Attachment 10 - QASP.doc

PAGE

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

for the Synthetic Signature Generation (SSG) Procurement The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD) Code 764 requires scientific, engineering, and technical services support required for the design, development, fabrication, integration, test, fleet implementation, and maintenance of Synthetic Signature Generation (SSG) based simulation systems.

Issued 04 February 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

11.1 Purpose

11.2 Performance Management Approach

11.3 Performance Management Strategy

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

22.1 The Contracting Officer

22.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

44.1 Surveillance Techniques

44.2 Customer Feedback

54.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

55.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

55.2 Monitoring Forms

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

56.1 Determining Performance

56.2 Reporting

66.3 Reviews and Resolution

7ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

8ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

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 Synthetic Signature Generation (SSG) Support Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines 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 contract 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 output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QC program 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 determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The procuring contracting officer (PCO) is responsible for monitoring contract 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 PCO.

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 contract. 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 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 will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the scope of the contract.

The COR may appoint Technical Advisors (TAs) under the contract to assist in administration, oversight, and performance assessments. If identified, the TAs will perform surveillance of the contractor’s performance and report to the COR. The COR would then perform overall surveillance of the contractor, using the TA-prepared documentation to assist in the drafting/submission of associated COR and CPARS reports to the PCO. TAs do not have any authority to direct or allow the contractor to deviate from the TO requirements, including changes which would impact task costs or schedule/deliveries. Additionally, TAs have no authority to direct/interfere with contractor methods of performance; or to issue directions (including change orders) to any of the contractor personnel. TAs have no deliverable acceptance authority.

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

*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.

*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.

*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.

*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).

*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).

The evaluations in the monthly COR status reports must be consistent with the annual CPARS report. Significant events identified in the annual CPARS reports, must also be identified in the appropriate COR monthly reports.

The contractor is encouraged to self-identify significant events in the contractor’s monthly status report to the COR to ensure the events are captured in the COR monthly status report and the annual CPARS report.

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 TAs.

· 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 TAs. 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 complaints.

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the PCO and/or COR, as opposed to the contractor.

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 and investigate.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

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 while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. 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 performance monitoring techniques are shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR will be reported using the monitoring form in Attachments 2. The form, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract 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 The 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.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (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.

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 metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification issued by PCO as soon as practicable.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY, PERFROMANCE STANDARDS, AND ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVELS Table 1: Performance Requirements Summary

I. QUALITY

Table 2). Rework is occasionally required.

Lapses in coverage occur regularly.

Contractor provides marginally qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverable occur more than occasionally.

Contractor provides qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage occur occasionally and are successfully managed to minimize impact on timeliness or quality.

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

Personnel work products are fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Contractor provides a mix of qualified and highly qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage are rare & are successfully managed by the contractor with little or no impact on timeliness or quality.

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

Personnel work products are fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Contractor provides highly qualified personnel.

No lapses in coverage.

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

Personnel work products are fully consistent with resume qualifications.

II. SCHEDULE

III. COST CONTROL

COST MANAGEMENT

AND REPORTING

Contractor 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.

Contractor 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.

Small business subcontractor invoices are not expedited.

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

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

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

Invoices are timely and accurate.

All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a timely manner. Small business subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Contractor routinely 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.

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.

Small business subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Contractor often completes the effort at lower than estimated costs.

Funds and resources are 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.

Small business subcontractor invoices are expedited.

OTHER DIRECT

COSTS (ODCS)

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 timely manner.

Errors are not consistently corrected in a timely manner.

Occasionally, the contractor does not comply with ODC authorization requirements in the 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 96% of the time. Burdened unit costs are rarely higher than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

Errors are rare and quickly corrected.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 98% of the time.

Burdened unit costs are occasionally lower than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

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

Burdened unit costs are often lower than proposed.

IV. MANAGEMENT

PROBLEM

RESOLUTION

V. SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING

VI. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

Table 2: Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels

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 communication facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual, in order to meet project goals.

APPLY TO ALL:

Government Oversight Team (COR/TA) 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 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.

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.

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.

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: _________________

PAGE

i