfers.
5.3.2.5.3 The network shall interface with the communication equipment
connected to the NMC and provide remote logging capability, support
time and command data.
5.3.2.5.4 Overall traffic load on the internal system LAN shall be no greater
than 50% of total capacity of the system.
5.3.2.5.5 Management traffic on the internal system LAN shall be less than 5%
of the total network capacity.
5.3.2.5.6 The network shall provide a distributed time source which is
accessible via the network.
5.3.2.6 ON-LINE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
At CDR, on-line storage shall:
5.3.2.6.1 consume a maximum of 50% of total on-line storage capacity
5.3.2.6.2 accommodate a minimum of 12 full orbit satellite databases
5.3.2.6.3 accommodate storage of raw vehicle telemetry for 7 days
5.3.2.6.4 accommodate storage of processed vehicle telemetry (decommutated,
derived, and software parameters) for 7 days
5.3.2.6.5 accommodate storage of vehicle trend data for 12 years
5.3.2.6.6 accommodate storage of operational history logs for 7 days
5.3.2.6.7 accommodate storage of test and training databases.
5.3.2.7 Archival Requirements
5.3.2.7.1 Provide archival capability for all raw vehicle telemetry,
processed vehicle telemetry, vehicle telemetry trend data, and
operational log data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22
<PAGE> 320
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3.2.7.2 Provide an archival data management software capability.
5.3.2.7.3 Mass storage archival access shall be reviewed at PDR.
5.3.2.8 SYSTEM SOFTWARE (COTS)
5.3.2.8.1 Operating System shall be POSIX compliant.
5.3.2.8.2 User Interface / Window Manager
5.3.2.8.3 Network Communication
5.3.2.8.4 Compilers as necessary to maintain system.
5.3.2.8.5 Debugging tools.
5.3.2.8.6 Configuration Management Tools.
5.3.2.8.7 Database Management System (DBMS).
5.3.2.8.8 Data Archival System.
5.3.2.8.9 System and Network Management.
5.3.2.8.10 System Administration and Management Tools.
5.3.2.8.11 Network Administration and Management Tools.
5.3.2.9 INTERCOM SYSTEM
5.3.2.9.1 A multichannel intercom system with 20 stations total distributed
between the BCC/SCC and the six TT&C sites.
5.3.2.9.2 The system shall support a minimum of 6 voice nets and interface
with the local PABX.
5.3.2.9.3 Each of the 20 stations shall be provided with professional quality
headsets.
5.3.2.10 SCC/BCC Equipment External Interfaces
5.3.2.10.1 Interface to Remote Sites (refer to TT&C Segment Interface spec).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
23
<PAGE> 321
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
5.3.2.10.2 Interface to BCC (refer to Interface Requirements Spec)
5.3.2.10.3 Interface to NMC (refer to Interface Requirements Spec)
5.4 OFF-LINE SOFTWARE
5.4.1 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
The Off-line software is made up of several subfunctions. The
Attitude Processing subfunction supports the maintenance of
calibration coefficients and sensor predictions for the sun
sensors, earth sensors, hemispherical resonating gyro, and torque
mechanisms. The Orbit Processing subfunction calculates state
vectors, propagates ephemeris, and calculates orbit events. The
Injection subfunction is used to calculate optimum orbit maneuvers
to place the spacecraft on station after they have been injected
into the orbit by the launch vehicle. The Orbit Keeping subfunction
calculates orbit adjust maneuvers to maintain the spacecraft in the
circular orbit with the correct inclination and eccentricity. It
also is used to assure that the spacecraft are maintained in
correct phasing with respect to each other for optimum coverage.
The Maneuver subfunction generates maneuvers using a model of the
thrusters and thruster configuration to minimize use of fuel. It
also generates a PROC which is used by On-line to perform the
maneuver. The Planning subfunction is used for mission support. It
generates a contact plan used by On-line for automated contact and
monitoring. Also, the planning subfunction is used for predicting
propellant usage and planning for optimum life expectancy.
5.4.2 PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
5.4.2.1 General
5.4.2.1.1 All functional inputs shall be accepted from the keyboard and
mouse
The capability to obtain functional inputs from the following
services shall be provided
5.4.2.1.2 static default inputs
5.4.2.1.3 current mission defaults
________________________________________________________________________________
24
<PAGE> 322
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.2.1.4 user modification of default inputs at any time prior to
execution
5.4.2.1.5 Database definable range checking of input values at time of
input shall be provided.
5.4.2.1.6 The capability to save input profile for future use shall be
provided.
5.4.2.1.7 Foreground and background job processing.
5.4.2.1.8 The capability to abort a job anytime shall be provided.
5.4.2.1.9 The capability to concurrently process jobs for multiple
vehicles shall be provided.
5.4.2.1.10 The process shall notify the operator of processing.
5.4.2.1.11 The option shall be provided to save display results in a file.
5.4.3 ATTITUDE PROCESSING
5.4.3.1 Functional Description
The Attitude processing subfunction is responsible for
calculating and maintaining attitude calibration coefficients and
calculating predicts. The prediction process is used to generate
sensor predicts based on a sun nadir steering orbit and the
ephemeris of the sun and earth. Attitude calibration function
determines the calibration coefficients based on telemetry data
and the predicted sensor values.
5.4.3.2 Attitude Prediction/modeling
5.4.3.2.1 Three axis control shall be modeled based on a Sun/nadir AOCS
system.
5.4.3.2.2 Momentum control shall be modeled.
5.4.3.2.3 Omni antenna visibility predicts shall be modeled.
5.4.3.2.4 Sun Sensor(s) shall be modeled.
5.4.3.2.5 Earth Sensor(s) shall be modeled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25
<PAGE> 323
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.3.2.6 Solar panels and their relationship to the Sun shall be modeled.
5.4.3.2.7 Earth and sun out of view of respective sensors times shall be
calculated.
5.4.3.2.8 Sun or moon intrusion into field of view of earth sensors shall
be modeled.
5.4.3.2.9 Attitude prediction shall be accurate such that it shall be
possible to predict at all times the absolute location on the
surface of the earth of each of the payload spot beams, to an
accuracy corresponding to a halfcone angle, as seen from the
spacecraft, of less than 0.4 degrees (3 sigma) during normal mode
operations for a prediction interval of 48 hours.
5.4.3.2.10 Appropriate provisions shall be made allowing recovery from S/C
safe mode within a reasonable amount of time.
5.4.3.3 Attitude estimation/calibration
5.4.3.3.1 Calibration values shall be calculated as necessary to meet the
prediction requirement of 5.4.3.2.9 above.
5.4.3.3.2 Earth Sensor.
5.4.3.3.3 Sun sensor.
5.4.3.3.4 Hemispherical Resonating Gyro.
5.4.3.3.5 Magnetic torque.
5.4.3.4 Attitude Processing HMI requirements.
5.4.3.4.1 The user shall be permitted to select measurement data.
5.4.3.4.2 Processing shall use only data from active sensors.
5.4.3.4.3 The user shall be permitted to specify de-weighting coefficients.
5.4.3.4.4 Display initial user inputs, intermediate results, and final
results as alphanumeric displays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26
<PAGE> 324
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.4 Orbit
5.4.4.1 Functional Description
The Orbit processing subfunction is responsible for the
calculation of state vectors and the propagation of ephemeris and
events. Tracking data, range data, user inputs and orbit history
are used in the calculations. A covariance analysis capability is
provided to aid in analyzing and calibrating the process. The
orbit propagation process generates ephemeris data for each
vehicle and also calculates various user selected events during
the propagation. The events which are predicted include rise and
set times and station visibilities, crossing times for chosen
latitudes, and eclipse events.
5.4.4.2 Orbit Determination Requirements
5.4.4.2.1 The orbit state shall be calculated from any combination of real
time generated track and range data.
5.4.4.2.2 Orbit determination shall provide the accuracy necessary to meet
orbit propagation performance requirements.
5.4.4.2.3 Estimate orbit parameters.
5.4.4.2.4 Estimate drag parameters.
5.4.4.2.5 Estimate duration and instantaneous maneuver parameters.
5.4.4.2.6 Estimate out-gassing.
5.4.4.2.7 Estimate solar and microwave radiation.
5.4.4.2.8 Estimate covariance.
5.4.4.2.9 Compute station rise and set accounting for constraints and time.
5.4.4.2.10 Eclipse events shall be predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27
<PAGE> 325
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.4.3 Orbit Propagation and Event Generation.
5.4.4.3.1 The capability shall be provided to propagate the vehicle orbit
state vector forward and backward to user specified times,
accounting for maneuvers.
5.4.4.3.2 Accuracy of the propagated orbit shall meet the pointing accuracy
requirement of the ground antenna for satellite tracking and link
acquisition specified in requirement 5.6.2.2.5 of this
specification.
5.4.4.3.3 Accuracy of the propagated orbit shall meet attitude
prediction/calibration accuracy requirements as defined in
section 5.4.3 of this specification.
5.4.4.3.4 Accuracy of the propagated orbit shall meet the orbit station
keeping accuracy requirements defined in section 5.4.7 of this
specification.
5.4.4.3.5 Simulated track measurement data (range, az, el, range rate) for
user specified state vectors and sites shall be generated.
5.4.4.4 Covariance Analysis
5.4.4.4.1 Covariance analysis capability shall be provided.
5.4.4.5 Orbit Processing HMI
5.4.4.5.1 The user shall be able to edit track measurement data.
5.4.4.5.2 The user shall have the capability to input an initial state
vector for orbit determination and propagation.
5.4.4.5.3 The user shall have the capability to input start and stop times
for propagation.
5.4.4.5.4 Display propagated orbit states.
5.4.4.5.5 Display events analysis results.
5.4.4.5.6 Display track measurements data.
5.4.4.5.7 Display estimated parameters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28
<PAGE> 326
GCE Technical Specification
Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
5.4.5 INJECTION
5.4.5.1 Functional Description
The Injection process is used during pre launch activities to
design an injection sequence which minimizes the use of fuel and
places the satellite on station in the time supplied by the user.
The Injection process models the vehicle attitude during
injection and calculates events such as eclipse times, station
visibilities and sensor predicts. The user supplies an initial
guess and the process iteratively optimizes the sequence based
upon vehicle and station constraints.
5.4.5.2 Injection Processing Requirements
5.4.5.2.1 None.
5.4.6 MANEUVER
5.4.6.1 Functional Description
The Maneuver processing subfunction calculates, evaluates, and
verifies maneuver sequences. It also generates a maneuver
sequence PROC used by On-line to execute the maneuver. The
maneuvers modeled by this process include orbit delta velocity
changes, such as delta eccentricity, delta phasing, and delta
inclination changes. The vehicle thruster control system model is
used to produce a maneuver sequence which will minimize the use
of fuel. The sequence is evaluated and verified against vehicle
constraints. When the maneuver sequence is verified, a maneuver
PROC is generated for use by On-line to generate a command
sequence which is uplinked to the satellite for execution.
5.4.6.2 Maneuver Planning and Prediction
5.4.6.2.1 Maneuvers shall be planned to accomplish a user specified orbital
adjust delta velocity.
29
<PAGE> 327
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.6.2.2 The reaction control system shall be modeled including thruster
orientation, changing thruster impulse, changes to tank pressure,
tank temperatures, and propellant use from each tank.
5.4.6.2.3 A Maneuver time shall be computed to satisfy specified secondary
effects on orbital parameters.
5.4.6.2.4 The process shall check for eclipse of, or solar/lunar intruding
into the trigger references and attitude limit check sensors.
5.4.6.2.5 The orbit keeping maneuver shall be designed such that it is
possible to predict at all times the absolute location on the
surface of the earth of each of the payload spot beams to an
accuracy to a halfcone angle, as seen from the spacecraft, of less
than 0.45 degrees (3 sigma) during thruster maneuvers.
5.4.6.3 Maneuver Command Generation
5.4.6.3.1 The maneuver command inputs for the real time shall be generated.
5.4.6.4 Maneuver Processing HMI
5.4.6.4.1 For maneuver planning and maneuver prediction the user shall be
allowed to enter maneuver attitude and orbit.
5.4.6.4.1 For maneuver planning and maneuver prediction the user shall be
allowed to enter maneuver attitude and orbit.
