80HQTR27R0006_NPP-3 Enclosure 2_QASP.pdf

02/2026

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Headquarters (HQ)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR THE

NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP-3)

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) was prepared by the following:

_________________TBD____________________

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

Leona D. Ellis Contracting Officer (CO) NASA HQ Office of Procurement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 Contracting Officer (CO)

2.2 COR/Alternate COR

2.3 NASA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Surveillance Activities

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled NASA Postdoctoral Program (NPP-3). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines NASA Headquarters (HQ) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and identify required documentation and resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and ensure the Government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all surveillance members, 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.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PWS structures the acquisition around what service or quality level is required, as opposed to how the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance).

This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved.

1.2.2 Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, if the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local), agency and center mandated procedures and processes (e.g., NPRs, NPDs) and compelling business situations, such as safety, environmental, and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract if the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s internal 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 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 PWS. The contractor will use its internal quality control system 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.

1.3.2 The Government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

All surveillance activities will be implemented using NASA civil servant and NASA support-contractor personnel.

2.1 Contracting Officer (CO)

2.1.1 The CO is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control, and resolving any differences between observations documented by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the contractor. The CO will delegate a COR as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional alternate CORs depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and will be identified and delegated by the CO.

2.1.2 The CO is ultimately responsible for the acceptance of services received under this contract.

2.1.2 The CO will complete an annual contractor performance assessment report using the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) that will also be reviewed by the contractor. The CPARS includes an assessment of contractor quality performance.

2.2 COR/Alternate COR

2.2.1 The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the NASA Form 1634, COR Delegation. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance.

The COR monitors the technical work performed under the contract, evaluates contractor performance, serves as the primary interface for the contractor and the CO for all technical matters, reports on contract status to Program/Project Management, and recommends corrective action when necessary. The COR will keep the CO apprised of performance problems early on when identified. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes the contractor deems may affect the contract price, terms, or conditions will be referred to the CO for action. The COR maintains documentation on file to preserve a history of the contractor’s performance to ensure standards in the contract are being met. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

2.2.2 The COR assumes full responsibility for directing the surveillance activities identified in this plan. The COR also trains the NPP Manager on evaluation procedures for evaluating contractor performance.

2.2.3 The COR will assist the CO in the completion of the contract’s annual performance assessment report using CPARS.

2.3 NASA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)

2.3.1 NASA OCIO is responsible for granting the Authority to Operate (ATO) for all IT systems. For SI (formerly “AI”)-related deployments, the ATO process incorporates the governance procedures and compliance verification established by the Chief AI Officer (CAIO), ensuring that a granted ATO confirms all SI (formerly “AI”)-specific requirements have been met.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and assessed using the performance monitoring techniques in this QASP.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

To minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods will be used by the Government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance to be used for this contract are included in Section 4.2.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.1.1 The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and assessed using the performance monitoring techniques in QASP.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

The Government will use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs/APLs 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.

6.2 Reporting

At the end of each year, the COR will prepare a written report summarizing the overall performance of the contractor; this will be the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager or designated alternate to meet with the CO and other Government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss the performance evaluation. The CO, and/or COR 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 COR as often as required.

This Program Meeting may include the review of the contractor's Annual Report and Annual Performance Report, review the short-term and long-term program evaluation, and plan for future program years; it may also include discussions and recommendations for changes.

6.3.2 The CO and COR will coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The COR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the procuring CO.