Attachment 5 - IDIQ QASP.docx

DOCX document 54 KB Posted

Attached to
Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) Services, Applied Engineering, & Mobile Services Provider (MSP) Support - Draft RFP Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
HC104726R0014
Issued by
Defense Information Systems Agency

About this file

This document is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for an Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) Services and Mobile Service Provider (MSP) Support contract. The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate contractor performance, with an Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) of 95% due to the critical nature of support for DoD and Federal E3/spectrum operations. The surveillance methods include 100 percent inspection, random sampling, periodic inspection, and customer input, with performance standards covering technical requirements, documentation quality, schedule adherence, and technical support.

The QASP outlines roles and responsibilities for key personnel including the Program Manager, Contracting Officer, and Contracting Officer's Representative, who will conduct continuous technical oversight. Performance will be rated using a five-tier system from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory, with documentation of both positive and negative performance. The plan includes templates for Performance Assessment Reports, Customer Complaint Records, and Corrective Action Reports to track and manage contractor performance throughout the contract period.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) Services, Applied Engineering, & Mobile Services Provider (MSP) Support - Draft RFP, newest first.
File Type Posted
Attachment 3 - Past Performance References.docx DOCX document
Attachment 2 - QA Template.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment 4 - IDIQ Labor Rates and Price Eval WB.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Attachment 7 - IDIQ GFP Attachment.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Draft RFP HC104726R0014.pdf PDF
Attachment 6 - Sample TO PWS.docx DOCX document
Attachment 1 - IDIQ DD254 Solicitation.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

CUI

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract Title: Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) Services and Mobile Service Provider (MSP) Support

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.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance:

The task orders awarded under this contract will use one or more of the surveillance methods listed below. The primary methods o surveillance shall be identified in the task order QASP.

· 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.

· Random Sampling. This is usually the most appropriate method for recurring tasks. With random sampling, services are sampled to determine if the level of performance is acceptable. Random sampling works best when the number of instances of the services being performed is very large and a statistically valid sample can be obtained. Computer programs may be available to assist in establishing sampling procedures.

· Periodic Inspection: These services are monitored weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annually, etc. Periodic types of activities are perfect for periodic inspection because not only are they infrequent, but there is normally a predetermined, specified time frame within which the tasks must be accomplished. Therefore, you know exactly when to conduct the evaluations. Periodic inspections automatically become 100 percent evaluations or "100 percent checks." Inspections should be divided and scheduled by frequency: annual, semiannual, quarterly, monthly, weekly and as required. Sometimes services are required for which the time or frequency cannot be predicted, such as accident investigations, one-time special tasking by higher headquarters, etc. These would be labeled "as required inspections." Others are known and predictable such as the quarterly status report or the monthly travel report currently included in some DISA service contracts.

· Customer Input. Although usually not a primary method, this is a valuable supplement to more systematic methods. For example, in a case where random sampling indicates unsatisfactory service, customer complaints can be used as substantiating evidence. In certain situations where customers can be relied upon to complain consistently when the quality of performance is poor, e.g., dining facilities, building services, customer surveys and customer complaints may be a primary surveillance method, and customer satisfaction an appropriate performance standard. In all cases, complaints should be documented, preferably on a standard form.

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:

(see next page)

Performance Standard
Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)
Methods of Calculation

Tasks 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3

· Consulting Reports

· Briefings

· Monthly status reports Test plans

· Test reports

· All other documentation prepared for PEO Transport

Technical Requirements: Percentage of technical requirements contained in the PWS that were met by the contractor. In addition, the deliverable must be complete and free from major technical errors before being accepted by the Government. Meeting 95% of the requirements and being complete and free of major technical errors is an

AQL.

All plans and reports should contain only minor technical errors that require correction prior to final delivery. Minor technical errors should have no or minor impact on final conclusions drawn in the report.

All relevant data must be included in the report. Conclusions must be fully supported by data and information in the report. The report must be accurate. Reports should reflect innovative solutions or unique insights to resolve problems.

Reports must not require multiple returns to the contractor for editorial re-work prior to being accepted by PEO Transport, user, or sponsor. Reports must be organized so that a typical reader can follow the flow of information in the report with figures and tables properly marked and easily read.

