Attachment_6-QASP.pdf

Attachment 06

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in this performance-based service contract. The

Contractor shall perform in accordance with the QASP performance metrics, and the Government shall receive the quality of services identified in the contract. A properly executed QASP will assist the

Government in achieving the objectives of this acquisition.

This contract provides analytical, technical, and management support for the Naval Surface Warfare

Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD) Decontamination, Demilitarization, and Demolition (D3) program. The resulting performance-based contract will have Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Labor CLINs, and cost-only Other Direct Cost (ODC) CLINs, including a dedicated Direct Cite CLIN structure where applicable. The period of performance for this contract will cover a base and four (4) options for a total of five (5) years. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the overall objectives of this procurement.

2. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in service contracts, to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3. SCOPE

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

The Contractor’s performance on this contract will be evaluated by the Government as described below and summarized in the Contractor Self-Assessment Milestone Chart. The first evaluation will cover the period ending six months after the date of contract award, with successive evaluations being performed in accordance with the Contractor Self-Assessment Milestone Chart, until the Contractor completes performance under this contract. The evaluation will encompass all work performed by the Contractor during the assessment period, but will not include cumulative information from prior assessments.

The Contractor will complete a self-assessment of the work performed, to be delivered to the Contracting

Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Contract Administrator, as identified in the contract, No Later

Than (NLT) 60 days after the end of the assessment period. The self-assessment shall cover all areas of the

Government QASP. Based on the evaluation results, provided by the COR and the Contract Administrator, the Contracting Officer will assign an overall performance rating. If the Contracting Officer assigns an

“Unsatisfactory” performance rating for the period evaluated, the next option period will not be exercised.

A final assessment shall be completed by the Government within four months of the completion date of the contract (inclusive of all exercised options).

CONTRACTOR SELF-ASSESSMENT MILESTONE CHART

BASE

OPTION I OPTION II

OPTION

III

OPTION

IV

CLOSE

Month 1 PD 1 Month 1 PD 2 Month 1 PD 3 Month 1 PD 4 Month 1 PD 5 Month 1

Month 2 Month 2 Month 2 Month 2 Month 2 Month 2

Month 3 Month 3 Month 3 Month 3 Month 3

Month 4 Month 4 Month 4 Month 4 Month 4

Month 5 Month 5 Month 5 Month 5 Month 5

Month 6 Month 6 Month 6 Month 6 Month 6

Month 7 PD 2 Month 7 PD 3 Month 7 PD 4 Month 7 PD 5 Month 7

Month 8 Month 8 Month 8 Month 8 Month 8

Month 9 Month 9 Month 9 Month 9 Month 9

Month 10 Month 10 Month 10 Month 10 Month 10

Month 11 Month 11 Month 11 Month 11 Month 11

Month 12 Month 12 Month 12 Month 12 Month 12

Contractor Self- Assessment Reporting Due Date

4. GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

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

Procurement Contracting Officer – Ashleigh Bowie is the PCO for this contract. The PCO ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguards the interest of the United States in the contractual relationship. The PCO assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment and is ultimately responsible for the final determination regarding the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

Contract Administrator – Bridget Taylor is the designated Contract Administrator. She is assigned by the

PCO to assist in the daily administration of the contract. The Contract Administrator provides input to the

PCO and the COR regarding the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP and ensures all administrative actions are handled in accordance with NSWC Indian Head Contracts Department protocols.

Contracting Officer’s Representative – The primary COR for this contract is Mrs. Geneva Pearl. The

COR is responsible for the technical administration of the contract and ensures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. Mrs. Pearl provides the technical expertise in environmental science and D3 operations necessary to oversee high-risk decontamination and demolition activities. The

COR is not empowered to make contractual commitments or authorize changes; any such requests must be referred to the PCO.

Government Technical Point of Contact – William Russell is the designated Government TPOC. He assists in administering specific technical projects and site-level activities under the contract. While providing technical guidance, the Government TPOC cannot alter the scope of the contract or make financial commitments on the Government’s behalf.

5. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE

a. QASP – The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the technical administration and the PCO/Contract Administrator in non-technical administration of this QASP.

The QASP will be the prime determinant in exercising the option.

b. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for information technology, engineering, and management support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this task order. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year of performance. This evaluation will be one determinant in exercising an option. For this procurement, the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the task order, the annual

Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

6. DOCUMENTATION

In addition to providing annual 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. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the task order.

7. SURVEILLANCE

The tables below set forth the performance ratings, standards, outcome and surveillance methods to document the results of the surveillance on an annual basis, as well as interim and informal reviews (i.e., In-Process Reviews (IPRs)) on a more frequent basis.

(a) Performance Ratings: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance of the

Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the Contracting Officer will assign one of the following ratings:

(1) Excellent

(2) Satisfactory

(3) Unsatisfactory

The standards associated with these ratings are given in the following Table 1:

Table 1: Overall Performance Ratings

Overall Performance Rating Standard

Excellent “Excellent” ratings for all performance evaluation criteria.

Satisfactory A minimum of “Satisfactory” ratings for all performance evaluation criteria.

Unsatisfactory A rating of “Unsatisfactory” for one or more performance evaluation criteria.

(b) Objectives/Determination

1. Interim/Informal

Interim/Informal performance evaluations will be provided to assess performance at each IPR.

2. Annual

The PCO will make a performance determination at the end of each evaluation period. The determination will be based upon the COR’s recommendations, the Contractor’s comments, including any Self-Evaluation Report, and any other information deemed relevant by the PCO.

The PCO shall resolve disagreements between the COR’s recommendations and the Contractor’s comments/report regarding the evaluation. The PCO’s performance determination is unilateral and final. The PCO will document the determination and provide a copy to the Contractor within 30 days of receipt of the Contractor’s self-assessment.

Table 2: Objectives

Assessment Period Acceptable Performance

Definition

Assessment Method Outcome

First 6 Months of the Base

Period of the Task Order

(Period 1)

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory”

Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task

Order.

(+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as condition for exercise of

Option I.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of Option I.*

Last 6 months of Base

Year and the first 6 months of Option I (Period 2)

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory”

Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task

Order.

(+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as

Option II.* definition as a condition for exercise of Option II.*

Last 6 months of Option I and the first 6 months of

Option II (Period 3)

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory”

Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task

Order.

(+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as

Option III.* acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of Option III.*

Last 6 months of Option II and the first 6 months of

Option III (Period 4)

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory”

Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task

Order.

(+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as

Option IV.* definition as a condition for exercise of Option IV.*

Last 6 months of Option III and all of Option IV

(Period 5)

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory”

Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task

Order.

Final QASP Rating

*The Government will not exercise the next option year term unless the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

(c) Performance Evaluation Criteria. The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated using the criteria and standards provided for each objective and identified in Tables 3 through 5 of this task order QASP.

(d) Organization. The performance evaluation organization consists of the PCO, who will serve as the

Determining Official, and the COR. In some instances, a TPOC will be assigned to the task order in addition to the COR.

(e) This performance evaluation does not replace any other requirement for evaluating Contractor performance that may be required by this task order such as a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS) report or other required reports.

Table 3: Task Performance Evaluation Criteria and Standards

Criterion Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Excellent

Task Performance Work product fails to meet

Acceptable Quality Levels

(AQLs) defined in Performance

Requirements Summary Table

(4).

Work product routinely meets

Acceptable Quality Levels

(AQLs) defined in

Performance Requirements

Summary Table 4.

Work product frequently exceeds Acceptable

Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in Performance

Requirements Summary

Table 4.

Staffing Contractor provides marginally qualified or unqualified personnel. Lapses in coverage occur regularly.

Contractor provides qualified personnel. Lapses in coverage may occasionally occur and are managed per individual contract policy.

Contractor provides highly qualified personnel. Contractor reassigns personnel to ensure proper coverage.

Actual lapses in coverage occur very rarely, if ever, and are managed per task order policy. Contractor ensures staff training remains current.

Cost Management Contractor routinely fails to complete tasks within agreed upon cost, i.e., cost over runs frequently occur

ODC funds are not properly tracked; exceed the awarded/funded ODC amount

Contractor routinely completes task within the originally agreed upon cost.

Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effect manner. No major resource management problems are apparent

Reductions in direct and indirect costs to the

Government below contract estimated costs are noteworthy.

Contractor provides detailed cost analysis and recommendations to and/or are not within the scope of the contract.

ODCs are reasonable, within awarded/funded ODC amount, within scope of the task order, and clearly identified.

government for resolution of problems identified.

ODCs are well tracked/documented, within or below awarded/funded ODC amount, within scope of the task order, and clearly identified.

Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available.

Documented savings are apparent.

Cost Reporting Reports are generally late, inaccurate, incomplete, or unclear

Reports do not accurately track and clearly identify ODC items

Reports are timely, accurate, complete, and clearly written.

Problems and/or trends are addressed and analysis submitted.

Reports are clear, accurate, and proactive.

Problems and/or trends are addressed thoroughly, and the contractor’s recommendations and/or corrective plans are implemented and effective.

Timeliness Contractor frequently misses deadlines, schedules, or is slow to respond to government requests or is non-responsive to government requests.

Contractor routinely meets deadlines, schedules, and responds quickly to government requests.

Contractor always meets deadlines, schedules, and responds immediately to government requests.

Customer Satisfaction Fails to meet customer expectations.

Meets customer expectations. Exceeds customer expectations to the benefit of the overall tasking.

Combating

Trafficking in Persons

IAW with FAR

52.222-50

Contractor has not briefed contractor employees on

Combating Trafficking in

Persons and is not in compliance with FAR clause

52.222-50

Contractor has briefed contractor employees on subject guideline and is working to develop an

Awareness Program.

Contractor has

Trafficking in Persons

Awareness Program in place which includes appropriate reporting procedures, applicable remedies, and disciplinary actions and appears to be performing vigilant monitoring.

Table 4: Performance Requirements Summary Table

Task Performance

Objective

Performance

Standard

Acceptable

Quality

Level (AQL)

Method of

Evaluation

Frequency

All Tasks:

Technical

Documents

Submission of deliverables/ CDRLS is timely. Documents

Timeliness, accuracy, and quality.

95% of the time deliverables are submitted on-time

Government evaluation of deliverables received, in

Reviewed at each delivery documented are readable, clear, and accurate.

Documents are in the specified format.

and in the format required, and minor corrections to documents are required only

10% of the time.

accordance with established completion schedule. COR annotates their file and notifies the

Contracting

Officer if there is a persistent problem.

quarterly

All Tasks: Cost

Reporting

All documentation regarding incurred costs is accurate and timely.

All required

Documentation meets Task Order requirements as to content and submission schedule. Detailed variance reports are provided.

Monthly

Progress

Report expenditures are accurate.

Reported and invoiced costs are timely and accurate.

Government review of

Progress Reports.

Contract

Management

Contractor

Implements management approach described in their proposal.

Task Order management is proactive and effective.

Contractor management is responsive to

Government input and/ or concerns, communications are effective and contractor is proactive rather than reactive in addressing performance issues.

Government intervention is rarely, if ever, necessary to resolve performance issues.

Continuous review by

Government personnel

(through monthly status report).

Customer

Responsiveness

Customer Support -timely addressing of customer inquiries and discrepancy notifications

Quality 90% of the time customer feedback obtained or received is positive.

Customer

Feedback. COR will solicit and/or receive feedback from receiving offices with regards to the contractor’s quality of support

(timely, professional, etc.)

Randomly – documented semiannually

All Tasks: Key

Personnel

Stability of Key

Personnel supporting the contract while maintaining quality

Quantity and

- Turnover rate for Key

Personnel is less than 25%

COR review and evaluation of turnover, unfilled

Annually of Key Personnel positions annually

- Key Personnel positions are unfilled no more than 30 calendar days.

- Key Personnel

Substitutions require no more than two (2) resume reviews by the government for acceptance.

positions, and substitution data.

Table 5 entitled: “COST EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND

STANDARDS”, shall be included when the task order will be cost-reimbursable.

TABLE 5: COST EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS

CRITERION UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT

Cost

Management

Contractor routinely fails to complete the effort within the originally agreed to estimated cost, i.e. cost overruns frequently occur.

ODC funds are not properly tracked and/or are not within the scope of the task order.

Contractor routinely completes the effort within the originally agreed to estimated cost.

Contractor provides measures for controlling all costs at estimated costs. Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effective manner. No major resource management problems are apparent.

ODCs are reasonable, within scope, and clearly identified.

Reductions in direct costs to the

Government below task order estimated costs are noteworthy.

Contractor provides detailed cost analysis and recommendations to

Government for resolution of problems identified. Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available.

Documented savings are apparent.

Cost

Reporting

Reports are generally late, inaccurate, incomplete or unclear.

Reports do not accurately track and clearly identify

ODC items.

Reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written.

Problems and/or trends are addressed, and an analysis is also submitted.

Reports are clear, accurate, and pro-active. Problems and/or trends are addressed thoroughly, and the

Contractor’s recommendations and/or corrective plans are implemented and effective.