A19 - QASP Combat Systems 2025.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL MAINTENANCE CENTER (SERMC)

COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNICAL SUPPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer (KO)

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)…

2.3 The Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) ..………………………………………………………4

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms …………

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM (QAMF)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled Southeast Regional Maintenance Center (SERMC) Combat Systems Technical Support, to satisfy the overall Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) mission objectives of Fleet Technical Assistance (FTA), Total Ship Readiness Assessments (TSRA), Integrated Class Maintenance Plans (ICMP), Mandatory Technical Requirement (MTR) Assessments, Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV), and Administrative Support for SERMC. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines SERMC will use in ensuring the required performance standards 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 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 identified in the PWS and the contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP).

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of the Government and 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 the Government to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS 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 task order are being achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 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 performance-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.

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 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 procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a system with processes to assess and report its performance to the Government. 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 any required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), the Technical Point of Contract (TPOC) and the contractor. The KO will designate a COR to provide oversight of contractor performance.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The contracting officer’s representative is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering the task order. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the task order and ensures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. 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 KO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms (QAMF) used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance.

Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the task order.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The required performance standards are included in the PWS. Failure to meet the required service or performance level may result in an adverse Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report(s).

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 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 method of surveillance is 100% inspection for technical positions and random sampling and customer feedback for administrative positions.

4.2 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.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and will forward them to the KO for review and determination of appropriate action.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels established in the associated PWS for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed. For all Fleet Technical Assistance, System Equipment Operational Support and Integrated Logistics Support Tasks, the desired performance level is established at 100% error free and 95% completion within established timeframes. For administrative positions the performance threshold is based on valid customer complaints concerning accuracy of administrative tasks which shall not exceed four per month.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes.

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

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported on the COR Monthly Report form and/or the QAMF. The forms, when completed, will document the Government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the task order to ensure that the required performance standards are being achieved. The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

The Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs 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 AQL may result in an adverse CPARS report.

6.2 Reporting

At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report for the KO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and information obtained from the QAMF, 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.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The KO may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the COR and other Government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The KO will define the 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.

The contractor may request a meeting with personnel as deemed necessary to present a solution. 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

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

6.3.3 The KO, 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.