Attachment 1 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).pdf

ATTACHMENT 1

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

N00167-24-R-0016 A1-2

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Statement of Work (SOW) entitled Signature Measurement & Control Support. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division (NSWCCD) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 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 required performance standards/quality levels and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated product team (IPT), identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by NSWCCD to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives 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.

1.2.2 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. A results-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. 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 Task Order (TO) as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own Quality Control (QC) program. QC is work

N00167-24-R-0016 A1-3 output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this TO 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 QC program.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review monthly status reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make a determination regarding performance based on the performance standard/criteria definitions. The contractor will be responsible for making changes in processes and practices, if necessary, to ensure performance is managed effectively. At a minimum, these determinations will be documented in the monthly COR reports and in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Procuring Contracting Officer

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is responsible for monitoring TO compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the contractor. The PCO will designate in writing the COR as the government authority for performance management.

The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the COR.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The COR is designated in writing by the PCO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a TO. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter.

The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance and documentation of performance in the COR monthly report and annual CPARS report. During each reporting period, the COR should record all surveillance conducted. The record should include the determined rating for each performance objective and any action taken in regards to performance in this section. If a Technical Advisor (TA) assists with contract surveillance, the COR uses TA-prepared documentation to assist in the drafting/submission of associated COR and CPARS reports to the PCO. If issues regarding contractor performance arise, the COR will first inform the contractor of such problems. If the contractor fails to take action towards issue resolution, the COR will make a recommendation to the PCO; specifying that adverse contractual actions are appropriate.

The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual 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. The COR may use the QA monitoring forms in order to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance and support the CPARS report. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the TO.

N00167-24-R-0016 A1-4

2.3 Technical Advisor (TA)

The TA assists in administration, oversight, and performance assessments. The TA will perform surveillance of the contractor’s performance as well as document and report assessments, findings, and issues to the COR. The TA does not have any authority to direct or allow the contractor to deviate from the TO requirements, including changes which would affect task costs or schedule/deliveries. Additionally, the TA has no authority to direct or interfere with contractor methods of performance; or to issue directions (including change orders) to any of the contractor personnel.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table.

The adjectival ratings identified in the table below will be utilized when evaluating contractor performance in the monthly COR reports and in the annual CPARS assessment:

PERFORMANCE

RATING PERFORMANCE STANDARD/CRITERIA

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

*To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

*To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory

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.

*To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

N00167-24-R-0016 A1-5

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective measures or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

*To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet 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.

*To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 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 primary methods of surveillance are:

Random monitoring and/or direct observation of performance, which shall be performed by the COR and the TA.

100% Inspection of all invoices, final deliverables, and tasks with stringent requirements

(required/regulated by law, safety, security, etc…).

Periodic Inspection of performance and/or draft deliverables, which shall be performed by the COR and the TA. The frequency of the periodic inspections is determined by the COR and may increase or decrease based on contract requirements and contractor performance.

Customer feedback, including investigation of all customer complaints and customer monthly input to the COR.

4.2 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 feedback.

N00167-24-R-0016 A1-6

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems. The customer should communicate complaints to the COR, as opposed directly to the contractor.

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

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from informal requests for feedback.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed. For each element, the table identifies the standards for unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good, and exceptional performance levels.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards and the performance monitoring techniques are shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR will be reported monthly using the COR monthly report template in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) system. The COR will also complete an annual CPARS report. If the COR determines additional monitoring is required, the monitoring form in Attachment 2 will be completed and filed in the COR file. The form, when necessary, will document any additional assessment of the contractor’s performance under the TO or contract in order to ensure that the required results or service or quality levels are being achieved.

5.2.1 The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels. Failure to meet the AQL may result in an Unsatisfactory CPARS rating. Likewise, if the contractor exceeds the performance standards, an above Satisfactory CPARS rating may be awarded.

N00167-24-R-0016 A1-7

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written COR report in the PIEE system summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which may include or reference the contractor’s submitted monthly report and any necessary quality assurance monitoring form (Attachment 2), will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives. On an annual basis, the COR will also complete the CPARS report.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the PCO, PM and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The PCO will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the PCO, COR, or PM as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis Issues and concerns of both parties Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

6.3.2 The PCO must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The PCO, COR, PM and the contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a TO modification issued by PCO as soon as practicable.

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD: _________________________________________________________________

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

Monthly Quarterly As needed

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: ______ %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Service Provider’s Performance (Check): Meets Standards

Does Not Meet Standards

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period: _____________________________________

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY TABLE

Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)

Monitoring Methods

Level of Effort (LOE) Task Performance

Performance of Scope of Work (SOW) tasks are commensurate with the specialized experience and labor categories set forth in the task order.

Organizational structure provides for qualified personnel assigned with duties, responsibilities, and authority necessary to achieve project goals.

Lines of communi-cation facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual, in order to meet project goals.

APPLY TO ALL:

Government Oversight Team

(COR/SME)

inspections/ reports are satisfactory or above with respect to performance standards, with major and minor issues/problems resolved as follows:

No major performance issues OR, when found, are immediately addressed by contractor quality control with adequate plan for resolution within two weeks.

Minor issues are easily correctable.

Repeatable minor issues identified over consecutive

APPLY TO ALL:

Direct observation of performance.

Periodic inspection of performance and/or draft deliverables.

100% inspection of all invoices, final deliverables, and stringent requirements such as tasks required by law, safety, or security.

Customer Feedback.

