ATC Draft Profiler QASP 20250302.docx

DOCX document 48 KB Posted

Attached to
Profilometer Terrain Measurement System Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
W91CRB-26-R-A015
Issued by
Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground

About this file

This is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) document that establishes the government's framework for monitoring and evaluating contractor performance on the Profilometer Terrain Measurement System contract. The QASP is not part of the contract itself but serves as the government's tool for continuous oversight to ensure the contractor meets all performance standards. The document outlines the roles and responsibilities of key personnel, including the Contracting Officer (Todd Strasavich, Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground, todd.m.strasavich.civ@army.mil, (443) 861-4959), the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), and the Program Manager. The COR is responsible for maintaining a Quality Assurance file documenting actual contractor performance and providing annual performance assessments to the Contracting Officer.

The QASP details three primary performance objectives: design review, initial system test, and final system test. Each objective contains multiple performance elements addressing specific technical requirements such as sensor specifications, interface specifications, sensor fusion data, integration of sensors to the prime mover, user interface functionality, prime mover selection, data communications, data processing tools, and post-processing output validation. Performance is measured against detailed standards related to resolution, accuracy, bandwidth, coverage area, durability, ergonomics, and compatibility with off-road terrain. The COR will conduct surveillance using engineering assessments and performance comparisons against Statement of Work specifications at each major phase. The QASP includes standardized forms for Corrective Action Reports, Customer Complaint Records, and Performance Assessment Reports to document any deficiencies and track contractor corrective actions, with performance ratings ranging from Unsatisfactory to Excellent/Outstanding based on contractual compliance and effectiveness.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Show all 15

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • 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)

1. Vision: This project will provide the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) a stand-alone highly mobile off-road test course and terrain measurement system consisting of a prime mover with integrated sensor suite, data collection hardware and software. The system shall meet the technical, training, and documentation requirements as described in this document.

2. N/A

3. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan is a government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

· What will be monitored

· How monitoring will take place

· Who will conduct the monitoring

· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan. The QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards. It is the government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s quality control plan. This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance.

The government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances might occur that are outside the control of the contractor.

Bottom line, the QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance.

4. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Inspection of Services clauses, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract or order. This acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized contracting officer representative (COR).

5. Roles and Responsibilities

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides primary program oversight, nominates the COR, ensures the COR is trained before performing any COR duties and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. While the PM may serve as a direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the Contractor on technical matters, they are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or any contract changes on the government’s behalf.

Assigned PM: To be completed after contract award Organization or Agency: <enter organization or Agency name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

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.

Assigned KO: Todd Strasavich Organization or Agency: Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground Telephone: (443) 861-4959 Email: todd.m.strasavich.civ@army.mil

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.

Contractor Representatives

The following employees of the contractor serve as the contractor’s Program Manager and Task Manager for this contract. (Complete this section after the contract award)

Program Manager - <upon award, enter name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

Task Manager - <upon award, enter name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

Other Key Contract Personnel - <upon award, enter name or delete these lines if not applicable> Title: <enter title> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

6. Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance

6.1. Contract Surveillance

The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR’s contribution is their professional, non-adversarial relationships with the KO, PM and the contractor, which enables positive, open and timely communications. The foundation of this relationship is built upon objective, fair, and consistent COR evaluations of contractor performance against contract requirements. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for management and QC/QA actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

6.2. Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (Attachment 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

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. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

6.3. Performance Rating Definitions

In evaluating the quality of the contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used.

Performance Rating Criteria

Excellent / Outstanding
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefits. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no problems and contractor actions were highly effective.
Very Good
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government benefits. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Satisfactory
Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.
Marginal
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
Unsatisfactory
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

7. Performance Reporting

7.1. Performance Assessment Report

See page 15 for Format.

7.2. Customer Complaint Form

See page 14 for format.

7.3. Corrective Action Report (CAR)

See page 13 for format.

Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix

PWS Paragraph
Performance Objective / Elements
Standards / AQL
Inspection
Calculation / Ratings
What
How/ Method
When/ Freq
2.3 Performance Objective (PO1): Design review
Rollup assessment of Performance Elements, to develop an overall rating for this objective.
2.3.1
PE 1 for PO 1: Provide detailed specifications of selected sensors performance parameters.
Performance parameters must meet or exceed the system requirements metrics.
Resolution, accuracy, bandwidth, coverage area, safety concerns.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding accuracy.
At design review prior to integration and assembly
2.3.2
PE 2 for PO 1: Provide detailed interface specifications of selected sensors and the recording system.
Interface specifications must meet or exceed the system requirements metrics
Sample rate, interface type, timing method.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding performance.
At design review prior to integration and assembly
2.3.3
PE 3 for PO 1: Provide detailed sensor fusion plan for the selected sensors’ data. system.
Data fusion must meet or exceed the system objectives and metrics.
Sample rate, timing, mathematical algorithms, noise rejection method, feature detection.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding performance.
At design review prior to integration and assembly

2.3.4

PE 4 for PO 1: Provide detailed sensor to prime mover integration plan.

Sensor integration must meet technical performance and maintainability objectives.

Location, durability of mounts, environmental considerations, replaceability, maintainability.

Engineering assessment

At design review prior to integration and assembly

2.3.5
PE 5 for PO 1: Provide detailed user interface description.
System operable by one person, ability to drive and monitor data.
Location, mounting durability, ergonomic considerations, safety, graphical user interface(s).
Engineering assessment
At design review prior to integration and assembly
2.3.6
PE 6 for PO1: Provide selection for prime mover if not provided by government
System capable of traversing rough off-road test courses without impacting sensor performance as described in SOW
Make/ model of vehicle with any selected options or modifications.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding performance.
At design review prior to integration and assembly
2.4 Performance Objective (PO2): Initial System Test
Rollup assessment of Performance Elements, to develop an overall rating for this objective.
2.4.1
PE 1 for PO 2: Demonstrate sensors performance parameters.
Sensor performance parameters must meet or exceed the system requirements metrics
Resolution, accuracy, bandwidth, coverage area, safety concerns.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding accuracy.
During the initial system test
2.4.2
PE 2 for PO 2: Demonstrate data communications from sensors to the recording system.
Interface specifications must meet or exceed the system requirements metrics
Sample rate, interface type, timing method.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding performance.
During the initial system test.
2.4.3
PE 3 for PO 2: Demonstrate sensor fusion data results.
Data fusion must meet or exceed the system objectives and metrics.
Sample rate, timing, mathematical algorithms, noise rejection method, feature detection.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding performance.
During the initial system test.
2.4.4
PE 4 for PO 2: Provide integrated sensor to prime mover system.
Sensor integration must meet technical performance and maintainability objectives.
Location, durability of mounts, environmental considerations, replaceability, maintainability
Engineering assessment
During the initial system test.
2.4.5
PE 5 for PO 2: Demonstrate user interface operation.
System operable by one person, ability to drive and monitor data.
Location, mounting durability, ergonomic considerations, safety, graphical user interface(s).
Engineering assessment
During the initial system test.
2.4.6
PE 6 for PO 2: Evaluate data processing tools
Ease of data import, raw data examination, data editing,
Data file handling, noise and wild point identification, overall processing time.
Engineering assessment
During the initial system test
2.4.7
PE 7 for PO 2: Evaluate information after data processing
Output after data analysis is comparable to historical information.
RMS levels, feature identification, location information.
Engineering assessment
During the initial system test.
2.4.8
PE 6 for PO 2: Provide selection for prime mover if not provided by government
System capable of traversing rough off-road test courses without impacting sensor performance as described in SOW
Make/ model of vehicle with any selected options or modifications.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding performance.
During the initial system test.
2.5 Performance Objective (PO3): Final system test
Rollup assessment of Performance Elements, to develop an overall rating for this objective.
2.5.1
PE 1 for PO 3: Verify sensor performance parameters.
Sensor performance parameters must meet or exceed the system requirements metrics
Resolution, accuracy, bandwidth, coverage area, safety concerns.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding accuracy.
During the final system test
2.5.2
PE 2 for PO 3: Verify data communications from sensors to the recording system.
Interface specifications must meet or exceed the system requirements metrics
Sample rate, interface type, timing method.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding performance.
During the final system test
2.5.3
PE 3 for PO 3: Verify sensor fusion data. results.
Data fusion must meet or exceed the system objectives and metrics.
Sample rate, timing, mathematical algorithms, noise rejection method, feature detection.
Compare to the SOW specifications regarding performance.
During the final system test
2.5.4
PE 4 for PO 3: Provide integrated sensor to prime mover system.
Sensor integration must meet technical performance and maintainability objectives.
Sensor location, durability of mounts, environmental considerations, replaceability, maintainability.
Engineering assessment
During the final system test
2.5.5
PE 5 for PO 3: Verify user interface operation.
System operable by one person, ability to drive and monitor data.
User interface location, mounting durability, ergonomic considerations, safety
Engineering assessment
During the final system test
2.5.6
PE 6 for PO 3: Evaluate data processing tools
Ease of data import, raw data examination, data editing,
Data file handling, noise and wild point identification.
Engineering assessment
During the final system test.
2.5.7
PE 7 for PO 3: Evaluate information after data processing
Output after data analysis is comparable to historical information.
RMS levels, feature identification, location information
Engineering assessment
During the final system test.

Inspection Metrologies:

M1: Inspection of Reports. All reports shall be reviewed upon receipt. The reviewer will report any flaws in the document and categorize the flaws (Editorial, Format, and/or Substance).

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

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

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

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .