Att 02 - CSP.pdf

N0042126R3006 Attachment 02

Contract Surveillance Plan for Technical Engineering Services

1. Purpose

This Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure systematic Quality Assurance (QA) methods are used in the administration and surveillance of tasking under the Task Order (TO). The intent is to ensure the Contractor performs In Accordance With (IAW) the Statement of Work (SOW) and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the SeaPort-Next Generation (NxG) Multiple Award Contract (MAC) TO.

The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) Webster Outlying Field (WOLF) Ship & Air Integrated Warfare (SAIW) Division, as the organic Lead Systems Integrator® (oLSI®), has a requirement to provide concept and technology development support, system development and design support, system integration and life cycle sustainment, analysis, and technical assessments; technical management support; and cybersecurity support to projects within the SAIW portfolio. The scope of this effort encompasses rapidly-developed engineering designs for end products intended for immediate warfighter operational use and may include Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C6ISR) systems, subsystems, and components of strategic and tactical airborne, land-based, mobile, sea-based surface, and sub-surface platforms.

This TO will have Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) term Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for labor and cost reimbursable CLINs for Other Direct Costs (ODCs). The TO will have a period of performance of a base and four option years. A properly executed CSP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this CSP is provided under TO Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services, products, and documentation called for in the TO that will be executed by the Contracting Officer (KO) or a duly authorized representative.

3. Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between Quality Control Plan (QCP) and the CSP. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for the QCP, which defines the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in the TO.

The CSP provides Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure they are timely, effective, and delivering the results specified in the TO.

4. Government Resources

The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this plan:

KO: A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into a contract (Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)), or a person with the authority to administer contracts (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)) and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The ACO will be designated in the resulting TO. KOs are designated via a written warrant that sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering the TO. The COR will be appointed in the resulting TO. The limitations of authority are contained in the letter of appointment.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR): An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the TO. The ACOR will be appointed in the resulting TO. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Government Project Lead (GPL): The COR designates individual GPLs to assist in administering specific efforts under the TO.

5. Responsibilities

The following Government resources will have responsibility for the implementation of this

CSP:

KO: The KO (PCO or ACO) ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the TO, and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO assures that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the TO. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

COR: The COR is responsible for technical administration of the TO and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect the TO price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

ACOR: The ACOR assists the COR for technical administration of the TO and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The ACOR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect the TO price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

GPL: The GPL is responsible for assisting in administering specific efforts under the TO. A GPL cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the TO, make commitments, or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): The marketplace for this type of effort is very competitive. As such, the successful Offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this TO. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each base or option year. This evaluation will be one determinant in the award of future TOs or option exercises. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of Small Business (SB), and other important areas for this procurement. Some of the monitoring methods to be used will be Government observation, review of reports, customer feedback, and review of Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs). As this information may affect future source selections throughout the Department of Defense (DoD), as well as the continuation of this tasking, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool within the policies of this CSP.

b. CSP: This document will be used by the COR, ACOR, and GPLs in the technical administration of this TO. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of QA surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC).

7. Surveillance

Enclosure (2) sets forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the Contractor, COR, ACOR, and GPLs while Enclosures (1) and (3) provide the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance and will be provided to the KO.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing reports to the KO, the COR will maintain a complete QA file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the QA function, including the originals of the QA Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the TO. The COR shall forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the TO.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) Enclosure (2): Quarterly Evaluation by Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Enclosure (3): Annual Surveillance Summary

Enclosure (1)

ENCLOSURE (1): SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST (SAC)

Quarterly Surveillance:

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will perform a quarterly assessment of quality, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of Small Business (SB), and other areas as applicable utilizing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3).

QUARTERLY EVALUATION BY SOW PARAGRAPH

Description Surveillance Method/Measure Dates Quality

Assessment Schedule

Assessment

Cost Control

Assessment

Business Relations

Assessment

Management Assessment

Utilization of SB

Assessment

Other Areas

Assessment Provide Concept and Technology Development Support IAW SOW Para 3.3.1

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Provide System Design Support IAW SOW Para 3.3.2

100% Inspection

Provide Software Solutions IAW SOW Para 3.3.3

100% Inspection

Provide Cybersecurity Support IAW SOW Para 3.3.4

100% Inspection

Provide System Integration and Life Cycle Sustainment Support IAW SOW Para 3.3.5

100% Inspection

Provide Technical Management Support IAW SOW Para 3.3.6

100% Inspection

Enclosure (2)

ENCLOSURE (2): QUARTERLY EVALUATION BY CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL)

Description Surveillance Method/Measure Dates Due

Dates Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of Req’d

Rework

Percentage On Time Comments

Contracting Officer’s Management Report (Segregation of Cost and Invoice Requirements for Technical Direction Letters (TDLs)) (A001)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Status Report (Contractor Monthly Status Report) (A002)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Technical Report – Study/Services (Analysis and Findings Report) (A011)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Test Plan (Validation Test Plan) (A012)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Test Procedures (Validation Test Procedure) (A013)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Test/Inspection Report (Validation Test Report) (A014)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Product Engineering Design Data and Associated Lists (Technical Documentation for Repair & Maintenance-Electronic Format) (A015)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Installation Control Drawings (A016)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Validation Report (Validation of Technical Manual Changes-Via Demonstration) (A017)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Interface Design Description (IDD) (A018)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Inspection and Test Plan (A019) 100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Configuration Management Plan

(MIL-STD-3046) (A020)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, Dates Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of Req’d

Rework

Percentage On Time Comments

Configuration Audit Summary Report and Certification (A021)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Software Requirements Specifications (SRS) (A023)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Software Design Description (SDD) (A024)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Software Development Summary Report (Software Developmental Status Report (SDSR)) (A025)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) (Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)) (A027)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Software Development Plan (SDP) (A028)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Software Test Report (STR) (A029) 100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Software User Manuals (SUM) (A030)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Software Test Plan (STP) (A031) 100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Computer Software Product (A032) 100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Cybersecurity Implementation Plan (A033)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Naval Aviation Cybersecurity Risk Management Framework (RMF) Assessment and Authorization Products, and Cybersafe Objective Quality Evidence, Assessment and Authorization (A&A) Products (Risk Management Framework Products) (A034)

Dates Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of Req’d

Rework

Percentage On Time Comments

Integrated Logistics Support Plan (A035)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Logistics Management Information (LMI) (Logistics Management Information (LMI) Data Products) (A036)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Training Conduct Support document (A037)

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPLs.

Contractor's Risk Management Plan (A038)

Metric Summary:

Current Period

Cumulative

Total Number of Deliverables Submitted:

Total Number of Deliverables Submitted Late:

Total Number of Deliverables Requiring Revision:

Percentage of Deliverables Submitted Late:

Percentage of Deliverables Requiring Revision:

Enclosure (3)

ENCLOSURE (3): ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE SUMMARY

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will perform an assessment of overall Task Order (TO) performance utilizing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3) below. This assessment will be completed annually covering the previous 12 months.

Description Surveillance Method/Measure Date Planned Date Completed Summary Rating/Results Quality of Product or Service Review of Quarterly Ratings Schedule Review of Quarterly Ratings Cost Control Review of Quarterly Ratings Business Relations Review of Quarterly Ratings Management Review of Quarterly Ratings Utilization of Small Business (SB) Review of Quarterly Ratings

Other Areas Review of Quarterly Ratings

Annual Surveillance Completed By: _______________________

Date Completed: ________________

All Statement of Work (SOW) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) tasks, including sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following.

Quality of product or service: Assess the Contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of TO execution, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the Contractor meets program quality.

Schedule: Assess the Contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the Contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or effect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events (e.g., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of Contractor corrective actions.

Cost control: Assess the Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling TO cost. Is the Contractor experiencing cost growth or under-run? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For TOs where task or TO sizing is based upon contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate cost should be assessed.

In addition, the extent to which the Contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility through the efficient use of resources in each work effort will be assessed.

Business relations: Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Management: Assess the Contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts. Discuss the extent to which the Contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the TO; identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by the TO; and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the Contractor’s risk mitigation plans.

Utilization of Small Business (SB): The Request for Proposal (RFP) and FAR Subpart 19.7 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contains statutory requirements for complying with the SB Subcontracting Program. Assess whether the Contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for SB (including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes) (including Small-Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women-Owned SBs (WOSBs), HUBZone, Veteran-Owned SBs (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran Owned SBs (SDVOSBs), and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not SDBs or SBs to participate in TO performance consistent with efficient performance of the TO. Evaluation will focus on the metrics of actual SB utilization as compared to the TO required targets and the Contractor’s submitted SB plan.

Other areas: Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the TO or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Exceptional Performance: 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.

Very Good Performance: 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.

Satisfactory Performance: 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.

Marginal Performance: 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.

Unsatisfactory Performance: 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.