Attachment 4 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.doc

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

1. Objective. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) serves as the principal basis for assessing overall performance quality. This document will be used by the Government to assess the effectiveness of the Contractor’s technical services. This QASP provides the methodology by which the Contractor's performance will be monitored to determine compliance with established performance objectives and to establish performance benchmarks that ensure a quantifiable basis for measuring effectiveness. The plan is designed so that surveillance is limited to that which is necessary to verify the Contractor is performing technical services satisfactorily and relates directly to performance objectives of the performance objectives delineated in the SOW.

2. Government Surveillance. The Contracting Officer will appoint a technical representative to function as the Technical Representative for this contract, and her/his authority will be limited to administering specific technical aspects of the contract. The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) will not provide direction that is outside the scope of responsibilities delineated under this contract and will defer any conditional interpretations to the Contracting Officer. The COTR will:

· Maintain a detailed knowledge of the technical requirements of the contract;

· Document Contractor performance in accordance with the QASP;

· Identify and immediately forward notifications of deficient, or non-compliant performance to the Contracting Officer;

· Approve priorities of support, resources, and associated schedules.

3. Surveillance Methods. Surveillance of Contractor performance is the method used by the Government to determine whether the contractor is effectively and efficiently complying with all terms and conditions of the contract. The functional expertise of the COTR plays a critical role in adequately evaluating contractor performance.

4. Performance Objectives. This performance-based service contract incorporates the following performance objectives: (1) delivery of High Quality High Quality Sr. Engineering Services that are required to provide specialized product and systems engineering services to design, develop, field, and sustain both field feeding and shipboard feeding equipment and ration preservation systems to meet the Joint Services unique requirements. 3D Modeling Software (SOLIDWORKS™) will be utilized to develop conceptual food service equipment models. Once developed, heat transfer analysis and Finite Element Analysis will be used to evaluate the design to meet the warfighters functional and operational requirements and to perform mathematical analysis using tools such as MATLAB™ and MATHCAD. Significant test and evaluation also required (2) adherence to contract schedule, milestone, and delivery requirements, and (3) efficient and effective cost control.

It is the contractor’s responsibility to employ the necessary resources to ensure accomplishment of these objectives. The Government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance in achieving these objectives will utilize the standards, acceptable quality levels, and surveillance methods described in the Performance Requirements Summary matrix set forth below.

The contractor will be notified, in writing, of the Government’s determination of its performance level for each performance objective, including all instances where the contractor failed to meet the acceptable quality level.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES SUMMARY MATRIX

TASK/

DELIVERABLE

Technical Performance

1) Assist the Project Officer with test and evaluation efforts for the Unmanned Provision Supply (UPS) and the Expeditionary Field Feeding Equipment System (EFFES) project. This will include in-house (CCDC-SC) testing as well as testing at the customer's user evaluation locations which are TBD.

2) Assist the CFD Engineering Support Authority (ESA) for field feeding equipment with engineering support activities to include: responding to DLA 339 requests for engineering support; responding directly to customers in the field for support; reverse engineering legacy components; finding alternate sources of supply for equipment; reviewing and modifying Technical Data Packages (TDP); reviewing and modifying Commercial Item Descriptions (CIDs); and reviewing/writing engineering support related proposals to acquire external funding.

1) Assist the Project Officers with the market research, concept development, testing, integration, fielding and ECP development to provide the Marine Corps with a Field Level MECC shelter floor repair kit, exoskeleton frame development and the Modular Feeding Platform for the Marine Corps..

2) Assist the Project Officers with integrating the Modular Integrated Kitchen System (MIKS) into two-side expandable Tricon.

3) Support the Air Forces BEAR initial feeding Expeditionary Electric Kitchen (EEK) Type II improvement efforts to include fabrication, integration, and testing.

4) Assist the Project Officer with test and evaluation of the Joint Services Expandable Refrigerated Container System (JSERCS version2). Provide technical engineering and refrigeration expertise on JSERCS version 2 to the vendor and Project Officer.

5) Provide continued technical knowledge, test and evaluation of First Article Test units in support of the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support (DLA-TS) field food service and system procurement efforts. FAT units need to be verified that they meet the specifications and technical data package requirements.

6) Provide continued test and evaluation on the Navy Galley and Scullery equipment as identified by the Project Officer in accordance with ASTM and Navy unique test standards.

7) Provide continued support to the Project Officer and provide technical guidance for reviewing Navy Food Service Analysis Tool (NFSAT) protocols and hardware integration, support testing of the NFSAT software to ensure it meets the Navy IT requirements. Conduct field testing of the NFSAT and support the training and implementation of the NFSAT for COMNAVAIRFORCE.

8) Support the Navy Project Officer with the Navy Expeditionary Kitchen System (NEFKS) prototype development effort to include; development, design, fabrication, integration and testing. Conduct market research for alternate energy technologies such as micro-grid, solar, wind, and grey water recycling that can be integrated into the NEFKS kitchen program. Support the NEFKS user-evaluation and transition to the Navy Expeditionary Warfare Command.

9) Provide technical solutions to the CFD Marine Corps Project officer in researching, procuring, testing alternative Expeditionary Field Kitchen System, Enhanced Tray Ration Heater System, Tray Ration Heater Systems and tactical field refrigeration components that are either no longer available from the original OEM’s or have high replacement costs.

Contract requirements met with few minor and no significant problems encountered.

Performance meets all technical and functional requirements, and is highly responsive to any changes in technical focus of the project.

