Attachment 1- QASP_Rev1.pdf

N0016426RWS78

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government-developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of this contract

The Contractor shall provide test, evaluation, repair, modification, and upgrade of Prime Mission Equipment (PME) Weapon Replaceable Assemblies (WRAs), Shop Replaceable Assemblies (SRAs), and components utilized in Electronic Warfare Systems. Additionally, this tasking includes maintenance and repair of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). The Government has a requirement to move repair of Legacy PME to commercial, off-site facilities to free up Government lab space for the Organic Depot Repair of PME utilized in newer/developing systems that require a higher level of Organic Government Engineering and Logistics Support. The Contractor shall provide labor, materials (beyond any provided Government Furnished Material (GFM)), any needed supplemental equipment (beyond any provided GFE), and facilities to perform the subject tasking. Additionally, the Contractor shall conduct maintenance and repair on the GFE Test Equipment (Manual & Automated Test Equipment).

Furthermore, the Contractor shall conduct cable manufacturing, as needed to repair the next higher assembly.

The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with the performance objectives and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the SOW and the Contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the Government pays only for the level of services required/received.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of Government personnel involved in the evaluation of the quality of contractor performance, identifies the performance objectives, and defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance. The QASP also describes quality assurance documentation requirements and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

2. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and deliverables called for in service contracts to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3. SCOPE

The SOW structures the acquisition around "what" services or quality level is required, as opposed to "how" the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken to monitor and manage the Contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the SOW are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management, this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the Contractor.

Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A "results" focus provides the Contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own QCP. Quality control is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this job order regardless of whether the work is performed by Contractor employees or by Subcontractors. The Contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the SOW. The Contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated Government representative. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor’s

QCP.

The Government will assess performance using the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to determine how the Contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) assesses a Contractor’s performance, both positive and negative, and provides a record on a given contract during a specified period of time. More information pertaining to CPARS can be found at: https://www.cpars.gov. Each assessment will be based on objective data (or measurable, subjective data when objective data is not available) supportable by program and contract management data. CPAR performance expectations will be addressed in the Government and Contractor’s initial post-award meeting.

Potential sources of data may include the following:

- Status and progress reviews

- Production and management reviews

- Management and engineering process reviews (e.g. risk management, requirements management, etc.)

- Cost performance reports and other cost and schedule metrics

- Other program measures and metrics such as:

- Measures of progress and status of resources

- Measures of deliverable timeliness and accuracy

- Measures of product quality and process performance

- Fleet and sponsor feedback/comments and satisfaction ratings

- Systems engineering and other technical progress reviews

- Technical interchange meetings

- Physical and functional configuration audits

- Quality reviews and quality assurance evaluations

- Functional performance evaluations

- Subcontract Reports

A preliminary QASP evaluation/rating will be performed according to the schedule as noted below. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the Contractor is performing at least at a "Satisfactory" level for each major element assessed using Table 1. This methodology will be utilized as an important factor in determining whether to exercise any of the Options under the task order. Further, the formal CPARS ratings are used as reference material by others in source selection.

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) – An individual duly appointed with the authority to enter into contracts and make related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. PCOs are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of their respective authority. The PCO ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contract administration ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the PCO that ensures the Contractor receives impartial, fair and equitable treatment under the contract. The PCO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the acceptability of the Contractor’s performance. The PCO for this task order is identified in Section G.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in technical administration. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment which is a formal attachment to the contract. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s technical performance. The COR provides QASP reports to the PCO. 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 contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action.

Contract Specialist – An individual assigned by the PCO to provide daily administration of the contract.

The contract specialist provides input to the PCO and the COR as to the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP.

Subject Matter Expert (SME) – Individuals who may be assigned by the COR to perform limited technical oversight of specific projects, work areas, or Technical Instructions issued under the contract. A SME provides input to the COR as to the quality of technical performance for their respective area(s) of expertise. A SME cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

5. SCHEDULE

The initial QASP evaluation will be finalized no later than the end of month ten (10) of the base period. In order to accomplish this, the following schedule applies:

COR Written Assessment is due to the Contracting Officer no later than the end of week two (2) of month ten (10) of the period of performance.

Initial QASP Evaluation - The Contracting Officer will review the COR Written Assessment, determine an overall performance rating for the period, and provide a copy to the Contractor no later than week four (4) of month ten (10) of the period of performance.

Interim Evaluations – The COR can provide feedback to the PCO at any time during the period of performance.