5.4.6.4.2 For maneuver planning and maneuver prediction the user shall be
allowed to enter maneuver ignition time, maneuver midpoint, or
maneuver window.
5.4.6.4.3 For maneuver planning and maneuver prediction the user shall be
allowed to enter vehicle constraints.
5.4.6.4.4 For maneuver planning and maneuver prediction the user shall be
allowed to enter pulse widths.
5.4.6.4.5 For maneuver planning and maneuver prediction the user shall be
allowed to enter propellant system configuration.
5.4.6.4.6 For maneuver planning and maneuver prediction the user shall be
allowed to enter use of either a finite-burn or impulsive-burn
model.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30
<PAGE> 328
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.6.4.7 The user shall be allowed to enter direction of desired secondary
orbit effects or to minimize change in specified orbital
parameters.
5.4.6.4.8 The center of mass shall be displayed.
5.4.6.4.9 The maneuver delta covariance matrix shall be displayed.
5.4.6.4.10 The Inertia values shall be displayed.
5.4.6.4.11 Total vehicle mass shall be displayed.
5.4.6.4.12 Display premaneuver, postmaneuver and delta orbital elements
5.4.6.4.13 Display premaneuver, postmaneuver and delta mass properties
5.4.6.4.14 Display delta velocity.
5.4.6.4.15 Display maneuver propellant usage for a single event.
5.4.6.4.16 Display constraint violation.
5.4.7 ORBIT KEEPING
5.4.7.1 Functional Description
The Orbit Keeping subfunction generates orbit changes to keep the
vehicle within a tolerance value and phasing value with respect to
the other vehicles in the orbit plane.
5.4.7.2 Orbit Keeping Requirements
5.4.7.2.1 An orbit keeping maneuver strategy shall be generated based on
user inputs to achieve a user specified drift rate.
5.4.7.2.2 Maintain specified longitudinal limits for a maximum time span or
user specified time span of a shorter duration.
5.4.7.2.3 The process shall compute an orbit keeping maneuver strategy.
5.4.7.2.4 The process shall compute an orbit keeping maneuver strategy to
maintain inclination of 45 degrees +/-0.5 degrees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31
<PAGE> 329
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.7.2.5 The process shall compute an orbit keeping maneuver strategy which
will maintain the inclinations of spacecraft in a given plane to
within +/- 0.05 degrees of each other.
5.4.7.2.6 The process shall compute an orbit keeping maneuver strategy which
maintains the RAAN of the two orbital planes separated by 180
degrees +/- 0.5 degrees.
5.4.7.2.7 The process shall compute an orbit keeping maneuver strategy which
maintains the RAAN of the spacecraft in a given plane to within +/-
0.1 degree.
5.4.7.2.8 The process shall compute an orbit keeping maneuver strategy which
maintains the phase offset between active in-plane spacecraft to
within +/- 0.5 degrees.
5.4.7.2.9 The process shall compute an orbit keeping maneuver strategy which
maintains the phase offset between equivalent spacecraft in the two
planes to 0 degrees +/- 0.5 degrees. As a spacecraft passes through
the ascending node of one plane, the equivalent spacecraft is
passing through the ascending node of the other plane.
5.4.7.2.10 The process shall compute an orbit keeping maneuver strategy to
maintain the required altitude +/- 40 km.
5.4.7.2.11 Maneuvers shall be timed to minimize any loss of traffic-carrying
capacity.
5.4.7.3 Orbit Keeping HMI
5.4.7.3.1 The user shall have the capability to input start and stop times
for propagation and orbit keeping goals and constraints.
5.4.7.3.2 Display propagated orbit states and maneuver strategy.
5.4.7.3.3 Display analysis results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32
<PAGE> 330
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
5.4.8 PROPELLANT BUDGETING
5.4.8.1 Functional Description
5.4.8.2 Requirements
5.4.8.2.1 A capability to track fuel usage and predicted fuel usage versus
budgets for each satellite shall be provided.
5.4.9 LONG TERM PLANNING
5.4.9.1 Functional Description
Long Term Planning is used to aid the planner is developing a long
term orbit keeping strategy and in predicting the usage of
propellant over the 12 year life of the satellites. The process
uses an orbit propagator to propagate the satellite orbits over a
12 year life and predict events such as eclipses and their start
and stop times. The planner uses the results to predict when orbit
keeping maneuvers should be executed and the amount of fuel used
over the life of the satellite.
5.4.9.2 Long Term Propagation
5.4.9.2.1 Propagate vehicle orbit for a period up to 10 years incorporating
the orbit keeping plan maneuvers.
5.4.9.3 Reference Data Generation
5.4.9.3.1 Calculate delta velocity required.
5.4.9.3.2 Predict earth and lunar eclipse events.
5.4.9.3.3 Predict start and end day for each earth and lunar eclipse season
for 10 years, while accounting for orbit keeping plan.
5.4.9.3.4 Calculate maximum earth and lunar eclipse duration for each
eclipse season.
5.4.9.3.5 Calculate earth and lunar eclipse duration profile for an entire
eclipse season.
________________________________________________________________________________
33
<PAGE> 331
GCE Technical Specification
Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.10 EVALUATION
5.4.10.1 Functional Description
5.4.10.2 Evaluation Processing Requirements
5.4.10.2.1 Process stored raw and processed telemetry data created by on-line
and generate statistics data for user-specified time span and
LRVs.
5.4.10.2.2 LRV statistics include minimum value, maximum value, average
value, and standard deviation.
5.4.11 PLANNING & SCHEDULING
5.4.11.1 Functional description
The Scheduling function is a workstation based software function
that will provide automatic generation of a contact schedule for
up to 12 satellites and necessary ground resources. A contact plan
containing ground and satellite commanding and ranging activities
can be produced. This contact plan can contain text describing
required procedures for each activity.
5.4.11.2 General requirements
5.4.11.2.1 The automation level of the software shall be sufficient such that
one day shift analyst can perform the scheduling function.
5.4.11.3 Activity needs schedule
5.4.11.3.1 An "activity needs schedule" can be automatically generated based
on a modifiable set of periodic activities and manually entered
activities for each satellite.
5.4.11.4 Satellite/remote site visibility
5.4.11.4.1 A schedule of ground site/satellite visibility can be generated
automatically based on orbit states and site locations and
constraints.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34
<PAGE> 332
GCE Technical Specification
Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.11.5 Resource availability
5.4.11.5.1 Resource availability (antennas, RF, baseband units, etc) as a
function of time may be input and maintained.
5.4.11.6 Contact scheduling
5.4.11.6.1 Contact activities may be manually entered and checked for
visibility and resource availability.
5.4.11.6.2 Contact priorities may be entered as a function of satellite and/or
contact activity type.
5.4.11.6.3 Contact schedules may be automatically generated based on the
activity needs schedule, visibilities, resource availability,
priorities, and locked in contact activities.
5.4.11.6.4 Automatic scheduling shall schedule contacts with the most
restrictive resource availability first in order to ensure near
optimum resource utilization.
5.4.11.6.5 Activities may be manually "locked in" such that they will not be
moved by an automatic contact scheduling or rescheduling.
5.4.11.6.6 An automatic scheduling execution for 12 satellites and 6 sites
over 24 hours shall not take more than 120 seconds.
5.4.11.7 Contact plans
5.4.11.7.1 Contact plans may be produced by automatically and/or manually
attaching text procedures associated with the scheduled activities
to the contact schedule.
5.4.11.7.2 The activities plan(s) may be output to the on-line satellite and
ground control functions for display and execution.
5.4.11.8 Controls and Displays
5.4.11.8.1 Displays of satellites versus ground site visibilities and
scheduled contacts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35
<PAGE> 333
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.11.8.2 Displays of ground sites versus satellite visibilities and
scheduled contacts
5.4.11.8.3 Display of resource availability schedule.
5.4.11.8.4 Display of "activity needs Schedule".
5.4.11.8.5 Display of contact schedule and associated activity plans
selectable by ground site or satellite
5.4.12 VISUALIZATION TOOLS
5.4.12.1.1 A capability to provide three dimensional display of INMARSAT-P
satellites and system shall be provided at the SCC and BCC.
5.5 ON-LINE SOFTWARE (SATELLITE TELEMETRY & COMMAND)
-----------------------------------------------
5.5.1 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
The On-line software is an interconnected set of functions that
execute in near real time to process telemetry, format and output
commands and display data.
5.5.2 GENERAL
5.5.2.1 General Requirements
5.5.2.1.1 Perform concurrent contact activities for up to 12 vehicles plus
a Dynamic Satellite Simulation.
5.5.2.1.2 Support multiple operational databases per vehicle (operational
and test).
5.5.2.1.3 Recover from a ground segment anomaly or failure recognized by an
operator and restore processing to a pre-anomaly state within 5
minutes.
5.5.2.1.4 Notify operator of processing errors during execution.
5.5.2.1.5 Trap processing errors and continue processing without
interruption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36
<PAGE> 334
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5.2.1.6 Permit starting and terminating a contact at any time.
5.5.2.1.7 Complete contact initiation within one minute including restoring
execution data from previous contacts.
5.5.2.1.8 Select its processing time reference among operational site or
Operator modifiable simulation time.
5.5.2.1.9 Store and access all history files and databases without
prohibiting access to other applications.
5.5.3 SATELLITE TELEMETRY PROCESSING
5.5.3.1 Functional description
5.5.3.2 General requirements
5.5.3.2.1 Select appropriate data input streams based on the selected
satellite.
5.5.3.2.2 Process up to two telemetry streams per satellite.
5.5.3.2.3 Automatically detect and respond to telemetry format switches.
5.5.3.2.4 Automatically store telemetry processing state periodically.
5.5.3.2.5 Restore the telemetry processing end state at the start of a new
contact.
5.5.3.2.6 Provide a stored raw telemetry playback mode.
5.5.3.3 Input
5.5.3.3.1 Receive Raw telemetry from the remote processing.
5.5.3.3.2 Input raw telemetry from the raw telemetry file.
5.5.3.4 Decommutate
5.5.3.4.1 Decommutate the normal mode telemetry into raw Last Reported
Values (LRV'S).
5.5.3.4.2 Decommutate dwell mode telemetry into raw LRV's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37
<PAGE> 335
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5.3.4.3 Decommutate On-board Processor Memory readouts.
5.5.3.5 Engineering unit conversion
5.5.3.5.1 Convert discrete data values into ASCII string based LRV values
or range.
5.5.3.5.2 Convert analog and 1750a serial data into Engineering units.
5.5.3.6 Monitoring
5.5.3.6.1 Compare discrete data against static or command predict data.
5.5.3.6.2 Compare analog and serial data types to upper and lower limits.
5.5.3.6.3 Compare ram dump to ram image
5.5.3.7 Alarm generation
5.5.3.7.1 Out of limit conditions shall generate alarms if enabled.
5.5.3.7.2 Alarms messages shall contain alarm description and associated
values and time.
5.5.3.7.2 Global and selective alarm enable and disable shall be provided.
5.5.3.8 Output
5.5.3.8.1 Output processed data to mass storage
5.5.3.8.2 Output raw telemetry to mass storage
38
<PAGE> 336
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5.4 Satellite Command Processing
5.5.4.1 Functional description
The command processing function formats the details of satellite
command, passes the command to encryption processor for encryption,
and then transfers the command to the communication interface for
transmission at the remote site.
5.5.4.2 Command formatting
5.5.4.2.1 Convert the engineering unit command inputs from the HMI to the
satellite binary command structure
5.5.4.2.2 Append routing addresses as necessary based on the desired
subsystem or unit.
5.5.4.3 Command encryption
5.5.4.3.1 Encrypt the command if in secure mode.
5.5.4.4 Command Verification
5.5.4.4.1 When in VERIFY MODE, verify command received properly prior to
execution.
5.5.4.4.2 Predict telemetry response for use in limit checking (reference
5.5.3.6.1).
5.5.4.5 On-board processor command support
5.5.4.5.1 Convert ground time tags to on-board processor clock counts
5.5.4.5.2 Predict time tagged execution and generate alert messages to
operators.
5.5.4.5.3 Support RAM memory uploads and update ground ram images.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
39
<PAGE> 337
GCE Technical Specification
Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
5.5.4.6 Output
5.5.4.6.1 Direct formatted command output to appropriate comm and baseband unit
for the selected satellite.
5.5.4.7 Pseudo Telemetry prediction
5.5.4.7.1 Predict telemetry for devices that do not have telemetered data.
5.5.5 ON-LINE HMI (controls & displays)
5.5.5.1 Functional description
The On-line Human Machine Interface (HMI) provides the displays of
satellite data and messages such as alarms and notifications. In
addition the HMI processes mouse and keyboard input to select
displays and to control the processing including command generation.
5.5.5.2 General requirements
5.5.5.2.1 Alarm monitoring for up to 12 satellites simultaneously at one HMI
position.
5.5.5.2.2 Control all functions and modes of execution
5.5.5.2.3 Display and data entry shall be in SI units.
5.5.5.3 Control
5.5.5.3.1 A keyboard language for accomplishing functional tasks.
5.5.5.3.2 Current LRV values as commanded input magnitudes.
5.5.5.3.3 Database defined range checking of command input values as time of
input.
5.5.5.3.4 A scripting PROC capability to perform valid operation functions or
sets of functions.
5.5.5.3.5 Ability to edit command request sequences before sending
40
<PAGE> 338
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5.5.4 Command PROC capability provides:
5.5.5.4.1 Conditional branching based on LRV or input values
5.5.5.4.2 Acceptance of numeric, character, or LRV input values
5.5.5.4.3 Arithmetic, Boolean, and functional computation with a library
of common constants and math functions
5.5.5.4.4 Iteration
5.5.5.4.5 Non-recursive calling of other PROCs.
5.5.5.4.6 Initiation, suspension and abort of PROC processing.
5.5.5.4.7 Operator input prompts.
5.5.5.4.8 Resumption of PROC reprocessing from location within PROC.
5.5.5.4.9 Execution one step at time.
5.5.5.5 Display Capabilities.
5.5.5.5.1 Alphanumeric display of all values related to an LRV.
5.5.5.5.2 Text file display capability provides scroll left/right
continuous scroll up/down.
5.5.5.5.3 Command history display provides:
5.5.5.5.4 Operator action history display
5.5.5.5.5 Alarm History display of alarms, time tags, source, associated
values.
5.5.5.5.6 LRV history display provides time order display of converted or
raw values and time.
5.5.5.5.7 Plots of any LRV Vs time.
5.5.5.5.8 Plots of up to 8 LRVs from dwell telemetry.
5.5.5.5.9 Block diagrams with color coded status tied to current LRVs.
41
<PAGE> 339
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5.5.5.10 Display time tagged on-board processor commands including
scheduled time of execution.
5.5.5.5.11 Display "contact plans" produced by the scheduling function.
5.6 GROUND SYSTEM STATUS AND CONTROL (GSC)
5.6.1 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
The Ground Status and Control (GSC) function provides status and
control of ground station hardware, including baseband equipment,
RF equipment, antenna control equipment, communication switching
devices, and redundancy witching devices. GSC provides a
graphical user interface allowing the operator to status and
control the ground equipment. It also allows the spacecraft
real-time software processes to status and control the ground
equipment via inter-process communication.
5.6.2 GSC PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
5.6.2.1 General
5.6.2.1.1 The capability to process configuration and status requests for
up to 12 On-line processes shall be provided.
5.6.2.1.2 All errors, alarms, and messages shall be logged.
5.6.2.1.3 Up to 18 total baseband units at six Remote TT&C sites shall be
controlled and statused.
5.6.2.1.4 Up to 30 total RF equipment sets at six Remote TT&C sites shall
be controlled and statused
5.6.2.1.5 Up to 30 total Antenna Control Units (ACU's) at six remote TT&C
sites shall be controlled and statused.
5.6.2.1.6 Automatic and semi-automatic control based on the data in the
"contact plan" shall be provided.
42
<PAGE> 340
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
5.6.2.2 Equipment Control
5.6.2.2.1 Control the communication equipment to the remote sites
5.6.2.2.2 Control the baseband unit functions.
5.6.2.2.3 Control the antenna control units including selection of the
pointing data for the selected satellite.
5.6.2.2.4 Control the RF equipment at the remote sites.
5.6.2.2.5 Antenna pointing data shall be downloaded to Antenna Control
units with an accuracy of 1/2 beamwidth.
5.6.2.2.6 Select downconverter frequency based on satellite selection.
5.6.2.2.7 Control Ranging process of the baseband units and input range
data.
5.6.2.2.8 Predict status response from units for status checking.
5.6.2.3 Status
5.6.2.3.1 Status from all ground equipment shall be collected at a periodic
interval.
5.6.2.3.2 High level summary status shall be calculated for display from
the corresponding intermediate-level devices.
5.6.2.3.3 High level system device requests shall be translated into low
level hardware controls.
5.6.2.3.4 Limit checks shall be performed on status values and alarms
generated for out of limit values.
5.6.2.4 HMI
5.6.2.4.1 All inputs from the user shall be entered via the keyboard or the
mouse.
5.6.2.4.2 The user shall be able to configure and re-configure ground
equipment from the HMI
________________________________________________________________________________
43
<PAGE> 341
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.6.2.4.3 The user shall be able to input satellite versus antenna
selection.
5.6.2.4.4 Equipment diagrams shall be displayed with color coded statuses.
5.6.2.4.5 Alarms shall be displayed.
5.6.2.4.6 System diagrams shall be displayed
5.6.2.4.7 Contact plan shall be displayed.
5.6.2.5 Interfaces
5.6.2.5.1 Configuration and status requests with the On-line software.
5.6.2.5.2 Control and status interfaces with the Baseband units.
5.6.2.5.3 Control and status interfaces with the RF and antenna control
equipment.
5.6.2.5.4 Contact plan produced by the scheduling activity.
5.7 SIMULATION
(refer to the DSS requirements Appendix of Schedule 1 Part A Technical
specifications and operational requirements)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44
<PAGE> 342
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.8 IOT SUBSYSTEM
5.8.1 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
The IOT system will be used to verify that the communications and TT&C
systems function in orbit as specified by the Technical Specifications
and Operations Requirements Document. The IOT system shall be used to
verify the proper configuration and positioning of the communications
antenna coverage patterns and the key communications subsystems
parameters including gain, EIRP, pass band frequency response,
transmission gains, routing functions, transmission quality, G/T and
frequency accuracy. TT&C subsystem RF equipment operation will be
verified by measurement of such parameters as telemetry carrier
frequency, telemetry EIRP, telemetry modulation index and command
sensitivity.
5.8.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
5.8.2.1 One IOT system will be delivered and installed at a remote TT&C/SAN
site.
5.8.3 TEST EQUIPMENT
5.8.3.1 T&C performance measurements
5.8.3.1.1 Telemetry carrier frequency
5.8.3.1.2 Telemetry EIRP
5.8.3.1.3 Telemetry modulation index
5.8.3.1.4 Command sensitivity
5.8.3.1.5 Inband spurious signals
5.8.3.1.6 Out of band spurious signals
5.8.3.1.7 Antenna gain variation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45
<PAGE> 343
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.8.3.2 T&C performance verifications
5.8.3.2.1 EIRP minimums
5.8.3.2.2 Frequency stability
5.8.3.2.3 Inband spurious performance
5.8.3.2.4 Out of band spurious performance
5.8.3.2.5 Modulation index
5.8.3.2.6 Performance at minimum specified input power flux density
5.8.3.2.7 Signal rejection performance
5.8.3.2.8 Antenna gain variation is within maximums specified
5.8.3.2.9 Measurements will require post collection corrections to
compensate for range variation and doppler.
5.8.4 Payload IOT requirements
5.8.4.1 Payload performance measurements
5.8.4.1.1 Transponder Gain
5.8.4.1.2 EIRP
5.8.4.1.3 Frequency response
5.8.4.1.4 Linearity
5.8.4.1.5 Spurious signals
5.8.4.1.6 Channel to beam routing functions
5.8.4.2 Payload Performance determinations
5.8.4.2.1 Antenna pointing accuracy within 0.3 degrees.
5.8.4.2.2 Antenna beam yaw rate less than or equal 0.02 degrees/sec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46
<PAGE> 344
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
5.8.4.2.3 G/T of forward transponders
5.8.4.2.4 Beam congruence within 0.3 degree
5.8.4.2.5 Axial ratio <2 dB
5.8.4.2.6 Cell frequency reuse isolation
5.8.4.2.7 EIRP
5.8.4.2.8 G/T return transponder (multibeam)
5.8.4.2.9 Input flux density
5.8.4.2.10 Gain transfer
5.8.4.2.11 Peak to peak gain over 3 MHz, channel bandwidth and 25 KHz
5.8.4.2.12 Gain steps
5.8.4.2.13 Frequency translation accuracy and frequency stability
5.8.4.2.14 Inband spurious emission
5.8.4.2.15 Out of band emission
5.8.4.2.16 Measurements will require post collection corrections to
compensate for range variation and doppler.
5.8.4.3 Controls and displays
5.8.4.3.1 Provide Controls and displays as necessary to conduct above tests
and process results.
5.8.4.3.2 Provide data reduction, trend evaluation, and data presentation
formats (plots, etc) for easy interpretation.
5.8.4.3.2 Computer and COT's resources
5.8.4.3.3 Provide computers, mass storage, printers, and display equipment
as necessary to conduct above tests.
________________________________________________________________________________
47
<PAGE> 345
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.8.4.4 External interfaces
(refer to the INMARSAT-P GCE Interface Requirements Specification for
details of external interfaces)
5.8.4.4.1 IOT interface with a SAN will allow C band signal injection, signal
monitoring, power measurements at the transmitter.
48
<PAGE> 346
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.9 DATABASE
5.9.1 DESCRIPTION
The following set of data files represents the data required to
operate the GCE in addition to the previously specified hardware and
software. The data includes satellite command and telemetry (formats,
conversions, limits, etc), ground, orbit, attitude, maneuver, and
system information. In addition, procedures in computer executable
format (PROC's) to perform satellite and ground configuration
functions are also provided.
5.9.2 SATELLITE COMMAND DATABASE:
5.9.2.1 command constraints
5.9.2.2 command verification parameters
5.9.2.3 command authentication methods and data
5.9.2.4 command build and transmission authorization criteria
5.9.2.5 command formats
5.9.2.6 description text for each command type
5.9.3 Satellite telemetry database:
5.9.3.1 Frame synchronization data
5.9.3.2 decomm tables
5.9.3.3 measure and conversion coefficients
5.9.3.4 default values
5.9.3.5 On-board processor memory address-parameter data
5.9.3.6 On-board processor memory images
5.9.4 SATELLITE DATABASE
49
<PAGE> 347
GCE Technical Specification Exhibit F
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.9.4.1.1 mass properties
5.9.4.1.2 fuel loads
5.9.4.1.3 Thruster data
5.9.4.1.4 Sensor calibration/thermal data
5.9.4.1.5 AOCS models, gains,
5.9.5 Command procedures (PROCs)
5.9.5.1 Satellite operation and IOT
5.9.5.2 Payload Operation and IOT
5.9.5.3 Ground Operation
5.10 QUALITY
(refer to the INMARSAT-P Ground Control Equipment Product
Assurance Plan
5.11 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
5.11.1 HARDWARE
(refer to the INMARSAT-P Ground Control Equipment Product
Assurance Plan
5.11.2 SOFTWARE
(refer to the INMARSAT-P Ground Control Equipment Product
Assurance Plan
5.11.2.1 POSIX compliant code is a design goal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50
<PAGE> 348
CONTRACT NUMBER ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT G
GCE PRODUCT
ASSURANCE PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 OCTOBER 1995
I-CO GLOBAL HUGHES SPACE AND
COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS
(OPERATIONS) LIMITED INTERNATIONAL, INC.
------------------------ -----------------------
Olof Lundberg Donald L. Cromer
Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE> 349
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword...................................................................... v
1.0 BASIC PROVISIONS.......................................................... 1
1.1 Program Content....................................................... 1
1.2 Program Functions..................................................... 1
1.3 Applicable Documents.................................................. 1
1.3.1 Government Documents.................................................. 2
1.3.2 HISD Documents........................................................ 2
2.0 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT............................................... 2
2.1 Introduction............................................................ 2
2.2 Management Responsibility............................................... 3
2.2.1 Reliability Engineering........................................... 3
2.2.2 Parts, Materials, and Processes Assurance......................... 3
2.2.3 Quality Assurance................................................. 3
2.2.4 Subcontractor Product Assurance................................... 3
2.2.5 Standard Commercial Test Equipment................................ 4
2.3 Reviews................................................................. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i
<PAGE> 350
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C> <C>
2.4 Audits............................................................... 4
2.5 Documentation...................................................... 4
2.6 Major Subcontractor Controls....................................... 4
2.7 Customer Interface................................................. 5
3.0 RELIABILITY PROGRAM.................................................. 5
3.1 Basic Provisions................................................... 5
3.2 Organization and Management........................................ 5
3.3 Reliability Engineering Assessments................................ 6
3.3.1 Reliability of the Customers Equipment....................... 6
3.3.2 Analyses..................................................... 6
3.4 Problem Reporting and Corrective Action............................ 6
3.4.1 Basic Provisions............................................. 6
3.4.2 Problem Definition and Documentation......................... 6
3.4.3 Problem Analysis............................................. 7
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM............................................ 7
4.1 Basic Provisions................................................... 7
</TABLE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii
<PAGE> 351
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C> <C>
4.2 Organization and Management.......................................... 7
4.2.1 Responsibility................................................. 7
4.2.2 Program Requirements........................................... 7
4.2.3 Audits/Review.................................................. 9
4.3 Procurement Controls................................................. 9
4.3.1 Responsibility................................................. 9
4.3.2 Subcontractor/Supplier Evaluation.............................. 9
4.3.3 Procurement Document Review.................................... 10
4.3.4 Source Surveillance/Inspection................................. 10
4.3.5 Receiving Inspection and Test.................................. 10
4.4 Manufacturing Controls............................................... 10
4.4.1 Fabrication and Assembly Operations............................ 10
4.4.2 Stores Control................................................. 11
4.4.3 Process Controls............................................... 11
4.4.4 Process and Personnel Certification............................ 11
4.4.5 Workmanship Standards.......................................... 11
4.4.6 Hardware Configuration Control................................. 12
</TABLE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii
<PAGE> 352
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C> <C>
4.5 Testing and Inspection................................................ 12
4.5.1 In-process Inspection........................................... 12
4.5.2 Final Test and Inspection....................................... 13
4.5.3 Test Participation.............................................. 13
4.5.4 Site Installation and Acceptance................................ 14
4.6 Nonconforming Article and Material Control............................ 14
4.6.1 Material Review Action and Control.............................. 14
4.6.2 Nonconformance Definitions and Classifications.................. 15
4.6.3 Corrective Action............................................... 16
4.6.4 Subcontractor Material Review................................... 16
4.7 Measurement Processes and Calibration................................. 17
4.7.1 Basic System.................................................... 17
4.7.2 Calibration Controls............................................ 17
4.7.3 Subcontractor Controls.......................................... 17
4.8 Records and Traceability.............................................. 18
4.8.1 Records......................................................... 18
4.8.2 Traceability.................................................... 18
</TABLE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv
<PAGE> 353
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
4.9 Inspection and Status Control...................................... 19
4.10 Packaging, Handling, and Transportation............................ 19
5.0 SOFTWARE QUALITY ASSURANCE.............................................. 19
5.1 Introduction....................................................... 19
5.2 Organization and Resources......................................... 20
5.2.1 Organization................................................ 20
5.2.2 Personnel................................................... 20
5.2.3 Other Resources............................................. 20
5.2.4 Schedule.................................................... 20
5.3 SQA Program Procedures, Tools, and Records......................... 20
5.3.1 Procedures.................................................. 21
5.3.1.1 Software Quality Planning.......................... 21
5.3.1.2 Program Documentation.............................. 21
5.3.1.3 Software Quality System Evaluation................. 22
5.3.1.4 Software Quality Process Evaluation................ 22
5.3.1.5 Software Product Evaluations....................... 22
________________________________________________________________________________
v
<PAGE> 354
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
5.3.1.6 Corrective Action.....................................23
5.3.1.7 Management Reporting..................................24
5.3.1.8 Certification and Acceptance..........................24
5.3.1.9 Software Testing......................................25
5.3.1.10 Reviews and Audits....................................25
5.3.1.11 Non-Deliverable Software..............................26
5.3.1.12 Customer Interface....................................26
5.3.1.13 Tools.................................................26
5.4 Software Quality Records........................................26
5.5 Subcontractor/Supplier..........................................26
6.0 PARTS, MATERIALS, AND PROCESSES PROGRAM..............................27
6.1 Basic Provisions................................................27
6.2 Parts Selection and Specification...............................27
6.3 Parts and Materials Handling and Storage........................27
6.4 Subcontractor Control...........................................27
7.0 CONFIGURATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT.....................................28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi
<PAGE> 355
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C>
7.1 Basic Provisions ..................................................... 28
7.2 Management and Organization .......................................... 28
7.3 Configuration Management ............................................. 28
7.3.1 Configuration Identification .................................. 28
7.3.2 Configuration Control ......................................... 29
7.3.2.1 Engineering Change Classification ...................... 29
7.3.2.2 Requests for Deviations/Waiver ......................... 29
7.3.3 Configuration Control Board (CCB) ............................. 29
7.3.4 Configuration Status Accounting and Verification .............. 30
7.4 Data Management ...................................................... 30
7.4.1 Contract Data Requirements .................................... 30
7.4.2 Data Control .................................................. 30
7.4.3 Library ....................................................... 31
7.5 Subcontractor Configuration and Data Management ...................... 31
7.5.1 Configuration Management ...................................... 31
7.5.2 Data Management ............................................... 31
</TABLE>
________________________________________________________________________________
vii
<PAGE> 356
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
8.0 DEFINITIONS............................................................ 31
9.0 ACRONYMS............................................................... 32
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Problem Report Form.......................................... 8
Table 1. Hardware Material Review Authority........................... 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii
<PAGE> 357
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOREWORD
This document, the HITC product assurance plan, is a Hughes standard
plan tailored to meet program requirements. Under its provisions,
HITC, the Contractor, is fundamentally responsible to the Customer
for ensuring that all product assurance requirements are met. Product
Assurance and Quality Assurance requirements will flow down to the
performing organizations and major subcontractors through the program
product assurance office. The program office Product Assurance
function will actively audit and oversee HITC development activities
and major subcontractors to achieve a cohesive approach to the
program product assurance processes.
The baseline design of typical ground support equipment consists of
readily available, commercially procured equipment wherever
practical. The equipment selected will evolve from previous programs
and designs, and will be of proven quality and reliability.
Activities described in this plan, on a selected basis, such as any
design analyses, or parts and material selection, are applicable only
to HITC noble design hardware. As with the procured equipment, the
designed hardware will be of commercial quality standards. The
software selected will also evolve from previous programs and will be
modified or enhanced to meet the program-unique provisions. Design
standards and controls will be implemented and verified in accordance
with HITC directives. Specific requirements of the program will be
incorporated into existing systems and procedures to the extent
required.
Performance, product assurance screening, and acceptance criteria
will flow down via engineering specifications, work authorization
documents, and program quality requirements issued by the program
office.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix
<PAGE> 358
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
________________________________________________________________________________
1. BASIC PROVISIONS
1.1 PROGRAM CONTENT
HITC will conduct, from program inception to installation and
acceptance of the program equipment, a product assurance effort
compliant with the provisions of this plan, which will constitute
the master planning and requirements document for the product
assurance program. This program comprises hardware and software
control activities; a reliability assurance program; a parts,
material, and processes control program; and a configuration and
data management program. Responsibility within HITC's organization
for ensuring the application of these disciplines will be assigned
as prescribed by HITC' management directives.
1.2 PROGRAM FUNCTIONS
The primary functions of the HITC Product Assurance (PA) program
will be to:
1) Ensure the effective and timely implementation (consistent
with the program master phasing schedule) of the tasks
prescribed by this plan.
2) Define and implement the product assurance tasks and controls
required in the design, manufacture, code, installation, and
sell-off, and to ensure accomplishment of the mission
objectives.
3) Ensure early and prompt detection and reporting of actual or
potential deficiencies, marginal quality, and trends or
conditions that could result in unsatisfactory performance or
product quality. Ensure that prompt and effective action is
taken to correct such conditions.
4) Provide flow-down of program PA requirements to subcontractors
and suppliers. Ensure compliance through surveys,
surveillance, and source sell-off.
5) Provide regular program status reports to program management.
________________________________________________________________________________
1
<PAGE> 359
GCE Produce Assurance Plan
Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
HISD existing policy, manuals, and operating procedures and
instructions will be used to the maximum extent possible to ensure
consistent application of sound practices. Program specific
requirements will be addressed within program instructions. The
documents, listed below form a part of this Quality Assurance
Program.
1.3.1 GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
MIL-1-45208A Inspection System Requirements
MIL-STD-45662A Calibration Systems Requirements
MIL-STD-454M Workmanship Standards for Electronic
Equipment
NHB 5300.4 (3a-1) NASA Hand Book for Soldering
1.3.2 HISD DOCUMENTS
These manuals and procedures will be revised and updated as
necessary to reflect the latest processes.
Manual 605 HISD Division Instructions
Manual 614 HISD Quality Manual
SCGPS 32032 Basic Hand Soldering
SCGPS 22053 Solderless Wrapped Connections
SCGPS 22093 Hand Crimped Connection
SCGWI 1.12.04 Handling of Static Sensitive Devices
SGS OEFIs Satellite Ground Systems Operating Element
Functional Instructions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
<PAGE> 360
GCE Product Assurance Plan
Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The product assurance program prescribed by this plan will be
managed, and responsibilities for implementing its various elements
will be distributed, as described herein.
As an integral member of both the Program Management team and the
contracting organization's Product Assurance department, the
Product Assurance manager will have direct, independent, unimpeded
access to program and HISD management.
2.2 MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
The Product Assurance manager will ensure that product assurance
disciplines are effectively utilized in HITC designed hardware,
software, procured equipment, and installation activities through
implementation of management procedures.
Personnel assignments will be tailored to ensure achievement of the
program milestones and satisfactory completion of each product
assurance task. Responsibilities and interfaces with other
organization elements are described below.
2.2.1 RELIABILITY ENGINEERING
Reliability disciplines will be used in design, procurement,
manufacturing, and test activities, and an appropriate level of
analysis will be selected for each program. Reliability engineering
is a function of Systems Engineering. The systems engineer will be
responsible for reporting progress to the program office. Results
of a reliability assessment will be presented at Technical
Interchange Meetings (TIMs). A problem reporting system will be
managed by product assurance personnel.
2.2.2 PARTS, MATERIALS, AND PROCESSES ASSURANCE
HITC's product assurance and engineering personnel will be jointly
responsible for managing parts, materials, and processes. The
design engineer will bear primary responsibility for the selection,
application,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
<PAGE> 361
GCE Product Assurance Plan
Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
specification, and qualification of parts, materials, and processes.
The performing organizations will maintain records as appropriate to
document their involvement.
2.2.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The Product Assurance manager will be responsible for communicating
the quality requirements to performing organizations and for ensuring
their compliance. Performing organizations will implement the quality
assurance requirements of this plan using appropriate quality
practices, instructions, and procedures.
2.2.4 SUBCONTRACTOR PRODUCT ASSURANCE
The Product Assurance manager will review subcontractor procurement
specifications and statements of work for communication of appropriate
requirements. Subcontractor evaluation and approval will be performed
as a coordinated effort among Product Assurance, Systems Engineering,
and the Materiel departments.
2.2.5 STANDARD COMMERCIAL TEST EQUIPMENT
Standard commercial test equipment procured for integration with
Contractor-designed hardware for the program will be subject to count
and damage acceptance inspection. Functional acceptance will be
performed as required by routing it through our local calibration
laboratory.
2.3 REVIEWS
The Product Assurance manager will provide periodic product assurance
program reviews to assess program progress and status. The Customer
will be invited to participate in these reviews.