Personnel qualifications, assessments, evaluations, analyses, recommendations, and related input are thorough, reliable, highly relevant to contract requirements, and consist of substantial depth and breadth of subject matter expertise.

Contractor technical performance meets all contract requirements.

Problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

3) UPS and EFFES project in house and contractor test plan evaluation, test execution, capturing and analyzing test data and developing test reports.

4) Conducting Market Research for suitable replacement components. Analyzing material solutions against original performance requirements, reverse engineering legacy components and finding alternate sources of supply for equipment; reviewing and modifying Technical Data Packages (TDP); reviewing and modifying Commercial Item Descriptions (CIDs); and reviewing/writing engineering support related proposals to acquire external funding.

5) Reviewing proposed EFK flooring solutions provided by the EFK Shelter contractor for suitability as a field level repairs. Providing technical recommendations and recommended coarse of actions to the PO. Reviewing contractor developed TDP and installation instructions. Analyzing install performance feedback from the Marines.

6) Co-develop a market survey of suitable material solutions to meet the Combat Developers Operational requirements. Develop 3D concept models for design evaluation purposes with USMC.

7) Draft test plan for MIKS evaluation. Test and Evaluate the Modular Integrated Kitchen System (MIKS) prototype. Develop 3D models of the prototype. Assist the Project Officer with development of the final MIKS production model, final test report and integration plan for shipboard utilization.

8) Conduct market research for alternate energy technologies such as micro-grids, solar, wind, and grey water recycling that can be integrated into the BEAR Type II EEK kitchen program.

9) Assist the Air Force Project Officer with the Joint Air Containerized Kitchen System (JACKS) development effort, including testing for production capacity based on the full suite of UGRs, power usage, water consumption, and provide recommendations to reduce power, fuel, logistics footprint, and water requirements. Provide technical support to the JACKS IPT in support of technical evaluation of the JACKS Production contract, and provide follow-on support for R & D work and First Article Testing of the JACKS prototype development phase.

10) Provide continued Engineering Support for testing and evaluating First Article Test units in support of DLA managed field food service equipment procurement efforts. FAT units need to be verified that they meet the SPEC/Drawings. FAT units need to undergo extensive performance testing to meet established operational requirements. Technical reports documenting the testing and evaluation is required.

11) Conduct test and evaluation on the JIMKE prototypes, and support shipboard evaluation of the JIMKE protocol.

12) Develop a stowage analysis for the New NAVSUP Phase II Menu subsistence items for all naval vessel classes to ensure that Navy can meet its endurance level feeding requirements.

13) Test, evaluate, document and make technical recommendations to support the NEFKS prototype improvements prior to the Navy issuing a production contract award.

14) Test, evaluate, document and make technical recommendations to support the CFREB funding EFK Upgrades project.

15) Provide a draft Test Plan to test and evaluate the Blue Zone Model 450 Viral/ COVID-19 kill units, Model 420 units, and conduct market research for 3rd-party testing of EMI, efficacy, and analysis of data provided by 3rd-party vendor’s test report.

16) Conduct market research on novel water treatment technology that avoids filter replacement. Specifically, for use with a grey water recycling system for Navy and Air Force expeditionary forces.

17) Model a novel Atmospheric Water Harvester for interface/integration with hydration equipment to support Joint Service application to the individual Soldier/Marine and squad-level utilization.

18) Develop testing protocols for Atmospheric Water Harvester technologies being developed for transition under BAA and SBIR contracts.

Routine Assessment of Workforce Qualifications and Availability of Resources

The CFD project officers will set the delivery schedules with the contractor for delivery of the test plans, 3D models, integration plans, test reports and reporting documentation to meet CFREB and

CFD customer requirements and milestones. Quarterly meetings to discuss progress will be held by the CFD Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps project officers with the contractor to ensure deliverable quality and program/project milestones will be met.

The contractor will attend program review meetings, telecoms and other Government informational meetings on an ad hoc basis.

Assignment of performance rating for QUALITY criteria:

Excellent Performance meets all and exceeds standard compliance of many CONTRACT requirements. The contractor submits the test plans, reports, analyses and integration plans of highest quality that require zero or very little rework or redlining by the project officers to exceed the

Services requirements and deadlines. Problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a highly effective manner.

Acceptable Performance and deliverables meet all contract requirements. The contractor submits the test plans, reports, analyses and integration plans of highest quality that require minor rework or redlining by the project officers to meet the Services requirements and deadlines. Problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a highly effective manner. Problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Unacceptable

Many contract requirements not met.

The contractor submits the test plans, reports, analyses and integration plans of poor quality and require major rework or major redlining by the project officers in order to meet the minimum Services requirements. The contractor misses deadlines, Substantial problems were encountered and were resolved in a less than satisfactory manner.

Assignment of performance rating for SCHEDULE criteria:

Excellent Contract milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 95% of time (excluding government caused delays)

Acceptable

Contract milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 85-95% of time (excluding government caused delays)

Unacceptable

Contract milestones/ performance dates met less than 85% of time (excluding government caused delays)

Actual contract cost is maintained within 10% of originally awarded contract value; ODCs effectively monitored and controlled.

Routine Inspection of contract financial reports, and examination of payment Invoices

Assignment of performance rating for COST CONTROL criteria:

Excellent

Actual contract cost maintained within 100% of originally awarded contract value

Acceptable

Actual contract cost maintained within 105-125% of originally awarded contract value

Unacceptable

Actual contract cost maintained within 125% of originally awarded contract value