Attachment 2-NEEG2100-21-00701 Frequency Converter QASP v1.1.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Hurricane Rated (HR) Series Antenna Frequency Converter Upgrade

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

May 6, 2021

HR Series SSPA Upgrade

QASP REVISION HISTORY

REVISION

NUMBER

DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION

1.0 April 9, 2021 Baselined Version

Contents

1. Introduction 5

1.1 Purpose 5

1.2 Scope 5

1.3 Content of the QASP 6

2. QASP Roles and Responsibilities 6

2.1 Contracting Officer Representative (COR) 6

2.2 Other Key Government Personnel 6

2.3 Contracting Officer (CO) 6

3. Quality Surveillance Process 7

3.1 Methods 7

3.1.1 Analysis of Contractor’s Progress Reports 7

3.1.2 Toll Gate Method 7

3.2 Steps in the Surveillance Process 7

3.2.1 Performing Surveillance 7

3.2.2 Resolving Performance Issues 7

3.2.3 Documenting Surveillance 7

4. Other QA Communication and Reporting 8

5. Resolving Quality Assurance Issues 8

5.1 Negative Incentives 8

5.2 Notification 8

5.3 Response 8

6. Performance Requirements Summary 8

7. Ratings 9

1. Introduction NOAA has a requirement to upgrade outdated and obsolete frequency convertors on its HR

Series Antenna assets located at WCDAS (HR1 and HR2) and RGS (HR3 and 13mC). NOAA is seeking to replace 46 converters in total as itemized in Table 1 below:

The offeror shall provide commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) frequency converters for use as form-fit-function drop-in replacements for the existing converters. These 46 converters must meet the applicable requirements, specified in sections 3 through 7 of this PWS, to be compatible with the current HR Series functional ground system converters. Offeror’s proposals shall include a complete Compliance Matrix to demonstrate that each requirement of the Performance Work

Statement has been considered and met.

1.1 Purpose

This QASP sets forth standard surveillance for contract monitoring. It also includes guidelines that

NESDIS will use when evaluating the technical performance of the contractor.

A copy of this plan will be furnished to the contractor so that the contractor will be aware of the methods that the Government will employ in evaluating performance on this contract. This will allow for the contractor to address any concerns that the contractor may have prior to initiating work. The evaluation methods identified in this QASP, in concert with the contractor’s Quality Assurance

Procedures, will assure the Government of satisfactory contractor performance.

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

▪ Summarize the types of services to be performed, and work products to be delivered, that are covered under the contract, and the desired outcomes associated with them.

▪ Define the contractor and government responsibilities for evaluating the performance of the contractor in delivering the products and services as described in the PWS.

▪ Describe the evaluation methods to be used by the Government to confirm the contractor’s performance.

1.2 Scope

The QASP applies to all Frequency Converter contract activities that commence with requirements development and planning, and follow through to transition to operations.

Through coordination with the Contracting Office (CO), the Government retains the right to change the surveillance methods, metrics, and Quality Assurance procedures described in the QASP, or to increase or decrease the degree of surveillance efforts at any time necessary to assure contract compliance. The contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and Quality Control (QC) actions to meet the terms of the contract.

1.3 Content of the QASP

The QASP includes the following sections:

▪ Ensuring that QASP roles and responsibilities are clear (Section 2.0)

▪ Defining QA surveillance methods to be applied (Section 3.0)

▪ Maintaining open channels for communicating with QA stakeholders and reporting on QA activities (Section 4.0)

▪ Resolving QA issues and concerns (Section 5.0)

▪ Provide the Performance Requirements Summary that ties requirements to the methods and outcomes (Section 6.0)

2. QASP Roles and Responsibilities The following details the roles and responsibilities for successful execution of the QASP.

2.1. Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

The COR is responsible for managing Quality Assurance activities to ensure compliance and completeness by:

1. Serving as the liaison with the Contractor Quality staff

2. Responsible for the final inspection and acceptance of all deliverables and reports, from a contract perspective.

3. Other such responsibilities as may be specified in the contract.

Assigned COR: Catherine Ossi

Organization: OSGS

Telephone: 301-427-2583

Email: catherone.ossi@noaa.gov

2.2. Other Key Government Personnel

The NESDIS staff will be responsible for reviewing contractor deliverables, and assisting with

QASP implementation. The OSGS staff shall provide recommendations to the PM and the COR on whether the Contractor deliverables match the content requirements in the Contract.

Name: Kenneth Watts

Title: Project Manager

Organization: OSGS

Telephone: 301-817-4594

Email: Kenneth.watts@noaa.gov

2.3. CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO)

The CO has overall responsibility for the administration of the contract. The CO is the only individual authorized to take actions on behalf of the Government to approve, amend, modify, or deviate from the contract terms, conditions, requirements, specifications, details, and/or delivery schedules. Within that authority, the CO has the ability to delegate to the COR for the everyday administration of the contract. The CO, who is responsible for the overall administration and final closeout of the contracts, and as it relates to the implementation of the QASP, shall:

● Ensure compliance with contracting requirements

● Negotiate and issue contract modifications

● Resolve contractor claims and disputes

● Issue cure notices (notification that unless unacceptable performance is corrected, the Government may terminate the contract for default, IAW FAR 49.607)

● Issue show-cause letters (following a cure notice, requesting facts bearing on the case)

● Terminate contracts

Assigned CO: Trang Tran

Organization: NOAA AGO

Telephone: 301-628-1348

Email: Trang.Tran@noaa.gov

3. Quality Surveillance Process This section describes the various surveillance processes that will be used on this Contract to monitor contract performance.

3.1 Methods

3.1.1 ANALYSIS OF CONTRACTOR’S PROGRESS REPORTS

Project status will be evaluated regularly based on reports and metrics to be provided once per month by the contractor to ensure that the project remains on schedule and within scope. Deviations will be recorded and corrected for, and trends will be evaluated regularly and continually to monitor the contractor’s ongoing performance over time.

3.1.2 TOLL GATE METHOD

Project reviews will be held as described in the PWS to secure the approval of NESDIS personnel, and external stakeholders, as needed, to continue with the installation and move forward into the next increment. The concurrence is an approval (sign-off) of the deliverables for the current increment of the project and indicates that all qualifications (issues and concerns) have been closed or have an acceptable plan for resolution.

3.2 Steps in the Surveillance Process

3.2.1. PERFORMING SURVEILLANCE

Surveillance will be performed according to the methods described in this QASP and by meeting the schedule established between the contractor and the organization’s personnel. The Contractor shall provide whatever assistance is required in the surveillance procedures.

3.2.2. RESOLVING PERFORMANCE ISSUES

In the event that performance issues or deficiencies are discovered through the surveillance process, the

COR will provide a list of any unresolved deficiencies to the contractor's quality assurance personnel.

The list will afford him/her the opportunity to show where the problem is. If evidence is shown where the contractor’s quality program has already documented the deficiency, and timely corrective action is resolving the problem, the COR will follow up with the contractor’s quality assurance personnel to ensure the deficiencies are remedied in a timely manner.

All deficiencies associated with performance requirements listed on the Performance Requirements

Summary, whether remedied by the contractor or not, will be included in the COR’s Status Report, regardless of who identified the deficiency.

Should the need arise for unplanned meetings, because of unexpected performance issues, these meetings can be called by the PM, COR, or the contractor’s quality assurance personnel.

3.2.3. DOCUMENTING SURVEILLANCE

Documentation used and referenced to perform surveillance shall consist of monthly reports, contractor plans, contractor procedures, schedules, customer feedback, and contract data requirements. This mailto:Trang.Tran@noaa.gov documentation provides the CO with contractor status as it applies to the performance criteria.

All documentation resulting from surveillance shall be maintained in the COR file and made available to the CO as requested.

4. Other QA Communication and Reporting All quality issues that may arise during the execution of this requirement will be managed through the resolution methods defined in the QASP.

5. Resolving Quality Assurance Issues

5.1 Negative Incentives

If any of the performance requirements do not meet the Target Metric set in the Performance

Requirements Summary (PRS) table in Section 6, the COR shall document the discrepancies and shall notify the Contractor promptly, and the CO, on a monthly basis, for appropriate action. When the performance is below the standard, the Government may implement a negative incentive, that includes increased surveillance and/or Contractor reporting requirements, as well as, documentation on the

Contractor’s interim and annual past performance reviews (per FAR 42.15).

5.2 Notification

The COR will notify the CO, in writing, of unacceptable quality levels. The CO will promptly provide written notification of discrepancies on a monthly basis, or immediately if the situation significantly affects the wellbeing of the project. The Contractor will be given the opportunity to respond, in writing, to each discrepancy.

5.3 Response

The Contractor shall provide a written response to the cause and the corrective action, to prevent recurrence within 10 working days after receipt of Contracting Officer’s notification. The Contractor shall cite specific quality assurance program procedures or new procedures instituted to prevent recurrence.

6. Performance Requirements Summary

Deliverable/

Specification

Item

Performance

Measure/Objective

Target Metric/

Performance

Standard

Surveillance Methods

Deduction/Incentive Schedule (if applicable)

Frequency

Converter

Factory Testing

100% Successful completion of acceptance testing for each Frequency

Converter

Contractor shall accomplish the task within the established schedule and demonstrate compliance

a) COR assessment of project schedule

b) Resolution of all discrepancies in the test case and report matrices

c) Successful completion of each frequency convertor test at factory.

Successful completion

Government conducted

The Government may implement a negative incentive that includes increased surveillance and/or

Contractor reporting requirements, as well as, the provision of documentation supporting the

Contractor’s interim and annual past performance reviews testing of each frequency convertor delivered to WCDAS.

7. RATINGS

Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and acceptable quality level. A rating scale shall be used to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. The following ratings shall be used:

Rating Definition Note

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many 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 was 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. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some 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. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than

Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified correction actions. The contractor’s

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

Rating Definition Note proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency

(e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory 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.

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).