The PCO will provide this feedback to the Contractor upon receiving it, if the feedback indicates that the Contractor is not meeting the acceptable performance standards as defined herein.

6. IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The overall performance ratings and standards are included in Table (1), "Overall Performance Ratings". Table 3 provides the Task Performance Evaluation Criteria and Standards for each Major Performance Element. If the Contractor meets the required service or performance level, the Contractor will receive positive preliminary QASP and CPARS ratings. If the Contractor fails to meet the required performance level, the result will be negative QASP and CPARS ratings.

If the Contractor fails to meet the required performance level based on the preliminary review conducted in accordance with the QASP, the Government may not exercise the next Option period under the task order.

To meet the required performance level, the Contractor must receive at least a "Satisfactory" rating (see Table 1) for each of the six (6) major elements that are evaluated (Quality, Cost Control, Schedule and Timeliness, Management/Business Relations, Regulatory Compliance, Other – Staffing and ODCs) for the performance period being evaluated. (See Table 3).

7. METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance when appropriate. The COR will use the following methods of surveillance:

- Random monitoring

- Periodic Inspection

- Customer Feedback

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints, investigate and work with the PCO and Contractor to resolve the issue.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FEEDBACK LOOP

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in Table 1.

9. MONITORING SYSTEM

The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, in conjunction with the PCO, will be reported using the methodology described herein. QASP evaluations will be done as input to Option Exercise determinations.

Formal CPARS evaluations shall be conducted on an annual basis.

Table 1 – Overall Performance Rating

Rating Standard

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. Contractor’s corrective actions to date are satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet implemented satisfactory corrective measures.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Contractor’s corrective actions to date are ineffective.

Table 2 – QASP Objectives

Assessment Period Acceptable Performance Definition

Schedule Incentives

Base Period

Overall Performance rating of at least "Satisfactory"

In accordance with the QASP Schedule.

Overall performance rating will be used in the consideration of exercise of Option 1.

Table 3 – Task Performance Evaluation Criteria and Standards

Element 1 – Quality of Product or Service

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional

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 for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Deliverables are typically not well researched and contain many technical inaccuracies.

Rework is frequently required.

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.

Deliverables are occasionally not well researched and contain some technical inaccuracies.

Rework is occasionally required.

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.

Deliverables received are well researched, complete and technically accurate. No more than one revision is typically needed to accept the item.

Other deliverables meet all Contract requirements.

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.

Deliverables received are well researched, complete and technically accurate.

Other deliverables meet all Contract requirements.

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.

Deliverables received are always well researched, complete and technically accurate. They frequently exceed technical expectations.

Rework is not required. Other deliverables typically exceed all Contract requirements.

Element 2 – Cost Control & Reporting

Key criteria:

- Does the Contractor keep within the total estimated cost of the awarded Task Order (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals)?

- Did the Contractor do anything innovative that resulted in cost savings?

- Were billings current, accurate and complete, to include eCRAFT reporting?

- Are the Contractor’s budgetary internal controls adequate?

- Has the Contractor notified the Government and taken necessary corrective actions when the cost estimate exceeds available funds?

-If cost overruns are projected per year, has the Contractor notified the Government?

-Are labor rate tripwire notices provided when labor rates exceed the rate proposed by more than 15%?

-If no additional labor categories (such as Program Manager, Administrative, Financial, Travel Specialist) were proposed and authorized at time of award above those outlined in the RFP Level of Effort, is the Contractor billing labor categories not approved by the PCO?

Regularly experiences cost overruns. Cost reports are late and contain errors.

Invoicing is not accurate or submitted in a timely manner.

Supporting detail is missing or incomplete.

Subcontractor invoices are rarely paid in a timely manner.

May experience occasional cost overruns. Cost reports are occasionally late and/or contain errors. Invoices are occasionally late or contain errors.

Supporting detail contains occasional errors.

Subcontractor invoices are not paid in a timely manner.

SB subcontractor invoices are not expedited.

Routinely completes the effort within the originally agreed-to estimated cost.

Funds and resources used in cost-effective manner. Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate. All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a timely manner. SB subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Routinely completes the effort within the originally agreed-to estimated cost and experiences occasional cost underruns.

Funds and resources used in cost-effective manner. Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate. All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a timely manner. SB subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Often completes the effort at lower than estimated costs.

Funds and resources used in a most cost-effective manner.

Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate. All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a timely manner. SB subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Element 3 – Schedule & Timeliness

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional

Frequently misses deadlines, or is slow or non-responsive to respond to Govt requests.

Occasionally misses deadlines, schedules or is slow or occasionally non-responsive to respond to Govt requests.

Routinely meets deadlines and schedules, quickly responds to Govt requests.

Routinely meets deadlines and schedules and occasionally delivers early and responds immediately to Govt requests.

Routinely delivers ahead of deadlines, schedules, and responds immediately to Govt requests.

Element 4a – Management/ Business Relations: Problem Resolution

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional

Problems are unresolved, repetitive, or take excessive Govt effort to resolve.

Problems are generally resolved but take unusual Govt effort to resolve or take an excessive amount of time to resolve.

Problems are resolved quickly with minimal Govt involvement.

Problems occur infrequently and are generally resolved quickly with minimal Govt involvement.

Problems are non-existent or the Contractor takes corrective action without Govt involvement.

Element 4b – Management/ Business Relations: Responsiveness

Mgmt is unresponsive to Govt requests and concerns.

Mgmt is occasionally unresponsive to Govt requests and concerns.

Mgmt is responsive to Govt requests and concerns.

Mgmt is responsive to requests and concerns and occasionally proactive in anticipating concerns.

Mgmt takes proactive approach in dealing with Govt representatives and anticipates concerns.

Element 4c – Management/ Business Relations: Communication

Fails to communicate with Govt in an effective and timely manner.

Occasionally fails to communicate with Govt in an effective and timely manner.

Routinely communicates with Govt in an effective and timely manner.

Routinely communicates with Govt in an effective and timely manner and is frequently proactive in managing communications.

Takes proactive approach such that communications are almost always clear, effective and timely.

Element 5a – Regulatory Compliance Key criteria:

- Has the Contractor complied with all contract clause requirements?

- Has the Contractor complied with specifications or other contractual requirements in the contract such as FAPIIS reporting, CAS reporting, safety requirements, environmental reporting, CybersecurityWork Force (CSWF) qualifications/continuous learning/reporting, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) requirements, GFP reporting, and standard and unique contract requirements specific to that contract?

Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory Very Good Exceptional

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 for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Element 5b – Combating Trafficking in Persons Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

The Contractor has not informed the Contracting Officer and the Agency Inspector General of any credible information it has received that alleges a Contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee, or their agent has engaged in conduct that violates the policy.

Reference FAR 52.222-50

The Contractor has informed the Contracting Officer and the Agency Inspector General 100% of the time of any credible information it has received that alleges a Contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee, or their agent has engaged in conduct that violates the policy.

Reference FAR 52.222-50

Element 6a – Other: Staffing Key criteria:

- Has the Contractor complied with key personnel staffing requirements?

- Has the Contractor complied with labor category qualifications, such as CSWF when applicable?

Provides marginally qualified or unqualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage occur regularly.

Provides marginally qualified personnel.

more than occasionally.

Provides qualified personnel.

occasionally and are successfully managed by the ktr with minimal impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute resumes submitted IAW contract rqmts.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Provides a mix of qualified and highly qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage are rare and are successfully managed by the ktr with no impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute resumes submitted IAW contract rqmts.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume qualifications

Provides highly qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage are non-existent; no impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute resumes submitted IAW contract rqmts.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Element 6b – Other: Other Direct Cost (ODC) -Are the ODCs invoiced IAW the proposal?

-If no additional ODC types (such as facilities, local travel, vehicle leasing, etc) were proposed and authorized at time of award above those outlined in the RFP, is the Contractor billing costs not approved by the PCO?

-Are invoices properly supported with documentation to validate the price paid as fair and reasonable?

ODCs are not accurately or timely reported or invoiced.

Errors are not quickly corrected. Does not comply with contract requirements for ODC authorizations.

Burdened unit costs usually higher than proposed.

ODCs are occasionally not reported or invoiced in timely manner. Errors not consistently corrected in a timely manner. Occasionally does not comply with authorization requirements in contract.

Burdened unit costs are frequently higher than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

Any errors noted are quickly corrected. Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 98% of time.

Burdened unit costs are rarely higher than proposed.

timely reported and invoiced. Errors are rare and quickly corrected.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 100% of time.

Burdened unit costs are occasionally lower than proposed.

timely reported and invoiced.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 100% of time.

Burdened unit costs are often lower than proposed.