Attachment_4_-_QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR

DSCOVR ANTENNA IMPROVEMENT (DAI) HURRICANE RATED HR

FEED UPGRADE

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose

1.2. Scope

1.3. Performance Management Approach

2. Performance Management Criteria

2.1. Methods of Performance Monitoring

2.1.1. Surveillance

2.1.2. Communications and Customer Feedback

2.1.3. Customer Satisfaction

2.1.4. Formal Project Reviews

3. QASP Criteria Performance Metrics

4. Reporting

5. Reviews and Resolution

Appendix A: Acronym List

Attachment 1: Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

1. Introduction This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is developed pursuant to the performance requirements contained in the DSCOVR Antenna Improvement (DAI) Hurricane Rated HR Feed Upgrade Statement of Work (SOW). The QASP sets forth the procedures and guidelines the assigned Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and project office staff will use in ensuring the contract performance standards and service levels are achieved through effective and ongoing performance monitoring. The QASP was developed according to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 37.604 and 46.4 criteria and will be managed by the project office.

1.1. Purpose

The QASP service requirements and performance standards are applicable to achieving the standards, thresholds, and objectives outlined in the SOW.

1.2. Scope

The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through their own Quality Control Plan (QCP) tailored to the contract SOW, while the Government’s role is ensuring proper Quality Assurance per FAR 46.401. The QCP details the methods, controls, metrics, and measures that will be utilized by the contractor to ensure performance, quality, and timeliness of all products/services to be performed are delivered according to established standards. The QCP is accepted by the Government at time of award and is also incorporated as a binding contractual requirement.

The QASP provides the systematic methods the Government will use to monitor the contractor’s performance and evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the SOW as well as ensuring contractor compliance the QCP. Further, it identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, and describes quality assurance documentation requirements and the method of analysis (e.g., method of surveillance) to document quality assurance monitoring results.

2. Performance Management Approach This QASP outlines the performance management approach necessary to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives in the SOW are achieved. The performance management approach defined herein provides the Government with the capability to review and analyze information generated through contractor performance assessment throughout the term of the contract.

Decisions made regarding the acceptability of the contractor’s performance and deliverables are based on factual data that are validated. Based on this analysis, information on performance on the project is documented, communicated, and used for contractor corrective action, as applicable, and can be used as support for other contractual remedies that may be imposed by the Contracting Officer (CO).

The QASP defines the criteria and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) the contractor must continuously achieve for acceptable performance and acts as a mechanism for product/service acceptance or rejection criteria. It serves as the basis for formal evaluation and rating of the contractor’s performance for the record.

Accordingly, the QASP serves, to a great extent, as the formal basis upon which the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation rating are assigned in accordance with

FAR 42.15.

If the contractor has not met the minimum performance requirements, it may be asked to develop a formal Corrective Action Plan (CAP) demonstrating how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

Performance Management Criteria

2.1. Methods of Performance Monitoring

2.1.1. Surveillance

The primary methods of surveillance include, but are not limited to:

A. Monitoring deliverable and progress tracking schedules.

B. 100% review and inspection of all data and product deliverables including product physically installed at Government installations.

C. Periodic inspections.

D. Direct observations.

E. Data validation.

F. Additional surveillance methods may be employed as determined necessary based on contractor performance. This could include assignment of an on-site quality assurance inspector/monitor and/or third-party audits.

2.1.2. Communications and Customer Feedback:

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain effective, ongoing, and professional communications between its employees, subcontractors, and Government customers.

The primary objective of ensuring a high level of effective communications is to ensure superior customer awareness at all times and leading to improved satisfaction. The timeliness and effectiveness of the contractor’s communications will be tracked, evaluated, and reported. Communications will take the following forms:

A. Face-to-face meetings – as required B. Reports – as required C. Email – daily, as required D. Briefings – monthly, as required E. Correspondence – as required

2.1.3. Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is the most significant indicator of success and effectiveness of all services provided by the contractor. Customer feedback will be primarily communicated in the form of email, verbally, and surveys.

Customer feedback may take the form of complaints, compliments or other expressions of project concern.

Customer satisfaction survey results are important feedback for the record. Contractors should use the results to continuously monitor and improve their customer satisfaction standing, ensure contract compliance, and employ effective corrective action strategies. Top objectives include:

A. Correct any meaningful problems that have occurred B. Use as a mechanism to improve the customer-contractor relationship and communications.

C. Use to improve the contractor’s processes, procedures, and management practices.

D. Important customer experience feedback to ensure customer expectations are being met.

E. Determine if the contractor’s performance (including management performance) is being viewed favorably.

Customer satisfaction evaluation results will use the same definitions used for CPARS found at Table 2 “Adjectival Rating for Past Performance” and will be reflected under the “Management or Business Relations” factor in the assessment.

2.1.4. Formal Project Reviews

Project reviews are one of the principle mechanisms by which the quality of deliverables, performance of the management process and the on-going viability of the work are assured. Project reviews assist the Government customer in making ongoing business decisions regarding the project by evaluating its overall health at any given moment in time by:

A. Evaluating the effectiveness of project management.

B. Comparing what was actually delivered against the original requirements.

C. Assessing performance, e.g. comparing the planned schedule against the actual schedule.

D. Disseminating project status results and findings for the record.

The COR is the primary Government representative responsible for overall monitoring and reporting on the contractor’s performance. The Government Project Manager (PM) require the contractor’s project manager to meet the CO and other project personnel and stakeholders (as deemed necessary) to discuss performance evaluation based upon the results of the COR’s surveillance activities. The PM and the CO will define a frequency (typically monthly) of in-depth project reviews with the contractor that will include the contractor’s own self-assessment of performance. The contractor may request a review cycle that may be more frequent if they feel circumstances dictate increased interaction and based on significant status updates. Project reviews may be conducted at the Government’s designated site or at the contractor’s facilities. The agenda of the reviews may include:

A. Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis.

B. Issues and concerns of both parties.

C. Risk status updates.

D. Projected outlook for upcoming progress against expected trends, including corrective action plan analysis.

E. Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness.

F. Issues arising from performance monitoring processes.

3. QASP Criteria Performance Metrics:

The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed by their personnel and subcontractors and shall guarantee all workmanship and productivity of its personnel. The contractor is responsible for achieving the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) for all of the major processes identified below. The Government will perform continuous quality assurance reviews and monitoring of the contractor’s compliance with the standards through the various surveillance methods identified in this QASP. The Government will document quality assurance findings on Attachment 4, Quality Assurance Monitoring Form. Reviews will occur based on the contractor’s performance and adherence to the following criteria:

Product/Service Requirement –

SOW Reference

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Method of Surveillance

Incentive/Disincentive

1. Contractor Quality Control Plan (QCP)

Full (100%) implementati on and management of contractor

QCP.

Compliant with approved QCP >98% of the time.

Periodic Inspection (minimum of 1 time every 2 months).

[I] When AQL consistently met annual CPARS Quality sub-factor rating of Satisfactory.

When AQL exceeded annually, annual CPARS Quality sub-factor rating of Very Good or Exceptional.

[D] AQL not met 2 or more times annually, contractor considered contractually non-compliant. CPARS Quality sub-factor rating no higher than Marginal.

Other contractual remedies considered by Contracting Officer.

2. Deliverables (Section 6 of

SOW)

100% of deliverables are submitted timely and accepted by the Government upon initial submission.

>95% acceptable upon initial submission.

100% acceptable upon first resubmission.

100% review and inspection of all data.

[I] When AQL is met annual Satisfactory annual CPARS Quality sub-factor rating of Satisfactory.

AQL exceeded annual Satisfactory annual CPARS Quality sub-factor rating of Very Good or Exception.

[D] Standard not met 3 or more times annually, CPARS Quality subfactor rating no higher than Marginal. Other contractual remedies considered by Contracting Officer.

3. Schedule Performance

Strict adherence to performance schedules for each CLIN.

>95% schedule adherence demonstrated at the CLIN level.

Monthly COR review

[I] When AQL is consistently met or exceeded on each CLIN, annual CPARS Schedule/ Timeliness sub-factor rating of Satisfactory.

When AQL is consistently exceeded on each CLIN, annual CPARS Schedule/ Timeliness sub-factor rating of Very Good or Exceptional.

[D] When AQL is not met Annual CPARS Schedule/

Timeliness factor rating no higher than Marginal.

6. Customer Satisfaction

No customer complaints with high levels of satisfaction reported.

Contractor has established positive working relationship with Government customer that is maintained.

Areas of concern/ dissatisfaction are resolved to the Government’s satisfaction within 15 business days and maintained.

Results of ongoing dialog and satisfaction survey results.

[I] When AQL is consistently met or exceeded, annual CPARS Quality sub-factor rating of Satisfactory. When AQL is consistently exceeded, annual CPARS Quality sub-factor rating of Very Good or Exceptional.

[D] When AQL is not met Annual CPARS Quality sub-factor rating could be rated no higher than Marginal

7. Program Management Reports and Reviews.

100% accuracy presented in contract performance and risk management status.

>98% accuracy in reporting that demonstrates program outcomes are being properly managed and controlled.

Effectiveness of Program Management Function is validated through survey methods, performance monitoring and communication and feedback.

[I] When AQL consistently met annual CPARS Management sub-factor rating of Satisfactory. When AQL exceeded annually, annual CPARS Management sub-factor rating of Very Good or Exceptional.

[D] When AQL not met Annual CPARS Management sub factor rating could be rated no higher than Marginal

4. Reporting The COR will make continual reporting to the PM, or at a minimum, at least weekly and formally to the PM and CO at least monthly. The reporting will summarize the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance activities of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (Attachment 1, Quality Assurance Monitoring Form) will summarize and identify deliverables received, milestones achieved, schedule and cost matters, the status of risks, and any outstanding performance concerns along with their apparent root cause and the status of corrective action measures taken to-date. This becomes the official ongoing record of quality assurance documentation for the project. It enables the Government to determine that the contractor is demonstrating when they are meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including schedule/technical objectives.

5. Reviews and Resolution The COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve performance issues or concerns.

The PM, COR and contractor should jointly formulate and document long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented and must be approved by the CO and incorporated into the contract via a modification.

If the contractor disputes a surveillance determination or has concerns over the Government’s performance management of the contract in general, they must first attempt to resolve through the project office. If, in the contractor’s opinion, resolution is not possible or there is clearly an impasse that is adversely affecting the contractual relationship and/or performance, they must report their concerns to the CO in a timely fashion. The CO will be responsible to determining or negotiating the resolution approach and timeframe.

Appendix A: Acronym List AQL – Acceptable Quality Level

CAP – Corrective Action Plan

CLIN – Contract Line Item Number

CO – Contracting Officer

COR – Contracting Officer’s Representative

CPARS – Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

DOC – U.S. Department of Commerce

FAR – Federal Acquisition Regulations

NESDIS – National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PM – Project Manager

PWS – Performance Work Statement

QASP – Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

QCP – Quality Control Plan

SOW – Statement of Work

Attachment 1: Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

Quality Assurance Monitoring Form Section 1 – Quality Assurance Surveillance Activities

Applicable CLIN: Date of Review: Reviewer:

Title: Email: Phone:

Method of QA Monitoring: Surveillance ( ) Comms/Feedback ( ) Trend Analysis ( ) Project Review ( ) Other ( ) Describe:

Level of Surveillance: Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) As-Required ( ) 100% Inspection ( ) Service or Standard Requirement:

QASP AQL:

Contractor Performance:

Meets Standard: ( ) Does Not Meet Standard ( ) # of Times not Met:

Performance Rate (%): Deliverable Rejected: Y or N Incentive or Disincentive Imposed:

Performance Narrative:

Section 2 – Contractor Deficiency Report Type of Deficiency:

Deficiency Level: High ( ) Moderate ( ) Low ( ) How was Deficiency Level determined:

Risk Impact on program: High ( ) Moderate ( ) Low ( ) How was Risk Impact determined:

CAP Required: Y or N Status of CAP:

Under Development ( ) Approved ( ) Implemented ( )

CAP Implementation Timeframe:

CAP Strategy:

Responsible CAP Contractor Point of Contact:

Title:

Email:

Phone:

Date Reported to NOAA Contracting Officer: