23R0003_RFP Att 1 QASP.docx

Attachment 2 Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

NSWCCD

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

For Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility Operations Support Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Code 70123 SEAFAC Site Director

The Contractor shall furnish all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, facilities, transportation, incidental engineering, and other items necessary to provide the services described in this Statement of Work (SOW) at the Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility (SEAFAC) located at Back Island, Alaska approximately 12 mile north of Ketchikan, AK. The SOW outlines requirements for site maintenance, logistics, operations, technical integration services, and program management, in support of signature silencing programs for naval ships and undersea systems. In general, this work includes:

RFP N0016723R0003

RFP N0016723R0003 Attachment #1

NSWCCD C/02 021-017 QASP Template Effective September 2021

NSWCCD C/02 021-017 QASP

INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Statement of Work (SOW) entitled SEAFAC Operations Support. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division (NSWCCD) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the Contractor.

Purpose 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 is a living document that provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the required performance standards and to ensure that the Government pays only for the level of services received.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated product team (IPT), identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

Performance Management Approach This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by NSWCCD to monitor and manage the Contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the Contractor.

Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A results-based approach enables the Contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the Contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

Performance Management Strategy 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 SOW. The Contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated Government representative. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor’s QC program.

The Government representative(s) will monitor performance and review monthly status reports furnished by the Contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The Government will make a determination regarding performance based on the performance standard/criteria definitions. The Contractor will be responsible for making changes in processes and practices, if necessary, to ensure performance is managed effectively. At a minimum, these determinations will be documented in the monthly COR reports and annually in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Procuring Contracting Officer The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contractor. The PCO will designate in writing the COR as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the Contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the COR.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative The COR is designated in writing by the PCO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance and documentation of performance in the COR monthly report and annual CPARS report. During each reporting period, the COR should record all surveillance conducted. The record should include the determined rating for each performance objective and any action taken in regards to performance in this section. If a Technical Advisor (TA) assists with contract surveillance, the COR uses TA-prepared documentation to assist in the drafting/submission of associated COR and CPARS reports to the PCO. If issues regarding Contractor performance arise, the COR will first inform the Contractor of such problems. If the Contractor fails to take action towards issue resolution, the COR will make a recommendation to the PCO; specifying that adverse contractual actions are appropriate. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. The COR may use the QA monitoring forms in order to document the assessment and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance and support the CPARS report. Government surveillance may occur under the assessment of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

2.3 Technical Advisor (TA)

The TA assists in administration, oversight, and performance assessments. The TA will perform surveillance of the Contractor’s performance as well as document and report assessments, findings, and issues to the COR. The TA does not have any authority to direct or allow the Contractor to deviate from the contract requirements, including changes which would affect task costs or schedule/deliveries. Additionally, the TA has no authority to direct or interfere with Contractor methods of performance; or to issue directions (including change orders) to any of the Contractor personnel.

IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The required performance standards are included in Attachment 1 Performance Evaluation Elements and Standards.

The adjectival ratings identified in the table below will be utilized when evaluating Contractor performance in the monthly COR reports and in the annual CPARS assessment:

*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. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

*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 significant weaknesses identified.

*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. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

*To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

*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. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

Surveillance Techniques In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are:

· Periodic Assessment of performance and/or draft deliverables, which shall be performed by the COR and the TA. The frequency of the periodic assessments is determined by the COR and may increase or decrease based on contract requirements and Contractor performance.

· Unscheduled Visits to monitor and/or directly observe performance against the standards, which shall be performed by the COR and the TA.

· 100% Assessment of all invoices, final deliverables, and tasks with stringent requirements (required/regulated by law, safety, security, etc…).

· Customer Feedback, including investigation of all customer complaints and customer monthly input to the COR, requires validation by the COR or TA.

Customer Feedback The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer feedback.

Performance management drives the Contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems. The customer should communicate complaints to the COR or TA, as opposed directly to the Contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint and must be forwarded to the COR or TA. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from informal requests for feedback.

Performance Standards The performance standards included in Attachment 1 are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed. For each element, the table identifies the standards for unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good, and exceptional performance levels.

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

The Performance Management Feedback Loop The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance evaluation elements and standards are shown in Attachment 1.

Monitoring Forms The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR will be reported monthly using the COR monthly report template provided by the COR Oversight Team in conjunction with the template in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) system. The COR, as the Assessing Official Representative, will also draft an annual CPARS report. For Unscheduled Visits and if the COR determines additional monitoring is required, the monitoring form in Attachment 3 will be completed and filed in the COR file. The form, when necessary, will document any additional assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract in order to ensure that the required results or service or performance standards are being achieved.

The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms and reports.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

Determining Performance Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards have been met. If the Contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels. Failure to meet the standards may result in an Unsatisfactory CPARS rating. Likewise, if the Contractor exceeds the performance standards, an above Satisfactory CPARS rating may be awarded.

Reporting At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written COR report in the PIEE system summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. This written report, which may include or reference the Contractor’s submitted monthly report and any necessary quality assurance monitoring form (Attachment 2), will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives. On an annual basis, the COR will also complete the CPARS report.

Reviews and Resolution The COR may require the Contractor’s program manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the PCO, PM and other Government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The PCO will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the Contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the Contractor; however, if the need arises, the Contractor will meet with the PCO, COR, or PM as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

· Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

The PCO must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The PCO, COR, PM and the Contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification issued by PCO as soon as practicable.

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

N0016723R0003 Attachment #1

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

N0016723R0003

NSWCCD C/02 021-017 QASP Template Effective September 2021

I. Quality

Rework is occasionally required.

Work products and services meet the specified requirement.

Rework is infrequently required.

Work products and services meet and slightly exceed the specified requirement.

Rework is rarely required.

Work products and services meet and far exceed the specified requirement.

Rework is never required.

II. Schedule

III. Cost Control

Cost reports are late and contain errors.

Invoicing is not accurate or submitted in a timely manner.

Supporting detail is missing or incomplete.

Subcontractor invoices are rarely paid in a timely manner.

Contractor may experience occasional cost overruns.

Cost reports are occasionally late and/or contain errors.

Invoices are occasionally late or contain errors.

Supporting detail contains occasional errors.

Subcontractor invoices are not paid in a timely manner.

Small business subcontractor invoices are not expedited.

Contractor routinely completes the effort within the originally agreed-to estimated cost.

Funds and resources are used in a cost-effective manner.

Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete, and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate.

All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a timely manner.

Small business subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Contractor routinely completes the effort within the originally agreed-to estimated cost and experiences occasional cost underruns.

Funds and resources are used in a cost-effective manner.

Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete, and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate.

All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a timely manner.

Small business subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Contractor often completes the effort at lower than estimated costs.

Funds and resources are used in a most cost-effective manner.

Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete, and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate.

All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a timely manner.

Small business subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Errors are not quickly corrected.

Contractor does not comply with contract requirements for ODC authorizations.

Burdened unit costs are usually higher than proposed.

ODCs are occasionally not reported or invoiced in a timely manner.

Errors are not consistently corrected in a timely manner.

Occasionally, the contractor does not comply with ODC authorization requirements in the contract.

Burdened unit costs are frequently higher than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

Any errors noted are quickly corrected.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 96% of the time.

Burdened unit costs are rarely higher than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

Errors are rare and quickly corrected.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 98% of the time.

Burdened unit costs are occasionally lower than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 100% of the time.

Burdened unit costs are often lower than proposed.

IV. Management

Lapses in coverage occur regularly.

Contractor provides marginally qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverable occur more than occasionally.

Contractor provides qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage occur occasionally and are successfully managed by the contractor to minimize impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute resumes are submitted IAW contract requirements.

Personnel work products are fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Contractor provides a mix of qualified and highly qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage are rare and are successfully managed by the contractor with little or no impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute resumes are submitted IAW contract requirements.

Personnel work products are fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Contractor provides highly qualified personnel.

No lapses in coverage.

New/and or substitute resumes are submitted IAW contract requirements.

Personnel work products are fully consistent with resume qualifications.

V. Small Business Subcontracting

VI. Regulatory Compliance

Attachment 1 Performance Evaluation Elements and Standards

SOW TASK:

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Periodic Assessment Unscheduled Visit 100% Assessment Customer Feedback LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Narrative of Performance during Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________