Attachment 2 - QASP_ITRP RFI.docx

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for Office of Information & Technology Field Support Directorate Information Technology Refresh Program (ITRP) Support Services

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a government developed and applied document used to ensure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of this performance-based service contract. The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

The contract requirement is for support services for the Office of Information & Technology (OIT) Field Support Directorate (FSD). The Field Support Directorate serves as the primary customer interface for CBP personnel worldwide. FSD is the operations and maintenance organization responsible for information technology, tactical radio communications, and surveillance systems. FSD provides technology services and service delivery, implements projects, and deploys systems to reduce downtime and maintain operational availability. This requirement is for Information Technology Refresh Program (ITRP) Support Services.

This action will be met by awarding a single hybrid (FFP and T&M) contract with one base year and four (4) 12-month option periods. The contractor’s performance will be monitored by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR).

A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

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 documentation called for in contracts, to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3. Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between Quality Control Plan and QASP. The contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract.

The QASP on the other hand, is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the contract.

4. Government Resources

The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this plan:

Contracting Officer - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into contracts and make related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of authority. The CO for this contract will TBD.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - An individual appointed in writing by the CO to act as their authorized representative to assist in the technical administration of the contract. The COR will be appointed in the resulting contract award. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

5. Responsibilities

The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this QASP:

Contracting Officer – The Contracting Officer ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the Contracting Officer that assures the contractor receives impartial, fair and equitable treatment under the contract. The Contracting Officer is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. 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 Contracting Officer for action.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment – The marketplace for these services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government-generated contractor performance assessment ratings under this contract. Additionally, the ratings will be the determinant in exercising an option. For this procurement the Government will address the quality of service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout CBP, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

b. QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance will be used by the COR in the technical administration of this QASP. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of quality assurance surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist, Enclosure (5).

7. Surveillance Enclosures (1), (2), (3) and (4) set forth performance standards, incentives, definitions and surveillance methods for the contractor and COR while enclosure (5) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance. Enclosure (5) will be provided to the Contracting Officer on a monthly basis for inclusion into contract file.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing monthly reports to the Contracting Officer, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the quality assurance function, including the originals of the Quality Assurance Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) - Performance Standards – Tasks Enclosure (2) - Performance Standards – Data Enclosure (3) - Definitions for Evaluation Areas and Ratings Enclosure (4) - Surveillance Activity Checklist - Monthly Enclosure (5) - Surveillance Activity Checklist - Annually

Source Selection Sensitive Information See FAR 3.104 and 2.101

Source Selection Sensitive Information See FAR 3.104 and 2.101

Enclosure (1)

Performance Standards – Tasks

Task 1:

Program Management Onboard Key Personnel

Task 1:

Program Management Onboarding qualified staff

Task 4:

Hardware Procurement Assistance

1. requested from the equipment vendor within three (3)-business days after order placement is confirmed;

2. accurately and completely recorded in designated FSD reporting tools within two (2)-business days of receipt from equipment vendor Monthly using FSD Reporting tools

CBP’s end user device environment is operation and secure

Enclosure (2):

Performance Standards – Data

100% Inspection by COR.

Enclosure (3)

DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUAITON AREAS AND RATINGS

All PWS tasks, including PWS sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following:

Quality of Product or Service – Assess the contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces, and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the contractor meets program quality.

Schedule – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or effect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events (i.e., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Is the contractor experiencing cost growth or underrun? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For contracts where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor provided person-hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources in each work effort should be assessed.

Business Relations – Assess the timelines, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Management – Assess the contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts, including whether the contractor met small/small disadvantage and women-owned business participation goals. Discuss the extent to which the contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract; identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by contract; communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the contractor’s risk mitigation plans. If applicable, identify any other management areas that are unique to the contract.

Other areas – Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the contract or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

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

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

Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed reflect 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 most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the task or sub-task contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s actions appear or were ineffective.

Enclosure (4)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST – MONTHLY

Monthly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a monthly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the contractor performance evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure (4).

Other

Enclosure (5)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST - ANNUALLY

Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the contractor performance evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure (4) and the monthly summary of ratings.

Measure