2.04 Attachment 3 QASP.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group One

(EODGRUONE)

Combat Skills Unit Pre-Deployment Training Package

This Attachment provides a summary of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) performance requirements for the EODGRUONE Combat Skills IDIQ contract. The purpose of the QASP is to provide a structured process for managing the Contracts’ performance and reducing performance risk.

Contractor performance shall be assessed on a continuing basis throughout the period of performance based on review of performance, deliverables, reported customer satisfaction, and general interface with the contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against the performance objectives.

Contractor performance will be evaluated in five areas described below in table 1. The items identified under each area represent the types of considerations to be addressed. They should not be considered an exclusive list. The degree of government technical direction necessary to solve problems that arise during performance will be a consideration for each area. Improvements made in an area during the evaluation period will also be considered as will degradation in the overall quality of performance.

The government will evaluate the contractor’s performance against the criteria outlined below:

1. Training Execution – Addresses the extent to which the contractor (a) met the course requirements; (b) employed methods and approaches to ensure fully successful performance; (c) consistently conveyed the intended approach clearly and completely to ensure that there were no surprises; (d) was proactive and demonstrated initiative; (e) remained flexible to internal or external changes; and (f) was effective in developing and implementing process improvements.

2. Deliverables – Addresses the extent to which the contractor provides appropriate lesson plans, safety and range procedures, student evaluations, progress reports, and after-action reviews in a timely manner.

3. Facilities – Addresses that the contractor’s facilities comply with the requirements, are in good condition, and conducive for training.

4. Safety Compliance – Addresses that the contractor complies with and maintains the appropriate safety instructions and qualification standards at all times.

5. Management and Oversight – Addresses the responsiveness of the contractor’s management to Government concerns and needs, the effectiveness of the contractor’s management interface with the Government, and the overall cooperation and receptiveness of the contractor in dealing with the Government on both technical and management issues. Addresses the overall quality of the contractor’s team, including their education, relevant experience, skill levels and expertise as well as the degree of compliance with the terms of the contract. Also includes the effectiveness of the contractor’s efforts to retain or attract qualified personnel.

Table 1. Performance Requirements Summary Table

Safety Compliance

* Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) defines the maximum allowable leeway or variance from a standard before the Government will reject a service.

Evaluation Process

While the Contractor is fully expected to comply with all requirements, the Government’s assessment of performance will primarily focus on the performance objectives detailed above and numeric evaluation ratings are to be assigned for each ranging from one (1) to five (5) in accordance with Table 2. below.

An overall numeric goal of three (3) is targeted for each performance objective. Ratings of “4 or 5” may be assigned if the Contractor performed a single or multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government, and there were NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than three (3) solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the Order.

If the Contractor's overall performance is unsatisfactory, as documented within the evaluations, the PCO and COR will provide in writing a report identifying the issues that have resulted in the performance being evaluated as “unsatisfactory”. In response, the Contractor shall provide the below information to the PCO and COR, in writing within five (5) calendar days of receipt of the report:

Based upon the Contractor’s past performance and their response to the aforementioned information, the PCO will determine if any further action(s) need to be taken.

Annually, or as required, the Government will input performance evaluations into the Department of Defense (DoD) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Order COR is responsible for inputting performance ratings into CPARS for every Order that exceeds $1M and providing the finalized assessment to the DON Wireless Services Contract COR. CPARS accounts can be established at https://cpars.gov.

Table 2. Evaluation Rating Definitions

Exceptional Performance meets Contract terms and condition requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO severe issues identified.

Very Good

Performance meets Contract terms and condition requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no severe issues identified.

Satisfactory

Performance meets Contract terms and condition requirements. The performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were appropriate or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the Contract/Order. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the Contract/Order. Vendors that meet acceptable performance will receive a rating of satisfactory.

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most Contract term and condition requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.