Att 08 Contract Surveillance Plan.pdf

Contract Surveillance Plan for

Air Platform Engineering and Integration

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 Contract. 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 Single Award (SA) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) Webster Outlying Field (WOLF)

Airborne Systems Integration (ASI) Division has a requirement to provide support to the engineering and integration of various airborne capabilities to include, but not be limited to, sensors, communications systems, weapons systems, and control technologies for a variety of manned and unmanned airborne platforms. Support services shall include, but are not limited to, engineering services, installation engineering, equipment integration, overhauls, design engineering for airborne capabilities, test and evaluation, user and maintainer training, and on-demand operational support.

This Contract will have Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) term Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for labor and corresponding cost reimbursable CLINs for Other Direct Costs (ODCs). The

Contract will have a five-year ordering period. 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 Contract Section E – Inspection and

Acceptance, which provides for inspections 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. 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 CSP provides Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure they are timely, effective, and delivering the results specified in the Contract.

N00421-25-R-0002 Attachment 08

DRAFT

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 specific efforts under the Contract.

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 Contract, 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 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.

N00421-24-R-0040

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 period.

This evaluation will be one determinant in the award of future contracts or 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 Contract. 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 Contract. The COR shall forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the Contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC)

Enclosure (2): Quarterly Evaluation by Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

Enclosure (3): Annual Surveillance Summary

N00421-24-R-0040

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

SOW 3.3.1 Engineering and Analysis Support

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR, and/or

GPLs.

SOW 3.3.2 Testing and

Training Support

100% Inspection by

SOW 3.3.3 Technical

Data, Documentation, Drawing, and Cyber

Support

100% Inspection by

SOW 3.3.4 Manufacturing, Fabrication, Integration, Installation, and Ground

Support

100% Inspection by

SOW 3.3.5 Logistics and

Configuration

Management Support

100% Inspection by

SOW 3.3.6 Programmatic

Technical, Contract, and

Safety Support

100% Inspection by

N00421-24-R-0040

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

A001 Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COR) Management

Report for Technical Direction

Letters (TDLs) (Segregation of Cost and Invoice Requirements Reporting for TDLs)

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

A007 Technical Report –

Study/Services

A008 Software Development Plan

(SDP)

A009 Test Plan

A010 Test Procedure

A011 Test/Inspection Report

A013 System/Subsystem

Specification (SSS)

A014 Product Engineering Design

Data and Associated Lists

A023 Technical Manual Verification

Discrepancy/Disposition Record

(Discrepancy Report)

A024 DoD Information Assurance

Certification and Accreditation

Process (DIACAP) and Risk

Management Framework (RMF)

Deliverable Data

A025 Integrated Production

Schedule (IPS) Report

Enclosure (2)

Description Surveillance Method/Measure Dates

Due

Dates

Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of

Req’d

Rework

Percentage

On Time Comments

A026 Contractor's Standard

Operating Procedures (Ground

Operating Procedures (GOPS))

A028 Airworthiness and Related

Substantiation Data

A029 Accident/Incident Report

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:

N00421-24-R-0040

Enclosure (3)

ENCLOSURE (3): ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE SUMMARY

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will perform an assessment of overall Contract 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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.