Minutes including action items will be published within 5 working days
of the review. Minutes will be furnished to all attendees and to the
Customer Product Assurance (PA) representative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
<PAGE> 362
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
2.4 AUDITS
------
Systematic audits of systems, procedures, and operations designed to
implement HITC practices and program requirements will be conducted
in accordance with HITC's existing directives. Program office
product assurance personnel will ensure that product assurance
requirements are being met by regularly reviewing and auditing
hardware, software, and its associated documentation. The results
of audits will be reported to associated program management,
together with recommendations for correction of noted deficiencies.
Management action will be taken, and follow-up reviews held, to
ensure that adequate corrections are implemented.
2.5 DOCUMENTATION
-------------
Product assurance documentation generated under the contract will
be identified as being program unique and will be maintained and
retrievable from the local data bank.
2.6 MAJOR SUBCONTRACTOR CONTROLS
----------------------------
Major subcontractors will be required to maintain a well-defined
program of product assurance controls during the design,
development, procurement, fabrication, inspection, testing,
handling, storage, and shipment of deliverable hardware. Major
subcontractors will be required to implement program plans
consistent with the basic requirements of this plan. Requirements
appropriate to the items being procured will be defined jointly by
the product assurance manager and the responsible engineer.
Documentation requirements will be controlled by specific
subcontractor data requirements lists (SDRLS).
Surveillance of subcontractor operations will be performed to
identify potential problems for resolution and the status of those
problems will be given to the program office. Survey results will
be evaluated and, where appropriate, utilized during follow-up
audits of the subcontractor to ensure proper action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
<PAGE> 363
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
2.7 CUSTOMER INTERFACE
Customer product assurance representatives will have access to
evaluate those facilities, operations and activities which implement
Inmarsat P requirements for hardware and software. Access will include
program related documentation. The Customer will receive timely
notification of progress review and coordination meetings and will be
invited to attend.
3. RELIABILITY PROGRAM
3.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
HITC will conduct a program of reliability assurance activities for
contractor-designed hardware to ensure that the reliability
requirements of the technical specification are met during all phases
of the program. The activity during the design and development process
will consist primarily of determining hardware reliability,
maintainability, life-time characteristics, and of participating in
design reviews. Emphasis during the hardware manufacturing and test
phases will be primarily directed towards managing the failure
reporting, analysis, and corrective action systems.
COTS hardware reliability, maintainability, life-time characteristics
will provided by the manufacturer, if available.
3.2 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Systems Engineering personnel assigned to the program will be
responsible for ensuring that reliability disciplines are effectively
utilized in the design, manufacturing, and test activities. Completion
of reliability assessment tasks and associated documentation will be a
joint responsibility of Systems Engineering and the responsible Design
Engineer. Systems Engineering will perform subsystem and system level
analyses.
Systems Engineering will maintain cognizance of the status of the
reliability assessment program by direct coordination and/or by
requiring meetings at which the reliability program status is
presented.
________________________________________________________________________________
6
<PAGE> 364
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
Results of the reliability assessment of MTTR and availability will be
presented at design reviews.
3.3 RELIABILITY ENGINEERING ASSESSMENTS
3.3.1 RELIABILITY OF THE CUSTOMER'S EQUIPMENT
The reliability assessment of designs will be based on existing
documentation to the greatest extent possible to preclude duplication
of analyses and reporting. These existing analyses will be reviewed by
the assigned Systems Engineering personnel to verify that the
environment and electrical stress conditions cited are valid for the
program. These reliability assessment data will be summarized at the
appropriate Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM).
3.3.2 ANALYSES
The analyses will constitute evidence of compliance with the
requirements and will establish criteria for the selection of
components and redundancy. The mathematical method used will be
presented in sufficient detail to make the analysis techniques clear.
Predictions will be performed as part of the design process to provide
assurance that the program will meet its availability success
criteria. Predictions will employ the manufacturer's predictions for
commercial equipment or parts count methods, based on the mathematical
model of the equipment under consideration and derived from the
success criteria, failure mode evaluation, and mean time to
repair/replace (MTTR) data.
Analyses will ensure balanced availability of the system's elements
consistent with the objectives. The predictions will be based upon
similar equipment reliability, complexity, operational and functional
considerations, parts count data, and MTTR.
3.4 PROBLEM REPORTING AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
3.4.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
A formal, controlled problem reporting, analysis, and corrective
action system will be implemented. This system will be designed to
maximize product reliability and quality through effective analysis
and feedback of problems during the formal testing of subsystems and
system test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
<PAGE> 365
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Assurance has the overall responsibility for implementing the
corrective action system.
3.4.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND DOCUMENTATION
A problem is defined as the occurrence of anomalous performance
resulting from any condition causing the article under test to deviate
from the performance specified as acceptable by the system
specification and the applicable test procedure. Problems will be
documented on a Problem Report Form (PRF), such as that presented in
Figure 1.
3.4.3 PROBLEM ANALYSIS
Problem analysis considers physical conditions prior to failure,
sequence of the test being performed, and symptoms at the time of
occurrence. Evaluation of each problem will be documented in detail by
the responsible engineer on the Problem Report Form.
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
4.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
HITC will conduct a comprehensive program of quality assurance
activities that ensure that quality is built into the product. The
quality assurance function will establish and ensure the proper use of
systems that facilitate the close teamwork between engineering,
manufacturing, material, and quality assurance personnel that is
necessary to implement the quality assurance program successfully.
4.2 Organization and Management
4.2.1 RESPONSIBILITY
The quality assurance effort will be administered in accordance with
HITC's requirements early in the contract phase. These activities
include issuance of necessary directives, instructions, procedures,
and specifications to properly implement program requirements into
the internal organization and extending into supplier and major
subcontractor organizations.
8
<PAGE> 366
GCE Product Assurance Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2.2 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
HITC's Quality Assurance organization will have the responsibility for
ensuring conformance to program specifications and requirements.
Quality Assurance will:
1. Assure implementation of program quality requirements throughout
contractual performance at HITC and its subcontractors.
2. Perform supplier surveys, procurement document review, and source
surveillance and inspection as required to ensure conformance to
specified requirements.
3. Perform receiving inspection and test incoming supplies as
required.
9
<PAGE> 367
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
LAST MODIFICATION / / PRF NO.
________________________________________________________________________________
PROBLEM REPORT FORM
________________________________________________________________________________
TITLE __________________________________________________________________________
PRIORITY ( ) __________________________ STATUS ( ) __________________________
PROJECT _______________________________ CLASSIFIED ___________ YES __________ NO
DATE OCCURRED ___________________ TIME _________________ REPT
BY _____________________________________
IMPACT ___________ DELIVERABLE? (Y/N) _______ CHANGE CLASS __________
PHONE NO. _____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
TYPE ____
HW _____ SW ______ FW _____ DOC _______ PROC _______
TRACKING FAILED ITEM _______________________________
REV/VERSION ________________________________________
CI/COMPUTER ID _____________________________________
OS/LEVEL ___________________________________________
LOC/TAPE NO. _______________________________________
TEST PHASE _________________________________________
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
IDC ___________________________________
ECR ___________________________________
RQMT __________________________________
OTHER _________________________________
FROM __________________________________
TO ____________________________________
DISPOSITION
CEL ___________ SSEL _____________
GML ______________________________
ROOT _____________________________
OTHER ____________________________
DISPOSITION RE ___________________
HOURS ____________________________
10
<PAGE> 368
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|PROBLEM |
| |
|DESCRIPTION |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|----------------------------------- |
| |
|ACTION |
| |
|REQUIRED |
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|----------------------------------- |
| |
|HISTORY |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|----------------------------------- |
| |
|FINAL |
| |
|DISPOSITION |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
|----------------------------------- |
| |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|DUE DATE CPC/UNIT MODULE/SUBSYSTEM |
| |
|----------------- ----------------- ------------------------- |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|VERSION FIXED CMO APPROVED Q.A. APPROVED |
| |
|----------------- ----------------- ------------------------- |
| |
|CLOSED BY DATE CLOSED FINAL APPROVAL |
| |
|----------------- ----------------- ------------------------- |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
FIGURE 1. PROBLEM REPORT FORM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
<PAGE> 369
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
4. Perform in-process, assembly, and final inspection.
5. Control non-conforming supplies.
6. Assure calibration of all measuring and test equipment used for
deliverable hardware acceptance.
7. Provide surveillance, as necessary, for the testing of
deliverables.
8. Supply Engineering with quality data through the Vendor
Information System (VIS).
9. Maintain records of and identify trends in incoming inspection.
10. Support consent-to-ship meetings as required.
11. Ensure that only calibrated test equipment is being used during
testing activities.
12. Ensure that technicians are current in the special process
required to carry out their tasks sufficiently.
4.2.3 AUDITS/REVIEW
Audits of the quality procedures, inspections, tests, process
controls, and certifications for contractual conformance will be
performed during the program as part of the regular Contractor
quality systems audits. These audits are performed on both a random
and scheduled basis by Quality Assurance. Program audit results will
be reported to program management and will include required
corrective action and follow-up.
4.3 PROCUREMENT CONTROLS
4.3.1 RESPONSIBILITY
Quality Assurance will assure that the adequacy and quality of
materials, articles, and services procured for the program conform
to engineering requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
<PAGE> 370
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
Purchased equipment (including computer hardware for which the
equipment manufacturer provides maintenance and repair support) will
be procured to commercial quality assurance standards.
4.3.2 SUBCONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER EVALUATION
HITC will have an established system to evaluate and document each
prospective supplier or subcontractor. A list will be maintained of
suppliers who have been approved. Approval will require review of
supplier facilities and quality management systems If subcontractors
or suppliers required on the program do not appear on the approved
supplier list, a supplier survey will be scheduled. Approval to
proceed with procurement must be approved by the product assurance
manager, until such supplier appears on the approved supplier list.
4.3.3 PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT REVIEW
Standard supplier quality requirements to be referenced on procurement
documents will be used wherever possible. Quality requirements
peculiar to the program will be included in the program directive
issued to the quality assurance personnel performing the procurement
document review.
4.3.4 SOURCE SURVEILLANCE/INSPECTION
Quality Assurance will impose source inspection or surveillance on
suppliers when the required verification for conformance can be more
effectively accomplished at the supplier's facilities. Source
surveillance is not required on procured articles.
4.3.5 RECEIVING INSPECTION AND TEST
Parts and materials will be inspected as required upon receipt to
ensure that requirements of the technical documents and purchase
orders are met. The amount of inspection or test will be determined by
the type of product, its end use, the amount of source inspection and
supplier history. Results of inspections and tests will be recorded on
quality records.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
<PAGE> 371
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
Non conforming items detected during receiving inspection and test
will be segregated and submitted for material review action.
4.4 MANUFACTURING CONTROLS
----------------------
4.4.1 FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS
Material and assemblies will be controlled at all times to ensure that
inspection status is maintained and hardware quality is not
compromised. Established controls will include adequate handling and
packaging of items during all operations. Quality records maintained
for in-process materials and assemblies will identify the item and
indicate its inspection, fabrication, and configuration status. The
completed articles will be identified in accordance with engineering
requirements. A final inspection and review of documentation will be
performed to ensure that all required operations and inspections have
been satisfactorily completed.
Fabrication, assembly, and rework operations will be performed in
accordance with work order documentation based on engineering
requirements. Assembly work order documentation will be screened to
ensure that the inspections prescribed are adequate to ensure product
compliance with engineering requirements.
Approval of work order documentation by Quality Assurance will be
indicated by the application of an appropriate stamp or signature.
Quality Assurance personnel will conduct audits of the fabrication and
assembly areas and planning documents to ensure that operations are
performed in accordance with established practices.
4.4.2 STORES CONTROL
Parts and materials will be issued from controlled stores. Stores
control will include maintenance of traceability, limited shelf life
material control, and handling of items sensitive to contamination or
to electrostatic discharge. A status tag or label that indicates
acceptability and includes the required traceability information will
be used to provide evidence of acceptance and traceability for parts,
materials, or assemblies entering a controlled stores status. Periodic
storeroom surveys by quality assurance personnel will ensure that
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
<PAGE> 372
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
adequate measures are taken to protect the product and retain
traceability.
4.4.3 PROCESS CONTROLS
Process control requirements and quality assurance provisions will be
contained in specifications referenced in engineering drawings and on
manufacturing planning documents. Records will indicate the results of
inspections and process verifications.
4.4.4 PROCESS AND PERSONNEL CERTIFICATION
Quality Assurance personnel ensure that processes are approved, that
equipment operating parameters are satisfactory, that personnel are
certified when required, and that are controls are established as
specified.
4.4.5 WORKMANSHIP STANDARDS
Standards of workmanship will be specified in engineering drawings by
reference to Contractor, industry, or government documents that
establish engineering requirements and quality assurance provisions,
including workmanship criteria. Acceptance criteria will be as
specified in HITC's standards. Hardware fabricated or assembled will
be inspected in accordance with the applicable workmanship
requirements specified in engineering and planning documents. Solder
workmanship criteria will be defined by contractor process documents
that reflect the requirements of NHB 5300.4 (3A-1) for soldered
electrical connections.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
<PAGE> 373
GCE Product Assurance Plan
Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4.6 HARDWARE CONFIGURATION CONTROL
Quality Assurance personnel will support the configuration control
system during assembly and test by:
1) Inspecting hardware against engineering requirements and
documentation.
2) Administering the material review activities for processing
minor waivers.
3) Verifying that items of equipment are marked in accordance
with engineering requirements.
4) Maintaining and issuing status tags/labels for items
conforming with engineering requirements.
5) Problem Report Forms (PRF) are initiated as required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16
<PAGE> 374
GCE Product Assurance Plan
Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After completion of final test and inspections, any replacement or
parts, rework, or other modifications of the hardware configuration
will necessitate a reinspection and retest to the extent determined
necessary by the RE and QA personnel.
A Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) of deliverable hardware will
be performed prior to delivery. The PCA will consist of formal
examination of the "as-built" configuration list of an end item
assembly against its "as-designed" configuration list on file with
Configuration Management (CM).
A Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) will be formal examination
of test data for functional characteristics of an end item assembly
to verify that the item has achieved the performance directed in
its associated specification document using a Specification
Compliance Matrix (SCM).
A pre-shipment review will be performed for purposes of verifying
that the deliverable hardware, software, and related documentation
is complete and ready to ship. This review will include a PCA and
FCA of each Hardware Configuration Item (HWCI).
4.5 TESTING AND INSPECTION
4.5.1 IN-PROCESS INSPECTION
In-process inspections will be performed at preselected points
during fabrication and assembly operations to verify product
compliance with requirements. Such inspections will be documented
on the assembly work orders. Crimped, soldered, and welded
electrical connections will be inspected to established criteria
before these connections are covered by subsequent operations.
4.5.2 FACTORY ACCEPTANCE TEST AND INSPECTION
Test procedures will be specified by the Engineering Team/test
activity and released prior to final acceptance tests of
deliverable hardware. These procedures will include descriptions of
the tests and test conditions and will reflect performance
parameters listed in the appropriate specification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
<PAGE> 375
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
After completion of tests and inspections, any replacement of
parts, rework, or other modifications of the hardware
configuration will necessitate a reinspection and retest to the
extent determined necessary by the responsible engineer and
cognizant quality assurance personnel.
A final inspection and test of deliverable hardware will be
performed to ensure its readiness for delivery. The Customer will
be invited to observe.
A preshipment review will be performed for purposes of verifying
that the deliverable hardware, software, and related documentation
is complete and ready to ship. Customer participation and
concurrence is required.
4.5.3 TEST PARTICIPATION
Acceptance tests will be conducted in accordance with an approved
test procedure to determine functional compliance. Subsystem level
tests will be performed in accordance with the approved test plan
and its associated, detailed test procedures. Recorded test data
and/or computer reduced data will become part of the required
documentation for record retention and will constitute evidence of
conformance with requirements. Records should be kept at a minimum
for the life of the contract.
The program product assurance function, along with program
management, will specify a level of test coverage that ensures
that significant elements of the test activities are monitored.
Test area surveillance will be imposed at all levels of
qualification and acceptance testing. The test area surveillance
activity will be accomplished by auditing test operations in
progress to ensure that:
1) Items are properly identified and handled.
2) Test procedures are released and being followed.
3) Test equipment is calibrated.
4) Test data and discrepancies are recorded.
5) Problem reports are initiated, if problems occur.
6) Test results are within the specified limits.
________________________________________________________________________________
18
<PAGE> 376
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
On an audit basis, this effort, in conjunction with other quality
assurance activities, will be of sufficient scope to ensure that
delivered articles conform to requirements.
4.5.4 SITE INSTALLATION AND ACCEPTANCE TEST
The installation, test, and acceptance at the site constitutes final
acceptance and is subject to Customer concurrence of the test results.
This data becomes part of the system acceptance documentation.
Hardware Quality Assurance (HQA) will perform an identification, count
and damage assessment on all equipment arriving for Site
Installation. They will ensure that the equipment is properly
installed according to Engineering drawings and will support the
testing and verification process using approved and properly released
test procedures. They will ensure any discrepancies/concerns are
documented using the Problem Report Form System and follow-up to
ensure appropriate closure.
4.6 NONCONFORMING ARTICLE AND MATERIAL CONTROL
4.6.1 MATERIAL REVIEW ACTION AND CONTROL
The identity and inspection status of all nonconforming items will be
documented on the appropriate quality record when discovered. The
purpose of material review action will be to resolve disposition of
nonconformances.
Material review action will determine whether the departure is due to
hardware or documentation discrepancies. All review and closure
actions will be documented in accordance with existing Contractor
quality assurance practices.
Material review actions will be final. Items determined acceptable
will be processed thereafter as conforming items. The material review
members and allowable dispositions will be those cited in Table 1.
Quality Assurance personnel and the responsible engineering activity
will be authorized to perform material review actions as follows:
________________________________________________________________________________
19
<PAGE> 377
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
- Preliminary review will be conducted when a
nonconformance is discovered. Workmanship errors and
minor out-of-tolerance situations that can be
reworked to specification conditions are resolved by
authorized personnel through this preliminary review
process. Preliminary review nonconformances are
processed by a quality assurance engineer.
Engineering and/or manufacturing input may be
solicited for this action. During preliminary review,
it will be determined whether 1) a nonconforming item
can be made to conform by rework or standard repair,
2) the item should be scrapped (low cost and
non-schedule-critical items), or 3) the item must be
submitted for higher level material review action.
- Engineering review will apply to all nonconformances
not resolved by preliminary review. It will be
performed jointly by the responsible quality
assurance and engineering representatives who will
determine the acceptability of nonconforming items
submitted for review. The responsible engineer will
document and justify the item's disposition. The
quality assurance representative will signify
concurrence with the item's disposition on the
material review documentation, which can either be a
Problem Report Form (PRF) or other suitable form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-20-
<PAGE> 378
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
4.6.2 NONCONFORMANCE DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
The following terms, definitions, and classifications will apply:
1) Nonconforming material -- Any item, part, or product with one
or more characteristics that depart from the requirements of
the contract, specification, drawing, or other approved
product description. Functional nonconformances must be
processed through the failure reporting system.
2) Minor nonconformance -- a departure from the requirements
specified in the approved product description that does not
adversely affect form, fit, and function. Material
nonconformances are processed through material review action.
3) Major nonconformance -- A departure from the contractual
performance that cannot be eliminated by the Customer's
material review actions or reduced to a minor nonconformance
by repair. Major nonconformances are processed by submitting
a request for deviation/waiver to the Customer for approval.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Table 1. Hardware Material Review Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functions Members Disposition
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C>
Preliminary Review Quality Assurance Rework/complete to drawing or
specification requirements (i.e.,
rewire)
Low Cost non-schedule-critical
scrap
Authorized standard repair
Submit to engineering review
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering review Quality Assurance Rework/complete to engineering
Engineering drawing and specification
requirements
Return to supplier
Repair to authorized instruction
Use as is -- Minor nonconformances
Scrap -- Obviously unit for use or
uneconomically repairable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21
<PAGE> 379
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract no. ICOO/95-1002/NR
4.6.3 CORRECTIVE ACTION
Quality assurance personnel will ensure that prompt action is taken to
resolve nonconformances. Documentation of nonconformances will include
cause and corrective action when it is beneficial to the program.
Nonconformance data will be reviewed for trends, corrective action
assignments will be made, and follow-up action will be taken.
Management will be kept informed of progress and completion of
corrective action assignments. Corrective action is taken in
accordance with HITC policy, as defined in the quality assurance
instructions.
Minor nonconformances will not require corrective action unless such
action is beneficial to the program. It will not normally be taken if:
1) The operation is monitored and discrepancies do not exceed the
established limits.
2) A discrepant item/operation has been discontinued or modified
because of a design change.
3) Items are no longer being manufactured.
4) An assignable cause cannot be determined.
5) No trend indicating a continuing problem is apparent.
4.6.4 SUBCONTRACTOR MATERIAL REVIEW
HITC may delegate limited material review authority to selected
subcontractors of complex articles. Subcontractors considered for
material review authorization will be required to submit written plans
for material review to HITC for approval prior to implementation.
Material review requirements for documentation, segregation, review,
corrective action, and reporting need not be identical but will be
consistent with those described in this plan.
4.7 MEASUREMENT PROCESSES AND CALIBRATION
4.7.1 BASIC SYSTEM
HITC's approved and documented metrology system will be in accordance
with MIL-STD-45662A and administered by HISD Property
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22
<PAGE> 380
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
Organization. This system provides for the selection, approval,
calibration, maintenance, and control of inspection and test measuring
equipment.
HITC will be responsible for maintaining equipment to required
calibration and measurement standards and for providing traceability
to approved primary or secondary reference standards. Inspection and
test measuring equipment used to establish acceptance of articles
through quantitative measurements will be calibrated periodically in a
manner that ensures conformance with requirements.
Test and measuring equipment that is part of the deliverable system
will be calibrated as required by the responsible engineering
function.
4.7.2 CALIBRATION CONTROLS
Unique labels or codes that identify and cite the last and the next
calibration dates will be affixed to measuring and test equipment.
Intervals for calibration will depend on use, accuracy, type, and
other conditions that affect measurement control. Calibration
intervals will be established for each model or type of equipment.
Items not used for quantitative measurements will not require
calibration or indication of calibration status. When the accuracy of
a piece of equipment is verified by another piece of equipment that is
fully calibrated, a "no calibration required" (NCR) sticker will be
used in its identification.
If the calibration period of an article of test equipment has expired,
a limited extension of 20% of its certification period may be
authorized by Quality Assurance.
4.7.3 SUBCONTRACTOR CONTROLS
The requirements for measuring and inspection equipment control will
be implemented through the quality requirements invoked in
procurement, quality, or engineering documents. Such requirements will
be consistent with the requirements of this plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23
<PAGE> 381
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.8 RECORDS AND TRACEABILITY
4.8.1 RECORDS
The following records will be maintained to establish the procurement,
manufacturing, inspection, and test histories for deliverable articles
and provide the historical documentation for each item:
1) Procurement packages
2) Material certifications
3) Fabrication quality records
4) Traceability data
5) Quality records
6) Manufacturing and assembly planning documents
7) Drawings
8) Inspection and test equipment
9) Test data sheets
10) Material review actions/deviation waivers
11) Problem Reports Forms
12) Configuration summary lists
13) Operations and Maintenance Manuals
24
<PAGE> 382
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
Program Management and contracts personnel are responsible for
determining how long we should keep records and where they are kept.
4.8.2 TRACEABILITY
HITC and its subcontractors will maintain information files ensuring
the traceability of parts and assemblies.
The traceability system will utilize Contractor or subcontractor
assigned traceability numbers, purchase order numbers, or quality
record numbers that are entered on accompanying documentation. Quality
Assurance personnel will be responsible for auditing the traceability
system to ensure that hardware configuration and quality records are
maintained during the manufacturing and test cycles.
