Att 02 - QASP CSP.pdf

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Contract Surveillance Plan and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for Ship & Air Integrated Warfare Division

Mission Systems Engineering

1. Purpose

This requirement consists of both performance-based and non-performance-based tasking;

therefore, a Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) and a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) are both required. This hybrid CSP/QASP 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 Contract. The intent is to ensure the Contractor performs In Accordance With (IAW) the Statement of Work and Performance Work Statement (SOW/PWS), and the Government receives the quality of services called for in in the Single Award (SA) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract.

Mission Systems Engineering (MSE) provides Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) systems engineering support, C5ISR integration support, and In-Service Engineering Agent (ISEA) and logistics support to Mission Systems programs, systems, and technological areas within the Ship & Air Integrated Warfare (SAIW) project portfolio.

This Contract will have Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) term and completion Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for Labor and cost reimbursable CLINs for Other Direct Costs (ODCs). The Contract will have five ordering years with a FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services from 15 February 2024 through 14 August 2029. A properly executed CSP/QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objective of this procurement.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this hybrid CSP/QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services, products, and documentation called for in the Contract 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/QASP. 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 Contract.

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

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 PCO for this Contract is Rick A. Paskoski. The ACO will be designated in the resulting Contract. 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 Contract. The COR will be appointed in the resulting Contract. 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 Contract. The ACOR will be appointed in the resulting Contract. 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 of specific efforts under the Contract.

5. Responsibilities

The following Government resources will have responsibility for the implementation of this hybrid CSP/QASP:

KO: The KO (PCO or ACO) ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the Contract, and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the Contract. 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 Contract 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 Contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

ACOR: The ACOR assists the COR for technical administration of the Contract 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 Contract 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 Contract.

A GPL cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the Contract, 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 Contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each ordering year. This evaluation will be onedeterminant in the award of future Task Orders (TOs). 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 hybrid CSP/QASP.

b. CSP/QASP: This document will be used by the COR, ACOR, and GPLs in the technical administration of this Contract. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of QA surveillance is the hybrid checklist provided herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1) through (3) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the Contractor, the COR/ACOR, and GPLs while Enclosures (4) through (6) 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 Contract. The COR shall forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the Contract.

9. Enclosures Enclosure (1): Quality Standards – Performance Work Statement and Statement of Work Enclosure (2): Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Data Quality Standards Enclosure (3): Incentives Enclosure (4): Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) Enclosure (5): Contract Surveillance by Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Enclosure (6): Annual Surveillance Summary

Enclosure (1)

Source Selection Information 4 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (1): QUALITY STANDARDS - BY PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Required Service

(Performance Requirements) Standard (Performance Standards)/Maximum Allowable

Degree of Deviation Requirement (AQL) Method of Surveillance (QA)

Incentives

Provide C5ISR integration support IAW paragraph 3.3.2.

Based upon feedback from the GPLs, 95% of the services and products provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely, and technically acceptable

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or

GPL.

See Enclosure 3.

ENCLOSURE (1): QUALITY STANDARDS - BY STATEMENT OF WORK

Required Service

(Performance Requirements) Standard (Performance Standards)/Maximum Allowable

Degree of Deviation Requirement (AQL) Method of Surveillance (QA)

Incentives

Provide C5ISR systems engineering support IAW paragraph 3.3.1.

Based upon feedback from the GPLs, 95% of the services and products provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely, and technically acceptable

Provide C5ISR integration support IAW paragraph 3.3.2.

Based upon feedback from the GPLs, 95% of the services and products provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely, and technically acceptable

Provide ISEA and logistics support IAW paragraph 3.3.3.

Based upon feedback from the GPLs, 95% of the services and products provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely, and technically acceptable

Enclosure (2)

Source Selection Information 6 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (2): CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL) DATA QUALITY STANDARDS

Description Standard AQL Surveillance/Method/Measure Incentives

Status Report – Monthly Progress Report (CDRL A001)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Trip/Travel Report

(CDRL A002)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Government Property (GP) Inventory Report – Contractor Acquired Property (CAP) (CDRL A003)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Phase-Out Transition Plan

(CDRL A004)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Management Report for Technical Direction Letters (TDLs) – Segregation of Cost and Invoice Requirements Reporting for TDLs

(CDRL A005)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

Source Selection Information 7 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP)

(CDRL A006)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Inspection and Test Plan

(CDRL A007)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Scientific and Technical Reports Summary – Process Documentation

(CDRL A008)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

NAVAIR Operations Security (OPSEC) Plan

(CDRL A009)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Technical Report - Study/Services – Analysis and Findings Report

(CDRL A010)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Requirements Traceability Verification Matrix

(RTVM) (CDRL A011)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report

(IPMDAR) (CDRL A012)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, Source Selection Information 8 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Systems Engineering Management Plan

(SEMP) (CDRL A013)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Technical and Management Work Plan

(CDRL A014)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Product Engineering Design Data and Associated Lists (CDRL A015)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Engineering Documentation Product Drawings, Sanitized (Re-procurement) (CDRL A016)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) (CDRL A017)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Computer Software Product – End Item Deliverable (CDRL A018)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Software Development Plan (SDP) (CDRL A019)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, Source Selection Information 9 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Software Test Plan (STP)

(CDRL A020)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Test Procedure (CDRL A021)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Test/Inspection Report

(CDRL A022)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Technical Report - Study/Services – Change Control Report (CDRL A023)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Configuration Management Plan (MIL-

STD-3046) (CDRL A024)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Test Plan (CDRL A025) Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Configuration Audit Summary Report and Certification (CDRL A026)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, Source Selection Information 10 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Training Materials

(CDRL A027)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

General Style and Format Requirements for Technical Manuals – Technical Manuals

(CDRL A028)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

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

See Enclosure 3.

Integrated Logistics Support Plan (CDRL A029)

Submission is IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than one report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, Enclosure (3)

Source Selection Information 11 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (3): INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this Contract.

Assessment Period Acceptable Performance Definition How Measured Incentives

Ordering Year One :

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory.”

Midpoint of the assessment period (six month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous six months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

Ordering Year Two:

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory.”

Midpoint of the assessment period (six month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous six months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

Ordering Year Three:

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory.”

Midpoint of the assessment period (six month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous six months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

Ordering Year Four:

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory.”

Midpoint of the assessment period (six month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous six months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

Ordering Year Five:

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory.”

Midpoint of the assessment period (six month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous six months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

Source Selection Information 12 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Assessment Period Acceptable Performance Definition How Measured Incentives

52.217-8 All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory.”

Midpoint of the assessment period (six month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous six months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

* The Government reserves the right not to award Option CLINs/TOs if the Contractor does not meet the acceptable performance standards, and/or meet all regulatory requirements.

All SOW/PWS and 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 contract 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 affect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events (i.e., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of Contractor corrective actions.

Cost Control: Assess the Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Is the Contractor experiencing cost growth or under-run? If so, discuss the causes and Contractor proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For contracts where task or contract 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.

Source Selection Information 13 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

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 Contract; identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by the Contract; and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the Contractor’s risk mitigation plans.

Utilization of 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 (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women Owned SBs (WOSBs), HUBZone, Veteran Owned SBs (VOSBs), Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB (SDVOSB), and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) or SBs to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the Contract. Evaluation will focus on the metrics of actual SB utilization as compared to the Contract required targets and the Contractor’s submitted SB plan.

Other areas: Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the Contract 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.

Source Selection Information 14 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

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.

Enclosure (4)

Source Selection Information 15 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (4): CONTRACT SURVEILLANCE PLAN (CSP)

Quarterly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a quarterly assessment of quality, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of SB, and other areas as applicable utilizing the evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3).

QUARTERLY EVALUATION – BY SOW/PWS

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 C5ISR systems engineering support IAW paragraph 3.3.1.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR

and/or GPLs

Provide C5ISR integration support IAW paragraph 3.3.2.

100% Inspection by

Provide ISEA and logistics support IAW paragraph 3.3.3.

100% Inspection by

Enclosure (5)

Source Selection Information 16 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (5): CONTRACT SURVEILLANCE BY CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL)

Method/Measure Dates Due

Dates Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of Req’d

Rework

Percentage On Time

Comments

Status Report – Monthly Progress Report (CDRL A001)

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

Trip/Travel Report (CDRL A002)

Government Property (GP) Inventory Report – Contractor Acquired Property (CAP) (CDRL A003)

Phase-Out Transition Plan (CDRL A004)

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Management Report for Technical Direction Letters (TDLs)

– Segregation of Cost and Invoice Requirements Reporting for TDLs

(CDRL A005)

Quality Assurance Program Plan

(QAPP) (CDRL A006)

Inspection and Test Plan (CDRL A007)

Scientific and Technical Reports Summary – Process Documentation

(CDRL A008)

NAVAIR Operations Security (OPSEC) Plan (CDRL A009)

Technical Report - Study/Services – Analysis and Findings Report

(CDRL A010)

Requirements Traceability Verification Matrix (RTVM) (CDRL A011)

Source Selection Information 17 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Method/Measure Dates Due

Dates Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of Req’d

Rework

Percentage On Time

Comments

Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report

(IPMDAR) (CDRL A012)

Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) (CDRL A013)

Technical and Management Work Plan (CDRL A014)

Product Engineering Design Data and Associated Lists (CDRL A015)

Engineering Documentation Product Drawings, Sanitized (Re-procurement) (CDRL A016)

Engineering Change Proposal (ECP)

(CDRL A017)

Computer Software Product – End Item Deliverable (CDRL A018)

Software Development Plan (SDP)

(CDRL A019)

Software Test Plan (STP) (CDRL A020)

Test Procedure (CDRL A021)

Test/Inspection Report (CDRL A022)

Technical Report - Study/Services – Change Control Report (CDRL A023)

Configuration Management Plan

(MIL-STD-3046) (CDRL A024)

Test Plan (CDRL A025)

Source Selection Information 18 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Method/Measure Dates Due

Dates Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of Req’d

Rework

Percentage On Time

Comments

Configuration Audit Summary Report and Certification (CDRL A026)

Training Materials (CDRL A027)

General Style and Format Requirements for Technical Manuals

– Technical Manuals (CDRL A028)

Integrated Logistics Support Plan

(CDRL A029)

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 (6)

Source Selection Information 19 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (6): ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE SUMMARY

The COR will perform an assessment of overall Contract performance utilizing the evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3).

This assessment will be completed annually covering the previous twelve (12) months.

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 SB Review of Quarterly Ratings Other Areas Review of Quarterly Ratings

Annual Surveillance Completed by: _______________________

Date Completed: ________________