4_QASP_30Sep2026.docx
DOCX document 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MARSOC Direct Action IDIQ
- Solicitation number
- H9225726RE008
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) template for evaluating contractor performance on a Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) Direct Action IDIQ contract. The QASP establishes evaluation criteria and reporting procedures for assessing contractor manpower augmentation services provided to the Marine Raider Training Center (MRTC) during the Period of Performance from September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021. Completed assessment reports must be submitted in PDF format to the PIEE SPM Module no later than the 10th of each quarter (December, March, June, and September), with evaluations conducted at CONUS locations including Wilmington NC, Camp Pendleton CA, Louisiana, and Missouri exercise sites.
The QASP evaluation framework contains 17 assessment criteria organized into four performance categories: Quality of Service (3 items), Schedule (4 items), Business Relations (6 items), and Management of Personnel (3 items). Evaluators mark performance as performing (Y) or not performing (N) each task and assign quality ratings on a scale of 1 (Unacceptable) to 5 (Excellent), with 3 representing Satisfactory performance. Assessment areas include contractor conformance to contract specifications and SOW requirements, timely delivery of equipment and training aids, exercise support personnel provision, schedule compliance, customer orientation, communication effectiveness, security clearance verification, and personnel management and subcontractor oversight. The Government's Contracting Officer Representative (COR) conducts assessments in coordination with the Contractor Site Lead and must provide written justification and supporting comments for any ratings other than Satisfactory, with methodology referencing the Services Delivery Summary contained in the base contract documentation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3_Draft DD254_30Sep2026.pdf | ||
| 7_OCI Disclosure Form_30Sep2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6_Teaming Agreement_30Sep2026.docx | DOCX document | |
| H9225726RE008.pdf | ||
| 2_Pricing Template_30Sep2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5_Question Answer Template_30Sep2026.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) H92257-27-D-00## Upload completed report (.pdf) to PIEE SPM Module NLT 10th of each QTR (Dec, Mar, Jun, Sep; PoP: 1Sep20-31Aug21)
ATTACHMENT 2
| Date: |
| 10 Dec XX |
| Site: |
| CONUS locations (e.g., Wilmington NC, CamPen CA, LA, MO; Exercise site) |
Contractor Site Lead:
| Activity: |
| MARFORSOC MRTC Direct Action |
Contractor:
| Assessment Conducted By: |
| MARSOC COR – TBD |
Instructions: Mark appropriate columns with Y or N, and an X for Quality Rating.
Y = is performing task N = is not performing task Rating: 1= Unacceptable 2= Marginal 3= Satisfactory 4= Very Good 5= Excellent *Note: Justify / Support ratings other than Satisfactory with comments below.
| Y |
| N |
QUALITY
1 2 3 4 5
Quality of Service
1. Does the contractor’s performance conform to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards)?
2. Did the contractor meet the requirements identified in the SOW?
3. Did the contractor provide equipment and training aids?
4. Did the contractor provide exercise support personnel?
Schedule
5. Does the contractor accomplish tasks and delivery of products within schedule timelines, milestones, delivery schedules and administrative requirement?
6. Are requirements / deliverables completed in an accurate and timely manner, in compliance with SOW requirements ?
7. Did the contractor submit required security requirement on time?
Business Relations
8. Is the contractor oriented toward the customer?
9. Is interaction / communication between the contractor and the Government satisfactory or does it need improvement ?
10. Did the contractor provide general support when needed?
11. Was proper exercise coordination conducted/completed to meet training requirements?
12. Were services provided in a timely manner, and complete?
13. Was the quality of problem identification and corrective action plans, if applicable, focused on customer satisfaction?
14. Did the contractor personnel exhibit reasonable and cooperative behavior?
Management of Personnel
15. Did the contractor select, retain, support, and ensure training over time as required, and replace, when necessary, any non-conforming personnel?
16. Did the contractor properly manage any sub-contractors that were in support?
17. Did all contractor personnel have the appropriate/required security clearance?
JUSTIFY / SUPPORT RATINGS OTHER THAN SATISFACTORY. PROVIDE ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, THAT INFORMS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ON CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE. (Use additional pages as needed) COMMENTS:
Add your appropriate comments here…
I have discussed my assessment with the Contractor Site Lead.
| COR Signature: |
| Date: |
**Method of Evaluation of CTR performance: per Services Delivery Summary in H92257-21-D-00XX
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .