Attachment 2 - QASP CONUS WESTPAC Investigative Laboratory (Draft 30 MAR 2022).pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE

SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR

DLA-Energy CONUS/Western Pacific

Fuel Investigation Laboratory Services

1. Purpose

2. Authority

3. Roles and Responsibilities

4. Performance and Surveillance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose

1.1 The Government-developed Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a document constructed to measure the performance of the Contractor during the lifetime of the fuel investigation contract against contract performance standards. Performance shall be measured to ensure that the requirements of the contract are satisfied. Specifically, the QASP is developed based on the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. Five performance rating levels are used as grading levels within the QASP to rate how the Contractor has complied with the PWS requirements. The QASP proceeds a step beyond the PWS to outline the acceptable standards of performance by the Contractor as adjudicated by the Government. This document also assesses how the Contractor will be assessed through annual (interim) evaluations and final evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Finally, depending on the frequency of task orders for fuel investigations during the contract, evaluations may also be conducted for individual fuel investigations to provide more precise feedback for the Contractor.

1.2 The Contractor is ultimately responsible for ensuring that they meet or exceed the requirements specified in the PWS for CONUS/Western Pacific Fuel Investigation Laboratory Services. The Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s adherence to the requirements of the contract and how these assessments will occur is detailed in this QASP.

1.3 This QASP shall be additionally used as an instrument for open communication between the Government and Contractor for identifying performance trends, and, if necessary, improving performance for the remaining Period of Performance of the contract.

1.4 The Government may provide a copy of this QASP to the Contractor to foster and maintain open communication. Government developed assessment documentation based on this QASP will be marked as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) as defined in Executive Order 13556, replacing the former For Official Use Only (FOUO).

2. Authority

2.1 The overall authority for this QASP, as conducted for the Fuel Investigation Laboratory Services contract, is described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 46 and FAR 52.246.

Further, the Quality Assurance procedures specific to a fixed-price service contract are described in detail within FAR 52.246-4, Inspection of Services- Fixed Price. The Contracting Officer is responsible for acceptance of the service provided by the Contractor, after consultation with the Contracting Officer’s Representative on technical content of deliverables.

2.2 The construct of this contract is such that maximum quantities for types of testing and analysis and price per test or technique are established at contract award. The pricing for these types of tests is locked-in at contract award; task orders issued for fuel investigations are multiples of the agreed testing service prices based on the quantity of samples that must be tested to complete the fuel investigation, as proposed by the Contractor, and awarded by the Contracting Officer.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

3.1 There are shared responsibilities among both Government and Contractor personnel in the performance of the Fuel Investigation Laboratory Services contract. These responsibilities expand beyond the cursory descriptions provided in the PWS. Specific delineation of these responsibilities is described by position below.

3.2 Program Manager (Contractor)- The Program Manager for the Contractor serves as the primary individual that the Government will interface with during performance of the Fuel Investigation Laboratory Services contract. When each fuel investigation need arises, the problem statement for the fuel investigation will be provided to the Program Manager by the Contracting Officer to draft a proposal for the task order under consideration. It is then the Program Manger’s responsibility to analyze the problem statement, draft a course of testing that will address the Government’s need for the fuel investigation, and submit it to the Government.

Once a task order is awarded, the Program Manager shall serve as the lead on the execution of the fuel investigation and all correspondence with the Government. During periods of Program Manager unavailability, this responsibility shall be temporarily assigned to a designated individual of the Contractor. This may be an alternate Program Manager or a Chemist/Technician supporting the fuel investigation contract. When annual CPARS evaluations are completed, known as interim evaluations, the Program Manager shall provide feedback concurring or non-concurring with the Government’s annual assessment within the allotted 60 day time window. This will be done through a CPARS role known as Contractor Representative.

Within the CPARS system, it is advantageous for the Contractor to provide their response within 14 days, but 60 days shall remain as the standard in which review of the interim evaluation must be completed.

3.3 Program Manager (Government)- The Program Manager for the Government serves as the architect in development of technical scoping of the contract and the technical language of any changes needed to the Government. However, the Government Program Manager does not have the authority to change any terms or conditions of the contract. Such changes can only be made by the Contracting Officer, who serves as a warranted Government Official. During CPARS evaluations, the Program Manager will review the work conducted by the Contractor during the contract and provide input to the Government personnel serving as the Assessing Officer’s Representative, also known as the AOR, further described in 3.5.

3.4 Contracting Officer- The Contracting Officer or CO serves as the warranted Government authority for the contract. Only the Contracting Officer can bind the Government and will issue contract award, task order award(s), and modifications as necessary. During CPARS interim evaluations, the CO will serve as the 2nd level assessor, the Assessing Official or AO. In the event that there is no disagreement between the Government and the Contractor in the content of

CPARS interim evaluations, the CO will close out each interim evaluation within CPARS.

Throughout the performance of the contract, the CO will ensure that the Contractor is treated in a fair and reasonable manner and that all parties abide by the requirements written in the contract and QASP.

3.5 Contracting Officer’s Representative- The Contracting Officer’s Representative, or COR, serves as the day-to-day technical authority for the Government. When the Contractor submits proposals and reports to the Government, the COR will determine whether the deliverable is sufficient and inform the Contracting Officer as such. The COR does not have a warrant to affect the terms and conditions of the contract, nor to accept a service provided or award task orders.

During annual CPARS assessments, the COR will draft the baseline assessment in each of the performance ratings in a capacity known as the Assessing Official’s Representative or AOR within CPARS. This assessment will be reviewed and modified as necessary by the Contracting Officer, serving as the Assessing Official, before it is provided to the Contractor Representative within CPARS.

3.6 Reviewing Official- This is a Government role limited to CPARS interim and final evaluations. In the event of a disagreement between the Assessing Official and the Contractor Representative on an evaluation, the CPARS assessment will be elevated to the Reviewing Official for final adjudication and resolution of the assessment. The Reviewing Official will be a Contracting official within the Government.

4. Performance and Surveillance

4.1 The performance goal of the QASP is to ensure that the Contractor is complying with the requirements specified in the PWS and can successfully conduct the experimentation proposed for fuel investigation task orders in a safe and timely manner. Since work performed under this contract is episodic, not continuous, there is emphasis on maintaining the capabilities and manpower necessary to perform a fuel investigation, as timelines for completion are not conducive to just-in-time or surge hiring.

4.2 Monthly Performance Rating Definitions

4.2.1 Each month, the COR will prepare an evaluation of the Contractor’s performance. The overarching reason for this approach is to comply with the COR’s monthly reporting requirements, while also capturing the metrics that will be evaluated annually in the CPARS interim evaluation. Assessments of these metrics monthly, while not recorded in CPARS, provides benefits to both the Government and the Contractor. For the Government, the monthly assessments provide a snapshot across the evaluation factors. In the event of unsuccessful contract performance, the Government will have the opportunity to advise the Contractor of steps necessary to maintain a satisfactory rating under the contract. For the Contractor, this provides a more timely medium for feedback that is clear and unambiguous other than the CPARS interim evaluation. In the event of Marginal or Unsatisfactory assessment, the Contractor has timely feedback on what must be adjusted to return to a Satisfactory level of contract performance.

4.2.2 During monthly evaluation of the Contractor’s performance, the following five performance ratings will be used by the Government. The definition of each of these ratings, as also listed in FAR 42.1503, are written below. Subsequently, definitions are provided for each of the assessment areas, which in turn are evaluated as evaluation factors in CPARS.

Performance Rating Definition Exceptional Performance meets 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 action taken by the Contractor was highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets 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 action taken by the Contractor was effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet 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.

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.

4.3 Rating Definitions by Assessment Area

4.3.1 Personnel Manning

4.3.1.1 The fuel investigation laboratory service contract requires that the Contractor shall provide, at a minimum, a Program Manager and a Chemist/Technician to conduct the testing, evaluation, and analysis necessary for initiated standard and emergency fuel investigations. The Contractor shall not be limited in the number of Chemists/Technicians that they maintain for the contract, but a minimum of one shall be required for performance of the contract. Because fuel investigations under this contract are ad hoc as incidents occur, just-in-time manning is not sufficient to meet minimum contractual requirements.

Performance Rating Explanation Exceptional All personnel manning requirements

(Program Manager and Chemist/Technician) are maintained during the month. In the event of an employee departure, the vacancy is filled within 2 weeks.

Very Good All personnel manning requirements are maintained during the month. In the event of an employee departure, the vacancy is filled within 4 weeks, but greater than 2 weeks.

Satisfactory All personnel manning requirements are maintained during the month. In the event of an employee departure, the vacancy is filled within 6 weeks, but greater than 4 weeks.

Marginal A vacancy or vacancies has occurred in personnel manning. The vacancy has created a gap in capability in excess of 6 weeks, but fulfilled within 12 weeks.

Unsatisfactory A vacancy or vacancies has occurred in personnel manning. The vacancy existed more than 12 weeks.

4.3.2 Response Time (standard and emergency fuel investigations)

4.3.2.1 The fuel investigations contract prominently requires that the Contractor shall respond within the allotted timeframe with a proposal to address the Government-proposed problem statement with specification testing, non-specification testing, specialized testing, or a combination thereof to address the investigation at-hand. Standard fuel investigations require a 5 business day response time, while emergency fuel investigations are limited to a 1 business day response time to the Government-proposed problem statement. In both cases, a business day is defined as the normal working hours of the Contractor’s laboratory; in some scenarios, the Contractor may receive a request from the Government after normal working hours. The applicable 5 or 1 business day calendar shall begin on the next business day for the Contractor.

Since work under this contract is ad hoc and dependent upon the existence of a fuel investigation or fuel investigation(s), months where no new investigations were initiated will be assessed as Satisfactory.

Exceptional Contractor has responded to 100% of fuel investigations within applicable fuel investigation response time.

Very Good Contractor has responded to 80% of fuel investigations within applicable fuel investigation response time.

Satisfactory Contractor has responded to 60% of fuel investigations within applicable fuel investigation response time.

Marginal Contractor has responded to 40% of fuel investigations within applicable fuel investigation response time.

Unsatisfactory Contractor has responded to less than 40% of fuel investigations within applicable fuel investigation response time.

4.3.3 Reporting (Interim Reporting and Written Submissions)

4.3.3.1 The fuel investigation contract requires that the Contractor shall provide reports to the Government on the progression and developing results during issued fuel investigation task orders. When the investigation is projected to consist of one month or less of effort, the Contractor shall provide such reporting updates weekly. For longer fuel investigations requiring multiple months of effort and analysis, the Contractor shall provide reporting updates to the Government monthly. Upon conclusion of the fuel investigation, the Contractor shall provide a written report, detailed in the format described in the PWS. The Contractor shall be expected to provide its written updates and written deliverables within the timeframes detailed in the issued task order per fuel investigation.

Exceptional Contractor has provided updates (weekly or monthly depending on fuel investigation duration) and/or report deliverables ahead of schedule.

Very Good Contractor has provided updates (weekly or monthly depending on fuel investigation duration) and/or report deliverables as scheduled with no reminders necessary.

Satisfactory Contractor has provided updates (weekly or monthly depending on fuel investigation duration) and/or report deliverables as scheduled. However, at least one reminder was required to receive scheduled updates from Contractor during an active fuel investigation.

Marginal Contractor was late, defined as 5 or less business days beyond the expected delivery date for updates (weekly or monthly depending on fuel investigation duration) and/or report deliverables.

Unsatisfactory Contractor provided updates 6 or more business days beyond the expected delivery dates for updates (weekly or monthly depending on fuel investigation) and/or report deliverables. This performance rating also applies when the updates or deliverables were not provided at all to the Government.

4.3.4 Written Fuel Investigation Report

4.3.4.1 The critical deliverables provided through the fuel investigation contract are written reports detailing the approach taken during the fuel investigations, applicable data, any necessary data analysis beyond raw instrumentation data, and conclusions or further testing suggested based on the results of the fuel investigation. As such, the Government expects that these written reports are formatted to contain no or few errors, and do not require heavy editing by the Government to become an acceptable written product. It is particularly important to note that impacted customers, Service Control Points, and other stakeholders serve as interested parties when a fuel investigation is initiated under the contract, and thus professional writing quality is required. Prior to final acceptance of a written report accompanying a fuel investigation from the Contractor, the Government will review the draft report to assess quality and completeness of the report before accepting it. If there are quality deficiencies in the report, the Government will notify the Contractor of these deficiencies. In these instances, the Contractor shall update the report to remedy the identified deficiencies and re-submit the report for Government acceptance.

Exceptional The Contractor’s written report is accepted as

is. Errors, if any, are minor typographical errors that do not require re-submission.

Very Good The Contractor’s written report requires re-submission, but is limited to minor content revisions, such as typographical errors and reformatting of data for more discernable presentation to pertinent stakeholders.

Satisfactory The Contractor’s written report requires re-submission; at least one revision is required, but no more than two revisions. The content of the report is overall complete but requires further explanation, analysis, or content revision to be deemed acceptable by the Government.

Marginal The Contractor’s written report requires more than two revisions to be determined acceptable by the Government. One or more sections of pertinent data or analysis are missing from the report and are identified by the Government as lacking or incomplete.

Unsatisfactory The Contractor’s written report is incomplete, completely missing required sections of the report. Alternatively, the Contractor’s written report was not provided to the Government at all.

4.3.5 Annual (Interim) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluations

4.3.5.1 The Government will use the assessment criteria defined in 4.3.1 through 4.3.4 as assessed by the COR monthly to determine annual performance rating of the Contractor. CPARS is required by the Government to assess the performance of Contractors providing supplies or services to the Government. The standard assessment is conducted once per calendar year and is known as an interim evaluation.

4.3.5.2 At the conclusion of the contract, the Government will prepare the last CPARS for the Contractor. The last evaluation is not known as an interim evaluation; it is known as the final evaluation.

4.3.5.3 The Government will assess the performance of the Contractor in the standardized evaluation factors of Technical, Cost Control, Schedule, Management, Small Business Subcontracting, and Regulatory Compliance.

4.3.5.4 Due to award as a Fixed-Price contract, the fuel investigation contract will assess a rating of “N/A” (Not Applicable) to the evaluation factor of Cost Control, as required in CPARS. This will neither positively nor negatively impact the overall assessment of the Contractor for CPARS evaluation.

4.3.5.5 During periods of inactivity where no fuel investigations are required nor incurred, the Government will prepare a neutral assessment of Satisfactory for all areas that are not actively assessed, which is all evaluation factors except for Personnel Manning.

4.3.5.6 In the event of inactivity, defined as an entire calendar year requiring no fuel investigation activity under the contract, the Government will prepare an administrative CPARS report to meet annual reporting requirements. Under these circumstances, all evaluation factors are required to be assessed as Satisfactory, which illustrates compliance with all contract requirements.

4.3.5.6 In rare instances where there is unusually high requirement for multiple fuel investigations, either standard or emergency, within one calendar year, the Government reserves the option to prepare individual CPARS assessments for each fuel investigation. Multiple assessments prepared under these conditions are to the mutual benefit of the Contractor and the Government. The Government can provide precise feedback on the scope on an individual fuel investigation, while the Contractor receives prompt feedback on their performance during the fuel investigation.

4.3.5.7 For all CPARS assessments prepared by the Government, the Contractor shall provide a Contractor Representative to serve in that role within CPARS. After the evaluation is completed in CPARS by the AOR and AO, the CPARS evaluation is provided to the Contractor Representative role in CPARS. The Contractor Representative at that time is offered the opportunity to provide feedback and concur or non-concur with the CPARS assessment.

4.3.5.8 The COR, serving as the AOR within CPARS, will prepare interim and final evaluations using the below rubric. The interim evaluations will be based on the monthly performance assessed above in 4.3.1 to 4.3.4 and forwarded to the Contracting Officer/AO for review and approval.

Performance Rating Criteria (Interim/Final Assessment) Exceptional Performance meets 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 action taken by the Contractor was highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets 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 action taken by the Contractor was effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet 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.

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.