Attachment 7 - QASP.pdf

COLUMBIA Tailcone Production N00167-22-R-0001

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Attachment 7

1. INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) identifies procedures to help ensure that the contractor is performing in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) provided in Section C of the solicitation. The QASP and associated performance standards are established to ensure that the Government receives the quality of services required and pays only for services meeting an acceptable level.

This QASP provides the performance standards for the COLUMBIA Tailcone effort and identifies the procedures by which the Government plans to monitor contract performance. It is intended that the QASP be a tool to guide the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and Technical Advisors (TAs) in assessing contractor performance. To ensure contractor performance is appropriately monitored, the performance, timing, and frequency of inspections are determined at the discretion of the Government. As the performance period progresses, the levels of surveillance may be altered for service areas where performance is either consistently exceptional or consistently unsatisfactory. The Government retains the right to utilize a variety of surveillance methods and/or Quality Assurance (QA) procedures; or to increase/decrease the degree of surveillance efforts at any time to support contract compliance.

The contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. The contractor shall measure quality through its own procedures and/or Quality Control Plan (QCP). The contractor’s responsibility for ensuring quality control applies to all work performed under this contract, regardless of whether the effort is performed by the contractor or by subcontractors. The subject QASP is not intended to replace the contractor’s internal quality control procedures or QCP.

This QASP:

Defines the roles and responsibilities of those who will perform the monitoring.

Defines the methodologies used in surveillance of the contractor’s performance.

Describes how the surveillance will be recorded.

Identifies the performance objectives & rating definitions.

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 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or a duly authorized representative.

3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

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

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) – 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. It is the PCO that assures the contractor receives impartial, fair and equitable treatment under the contract.

Contract Specialist (CS) – An individual assigned by the PCO to assist in the daily administration of the contract. The contract specialist also provides input to the PCO and the COR as to the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP. The contract specialist is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that may affect contract order price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. The COR is responsible for the surveillance of the contractor’s performance and documentation in accordance with this QASP.

Government Technical Advisor (TA)– The COR designates an individual Government Technical Advisor to assist in administering specific projects under the contract. A Government Technical Advisor cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

4. METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE

The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the administration of this QASP.

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting 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 contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year of performance. This evaluation will also be a determinant in exercising an option. For this procurement, the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, management, and regulatory areas.

As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool in addition to the QASP.

The methods of surveillance may include but are not limited to:

Direct Observation of performance 100% Inspection of all invoices, final deliverables and stringent requirements such as tasks required by law, safety, or security Periodic Inspection of performance and/or draft deliverables Customer Feedback including investigation of all customer complaints and customer monthly input to the COR

5. DOCUMENTATION

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 PCO at termination or completion of the contract or at termination of their appointment.

During each reporting period, the COR should record all surveillance conducted.

The record should include the determined rating for each performance objective and any action taken in regards to performance in this section. Overall results of contractor’s performance shall also be documented by the COR in the COR Monthly Report to ensure communication with the PCO on contractor performance on each Performance Standard.

6. SURVEILLANCE

Informal

Informal performance evaluations will be prepared to assess performance each month.

The Government’s quality assurance surveillance, accomplished by the COR, in conjunction with the PCO.

The contractor’s performance will be evaluated using the criteria and standards provided for each objective and is identified in Table 2 of this contract’s

QASP.

This performance evaluation does not replace any other requirement for evaluating contractor performance that may be required by this contract such as a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report or other required reports.

The tables below set forth the performance ratings and performance objectives to document the results of the surveillance. The following performance ratings will be assigned to each element and sub-element listed in table 2 below.

Table 1: Performance Ratings

Overall Performance Rating

Standard

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements 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.

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.

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.

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.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet 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.

Table 2: Performance Evaluation Criteria and Standards

ELEMENT UNSATIS-FACTORY MARGINAL SATIS-FACTORY

VERY

GOOD

EXCEPTIONAL

I. Task Performance

Schedule Contractor frequently misses deadlines, or is slow or non-responsive to respond to Government requests.

Contractor occasionally misses deadlines, schedules or is slow or occasionally non-responsive to respond to Government requests.

Contractor routinely meets deadlines, schedules, quickly responds to Government requests.

Contractor routinely meets deadlines and schedules and occasionally delivers early and responds immediately to Government requests.

Contractor routinely delivers ahead of deadlines, schedules, and responds immediately to Government requests.

Quality Work products typically fail to meet the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in Performance Requirements Summary Table (3).

Work products occasionally fail to meet the AQLs defined in Performance Requirements Summary Table (3). Rework is occasionally required.

Work products meet the Acceptable AQLs defined in Performance Requirements Summary Table (3).

Work products meet and slightly exceed the AQLs defined in Performance Requirements Summary Table (3).

Work products meet and far exceed the AQLs defined in Performance Requirements Summary Table (3).

II. Customer Satisfaction

Fails to meet customer expectations

Contractor occasionally fails to meet customer expectations.

Meets customer expectations.

Routinely meets or occasionally exceeds customer expectations.

Exceeds customer expectations.

III. Management Performance Problem Resolution

Problems are unresolved, repetitive, or take excessive Government effort to resolve.

Problems are generally resolved but take unusual Government effort to resolve or take an excessive amount of time to resolve.

Problems are resolved quickly with minimal Government involvement.

Problems occur infrequently and are generally resolved quickly with minimal Government involvement.

Problems are non-existent or the contractor takes corrective action without Government involvement.

Responsive ness

Contractor’s management is unresponsive to Government requests and concerns.

Contractor’s management is occasionally unresponsive to Government re quests and concerns.