PEO Transport approved report format should be used unless other provisions are stipulated at the beginning of the task.

Minimal report rework post-delivery is an

AQL.

Schedule Requirement: AQL is report delivered on-time. The delivery date is the date the contractor provides the final deliverable to the Government.

Refer to Specific TO

Tasks 6.1 and 6. 2 – Technical Support Technical Support AQL: The contractor must prepare for, and participate, in meetings, site visits/measurement surveys and conferences. If material is presented, it must be accurate and professional. If documents are prepared, they must be accurate, free of errors, and require little or no editorial rework. If database entries/outputs are required, they must be accurate and in the proper format. If ad-hoc analyses are performed, they must be accurate and meet all requirements. The contractor must provide the appropriate response (in-house analytical and deployed staff) to resolve interference events.

Refer to Specific TO

Tasks 6.1 and 6.2 – Mobile Service Providers
Performance occurs with no required reperformance or re-work at least 95% of the

time. Problems that occur are minor and are resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Refer to Specific TO

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 and may be through the PAR template (Appendix 2). 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 contract. 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 contract. The contractor will monitor compliance as required by FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and report any issues to the KO. The contractor shall inform its employees in writing of contractor employee whistleblower rights and protections as required by DFARS 252.203-7002, Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights. The contractor shall also ensure that the clause is included in all subcontracts.

8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

The AQL for this project is 95% due to the critical nature of support for DoD and Federal E3/spectrum operations.

9. Evaluation Method:

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.

The COR will document the time of any verbal notification to the contractor. The COR will document the official time and date of notification on the Maintenance Call Record. The COR will review self-diagnostic systems logs, conduct a comparison with actual maintenance performance and otherwise verify and validate contractor performance. The contractor shall enter in the record the official time the system is restored to full operational status. The COR will confirm the date and time of problem resolution in the record.

10. Performance Rating

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

Rating
Definition
Note
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 actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
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 actions taken by the contractor were effective.
To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
Satisfactory
Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.
Marginal
Performance does not meet some 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.
To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).
Unsatisfactory
Performance does not meet most 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.
To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix

Performance Standards Acceptable Quality Levels

Surveillance
Results/Ratings

Consulting Reports, Monthly Status Reports, Test Plans, Measurement Reports, Briefing Slides

Technical Requirements: Percentage of technical requirements contained in the PWS that were met by the contractor. In addition, the deliverable must be complete, professional and free from major technical errors before being accepted by the government. Meeting 95% of the requirements and being complete and free of major technical errors is an AQL.

At most, reports should contain only minor technical errors that, although they are minor, require fixing prior to delivering the final product to a sponsor. These technical errors should have no, or a very minor impact on the final conclusions drawn in the report.

Material in the report must be presented in a logical easy to read, and unambiguous manner. All relevant data must be included in the report.

Conclusions must be fully supported by data and information in the report. The report must be accurate. Reports should reflect innovative solutions or unique insights to resolve problems. Information and graphics must be presented in a pleasing format. If database entries/outputs are required, they must be accurate and in the proper format.

Reports must not require multiple returns to the contractor for editorial rework prior to being accepted by the government, user, or sponsor. Reports must be organized so that a typical reader can follow the flow of information in the report with figures and tables properly marked and easily read. The DSO approved report format should be used unless other provisions are stipulated at the beginning of the task. Minimal report rework post-delivery is an AQL.

Schedule Requirement: AQL is report delivered on-time. The delivery date is the date the contractor provides the deliverable to the government.

100% inspection of delivered product, Customer Input of delivered products and services.
(Exceptional

Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)

(A rollup of assessment of the Surveillance Inspection Results to develop an overall rating for this objective)

Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

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

1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER NUMBER
2. CONTRACTOR
3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE

5. COR PHONE
6. SUSPENSE DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

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

|_| NEW

|_| REPEAT

|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF DEFICIENCY BOX WAS CHECKED)
10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

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

Controlled By: DISA Controlled By: PEO Spectrum/OS54 CUI Category: Services Distribution/Dissemination Control: FEDCON POC: David DiOrio/DISA/PEO Spectrum/OS54

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .