Attachment 8 ATG GLOBAL MX TO QASP - 2-12-2026.pdf

ENERGY AUTOMATION OPERATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SUSTAINMENT (EAOTS)

AUTOMATIC TANK GAUGING (ATG), INDEPENDENT ALARM SYSTEMS (IAS), AND

OVERFILL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (OPE) GLOBAL SUPPORT

MAINTENANCE (MX) TASK ORDER (TO) # SP4706-26-0002

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

PART 1 – BACKGROUND & SCOPE

1.0 Background

As described throughout the TO PWS, the Government requires a combination of supplies and services rendered utilizing a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Time and Material (T&M) basis for administering the ATG/IAS/OPE program and sustain, maintain, troubleshoot, and repair the ATG/IAS/OPE solutions deployed globally (i.e. within Contiguous United States (CONUS) and Outside the Contiguous United States (OCONUS)).

1.1. Purpose

The purpose of the QASP is to outline how the Government will monitor and evaluate the performance of the Contractor to ensure they meet the contract's quality requirements. The QASP will be utilized throughout contract performance to mitigate risk and verify that the deliverables and services provided by the Contractor adhere to the specified standards and performance metrics outlined in the contract. The QASP identifies key points of contact (POCs) and the Government’s surveillance methods, acceptable quality levels (AQLs), and remedies for non-conforming supplies or services.

1.2. Objectives

The objectives of this TO is to achieve the following:

a. Acquire support services to successfully administer this TO and support the ATG/IAS/OPE program.

b. Acquire a combination of supplies and services to sustain, maintain, troubleshoot, and repair the ATG/IAS/OPE systems deployed worldwide, regardless of geographic location.

1.3. Scope

To ensure the Government’s objectives are met, the Contractor will need to provide all necessary supplies and services to meet the TO scope as described in the PWS.

EAOTS

ATG, IAS, OPE GLOBAL SUPPORT

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

PART 2 – CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) AND

QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (QCP)

2.0 Contractor Project Management Plan (PMP) and Quality Control Plan (QCP)

To ensure effective quality control (QC) for this TO, the Contractor is required to provide a Project Management Plan (PMP) and Quality Control Plan (QCP). The purpose of these documents is to clearly establish the contractor has a credible and demonstratable management approach to performing the work described this TO PWS. Whether combined or submitted separately, the PMP and QCP needs to fully describe the contractor’s proposed work plan(s), organizational structure(s), candidates for Key Personnel positions, and the contractor’s methods to perform risk / issue management, stakeholder engagement, and QC processes. The Contractor will be required to maintain the PMP and QCP documents and ensure services rendered are compliant with them throughout the duration of the contract. These documents will be updated by the contractor as necessary, but any proposed changes to these documents must be approved in writing by the Contracting Officer (KO) or the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

PART 3 – PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

3.0 Performance Management Strategy

The Government will evaluate the contractor’s performance under this TO in accordance with (IAW) this QASP. This plan is primarily focused on the methods the COR will implement to ensure the Contractor successfully completes the work as described in the PWS. It identifies AQLs, defines how performance standards will be applied, the frequency of surveillance, and the remedies for non-conforming supplies or services. This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the Government will coordinate changes with the Contractor. Updates will ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions will be provided to the Contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

3.1. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Specific contract clauses applicable to implementation of this QASP include FAR 52.246-2 Inspection of Supplies-Fixed-Price, FAR 52.246-4 – Inspection of Services- Fixed-Price, and FAR 52.246-6, Inspection-Time-and-Material and Labor-Hour. Acceptance of supplies and services for this contract will be executed by the KO or COR.

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

3.2. Roles and Responsibilities

The following personnel oversee and coordinate surveillance activities:

3.2.1. Contracting Officer (KO)

The KO ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the contract terms, and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO also ensures that the Contractor receives fair, impartial, and equitable treatment under this contract and determines the final assessment of the Contractor’s performance.

a. Contracting Officer (KO):

• Name: Elizabeth Hanlon

• Organization: DLA Contracting Service Office, Columbus (DCSO-C) – Division C2

• Phone: 614-692-1655

• Email: elizabeth.hanlon@dla.mil

3.2.2. 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 surveillance by implementing oversight processes and keeps a Quality Assurance (QA) file that accurately documents the Contractor’s actual performance. The COR will ensure all supplies and services rendered by the Contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract prior to acceptance. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment for the KO that will be used for documenting past performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

a. Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs):

• Technical COR o Name: Joshua Dykstra o Organization: DLA Information Operations - J62BG o Phone: (269) 986-6952 o Email: joshua.dykstra@dla.mil

• Administrative COR:

mailto:elizabeth.hanlon@dla.mil mailto:joshua.dykstra@dla.mil

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

o Name: Matt Duckworth o Organization: DLA Information Operations - J62BG o Phone: (269) 986-7746 o Email: matthew.duckworth@dla.mil

3.2.3. Contractor

The contractor complies fully with the terms and conditions of the contract by rendering the necessary supplies and services to complete the work. The contractor will also ensure that non-conforming contract services are identified and corrected. The contractor will present to the Government for acceptance only those supplies and services that conform to contract requirements. The contractor maintains and implements their PMP and QCP.

a. Contractor Program Manager:

• Name: ____________________

• Company: ____________________

• Phone: ____________________

• Email: _____________________

b. Other Contractor Points of Contact:

• Name: ____________________

• Company: _____________________

• Phone: _____________________

• Email: _____________________

3.3. Contactor Submissions and Deliverables

The contractor will provide deliverables in the approved format identified in the PWS or as requested by the COR. Electronic copies will be delivered via official DLA issued e-mail with attachment or other media specified by the COR. If a deliverable exceeds email size limitations, the contractor must notify the COR for alternative means of delivery (such as DoD SAFE available at the following URL: https://safe.apps.mil/). The electronic copies will be compatible with the current DLA software products or other applications as appropriate and specified by the COR. The contractor will use best commercial practices for formatting deliverables under this contract.

3.4. Surveillance Procedure

3.4.1. Performance Requirements Summary (PRS)

mailto:matthew.duckworth@dla.mil https://safe.apps.mil/

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

The PRS is the “heart” of quality surveillance. The tasks, performance standards, and AQLs are described in the contract PWS. The method and frequency of surveillance are established by this QASP. These parameters have been chosen to ensure effective, accurate, and timely contract surveillance that supports and documents Contractor performance. The following provides a brief description of each column of the QASP PRS matrix:

a. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) – Tasks: The WBS tasks established in this QASP PRS are derived from those established in the contract PWS. Each task provides a description of the work to be surveilled, as well as the WBS citation within the PWS that associates the task with specific requirements.

b. Performance Requirement: Performance requirements established in the QASP are derived from those established in the contract PWS. The performance requirements describe the expected level of Government monitoring and reporting of contract performance associated with a task.

c. Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs): The AQLs are further defined in this QASP and are derived from the contract PWS.

d. Method: This QASP PRS establishes the method of surveillance for each task in the PRS matrix. The appropriate method is one that successfully compares the observed performance with both the performance standard and the AQL. Typical methods include analysis of metrics; random sampling; 100 % inspection; customer feedback; and validated customer complaints. The method of inspection selected by the COR should be tailored to the individual task, subtask, work package, activity, deliverable, etc. as appropriate to successfully determine whether observed performance meets the established performance standard and AQL.

e. Frequency: This QASP PRS establishes the frequency of surveillance for each task in the PRS matrix. The frequency of surveillance will be tailored with respect to the task, performance standard, AQL, and method. The minimum threshold for the frequency of Government surveillance will be monthly. The COR will document the date on which surveillance occurred to demonstrate compliance with the frequencies established in this QASP PRS. For example, a Monthly Status Report (MSR) to be surveilled via 100 % inspection must be completed monthly.

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

Performance Requirements Summary (PRS)

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Tasks Performance Requirement Acceptable

Quality Levels (AQLs)

Methods of Inspection

Frequency of Surveillance

Task 1: Transition-In (IDIQ Task area 1)

Monitoring: The COR will monitor contractor performance based upon inspection and acceptance of several re-occurring deliverables identified in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) such as Weekly Activity Reports (WARs) and Monthly Status Reports (MSRs) in comparison to the performance standards described in the PWS for each task.

Reporting: The COR will generate and submit to the KO status reports within the Surveillance Performance Module (SPM) of the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) on a monthly basis to accurately report contractor performance.

“Exceptional” or

“Very Good”

“Satisfactory”

• Metrics

• Random Sampling

• Periodic Inspection

• 100 % Inspection

• Customer Feedback and Validated Complaints

• As Required

• Weekly

• Monthly

Task 2: TO Administrative Support (IDIQ Task area 1)

Task 3: Preventative Maintenance (PM) (IDIQ Task area 2)

Task 4: Tier II Technical Support (IDIQ Task area 3)

Task 5: Corrective Maintenance (CM) / Repair (IDIQ Task area 4)

Task 6: Site Support (IDIQ Task area 5)

Task 7: Cybersecurity (IDIQ Task area 6)

Task 8: Transition- Out (IDIQ Task area 1)

Table 1 – Performance Requirements Summary

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

3.4.2. Quality Assurance (QA) Monitoring

This QASP acknowledges that the contractor is responsible for management and Quality Control (QC) necessary to meet all Government requirements and successfully complete the tasks outlined in the PWS. The Government will ensure the contractor's effective QC through Quality Assurance (QA) activities that provide oversight of work quality and timeliness. These activities will employ surveillance methods such as inspections, performance metrics, and customer feedback. The Government will evaluate the contractor's performance on completed tasks and deliverables as defined in the PWS. This QASP details the Government's surveillance methods for assessing the Contractor's performance against the stated performance requirements.

3.4.2.1. General Inspection and Acceptance Criteria

The COR has the responsibility to monitor the progress of the work of the contractor throughout the duration of the TO. The contractor will submit all work products, deliverables, etc. to the COR for inspection compliant to this QASP. The COR may coordinate with the Government Program Management Office (PMO), Technical Points of Contact (TPOCs), or Designated Technical Support Representatives (DTSRs) to assist with inspection and obtain recommendations on the acceptability of supplies, services, deliverables, etc. rendered on the contract. However, final acceptance of all work will rest with the KO or COR.

In terms of all work products and deliverables (whether formal or informal), a “day” means (unless otherwise specified) a business day or workday. Additionally, in the absence of other agreements negotiated with respect to the time provided for Government review, work products or deliverables will be inspected and the contractor notified of the COR’s findings within ten

(10) workdays of submission or requested review. During the review, the Government will inspect the submittals and provide comments back to the contractor with approval or disapproval of the work product or deliverable. Defective work products or deliverables with deficiencies will be remedied by the contractor prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government. In the absence of an agreed upon date for corrective actions, the contractor will have a maximum of ten (10) working days from the day the Government’s comments are received regarding defective work products or deliverable with deficiencies to incorporate all changes and re-submit to the Government.

The Government will conduct inspection of the quality and timeliness of services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. by verifying and validating their accuracy, clarity, format, and conformance to contractual requirements. The basis for acceptance of contractor deliverables will be compliance with the requirements in the PWS, the contractor's proposal, and other terms and conditions of the contract. Final acceptance of all work, reports, and other deliverables will

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

be performed at the place of delivery by the COR based upon recommendations from the Government PMO, TPOC, or DTSR. At the discretion of the Government, inspection may include random sampling or testing for validation of data, reports, deliverables, etc. identified in the PWS. Inspections may be performed by the Government using automated tools (such as software to conduct testing and validation).

The following is an outline of the Government’s general acceptance criteria:

General Acceptance Criteria

Criterion Element / Description

Quality Accuracy – Work products will be accurate in presentation, complete in content, and contain objective measurements / data that is verifiable

Quality Clarity – Work products will be clear, concise, and legible. Diagrams will be designed in a manner that is easy to understand and relevant to the supporting narrative.

Quality Conformance to Requirements – Work products will satisfy the requirements of the PWS and contain all required content. Identified defective work products / deficiencies and negative customer feedback is remedied effectively.

Quality

Format – Work products will be logical in structure and submitted in an acceptable manner as described in the PWS or in a manner mutually agreed upon prior to submission. Documents will be free of spelling, grammatical, or format errors. All text and diagrammatic files will be editable by the Government unless otherwise requested.

