Attachment 2_Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

NAVAL SEA LOGISTICS CENTER (NAVSEALOGCEN)

READINESS BASED SPARING (RBS) SERVICES

26 August 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

7 MONITORING OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCS)

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

ATTACHMENT 3: CUSTOMER COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION FORM

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled, “NAVAL SEA LOGISTICS CENTER (NAVSEALOGCEN) READINESS BASED SPARING (RBS) SERVICES PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT.” This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Naval Sea Logistics Center (NAVSEALOGCEN) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

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 performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and the Contractor Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project 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

The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by NAVSEALOGCEN to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS 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.

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 performance-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

The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control program. Quality control 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 CQAP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS.

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 CQAP.

The government representative(s) will monitor performance and deliverables and review reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. 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 Contracting Officer (KO) 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 KO will designate a COR as the government authority for performance management. Additional government personnel may serve as technical inspectors, depending on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and will provide their inputs and observations to the COR.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The COR is designated in writing by the KO 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. 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 KO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing or assigning other government personnel to complete 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 contract.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary”. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be reflected in the annual Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (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 – When used, shall be performed by the COR or designated inspector.

100% Inspection – When used, each item of interest shall be reviewed.

Periodic Inspection – When used, will typically be performed on a monthly, quarterly, or semi-annual basis.

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 COR, as opposed to the contractor. Formal complaints shall be forwarded to the COR.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint using the Customer Complaint Investigation Form (Attachment 3), must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR.

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 the PWS and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary,” for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed. For certain critical activities such as those involving safety and security, the desired performance level may be established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance at NAVSEALOGCEN.

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 are expressed in the PWS and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance will be accomplished by the COR, or Quality Assurance Evaluator (QAE), will be reported using the monitoring forms similar to those in Attachment 2 and

3. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s deliverables under the contract to ensure that the required results [or service or quality levels] are being achieved.

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

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

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. If the contractor exceeds the performance standards, it will be reflected in the annual CPAR.

6.2 Reporting

At the end of each month, the designated technical inspectors will prepare a written report summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance and submit to the COR. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed deliverable review 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

The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the KO and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The KO 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 KO as often as required or per the KO’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

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

The KO, COR and 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 at the convenience of the KO.

7 MONITORING OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCS)

In accordance with the NAVSEA Instruction (NAVSEAINST) 4200.19B, dated 8 December 2020, if ODCs are estimated greater than 5% of the total labor value or exceed $3M (whichever is lower) for any given contract year, then the rationale for the ODC requirements must be provided to the KO and the methods for monitoring these ODC charges shall be documented in the applicable QASP.

Should the proposed ODCs for the task order exceed the tripwire, the following methods will be used to monitor the ODCs.

The COR will monitor the ODCs via invoices and financial deliverables provided by the contractor to confirm that the expenditures fall within the anticipated costs and approved ODCs. If ODCs are estimated to go above the initial proposed amount, the COR will notify the KO.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Standard Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Monitoring Method

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Incentiv e

1. Cost (a) Contractor shall demonstrate Cost Control.

Cost deviations from quotation are explained to the satisfactio n of the Government.

(a) Contractor monthly progress report addresses any cost deviations for the period.

(a) 100% review of contractor monthly progress reports.

(a) Any cost deviation details are delivered to the Government POC for the Contract 98% of the time with the monthly progress report for the period.

Contractor shall justify cost deviations to the satisfaction of the Government POC for the Contract 100% of the time.

Positive negative performa nce evaluati on

(b) Contractor invoices shall be timely, accurate, and complete.

(b) Accurate and complete invoices are submitted in accordance with the terms of the contract.

(b) 100% review of contractor invoices.

(b) Contractor shall submit 92% of all invoices in a timely manner, free of errors, and provide complete information without

Positive negative performa nce evaluati on rework.

2.

Schedule

(a)Contract or shall demonstrate schedule control through progress towards completion on a project level basis.

(a) Progress Demonstrated

(a) 100% review of contractor monthly progress reports.

(a) Contractor monthly reports clearly demonstrate project progress 92% of the time.

Positive negative performa nce evaluati on

(b) Contractor shall submit deliverable s/CDRLs by the required due date.

(b) On-Time Delivery

(b) 100% review of contractor deliverable receipt dates against due dates.

(b) Contractor shall submit 95% of all contract deliverables in accordance with the contract schedule.

Positive negative performa nce evaluati on

3.

Quality

(a) Contractor deliverable s/CDRLs are submitted in accordance with the terms of the contract and are of an acceptable quality

(a) Contractor Deliverables are rated Satisfactory

(a) 100% review and rating of contractor deliverables

(a) The average of all contractor deliverable ratings is satisfactory, with no more than 2 “final” unsatisfactor y deliverable ratings per year.

Positive negative performa nce level.

(b) Monthly Progress Reports adequately detail any significant discussions /issues related to performance

(b) Progress Reports address significant issues identified.

(a) 100% Review of progress reports.

(b) Monthly Reports address performance issues 100% of the time.

Positive negative performa nce evaluati on

(c) Contractor shall deliver models with accurate OPUS Suite Readiness Based Sparing Input Files and Results aligned with configurati on, provisionin g, reliability block diagram, and system operational data elements.

(c) Models are submitted to Naval Sea Logistics Center and the customer of record.

(c) Random Sampling review of contractor models by Naval Sea Logistics Center

(c) Contractor will provide models, results, and deliverables which Naval Sea Logistics Center evaluates as accurate 98% of the time.

Positive negative performa nce

(d) Contractor shall

(d) Models are submitted to

(d) Random Sampling

(d) Contractor will provide

Positive negative deliver models with complete OPUS Suite Readiness Based Sparing Input files and Results aligned with configurati on, provisionin g, reliability block diagram, and system operational data elements.

Naval Sea Logistics Center and the customer of record.

review of contractor models by Naval Sea Logistics Center models, results, and deliverables Naval Sea Logistics Center evaluates as complete 98% of the time.

performa nce evaluati on

4.

Business Relations

(a) Contractor is responsive to all Government phone calls and emails related to significant matters (Cost, Schedule, and Performance

(a) Contractor responds to Government requests within 2 business days.

(a) Tracking, logging, and review of contractor response to requests.

(a) Contractor responds to all requests within 2 business days 95% of the time.

(a) Positive negative performa nce evaluati on

5.

Staffing

Managemen t

(a) Contractor advises Government promptly

(a) Contractor notifies Government within 5

(a) Review of personnel replacement requirement notification

(a) Contractor advises Government within 5

Positive negative performa nce when personnel shall require replacement business days when personnel replacement is required.

s business days 95% of the time.

evaluati on

(b) Contractor replaces personnel with personnel that meet contract requirement s.

(b) Personnel replacements are qualified for position

(b) Review of personnel replacement notification s

(b) Contractor notifies Government of replacements 100% of the time.

Positive negative performa nce evaluati on

(c) Contractor notifies Government promptly of any actual or potential Labor Disputes that may affect performance

(c) Labor Disputes are reported within 7 days of identificati on.

(c) Review of contractor notification of Labor Disputes.

(c) Labor Disputes are reported 100% of the time.

Positive negative performa nce

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

Date:_______________

Prepared By: ______________________________________

Reporting Period: __________________________________

Task Area: ___________________________________________________________

Overall the contractor’s performance was: ____________________________

Deliverable 1

Surveillance Method:_________________ Acceptable:_________________

AQL: XXX

Observed Performance Level:_________________________________________

Deliverable 2

Surveillance Method:_________________ Acceptable:_________________

AQL: XXX

Observed Performance Level:_________________________________________

Comments:

ATTACHMENT 3: CUSTOMER COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION FORM

CUSTOMER SERVICE REPORT 1. Date/Time of

Complaint:

Number

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

2. Organization

3. Name

4. Phone No.

5. Nature of Complaint: Be specific. Clearly and legibly state what the problem is or the specific defect that was observed.

Specify the date and time the problem occurred or the defect was observed. Briefly describe the operational impact, if any. Attach photocopies or appropriate documentation.

6. Contract Reference: Cite the section and paragraph number of the contract that the observed defect was not in compliance with.

Contract # TO #

7. TOM Validation: Summarize the outcome of the validation of the complaint. The summary should include who was contacted, what was said, what processes and procedures were looked at (use of the Decision Table), and what results of the validation were including whether the contractor or the Government was at fault.

8. Date/Time Contractor Informed of Complaint:

8a. Contractor Response Due By:

9. Action Taken By Contractor: Include an explanation why the defect occurred and what the Contractor will do to prevent the defect from recurring.

10. Received/Reviewed/Validated By: Signature of the COR(s) receiving and validating the complaint.

Acceptable (circle one): Yes No