Deliverable Content

Deliverable reports are technically accurate, grammatically correct, clear, and concise.

Deliverable reports also follow Data Item Description

(DID)

format/content requirements and are delivered on time per the Contract Data Requirements List

(CDRL).

Discrepancies are minor. Analyses, reports, and drawings include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues.

months or recurring issues over two of three months will be raised to major issue level.

Any CDRL deliverable requiring Government approval shall have no more than two review/ comment/approval cycles to meet acceptance.

Badging requirements submitted no later than 30 days from expiration.

DD 254

requirements followed.

Navy provided, mandated training (e.g. Information Assurance (IA)) completed prior to due dates.

Personnel Requirements

All personnel have proper security badges (e.g. site badge and Common Access Card (CAC)), announce themselves when entering Government offices, and identify themselves as contractors in e-mails.

ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVELS (AQLS)

ELEMENT

UNSATIS-

FACTORY

MARGINAL SATIS-FACTORY

VERY

GOOD

EXCEPTIONAL

I. Task Performance

Schedule

Contractor frequently misses deadlines, or is slow or non-responsive to respond to requests.

occasionally misses deadlines, schedules, or is slow or occasionally non-responsive to respond to routinely meets deadlines, schedules, and quickly responds to Government routinely meets deadlines and schedules and occasionally delivers early and responds immediately to

Contractor routinely delivers ahead of deadlines, schedules, and responds immediately to

Quality

Work products typically fail to meet the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS).

occasionally fail to meet the AQLs defined in the PRS. Rework is occasionally required.

meet the AQLs defined in the

PRS.

meet and slightly exceed the AQLs defined in the

Work products meet and far exceed the AQLs defined in the

II. Staffing provides marginally qualified or unqualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage occur regularly.

provides marginally qualified coverable occur more than occasionally.

provides qualified coverage occur occasionally and are successfully managed by the contractor to minimize impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute provides a mix of qualified and highly qualified coverage are rare and are successfully managed by the contractor with little or no impact on timeliness or quality.

Contractor provides highly qualified

No lapses in coverage.

New/and or substitute resumes are submitted IAW contract requirements.

Personnel work products are fully consistent with resumes are submitted IAW consistent with resume qualifications.

New/and or substitute resumes are submitted IAW consistent with

III. Customer Satisfaction

Fails to meet customer expectations.

occasionally fails to meet customer

Meets customer

Routinely meets or occasionally exceeds customer

Exceeds customer

IV. Management Performance

Problem Resolution

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

generally resolved but take unusual Government effort to resolve or take an excessive amount of time to resolve.

resolved quickly with minimal involvement.

Problems occur infrequently and are generally resolved quickly with minimal

Problems are non-existent or the contractor takes corrective action without Government

Responsive-ness

Contractor’s management is unresponsive to Government requests and concerns.

occasionally unresponsive to Government responsive to Government responsive to requests and concerns and occasionally proactive in anticipating management takes a proactive approach in dealing with Government repres entatives and anticipates

Communicatio n

Contractor fails to communicate with the Government in an effective and timely manner.

occasionally fails to communicate with the Government in an routinely communicates with the communicates with the

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

timely manner and it frequently is proactive in managing communications.

V. Cost Management and Efficiency

Cost Control

The average actual burn rate for the total period prior to evaluation reflects an increase of > or = 10% in the proposed average fully burdened labor rate for the same time period.

for the total period prior to evaluation reflects an increase of > 2% < 10% in the proposed average fully burdened for the total period prior to evaluation reflects an increase of < 2% in the proposed average fully burdened for the total period prior to evaluation reflects a decrease of < 5% in the proposed average fully burdened

The average actual burn rate for the total period prior to evaluation reflects a decrease of > 5% in the proposed average fully burdened labor rate for the same time period.

Cost Management and Reporting regularly experiences cost overruns.

Cost reports are late and contain errors.

Invoicing is not accurate or submitted in a

Supporting detail is missing or incomplete.

Subcontractor invoices are rarely paid in a timely manner.

Contractor may experience occasional cost overruns.

occasionally late and/or contain errors.

Invoices are occasionally late or contain errors.

Supporting detail contains occasional errors.

invoices are not paid in a timely

Small business subcontractor invoices are not expedited.

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

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

timely, accurate, complete, and clearly written.

timely and accurate.

All supporting detail is provided.

invoices are paid completes the effort within the originally agreed-to estimated cost and experiences occasional cost underruns.

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

timely and accurate.

All supporting detail is provided.

Contractor often completes the effort at lower than estimated costs.

Funds and resources are used in a most cost-effective

Invoices are timely and accurate.

All supporting detail is provided.

invoices are paid in a in a timely invoices are invoices are paid in a timely

Other Direct Cost (ODC)

ODCs are not accurately or timely reported or invoiced.

Errors are not quickly corrected.

Contractor does not comply with contract requirements for

ODC

authorizations.

Burdened unit costs are usually higher than proposed.

ODCs are occasionally not reported or invoiced in a

Errors are not consistently corrected in a

Occasionally, the contractor does not comply with ODC authorization requirements in the contract.

costs are frequently higher than proposed.

accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

Any errors noted are quickly corrected.

complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 96% of the time.

costs are rarely higher than accurately and timely reported

Errors are rare and quickly corrected.

complies with contract requirements for

98% of the time.

costs are occasionally lower than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported

Contractor complies with contract requirements for

100% of the time.

Burdened unit costs are often lower than