20155109_Attachment 09 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).docx

Large-Scale Fixed Systems

ATTACHMENT 9 – QAULITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Attachment 09 – Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

For:

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

NON-INTRUSIVE INSPECTION SYSTEMS

Large-Scale Fixed Systems

PREPARED BY:

OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS

MISSION SUPPORT DIRECTORATE

PROGRAM EXECUTION BRANCH

September 30, 2025

Table of Contents

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Introduction This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Large-Scale Fixed Systems Statement of Work and related Attachments. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Non-Intrusive Inspection Program will use in ensuring the required performance standards and service levels are achieved by the Contractor.

Purpose

a. The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the SOW and the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP), and to ensure that CBP pays only for the level of services received.

b. This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of the Government officials, identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance, describes Quality Assurance (QA) documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

Performance Management Approach

a. The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own quality control (QC) program. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by Contractor employees or by subcontractors. The Contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the contract. The Contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). This QASP will enable CBP to both understand and take advantage of the Contractor’s QC program as it relates to the management of the contract

b. The COR will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the Contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The COR will make determinations based on performance measurement metric data and notify the Contractor of those decisions. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

Roles and Responsibilities The Contracting Officer

1. The Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the COR and the Contractor. The CO will designate, at a minimum, and if applicable, one full-time COR from the Non-Intrusive Inspection Program Office and may designate one alternate COR from the same office.

1. The number of additional representatives serving as Government Technical Monitors (GTM) depends on the complexity of the supplies and services measured, as well as the Contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the CO.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative

a. The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. Limitations on COR authority is contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the CBP’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions will be referred to the CO for action.

b. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance. Both COR and CO surveillance may occur under the inspection of supplies and services clause for any supplies or services relating to the contract.

Methodologies to Monitor Performance Surveillance Techniques To minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods will be used by CBP to evaluate Contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are as follows:

a. Random monitoring, which will be performed by the COR, and/or their designated inspector.

b. 100% Inspection – Each month, the COR will review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the COR checklist.

c. Periodic Inspection – The COR will perform periodic inspections, in the form of Program Management Reviews (PMRs), on a quarterly basis.

d. Unscheduled inspections/evaluations of all supplies and/or services under the IDIQ contract and respective task order statements of work will be conducted throughout the contract performance period by the COR. If at any time, the supplies and/or services being provided are found to be noncompliant or do not meet the minimum contract standards, the Government reserves the right to take corrective action.

Quality Assurance Documentation The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR or their designated inspector, will be captured using the COR and PMR checklists. These documents, when completed, will document the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

The Acquisition Program Management Office will retain copies of all completed QA surveillance forms.

Analysis of Quality Assurance Assessment Determining Performance CBP will use the monitoring methods cited above to determine whether the performance standards have been met. If the Contractor has not met the minimum performance requirements, a corrective action plan may be required from the Contractor to document how and by what date the identified performance issue will be brought up to a contractually compliant level. The Contractor will also be able to qualify for incentives, as well as be subject to dis-incentives, as it relates to their performance as discussed in Sections 8 and 9.

Note: In the event the system is out of service for more than ten (10) consecutive days due to Contractor non-performance or delay in furnishing required parts/services, the warranty and maintenance periods will be tolled for an equivalent number of days. Tolling will begin on the first day of unavailability and end upon Government acceptance of the system as returned to full operational capability. Warranty and maintenance requirements, including specific terms and conditions, refer to Attachment 6 – Lifecycle Sustainment and Support Requirements.

Reporting After each PMR, the COR will prepare a written report for the contractor summarizing the overall results of the Contractor’s performance as measured by the quality assurance surveillance method. This written report, which includes any directed corrective action, will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable CBP to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

Reviews and Resolution The COR may require the Contractor’s Project Manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO, COR, and other U.S. Government personnel as deemed necessary to review the performance evaluation(s) and discuss any necessary processes for resolution when non-compliance with stated objectives and/or performance standards are found through the QA process. The COR and Contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action to resolve any findings of non-compliance with stated objectives and/or performance standards. The COR will define the frequency of reviews with the Contractor, including appropriate self-assessment reports by the Contractor. However, if the need arises, the Contractor will meet with the COR as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The review agenda(s) may, at a minimum, will include:

1. Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis.

1. Issues and concerns brought by both parties.

1. Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress towards the determined resolution against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis.

1. Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness.

The COR and GTM will coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels will be clearly documented and maintained as part of the QA documentation.

Performance Measurement Performance minimums will be measured in accordance with the following table:

As required for corrective actions.

95% compliance with the Contractor plan.

Incentives and Disincentives Incentive & Disincentive Chart

This chart summarizes the incentives and disincentives that will be used throughout the performance of each Delivery Order and are explained further throughout Section 8.

Incentive Chart

or

Maintain ≥ 95% for secondary screening system uptime per site/year Pre-primary ≥ 96% or

Secondary ≥ 95%

or

Secondary: 96%= .5%, 97%= 1%, 98%= 1.5%, >99%= 2%

Disincentive Chart

or

≥ 95% for secondary screening system uptime per site/year Pre-primary ≥ 96%

Or

Secondary ≥ 95%

95% = -0.25%, 94% = -0.5%, 93% = -0.75%, 92% = -1%, 91% = -1.25%, 90% = -1.5%, <90% = -2% or

Secondary: ≤2%: 94% = -0.25%, 93% = -0.5%, 92% = -0.75%, 91% = -1%, 90% = -1.25%, 89% = -1.5%, <88% = -2%

Incentives and Disincentives for Reaching a Successful SAT and Completion of 40-Day Burn-in

Final acceptance of equipment is contingent upon successful completion of both initial on-site testing and a forty (40) day burn-in period under normal operating conditions, as set forth in the SOW, Attachment 01 – Functional Requirements Document, Attachment 02 – Integration Overview, Attachment 03 – Design, Construction and Installation Requirements, and Attachment 5 – Testing Requirements. The following incentive and disincentive provisions apply in addition to the acceptance/payment conditions of SOW Section 4 and its subsections.

8.2.1 Incentives:

Incentives are provided during the Base Year for achieving specific performance objectives outlined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW). These incentives are tied to the successful completion of installation and commissioning requirements and the attainment of defined system operational availability thresholds, as detailed below:

· Installation and Commissioning Incentive - For any individual serialized equipment unit that is installed in accordance with OEM/CBP specifications and achieves final system acceptance during the Base Year by (1) passing the Site Acceptance Test (SAT) on the first attempt and (2) completing a zero-defect 40-day burn-in period, a 2% incentive shall be applied to the system cost of the unit. This incentive is contingent upon the Test Manager's witness and the Contracting Officer Representative's (COR) approval of SAT reports.

· System Operational Availability Incentive - For any individual serialized equipment unit, incentives are applied based on the operational availability (Ao) achieved during the reporting period (monthly) in the Base Year. Pre-primary screening systems must achieve a minimum Ao threshold of 96%, while secondary screening systems must achieve a minimum Ao threshold of 95%. Higher levels of availability result in increased incentive percentages, which are calculated based on warranty costs and assigned incentive rates. Both the warranty costs and any applicable incentives are not chargeable until the warranty period has been completed. Monthly reporting of operational availability is derived from opened and completed Maximo work orders, system logs, and downtime reports.

8.2.2 Disincentives:

Disincentives are applied during the Base Year for failing to meet specific performance objectives outlined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW). These disincentives are tied to failures in installation and commissioning requirements and to the inability to achieve defined system operational availability thresholds, as detailed below:

· Installation and Commissioning Disincentive - For any individual serialized equipment unit that fails to achieve final system acceptance during the Base Year by (1) failing the Site Acceptance Test (SAT) on the first attempt and/or (2) failing to complete a zero-defect 40-day burn-in period, the following disincentives shall apply:

· A 2% disincentive is applied to the system cost for the first SAT failure.

· A 1% disincentive is applied to the system cost for each additional SAT failure.

These disincentives are contingent upon the Test Manager's witness and the Contracting Officer Representative's (COR) approval of SAT reports.

· System Operational Availability Disincentive - For any individual serialized equipment unit that fails to meet the defined operational availability (Ao) thresholds during the reporting period (monthly) in the Base Year, disincentives are applied based on the degree of deviation from the required Ao.

· Pre-primary screening systems:

· Disincentive percentages increase incrementally as availability falls below the 96% threshold, with a maximum disincentive of 2% applied for availability below 90%.

· Secondary screening systems:

· Disincentive percentages increase incrementally as availability falls below the 95% threshold, with a maximum disincentive of 2% applied for availability below 88%.

Disincentives are calculated based on the warranty cost and assigned disincentive rates. Monthly reporting of operational availability is derived from opened and completed Maximo work orders, system logs, and downtime reports.

Excusable Delays

Delays or failures attributable to Government actions, force majeure events, or other circumstances beyond the Contractor’s reasonable control (as determined by the Contracting Officer) will not be subject to disincentives.

Documentation.

The Contractor will provide daily logs during the burn-in period as stated in the SOW - section 4.2.2 Documentation documenting uptime, downtime, corrective actions, and system availability. Logs will be validated by the Government prior to final acceptance and payment authorization.

The Contractor will provide monthly reports demonstrating compliance with the Operational Availability objective. Reports will be validated by the Government in accordance with the Government’s QASP.

Remainder of page left intentionally blank image1.jpg image2.jpeg