Attachment 4 - TO0001 QASP - DRAFT.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract or Task Order Title: United States European Command (USEUCOM) Enterprise Multi-site Cutover Design

2. Purpose:

This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

· What will be monitored?

· How monitoring will take place.

· Who will conduct the monitoring?

· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

3. Roles and Responsibilities:

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides program oversight and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities.

Contracting Officer (KO) – The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

Other Key Government Personnel – Government Engineering and Cybersecurity Team. This may include performance monitors, inspectors, technical experts, workforce service division and center directorate level security personnel, requirements office, or others (i.e., users) who provide information that helps the COR monitor contractor performance.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance: There will be 100% inspection for all tasks and deliverables.

· 100 Percent Inspection. This is usually only the most appropriate method for infrequent tasks or tasks with stringent performance requirements, e.g., where safety or health is a concern. With this method, performance is inspected/evaluated at each occurrence. One hundred percent inspection is too expensive to be used in most cases.

Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (Appendix 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performance surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The AQL performance Standard Table should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

5. Performance Standards:

TASK 1: Project Management (PWS 6.1)

(AQL)

Methods of Calculation

Documents and reports

High level of accuracy

Documents and reports that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all documents and reports. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Program Manager.

5% or less of error rate.

TASK 2: Requirements (PWS 6.2)

Survey Report

High level of accuracy Reports that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all reports. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

Less than 5% of error rate.

Requirements Documents

High level of accuracy

Documents that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all documents. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

5% or less of error rate.

TASK 3: Design (PWS 6.3)

IDP

High level of accuracy IDP packages that are complete; have minor flawed information.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all packages. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to correct at next iteration.

Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

5% or less of error rate.

Systems Migration and Cutover Plan

High level of accuracy Plan that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all plans. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to correct at next iteration.

Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

5% or less of error rate.

LOM

Absolute accuracy LOM that is complete; have no flawed information.

Minimum Acceptable:

100% accuracy of all LOM.

Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team and compare to the approved design.

0% error rate.

TASK 4: System Software Configuration (PWS 6.4)

System Software Configuration Plan (SSCP)

High level of accuracy Plans that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all plans. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

5% or less of error rate.

TASK 5: Cybersecurity (PWS 6.5)

Cybersecurity Artifacts

High level of accuracy Artifacts that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all artifacts. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to make corrections Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Cybersecurity team.

5% or less of error rate.

TASK 6: Construction Security Plan (CSP) (PWS 6.6)

CSP Addendum

High level of accuracy Plan that are complete; have no flawed information.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all plans. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to correct at next iteration.

Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

5% or less of error rate.

TASK 7: Pre-Installation Test and Check-out (PITCO) (PWS 6.7)

PITCO Plan

High level of accuracy Plan that are complete; have no flawed information.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all plans. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to correct.

Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

5% or less of error rate.

TASK 8: System Operational Verification Test (SOVT) (PWS 6.8)

SOVT Document

Absolute accuracy Documents that are complete; have no flawed information and assumptions.

Minimum Acceptable:

100% accuracy of all documents. COR can accept deliverable when contractor makes the corrections.

Calculation:

100% Review from the COR and/or Government testing team.

0% error rate.

6. Documenting Performance:

Acceptable Performance.

The Government shall document positive performance. A Performance Assessment Report (PAR) template is attached (Appendix 2). Any report may become part of the supporting documentation for fixed price payments, award/incentive fee payments, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) entries, or other actions. Government acceptance of services permits the contractor to invoice for the service fee.

Unacceptable performance.

Unacceptable contractor performance can be identified by customer complaints (Appendix 3) or upon schedule surveillance evaluations. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file and provide a copy to the KO.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Corrective Action Report (CAR). The CAR is forwarded to the KO for dissemination to the contractor. A CAR template is attached to this QASP (Appendix 4).

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing. The CAR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CAR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the KO and COR. The Government may withhold payment for services until corrective action is taken. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. Upon Government acceptance of the corrected services the contractor will be permitted to invoice for the service fee.

Any CAR may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, CPARS or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

7. Mandatory or regulatory compliance items:

The contractor will provide initial proof of compliance with regulatory and compliance items contained in the task order. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (KO) will evaluate the initial submission and will conduct ad hoc reviews of the contractor's compliance throughout the remainder of the task order. The contractor will monitor compliance as required by FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and report any issues to the KO.

8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

The AQL for the document deliverables for this contract are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions or conclusions; and have a minimum number of minor grammatical errors (i.e., errors in less than 5% of the pages).

9. Evaluation Method:

The COR will review with inputs from key government personnel, verify, and validate all contractor deliverables and provide comments back to the contractor.

10. Performance Rating

In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used (same as CPAR ratings).

Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix

Performance Standards Acceptable Quality Levels Methods of Calculation

Project Management Documents and reports

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

Documents and reports that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all documents and reports. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

Subjective high-level of calculation of error(s) over the entire deliverable.

5% or less of error rate.

Measurement Interval – Weekly and monthly

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or PM.

Reporting Frequency: - Weekly for weekly activity reports. Monthly for status and financial reports.

(Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

Survey Report

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

Reports that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all reports. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

Objective detailed inspection of the amount error(s) over the entire deliverable.

5% or less of error rate.

Measurement Interval – Per project schedule

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or PM.

Reporting Frequency: - 1 draft and 1 final (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

Requirements Documents

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

Documents that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all documents. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

Measurement Interval –

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

Reporting Frequency: - Draft and corrections (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

Installation Design Plan (IDP)

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

IDP packages that are complete; have no flawed information.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all packages. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to correct at next iteration.

Calculation:

Objective detailed inspection of the amount error(s) over the entire deliverable.

5% or less of error rate.

Measurement Interval – Per project schedule

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

Reporting Frequency: - 30, 60%, 90%, and 100% iterations (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

Systems Migration and Cutover Plan

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

Plan that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all plans. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to correct at next iteration.

Calculation:

Objective detailed inspection of the amount error(s) over the entire deliverable.

5% or less of error rate.

Measurement Interval – Per project schedule

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

Reporting Frequency: - 1 draft and 1 final (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

List of Materials (LOM)

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

LOM that is complete; have no flawed information.

Minimum Acceptable:

100% accuracy of all LOM.

Calculation:

Objective detailed inspection of the error(s).

Measurement Interval –

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team and compare to the approved design.

Reporting Frequency: - 1 draft and 1 final (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

System Software Configuration Plan (SSCP)

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

Plan that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all plans. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

Objective detailed inspection of the amount error(s) over the entire deliverable.

5% or less of error rate.

Measurement Interval – Per project schedule

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

Reporting Frequency: - 1 draft and 1 final (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

Cybersecurity Artifacts

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

Artifacts that are complete; have no flawed information, analyses, assumptions, or conclusions.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all artifacts. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to make corrections Calculation:

5% or less of error rate.

Measurement Interval –

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Cybersecurity team.

Reporting Frequency: - Draft and corrections (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

Construction Security Plan (CSP) Addendum

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

Plan that are complete; have no flawed information.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all plans. COR can accept deliverable with comments Calculation:

Objective detailed inspection of the amount error(s) over the entire deliverable.

5% or less of error rate.

Measurement Interval – Per project schedule

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

Reporting Frequency: - 1 draft and 1 final (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

Pre-Installation Test and Check-out (PITCO) Plan

High level of accuracy Target Criteria:

Plan that are complete; have no flawed information.

Minimum Acceptable:

> 95% accuracy of all plans. COR can accept deliverable with comments and contractor to correct Calculation:

Objective detailed inspection of the amount error(s) over the entire deliverable.

5% or less of error rate.

Measurement Interval – Per project schedule

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

Reporting Frequency: - 1 draft and 1 final (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

System Operational Verification Test (Test)

Absolute accuracy Target Criteria:

Documents that are complete; have no flawed information and assumptions.

Minimum Acceptable:

100% accuracy of all documents. COR can accept deliverable when contractor makes the corrections.

Calculation:

Objective detailed inspection of the error(s).

Measurement Interval –

Method of Surveillance – 100% Review from the COR and/or Government Engineering team.

Reporting Frequency: - 1 draft and 1 final (Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. |_| DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

|_| NEW

|_| REPEAT

|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

Appendix 3 – Customer Complaint Record

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

Appendix 4 – Corrective Action Report

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY |_| MAJOR |_| MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

|_| ACCEPTED |_| REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

Enclosure 6, Page 1 of 2 Pages 17Jul2013/Version 2

Encl 4, QASP 11Feb2021/v4