Contractor’s management is responsive to Government requests and concerns.

Contractor’s management is responsive to requests and concerns and occasionally proactive in anticipating concerns.

Contractor’s management takes proactive approach in dealing with Government representat ives and anticipates concerns.

GOOD

EXCEPTIONAL

Communicat ion

Contractor fails to communicate with Government in an effective and timely manner.

Contractor occasionally fails to communicate with Government in an effective and timely manner.

Contractor routinely communicates with Government in an effective and timely manner.

Contractor routinely communicates with Government in an effective and timely manner and it frequently proactive in managing communication s.

Contractor takes proactive approach such that communication s are almost always clear, effective and timely.

V. Cost Management & Efficiency Cost Control

Note: CPFF CLINS Only

The average actual burn rate for the total period prior to evaluation reflects an increase of >= 10% in the proposed average fully burdened labor rate for the same time period.

The average actual burn rate for the total period prior to evaluation reflects an increase of > 2% < 10% in the proposed average fully burdened labor rate for the same time period.

The average actual burn rate for the total period prior to evaluation reflects an increase of < 2% in the proposed average fully burdened labor rate for the same time period.

The average actual burn rate for the total period prior to evaluation reflects a decrease of < 5% in the proposed average fully burdened labor rate for the same time period.

The average actual burn rate for the total period prior to evaluation reflects a decrease of > 5% in the proposed average fully burdened labor rate for the same time period.

Cost Mgmt

Reporting

Contractor regularly experiences cost overruns. Cost reports are late and contain errors.

Invoicing is not accurate or submitted in a timely manner.

Supporting detail is missing or incomplete.

Subcontractor invoices are rarely paid in a timely manner.

Contractor may experience occasional cost overruns.

Cost reports are occasionally late and/or contain errors.

Invoices are occasionally late or contain errors.

Supporting detail contains occasional errors.

Subcontractor invoices are not paid in a timely manner. SB

Contractor routinely completes the effort within the originally agreed-to estimated cost. Funds and resources used in cost-effective manner. Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate.

All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor

Contractor routinely completes the effort within the originally agreed-to estimated cost and experiences occasional cost underruns.

Funds and resources used in cost-effective manner. Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate. All

Contractor often completes the effort at lower than estimated costs. Funds and resources used in a most cost-effective manner. Cost reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written.

Invoices are timely and accurate. All supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a

GOOD

EXCEPTIONAL

subcontractor invoices are not expedited.

invoices are paid in a timely manner. SB subcontractor invoices are expedited.

supporting detail is provided.

Subcontractor invoices are paid in a timely manner. SB subcontractor invoices are expedited.

timely manner. SB subcontractor invoices are expedited.

Other Direct Cost (ODC)

Note: CPFF CLINS Only

ODCs are not accurately or timely reported or invoiced.

Errors are not quickly corrected. Does not comply with contract requirements for

ODC

authorizations.

Burdened unit costs usually higher than proposed.

ODCs are occasionally not reported or invoiced in timely manner.

Errors not consistently corrected in a timely manner.

Occasionally does not comply with authorization requirements in contract.

Burdened unit costs are frequently higher than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced. Any errors noted are quickly corrected.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 96% of time.

Burdened unit costs are rarely higher than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

Errors are rare and quickly corrected.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 98% of time. Burden ed unit costs are occasionally lower than proposed.

ODCs are accurately and timely reported and invoiced.

Contractor complies with contract requirements for ODC authorization 100% of time. Burdene d unit costs are often lower than proposed.

Table 3: Performance Requirements Summary Table

Task Area(s) Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Quality Surveillance Plan Typical Monitoring Methods

APPLY to ALL areas of SOW

Performance:

To assist, analyze, support, improve, assess, evaluate, and develop products as required by the contract requirements listed in Section C

(a) Performance

(b) Deliverable Content

(a) Performance of SOW tasks are commensurate with specialized experience and labor categories as set forth in the SOW.

Organizational structure provides for qualified personnel assigned with duties, APPLY TO ALL:

Government Oversight Team

(TA/COR)

inspections / reports are 90%- 100% positive with respect to Performance Standards, with major and minor issues/ problems resolved as follows:

APPLY TO ALL:

100% inspection of all Deliverables

Random Inspections / Audits / Observations of Performance and Products

Periodic

SME/COR

feedback

Task Area(s) Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Quality Surveillance Plan Typical Monitoring Methods responsibilities, and authority necessary to achieve project goals. Lines of communication facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual, in order to meet project goals.

(b) Deliverables reports are technically accurate, grammatically correct. clear, and concise, and follows DID format/content requirements, and delivered on time per CDRL.

Discrepancies are minor. Analyses, Reports and drawings include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues.

No Major Performance Objective issues OR when found are immediately addressed by contractor QC with adequate plan to resolved within two weeks.

Minor issues are easily correctable

Repeatable minor issues identified over consecutive months or recurring issues over two of three months will be raised to Major issue level.

Any CDRL deliverable requiring government approval shall have no more than two (2) review/ comment/ approval cycles to meet acceptance surveys (e.g.

monthly reports, CPARs assessments)

7. OUTCOME

The Government evaluation of the contractor performance must include no unsatisfactory performance characteristics within the applicable evaluation period. Nevertheless, the Government reserves the unilateral discretion to offset one minor instance of unsatisfactory performance with a finding that the contractor exhibited an equivalent or higher number of exceptional performance characteristics during the same evaluation period, provided the unsatisfactory instance had minimal impact to cost or schedule. Retaining this discretion in no way obligates the Government to exercise it in any evaluation.