Atttachment 4-QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract Title :Exhibit services for the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Exhibit Booth at TechNet

Cyber 2026 Conference.

2. Purpose:

This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

• What will be monitored?

• How monitoring will take place.

• Who will conduct the monitoring?

• How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the

QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

3. Roles and Responsibilities:

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides program oversight and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities.

Contracting Officer (KO) – The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process.

The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance:

Customer Input for PWS Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

mailto:disa.meade.j-0.list.scpa5-conferences-exhibits@mail.mil mailto:disa.meade.j-0.list.scpa5-conferences-exhibits@mail.mil

Acceptable surveillance methods include:

✓ Customer Input. Although usually not a primary method, this is a valuable supplement to more systematic methods. For example, in a case where random sampling indicates unsatisfactory service, customer complaints can be used as substantiating evidence. In certain situations where customers can be relied upon to complain consistently when the quality of performance is poor, e.g., dining facilities, building services, customer surveys and customer complaints may be a primary surveillance method, and customer satisfaction an appropriate performance standard. In all cases, complaints should be documented, preferably on a standard form.

Performance Rating

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. Government performance surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards.

5. Performance Standards:

Performance Standard Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Methods of Calculation

Background Display

Structure and Graphics for

Exhibit Booth

Installed in accordance with

PWS 6.2 and 6.4

Minimum Acceptable:

Structures and graphics installed no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on June 1st, 2026. Structures installed, fully functional, and within the dimensions specified in PWS 6.2 and 6.4. Display graphics are seamless and end-to-end on each required structure. Display graphics color-matched to the graphics submitted by the Government.

Printed as requested in PWS 6.4 –

Task 4.

Calculation:

Measurement tape, exhibit management visual confirmation, exhibitor usage.

Exhibit Furniture Rental

Delivered items in accordance with PWS 6.3

Minimum Acceptable:

Rental furniture delivered to exhibit no later than 3:00 p.m. ET on June

1st, 2026. Items must arrive with minimal damage, without stains or outstanding markings (exceeds 2 inches), and fully functional for its purpose.

Calculation:

Measurement tape, exhibit management visual confirmation, exhibitor usage.

Material Handling and

Shipping

Items shipped and returned in accordance with PWS 6.5

Minimum Acceptable:

Shipped materials delivered undamaged to the DISA exhibit no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on June 1st, 2026. Materials returned to DISA undamaged no later than 2:30 p.m.

ET on July 1st, 2026.

Calculation:

Customer Input for the requirements defined in PWS 6.5

6. Documenting Performance:

Acceptable Performance.

Not applicable. The requirement is under $1,000,000.00 and will not have performance rated within CPARS.

7. Mandatory or regulatory compliance items:

The contractor will provide initial proof of compliance with regulatory and compliance items contained in the contract. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (KO) will evaluate the initial submission and will conduct ad hoc reviews of the contractor's compliance throughout the remainder of the contract.

The contractor will monitor compliance as required by FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and report any issues to the KO. The contractor shall inform its employees in writing of contractor employee whistleblower rights and protections as required by DFARS 252.203-7002, Requirement to Inform Employees of

Whistleblower Rights. The contractor shall also ensure that the clause is included in all subcontracts.

8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

• Structures and graphics installed no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on June 1st, 2026. Structures installed, fully functional, and within the dimensions specified in para. 6.2 and 6.4. Display graphics are seamless and end-to-end on each required structure. Display graphics color-matched to the graphics submitted by the Government.

Printed as requested in paragraph 6.4 – Task 4.

• Rental furniture delivered to exhibit no later than 3:00 p.m. ET on June 1st, 2026. Items must arrive with minimal damage, without stains or outstanding markings (exceeds 2 inches), and fully functional for its purpose.

• Shipped materials delivered undamaged to the DISA exhibit no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on June 1st, 2026.

Materials returned to DISA undamaged no later than 2:30 p.m. ET on July 1st, 2026.

9. Evaluation Method:

The COR will document the contractor performance, if required, based upon the report and feedback from the

Customer Input for Tasks 1-5 from the Conference and Exhibits Branch (PAO5) personnel.

10. Performance Rating

In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used (same as

CPAR ratings).

Rating Definition Note

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were 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 significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear 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. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. 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.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

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).

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-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. 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).

Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix

Performance

Standards

Acceptable

Quality

Levels

Methods of

Calculation Surveillance Results/Ratings

Background

Display

Structure and

Graphics for

Exhibit Booth

Installed in accordance with PWS 6.2 and 6.4

Minimum

Acceptable:

Structures and graphics installed no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on June

1st, 2026.

Structures installed, fully functional, and within the dimensions specified inPWS

6.2 and 6.4.

Display graphics are seamless and end-to-end on each required structure. Display

Calculation:

Customer Input for the requirements defined in PWS

6.2 and 6.4.

Method of Surveillance –

The COR will document the contractor performance, if required, based upon the report and feedback from the

Customer Input for Tasks

1-5 from the Conference and Exhibits Branch

(PAO5) personnel.

(Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory)

(A rollup of assessment of the

Surveillance Inspection

Results to develop an overall rating for this objective) graphics color-matched to the graphics submitted by the

Government.

Printed as requested in

PWS 6.4 – Task

4.

Exhibit

Furniture

Rental

Delivered items in accordance with PWS 6.3

Minimum

Acceptable:

Rental furniture delivered to exhibit no later than 3:00 p.m.

ET on June 1st, 2026. Items must arrive with minimal damage, without stains or outstanding markings

(exceeds 2 inches), and fully functional for its purpose.

Calculation:

Customer Input for the requirements defined in PWS

6.3.

Method of Surveillance –

The COR will document the contractor performance, if required, based upon the report and feedback from the

Customer Input for Tasks

1-5 from the Conference and Exhibits Branch

(PAO5) personnel.

(Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory)

(A rollup of assessment of the

Surveillance Inspection

Results to develop an overall rating for this objective)

Material

Handling and

Shipping

Items shipped and returned in accordance with PWS 6.5

Minimum

Acceptable:

Shipped materials delivered undamaged to the

DISA exhibit no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on June

1st, 2026.

Materials returned to DISA undamaged no later than 2:30 p.m. ET on July

1st, 2026.

Calculation:

Customer Input for the requirements defined in PWS

6.5.

Method of Surveillance –

The COR will document the contractor performance, if required, based upon the report and feedback from the

Customer Input for Tasks

1-5 from the Conference and Exhibits Branch

(PAO5) personnel.

(Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory)

(A rollup of assessment of the

Surveillance Inspection

Results to develop an overall rating for this objective)

Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report

Appendix 3 – Customer Complaint Record

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER

NUMBER

2. CONTRACTOR 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE 5. COR PHONE 6. SUSPENSE DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT

APPLY)

NEW

REPEAT

NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM

REVIEWED

9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF DEFICIENCY

BOX WAS CHECKED)

10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CONCUR

NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION

DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON

FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. CONCUR NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION BUILDING

NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

Appendix 4 – Corrective Action Report

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR 2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA 5. SUSPENSE DATE 6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY MAJOR MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

ACCEPTED REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE