Skip to main content
Report File
Date Issued
Submitting OIG
National Aeronautics and Space Administration OIG
Agencies Reviewed/Investigated
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Report Number
IG-25-009
Report Description

Standing Review Boards (SRB) conduct independent assessments of programs and projects and offer recommendations to improve performance and reduce risk. However, the SRB process lacks Agency-level oversight, improved SRB composition and training can add greater value to the assessments, improvements are needed to ensure adequacy of SRB engagement and accuracy of information provided to decision-makers, and the SRB process does not adequately capture lessons learned.

Report Type
Audit
Agency Wide
Yes
Number of Recommendations
12
Questioned Costs
$0
Funds for Better Use
$0
Report updated under NDAA 5274
No
External Link
https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/final-report-ig-25-009-nasas-st…

Open Recommendations

This report has 12 open recommendations.
Recommendation Number Significant Recommendation Recommended Questioned Costs Recommended Funds for Better Use Additional Details
1 No $0 $0

Increase the oversight role of the CPMO to address deficiencies in the execution of SRBs and
provide SRB members an independent avenue to communicate and address issues during and
after the SRBs

2 No $0 $0

Update the SRB Handbook to reflect current policy, processes, and practices

3 No $0 $0

Evaluate whether the preference for using civil servants is necessary for all disciplines. If not
necessary, consider promoting the use of contractors for board membership in disciplines
where the pool of civil servant expertise may be limited

4 No $0 $0

Evaluate the potential for developing a more formalized pipeline and recruitment process for
SRB participants that could include maintaining a skills database of past members

5 No $0 $0

Review existing conflict of interest policy and processes and consider:
a. clarifying terminology and developing definitions to aid Agency personnel in
consistently identifying which affiliation types are included in existing categories and
the review process used for each, and/or
b. expanding the number of affiliation categories to account for, at a minimum,
international partner agencies

6 No $0 $0

Establish a process for verifying that mission directorates are conducting the required conflict
of interest reviews timely and implement record retention policies regarding SRB conflict of
interest review documents

7 No $0 $0

Verify that contracts used to engage SRB members through contractors adhere to the conflict
of interest processes established in the SRB Handbook

8 No $0 $0

Determine whether there is a need for individual mission directorate guidance for SRB
execution or if individualized mission directorate tailoring can be more effectively accomplished
in the ToR. If mission directorate guidance is determined to be needed, update them
accordingly and establish a frequency for their review and updating

9 No $0 $0

Develop a formal, role-based training program with a focus on first time members in SRB roles

10 No $0 $0

Determine the optimal method(s) and frequency required to keep an SRB appropriately
engaged and informed of program and project status between life-cycle reviews and implement
an applicable procedure in the SRB Handbook or other policy or guidance

11 No $0 $0

Identify obstacles that inhibit programs and projects from providing timely information to SRBs
and implement solutions so that timelines agreed to for data deliverables are met

12 No $0 $0

Implement a process for mission directorates to facilitate the collection and sharing of lessons
learned and document that process in the SRB Handbook

National Aeronautics and Space Administration OIG

United States