Att II - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Joint Staff J6, Deputy Director for Cyber and C4 Integration (DDC5I) Joint Staff Coalition Interoperability Assurance and Validation (JS CIAV) Task Order

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The mission of the JS CIAV Team is to provide unbiased, third-party mission-based analysis of warfighting functions for U.S. combined/joint military operations across Department of War (DOW) Combatant Commands, Services and Agencies (CC/S/As).

The purpose of JS CIAV Team activities are to inform offices of the DOW, JS and CC/S/As of operational and technical capabilities and limitations, identifying operational impact, and recommending actions to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and interoperability. The Contractor provides non-personal research and development (R&D) and operation and maintenance (O&M) support services, that are to be provided to the Deputy Director, Cyber and Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C5) Integration (DDC5I), Joint Staff (JS) J6, DOW, in support of the JS Coalition Interoperability and Assurance Validation (CIAV) Team, led by Joint Assessment Division (JAD), JS CIAV Chief.

2.0 PURPOSE. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) 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.

2.1 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.

2.2 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.

2.3 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.

2.4 The QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance. Performance criteria is based on the accuracy and thoroughness of deliverables and support services for effective, professional coordination support and high quality development and documentation as required by the defined

Performance Requirements. Missed deadlines must be corrected or resolved within 24 hours of the expired deadline.

2.5 Deficiencies in contractor performance will be fully and accurately documented to (1) identify the discrepancy, (2) record the steps taken to correct the discrepancy, and (3) detail the outcomes and disposition of the deficiency. Likewise, successful or exceptional performance will be recorded in the COR/TA file and appropriate actions will be taken to recognize the contractor (i.e., CPARS).

3.0 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 representative.

3.1 The Contracting Officer (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. Finally, the KO shall determine and document the final assessment of the contractor's performance in the governments past performance tracking system.

The contracting officer for the task order is:

Name: [CONTRACTING OFFICER NAME] Philadelphia, PA Voice: [Phone Number] E-mail: [Email]

3.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Technical Assistant (TA) is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor's performance. The COR/TA uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR/TA 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/TA is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR/TA 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.

The COR for this task order is:

Mr. Charles Dennis Joint Staff Hampton Roads J6 DDC5I 116B Lake View Parkway Suffolk, VA 23435-2697 Phone: 757-203-4811 Email: charles.l.dennis6.civ@mail.mil

4.0 CONTRACT SURVEILLANCE. The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR/TA'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/TA evaluations of contractor performance against contract requirements. The COR/TA uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR/TA 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.

5.0 SURVEILLANCE MATRIX. The Surveillance Matrix is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR/TA will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR/TA file. The performance Standard (STD) is listed as well as the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

5.1 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.

5.2 COR/TA will measure task performance based on quality of service, timeliness, cost control, property and data accountability, management of key personnel, and security. The COR will rate the overall task order in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPAR) system for this task. Areas will be rated as “Exceptional” (E), “Very Good” (VG), “Satisfactory” (S), “Marginal” (M), or “Unsatisfactory” (U).

Function Measurement Method

Evaluation Metric Expected Level of Performance

Minimum Acceptable

Performance Task Management

Evaluation by Government leadership germane to the task order

Government leadership assessment based on results achieved and resources expended. Management responsiveness to Government questions and concerns. Management assessment includes any part of the decision process and normally is the most important function.

Management conducts business in a manner that demonstrates capability to support the Warfighter and impresses the customer, internal and external.

Management is proactive in addressing and resolving issues.

Management requires direction to improve efficiency and use of resources.

Range between expected level and minimum acceptable shall be scored on a declining scale.

Evaluation Metric Expected Level of Performance

Minimum Acceptable

Performance Technical Content and Accuracy

Evaluation by End User

COR/Technical Assistant assessment based on review by end user

100% where problem would cause event failure.

At least 95% in other cases.

Event degradation is not attributed to performance in 90% of the tasks completed.

Cost Control Review of funds expended, and subtasks completed

SLDCADA (or similar data) and event cost trends, projections, and analysis of all phases of cost management

Cost projection and expended resources within allocation by Government.

Significant resources savings for like events over time is the objective.

Controllable cost growth does not degrade event execution or future events.

Timeliness Verified delivery of products

Comparison of contractual due date with date delivered

On time for all time critical products and 98% of balance on schedule

On time for 95% of products except where lateness causes event failure, none are acceptable.

Length of delays does not impact on time completion of event.

Product or Task Quality

Evaluation by end user

COR/Technical Assistant assessment based on review by end user.

Quality meets or exceeds the specified parameters of the product or task in more than 98% of the products or tasks.

Quality of product or task does not result in failure of an event. 95% of the products or tasks meet the acceptable level.

Capability Improvement (Product, Process or Organization

Observations and interviews with JS CIAV Chief

Evaluation by COR/Technical Assistant

Significant improvement made to capabilities.

Capability improvement to target audience show positive improvement.

Project and Task Objectives

Observations by JS CIAV Chief

Evaluation by COR/Technical Assistant

100% of the critical objectives were met.

At least 95% of other objectives met.

90% of the objectives are met, with no

Evaluation Metric Expected Level of Performance

Minimum Acceptable

Performance critical objective failures.

Project and Task Coordination

Observations by JS CIAV Chief

Evaluation by COR/Technical Assistant

No disruption to project due to Contractor planning or execution.

Coordination is managed in an effective manner and project coordination does not result in disruption to project/event.

Regulatory Compliance

Obtain/maintain personnel security clearance levels and Joint Staff directed training referenced in

PWS.

100% personnel security levels reported to the COR upon task order award and as required.

COR/TA monitoring 100% personnel security levels and training requirements maintained throughout the task order period.

Ratings input in CPARS for retrieval by government agencies.

Failure to meet the established metrics shall result in negative performance ratings and may render a contractor ineligible for task order competition or may be used as a basis for exclusion from future awards as determined by the contracting officer.