4.9 INSPECTION AND STATUS CONTROL
HISD standard system using Quality Assurance Manual 614, Quality
Assurance Procedure 19-20-3, Identification of Quality Status will be
used to control inspection stamps or signatures used to signify
acceptance of deliverable items or documentation. These controls
include the issuance, maintenance, and recall of inspection stamps by
qualified personnel authorized to use them. Stamp possession and
employee location will be verified periodically by cognizant quality
assurance personnel.
________________________________________________________________________________
25
<PAGE> 383
GCE Product Assurance Plan
Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.10 PACKAGING, HANDLING, AND TRANSPORTATION
Articles are packaged with materials necessary to prevent
deterioration, corrosion, or damage. Requirements for packaging
will consider conditions that affect the article while it is 1) at
a HITC's facility, 2) being transported to its destination, and 3)
at its destination under specified conditions.
Provisions are made for special handling of articles sensitive to
handling damage during fabrication and processing. Special devices,
boxes, containers, and modes of transportation are used, as
necessary, to prevent damage due to handling.
A shipping inspection is performed on all equipment or items
shipped to the Customer. This inspection verifies that all items
are secured and identified prior to packaging, and that all
shipping documents are properly completed.
5. SOFTWARE QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This Software Quality Assurance (SQA) Plan applies to the
deliverable and non-deliverable software to be developed, procured
or maintained.
The Plan is the directive implementing the contractual quality
requirements for software and the HITC Quality requirements. It
describes the organization, procedures, processes, and products
used to implement the SQA program activities throughout the
software life cycle of the program. These tasks include evaluating
and certifying the software development processes and products,
identified herein, to verify compliance with contractual
requirements, and to verify that a high level of quality is being
designed into the software products. In addition, the quality tasks
ensure that the software engineering organization complies with
HITC practices and procedures, as tailored to contractual
requirements. This plan is written to meet the intent of ISO 9001
(ISO 9000-3).
The process defined will be tailored to provide a cost-effective
approach to ensuring a quality product. This tailored approach will
be defined in program instructions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26
<PAGE> 384
GCE Product Assurance Plan
Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES
5.2.1 ORGANIZATION
The SQA organization has primary responsibility for the
implementation, execution and management of the SQA activities
described in this plan. SQA has an indirect reporting
responsibility to the Program Manager. The SQA organization is
independent of the software engineering personnel and reports
directly to Product Assurance.
5.2.2 PERSONNEL
The SQA engineer performing the SQA activities has developed the
skills required for implementing the SQA program. The SQA engineer
has experience with the engineering methodologies to be applied to
software development. In addition, the SQA engineer is
knowledgeable of HITC policies applicable to the specific SQA
program. The SQA engineer is experienced in Customer and program
management interface.
5.2.3 OTHER RESOURCES
SQA interfaces with Software Engineering, Program Management,
Independent Test, Systems Engineering, and Configuration Management
organizations by participating in and evaluating the progress of
software development, test, and maintenance. This participation
forms a teaming that ensure software quality and control over the
software and related documentation.
5.2.4 SCHEDULE
The SQA schedule is prepared upon receipt of funding and a
schedule. The schedule is updated monthly to track manpower
performance against planned SQA activities.
5.3 SQA PROGRAM PROCEDURES, TOOLS, AND RECORDS
SQA has the responsibility during a Program to ensure that the
software, documentation, and products are developed and maintained
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27
<PAGE> 385
Exhibit G
GCE Product Assurance Plan Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in accordance with the contractual and HITC requirements, and meet
their intended use.
5.3.1 PROCEDURES
SQA will utilize various procedures, tools, and records to accomplish
the required tasks associated with ensuring that the software and
related products comply with the instructions/procedures to be used as
described in the following paragraphs.
5.3.1.1 SOFTWARE QUALITY PLANNING
A complete review of the contract is performed by SQA to provide for
the early identification of contractual and internal Software Quality
requirements and to plan for the necessary resources and skills
required to support the contract. This planning ensures the
establishment of adequate budgets, personnel, and controls for
contractual and internal compliance. This planning includes the SQA
tasks of proposal preparation and generation/coordination and
establishment of SQA program records retention system.
5.3.1.2 PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION
SQA generates and maintains several types of SQA program documentation
in support of a program SQA effort. The program documentation includes
this SQA Plan and Program Instructions. SQA forms are utilized to
collect data during the SQA activities.
Program documentation is periodically assessed and realigned as
necessary, to ensure it continues to reflect requirements.
The SQA program in integrally tied to the Configuration Management
(CM) program. SQA reviews the Configuration/Data Management plan to
assure that it is consistent, meets requirements, and evaluates the
process to ensure the plan is implemented.
The quality of any software product is the responsibility of the
developing organization. The software development process described in
the Software Development Plan (SDP) assures that quality is designed
into all software products. The responsible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28
<PAGE> 386
Exhibit G
GCE Product Assurance Plan Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
engineering organization verifies that software products meet quality
requirements by reviewing format, presentation, consistency, and
completeness. The SQA engineer performs evaluations and witness
testing defined in this Plan throughout the software life cycle,
building sufficient confidence that software plans have been met and
the software performs its required functions. SQA assures that data
rights and restrictive markings are in accordance with the contract
and that products are adequately protected for delivery. SQA assures
that software deliverables are properly packaged and marked for
shipment to assure the integrity of the deliverable software.
Certification is documented by affixing a SQA stamp.
5.3.1.3 SOFTWARE QUALITY SYSTEM EVALUATION
SQA evaluations verify and ensure that the systems used to manage,
develop and control software and related products exist, are adequate
and are complied in accordance with the contract and HITC internal
requirements as documented in the SDP and CM Plan.
Internal evaluations aide to ensure the necessary tools, resources,
procedures, and instructions are in place and available for
development of compliant software and products in accordance with the
contract, HITC and planning documents. SQA monitors the systems
throughout the software effort to ensure continued adequacy and
compliance. The systems used to develop and control the software
during the various phases of the effort will be evaluated individually
to ensure compliance with the plan requirements.
In addition to evaluation of software systems, SQA management ensures
periodic assessment of the SQA system to determine compliance with and
continued adequacy of the SQA Plan and related program documentation.
Evaluation of the SQA system occurs concurrently with evaluations of
SQA program documentation.
5.3.1.4 SOFTWARE QUALITY PROCESS EVALUATION
On-going evaluations are conducted of the processed used during the
design, development and configuration control of the software and
related products. Evaluations verify and ensure existence, adequacy
and compliance with the required plans/procedures. These included, but
are not limited to, Software Engineering, Software Review and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29
<PAGE> 387
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
Audits, Configuration Management, and Storage, Handling, and Delivery.
5.3.1.5 SOFTWARE PRODUCT EVALUATIONS
SQA performs evaluations of software plans, standards, procedures,
software technical documentation and code. These evaluations ensure
products are compliance with contract and HITC requirements, and are
under configuration control prior to Customer delivery. Products are
evaluated using the appropriate governing documents. Product
evaluations ensure compliance with the following basic criteria:
a. Adherence to the required format and compliance with
contractual and HITC requirements, applicable document
descriptions, practices, instructions, etc.
b. Internal consistency: No two statements in a document
contradict one another, a given term, acronym, or abbreviation
means the same throughout: a given item or concept is referred to
by the same name or description throughout.
c. Understandability: Documentation promotes understanding by
applying the rules of grammar, symbols, notation and writing
style.
d. Technical Adequacy: The approach is logical, consistent and
requirements of the program are clear technically and
practically.
e. Degree of Completeness appropriate to the phase: Constituent
parties are present and addressed in adequate details. In process
reviews evaluate products at varying degree of completeness.
f. Testability: Documentation identifies requirements that are
testable so that an objective test can be designed to verify and
validate the fulfillment of the requirements.
g. Traceability: All specification, design documentation, code
and test plans/procedures are reviewed to provide agreement with
a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30
<PAGE> 388
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
predecessor documents to which a hierarchical relationship is
required.
5.3.1.6 CORRECTIVE ACTION
The Corrective Action (CA) process uses a formal corrective action
reporting system using Problem Report Form (PRF)s and Software
Problem Report (SPR)s, the PRF is included as an example of the
forms used to identify all problems/issues detected in the systems,
processes or products, and provides the mechanism by which
responsible organizations respond. The system involves ensuring the
identification and corrections of problems/issues resulting from
SQA evaluations, reviews, testing, change control activity, or any
other event throughout the software life cycle. CAs are directed to
the organization responsible for the product, process, design,
personnel, or management system contributing to the problem who in
turn respond and ensure implementation of the necessary corrective
action. The process includes:
Analyzing detected problems/issues/discrepancies.
b. Documenting, classifying, categorizing and prioritizing the
problem/issue/discrepancy.
c. Assigning the responsible individual to determine the action
necessary to correct the discrepancy.
d. Recommending the necessary corrective action.
e. Reviewing the corrective actions taken for adequacy and
implementation.
f. Verifying through re-evaluation of re-test/regression test
the products and/or software to which corrections have been
made.
g. Elevating to appropriate management levels, as necessary,
problems, issues/discrepancies which go unresolved or whose
degree of impact of severity warrant.
________________________________________________________________________________
31
<PAGE> 389
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
h. Providing reports indicating status.
5.3.1.7 Management Reporting
To ensure that objective evidence exists which substantiates
performance of software quality activities, SQA documents all
evaluations performed and/or activities in which SQA participates.
Each evaluation/activity is summarized and documented on the
appropriate form. All evaluation reports are maintained in the Quality
Records.
Periodically SQA summarizes the overall activities performed and
submits this to Program Management. These periodic reports provide SQA
Program and software development management insight into the SQA
program tasks performed and any issues/concerns related to the
program.
These reports are summarized to provide the Quality input for monthly
status reports and Program Management Reviews.
5.3.1.8 CERTIFICATION AND ACCEPTANCE
Deliverable software and related documentation is submitted to SQA for
acceptance/inspection prior to submittal to the Customer. Software and
documents are reviewed to ensure adequacy and compliance for the
specific software development life cycle phase at the time of
submittal and that any previously documented deficiencies have been
corrected. SQA performs detailed evaluations of products and certifies
their readiness and compliance for contract delivery.
SQA documents any discrepancies detected and returns the product to
the responsible organization for disposition. Open liens are
established and tracked on CAs. SQA will re-inspect to the extent
necessary to verify that affected characteristics are in compliance.
SQA will sign all documentation or stamp all software products.
Conditional accepted products require action(s) prior to the next
submittal to the Customer (e.g., review, evaluation, testing,
corrective action).
Products with discrepancies which affect the fulfillment of the
functional performance of the product are rejected by SQA. These
________________________________________________________________________________
32
<PAGE> 390
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
products are not delivered to the Customer until adequate correction
of the discrepancies is implemented.
5.3.1.9 SOFTWARE TESTING
SQA monitors informal testing and witnesses formal testing. SQA
evaluates the independent module-level testing performed during the
software Development Folder evaluations to assure satisfactory
completion of the requirements and to ensure the software's readiness
for qualification testing. SQA ensures that:
a. Test Plans/Procedures and specifications are reviewed for
compliance with contractual requirement.
b. Test and application software is acceptable and under
configuration control prior to qualification test activity.
c. Test are conducted in accordance with approved test
plans/procedures.
d. Test Results and reports are compliant and certified as
reflecting the actual findings of tests.
e. Test-related media and documentation are maintained to allow
repeatability of the tests.
f. Support software and hardware used to test the deliverable
software have been validated prior to use.
g. Configuration of the system is verified prior to
qualification tests.
5.3.1.10 REVIEWS AND AUDITS
SQA support all formal reviews and audits required by contract. SQA
assures that the required products are available for review prior to
the conduct of the review/audit, that the status and quality
evaluation of each product is presented, and that action items
resulting from the review are tracked through to closure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33
<PAGE> 391
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
5.3.1.11 NON-DELIVERABLE SOFTWARE
SQA evaluates each non-deliverable software item used in the automated
design, production, qualification, or acceptance of deliverable
software or hardware to assure that:
a. Objective evidence exists, prior to its intended use, that
it performs the required functions.
b. It was placed under configuration control prior to its use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34
<PAGE> 392
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
5.3.1.12 CUSTOMER INTERFACE
SQA interfaces with the Customer during reviews, audits mandatory
inspections, and as needed. The team approach provides for
continual sharing of information between HITC and Customer. SQA
ensures documentation, records and any other applicable data is
available for review upon request and ensures Customer
notification of products available for inspection when such
inspection has been identified.
