Contractor Safety Forum Panel Discussion June 3, 2008 Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center Safety Performance Measures Contractor Safety Forum

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, Agenda Introduction of Panelists The NASA Safety Performance Measurement Process Performance Influences “Beyond the Numbers” Panel Comments and Q&A

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, Panel Introduction Billy Autry NASA Procurement Policy Derek Robins SAIC Department Manager, Safety & Test Operations Cynthia Hendershot Program Manager, Raytheon, NBL/SVMF Operations David Loyd Chief, NASA Safety & Test Operations Division

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, NASA Safety Performance Measurement Process In 2006 S&MA clarified the safety performance measurement process to: Guide consistent interpretation of injury metrics Provide flexibility in considering subjective elements, anecdotal evidence, and circumstances surrounding safety performance Solidify roles – –NASA Safety as a consulting resource –COTR as ultimately responsible for performance scoring

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, Safety Evaluation Process “Balanced Safety Score Card” Performance Evaluation Board Meeting Fee Determination Official Meeting End of Performance Period S&MA Director/Deputy Director at each FDO Meeting COTR and S&MA TMR Collaborate on overall Safety Evaluation Contractor mishaps rates and other relevant safety data assessment NS provides safety metrics summary and metrics adjective rating

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, Example Safety Metrics A B

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, Safety Evaluation Score Card A B Other metric factors are evaluated to determine overall safety metrics adjective rating: Type A & B Mishaps OSHA Violations Rate History Correctness/timeliness of mishap/288 reporting Size of contract C NS provides final metrics strengths/weaknesses and adjective rating to COTR and/or S&MA TMR Adjective Rating of metric scores determined by matrix of exceeds, meets & does not meet

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, “Balanced Safety Scorecard” CategoryExpectationStrengthsWeaknesses Leadership “Safety” is an integral part of great leadership – “leadership” is an integral part of an effective safety & health program Provided by TMR and COTR Prevention You must have a S&H Program that meets the requirement of the JSC S&H Handbook (i.e. a pro-active, leadership and employee involvement based S&H Program) Provided by TMR and COTR Reaction You are expected to achieve injury/illness rates below the industry average and to keep trying to reduce them to zero Provided by NS - based on metrics as compared to industry averages and other metric factors (e.g. type A mishaps) Issues Manage “issues” and implement appropriate risk mitigation/control and corrective action. Provided by TMR and COTR C “Reaction” (Safety Metrics) performance rating -- Based on data provided and injury/illness performance, NS Recommends a rating of ___________. This rating is only a portion of the overall safety score – other factors (Leadership, Prevention & Issues) and circumstances will determine the overall safety score. This overall score must be provided and defended by the COTR. NOTE: Zero injuries/illnesses may only mean that you are either lucky or under- reporting. Zero only has meaning if there is a proactive S&H Program

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, Issues: Corrective action delays Poor safety/health compliance in planning or operations Performance Influences “Beyond the Numbers” NASA deliberates to develop safety performance rating. In addition to metrics data provided, “Balanced Scorecard” must be developed and considered in scoring. Example “Balanced Scorecard” considerations: Leadership: – Substantive actions taken by management to: Address specific injury categories; Lead supervisors through injury preventive exercises, activities, or training; Support and/or participate in employee awareness campaigns Prevention: – Proactive programs with measurable impact on injury/mishap reduction – Actions based on close call trending; Improvement activities based on employee inputs Mishaps or compliance problems in which NASA influence was a significant factor

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, Leadership - Special safety/injury analyses - Safety & health training/seminars - Resolving employee concerns - Hosting employee roundtables - Inconsistent discipline - Tacit approval of unsafe behaviors - Minimal recognition of safe behavior - Ambiguous direction to cut corners Reaction - Effective case management - Comprehensive investigations - Timely corrective actions - Quick & accurate injury reporting - Proactive consultation with OSHA - Untimely injury reporting - Poor case management - Erroneous injury reporting - Poor mishap investigation Prevention - Timely close call resolution - Ad-hoc inspection activities - Unique safety & health training - Successful improvement programs - Poor inspection/audit results - Sluggish close call participation - Poor training attendance - Insufficient safety org. performance Issues - Safety awards and recognition - Injury prevention milestones - Resolution of unique hazards - Win-win safety integration with projects - Ineffective communications - Poor safety integration with projects - Unresolved compliance issues - Delays in corrective action

Safety & Mission Assurance Johnson Space Center June 3, Panel Discussion Panelist Comments Question & Answer Comment Cards