5.3.1.13 TOOLS
Currently, the tools utilized by SQA consist of the PRF system,
MAC Schedule, and Fox Pro. PCs and Macintoshes are used to
automate tasks, as applicable.
5.4 SOFTWARE QUALITY RECORDS
Software Quality Records are established and maintained in files.
The results of audits, reviews, and corrective actions documented
are maintained in the records. Records consist of a collection of
written data associated with the SQA evaluations which serve as
objective evidence that all SQA requirements are being or have
been met.
Retention of Quality records required per this plan are
maintained at HITC for the duration of the program and retained
in storage after completion of the program for a period of at
least five (5) years after final payment. All records will be
made available to the Customer for review upon request during
the period of retention.
5.5 SUBCONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER
The software subcontractor control portion of the SQA program
involves newly developed software and Commercial-Off-the-Shelf
(COTS) software. The process for newly developed software
includes survey of software subcontractors prior to placement to
assure appropriate contract requirements are flowed to the
subcontractor, and to establish receiving inspection criteria,
and continuous evaluation of subcontractor product and process
performance to the subcontract. Vendors modifying exiting COTs
software that will be made available as commercial software after
delivery to HITC will be controlled by
________________________________________________________________________________
35
<PAGE> 393
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
SQA using a subset of the requirements for newly developed software
subcontractors. The SQA engineers assure that any deliverable
commercial software or non-deliverable software is under configuration
control and meets contractual data rights provisions.
6. PARTS, MATERIALS, AND PROCESSES PROGRAM
6.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
HITC will establish provisions for controlling the selection,
application, and acceptance of all parts, materials, and processes to
be used in deliverable hardware.
6.2 PARTS SELECTION AND SPECIFICATION
Parts, materials, and processes will be carefully selected on an
individual basis that considers all significant factors, including
suitability, reliability, life, and environmental capability.
Selection criteria will include known reliability history and previous
satisfactory supplier usage.
Electronic and electromechanical equipment will be controlled by
procurement specifications or standards. Parts will be procured to
commercial part numbers, military specifications, altered item
drawings, catalog item number, or specific program requirements
attached to the purchase order. The responsible engineer will specify
acceptance requirement for all catalog items whenever such catalog
item descriptions are inadequate for acceptance inspection.
6.3 PARTS AND MATERIALS HANDLING AND STORAGE
Parts and materials will be traceable to the applicable manufacturer
and stored in accordance with requirements for a standard ground
control equipment program. Parts and materials for deliverable
hardware will be place in program designated bonded stores.
Appropriate packaging and electrostatic discharge control measures
will be taken to protect critical parts and materials during handing.
Fabricated parts and subassemblies will be placed in kits,
containers, or protective bags. The adequacy of the packaging,
handling, and storage procedures and measures taken will be confirmed
by quality assurance audits.
________________________________________________________________________________
36
<PAGE> 394
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
6.4 SUBCONTRACTOR CONTROL
The parts, materials, and processes requirements will be imposed on
subcontractors having design requirements. Product assurance
personnel will ensure that these requirements are implemented by
subcontractors through review of instructions, specifications, and
statements of work referenced in procurement documents. Subcontractor
parts, materials, and processes will be reviewed and/or inspected to
ensure compliance with subcontract requirements.
7. CONFIGURATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
7.1 BASIC PROVISIONS
HITC will establish a configuration and data management program that
ensures that the configuration and data management functions described
in this plan are implemented.
The Program Configuration and Data Management Office (PCDMO) will
issue program configuration requirements and instructions to
performing organizations and subcontractors as necessary to coordinate
the requirements of this plan, or to augment the provisions of the
plan due to contract-unique requirements. Configuration will be
maintained through the configuration Control Board (CCB).
7.2 MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION
The Configuration Management (CM) and Data Management (DM) functions
will be administered by PCDMO, including configuration management for
subcontractors.
7.3 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
The PCDMO will maintain accurate records, release engineering data,
and document and maintain any changes in process.
7.3.1 CONFIGURATION IDENTIFICATION
Configuration identification will be defined in specifications and
drawings developed and maintained by the PCDMO. Each control item will
be assigned a unique identification number. The PCDMO will
37
<PAGE> 395
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
control and provide for the issuance of all data or hardware
identification numbers. Subcontractor or vendor items will be
identified by the manufacturer's part number or by the assigned
Contractor part number.
The PCDMO will prepare a specification tree and index, listing the
design and subordinate design specifications.
A master index of contract-deliverable control items will be prepared.
The index will identify control items by drawing (part) number,
indenture level and quantity required for next assembly. The finalized
index will serve as the internal baseline configuration document and
will be released under formal release procedure. Thereafter, the
master index will be maintained by normal change control procedure.
7.3.2 CONFIGURATION CONTROL
Specifications, drawings, and software changes will be controlled and
documented. All proposed changes to contractual specifications will be
submitted to the CCB for approval.
7.3.2.1 ENGINEERING CHANGE CLASSIFICATION
The PCDMO will be responsible for processing all engineering change
requests. To ensure that the extent of analysis and approval action
required to implement a proposed engineering change is consonant with
the nature, magnitude, and effect of the change, engineering changes
will be classified as follows:
Class I - An engineering change that affects compliance with
contractual requirements.
Class II - Any engineering change to which the criteria for Class I do
not apply.
The implementation of a Class I change will require formal CCB
approval. Class I change proposals will be submitted to the Customer
with appropriate supporting documentation.
The PCDMO will ensure the proper classification of Class II changes
through periodic audits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38
<PAGE> 396
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
7.3.2.2 REQUESTS FOR DEVIATIONS/WAIVER
Departures from the requirements specified in engineering
documentation, without altering the documents, will be accomplished
through authorized deviation/waiver procedures. The Responsible
Engineering Authority (REA) is responsible for processing any requests
for deviations or waivers from a technical requirement. Deviations
must be authorized prior to hardware manufacture. Waivers will be
requested for nonconformances found during or after manufacture.
Deviations and/or waivers that impact the contract will be approved by
the Customer. Minor waivers will be processed by material review
action. Requests for deviations or waivers will be classified and
approved in the same manner as engineering changes.
7.3.3 CONFIGURATION CONTROL BOARD (CCB)
A program CCB will review and approve or reject all proposed
hardware/software Class I changes. The program system engineering
manager, or his designee, will chair the program CCB. The Board will
be comprised of those individuals who are responsible for the changes
under review, and will include representatives from Program
Management, Product Assurance, Systems Engineering, CM, and the REA.
Representatives from other disciplines with the necessary expertise to
properly assess the requested change may be required to support CCB
actions. The CCB will review each significant change following the
design phase.
The design phase of each unit will be considered to extend from the
time of initiation of the contract until one of the following occurs:
1) The qualification of the unit's design is completed.
2) An acceptance unit is delivered.
3) The program manager signifies completion of the design phase.
7.3.4 CONFIGURATION STATUS ACCOUNTING AND VERIFICATION
A configuration status accounting activity will maintain configuration
indices and issue configuration reports. Records of the hardware
configuration (as-built) will be compared to the released
(as-designed) configuration. The PCDMO will act in conjunction with
the engineering, manufacturing, and other organizations as required to
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39
<PAGE> 397
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
resolve identified differences between the as-designed and as-built
configurations.
The PCDMO will be responsible for issuing the as-designed/as-built
configuration index.
7.4 DATA MANAGEMENT
The PCDMO will maintain accurate records of all program-pertinent
data.
7.4.1 CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS
The PCDMO will prepare and maintain a data submittal schedule and
status for all required contract data. PCDMO personnel will direct the
publication, distribution, and delivery of data, as appropriate.
Contract deliverable data will be submitted to the Customer through
the program contract administration function.
7.4.2 DATA CONTROL
Non-engineering data will be controlled by the assignment of a library
identifier to all program data. The number assignment and record lists
will be maintained in the library.
7.4.3 LIBRARY
The program library will maintain program-generated reports, technical
data files, program correspondence files, and other program-generated
documents, as specified by the program management office. Library-
maintained documents will be readily available upon request.
7.5 SUBCONTRACTOR CONFIGURATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
7.5.1 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT
Subcontractors will be required to have a configuration management
system in compliance with HITC's configuration management
requirements. Subcontractor configuration management operations will
be subject to Contractor review, approval, and periodic audits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40
<PAGE> 398
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.5.2 DATA MANAGEMENT
Subcontractors will be required to have a data management system in
compliance with HITC's data management requirements. Subcontractor
configuration management operations will be subject to Contractor
review, approval, and periodic audits. Subcontractor data requirements
will be identified through appropriate data requirements lists or
schedules for each respective Subcontractor.
8. DEFINITIONS
Product - An item produced for a Customer or in support of a contract
defined effort, which may be in the form of hardware, software,
firmware, handbooks, data, documentation or any combination thereof.
Software - A combination of associated computer instructions and
computer data definitions required to enable the computer hardware to
perform computational or control functions.
Software Documentation - Technical data or information, including
computer lists and printouts, which document the requirements, design
or details of computer software, explains the capabilities and
limitation of the software, or provides operating instructions for
using or supporting computer software during the software's operation
life.
Baseline - A point during the software life cycle at which a product or
set of products is formally designated and placed under configuration
control. Baselines, plus approved changes from those baselines,
constitute the current configuration identification. Formal and
informal baselines are defined in the SDP and CM Plan.
Traceability - A characteristic of a product which provides agreement
with all predecessor documents to which it has a hierarchical
relationship. It has five elements: (1) product contract or implements
all applicable stipulations of the predecessor documents, (2) a given
term, acronym or abbreviation means the same thing, (3) a given item
or concept is referred to by the same name/description, (4) all
material in the successor document has its basis in the predecessor,
e.g. not untraceable material is introduced, (5) the product and
document do not contradict one another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41
<PAGE> 399
GCE Product Assurance Plan Exhibit G
Contract No. ICOO/95-1002/NR
9. ACRONYMS
CM Configuration Management
COTS Commercial-Off-the-Shelf
RE Responsible Engineer
HITC Hughes Information and Technology Corporation
HQA Hardware Quality Assurance
HWCI Hardware Configuration Item
PCA Physical Configuration Audit
PRF Problem Report Form
SCM Software Configuration Management
SDP Software Development Plan
SPR Software Problem Report
SQA Software Quality Assurance
SWCI Software Configuration Item
TIM Technical Interchange Meetings
________________________________________________________________________________
42
<PAGE> 400
EXHIBIT H - BILLING MILESTONE PLAN
08/24/00
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
M/S
COMPLETION FINAL TOTAL
M/S # BUILD DATE BILLING MILESTONE PROOF OF COMPLETE FINAL M/S VALUE CUMULATIVE VALUE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
*
</TABLE>
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
1
<PAGE> 401
EXHIBIT H - BILLING MILESTONE PLAN
08/24/00
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
M/S
COMPLETION FINAL TOTAL
M/S # BUILD DATE BILLING MILESTONE PROOF OF COMPLETE FINAL M/S VALUE CUMULATIVE VALUE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
*
</TABLE>
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
2
<PAGE> 402
EXHIBIT H - BILLING MILESTONE PLAN
08/24/00
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
M/S
COMPLETION FINAL TOTAL
M/S # BUILD DATE BILLING MILESTONE PROOF OF COMPLETE FINAL M/S VALUE CUMULATIVE VALUE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
*
</TABLE>
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
3
<PAGE> 403
EXHIBIT H - BILLING MILESTONE PLAN
08/24/00
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
M/S
COMPLETION FINAL TOTAL
M/S # BUILD DATE BILLING MILESTONE PROOF OF COMPLETE FINAL M/S VALUE CUMULATIVE VALUE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
*
</TABLE>
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
4
<PAGE> 404
EXHIBIT H - BILLING MILESTONE PLAN
08/24/00
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
M/S
COMPLETION FINAL TOTAL
M/S # BUILD DATE BILLING MILESTONE PROOF OF COMPLETE FINAL M/S VALUE CUMULATIVE VALUE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
*
</TABLE>
* Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been
separately filed with the Commission.
5