Timeliness Work products and milestones are completed on or before the due dates. Identified defective work products / deficiencies and negative customer feedback are remedied prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

Table 2 – General Acceptance Criteria

3.4.2.2. Methods of Surveillance and Inspection

The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the Contractor’s performance. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the Contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and QC/QA actions compliant with their QCP to successfully meet the terms of the contract. Products or services inspected by the Government will be reviewed against the AQLs. Depending upon the product or service inspected, the Government may determine acceptability using an “acceptable /

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

unacceptable” basis. For example, if the COR finds a deliverable contains spelling errors, grammatical errors, improper format, or otherwise does not conform to the requirements stated within the PWS, the document may be immediately rejected without further review and returned to the contractor for correction and re-submission. As surveillance is performed, the COR will compare the contractor’s work with the Performance Standards described in this QASP to assign monthly performance ratings. The COR will use the monthly ratings to support the annual performance assessment for the KO that will be used for documenting contract performance.

The primary methods available for Government inspection includes:

3.4.2.2.1. Metrics

Use of metrics can assist in objectively evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards outlined in the contract. Metric inspections are a systematic process of gathering and analyzing quantifiable data related to the contractor's work to determine its effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with contractual obligations. For example, the Government may inspect metrics associated with services such as ServiceNow (SNOW) cases to ascertain if the contractor’s performance meets or exceeds standards. Inspection of metrics typically utilizes specific numerical criteria for acceptance of supplies or services such as thresholds or ratios (i.e. greater than (>) 95%, between 95% - 99%, less than 5 days, etc.).

3.4.2.2.2. Random Sampling

Random sampling is a technique whereby part, but not all, of the products or services are evaluated to determine whether the standards are met. Random sampling is most appropriate for recurring products or services when the number of instances is very large and a statistically valid sample is obtainable. Random sampling provides a non-biased, comprehensive inspection method with efficient use of personnel because the contractor does not know which activity will be sampled. Random sampling typically utilizes an “acceptable / unacceptable” basis for acceptance of supplies or services rendered.

3.4.2.2.3. Periodic Inspection

Periodic inspections consist of the evaluation of tasks selected on other than a 100% or random basis, i.e., monthly, quarterly, every third period, etc. Periodic inspection is used to evaluate products and services at intervals consistent with the work being performed, deliverable due dates, and major milestones. Periodic inspection typically utilizes an “acceptable / unacceptable” basis for acceptance of supplies or services rendered.

3.4.2.2.4. 100% Inspection

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

One hundred percent (100%) is an inspection technique whereby all outputs are monitored in order to assure accuracy, clarity, conformance to requirements, format, and timeliness. This type of inspection is preferred when there are stringent requirements that are so critical non-conformance would pose a direct risk to contract performance, the safety of personnel or property, etc. A 100% inspection technique is most effective when the work occurs infrequently, the sample size of products or services is small, and it is being used for oversight of key or critical work elements. 100% inspection techniques typically utilizes an “acceptable / unacceptable” basis for acceptance of supplies or services rendered.

3.4.2.2.5. Customer Feedback and Validated Complaints

Customer feedback and validated complaints are a value-driven inspections that assist with identifying successful contract performance. Positive customer feedback typically indicates value has been achieved and successful contract performance is obtained whereas negative customer feedback may indicate defective products or deficient services exist. Due to its subjective nature, whenever negative customer feedback is received the compliant must be evaluated and validated before corrective action is taken. Effective use of customer feedback as an inspection technique requires it to be sought, received, and reported on a continuous basis throughout contract performance. All customer feedback used for evaluation of contract performance will be documented in writing. Positive customer feedback will be utilized to support favorable performance ratings as applicable. Due to their subjective nature, customer feedback and validated complaints are unique and do not have standardized acceptance criteria for supplies or services rendered. They are typically handled for corrective action based upon the totality of circumstances described within the validated compliant.

3.4.2.3. Remedies for Non-Conformance

The following information describes the primary methods the Government will use to address supplies or services that do not meet the performance standards and AQLs:

3.4.2.3.1. Remedies for Non-Conforming Services

If Government inspections of services rendered determine the contractor’s performance does not meet the AQLs or negative customer feedback is validated, the COR will notify the Contractor of the deficiencies for correction. The Contractor will then be expected to take corrective actions to address deficiencies or validated negative customer feedback and resolve any performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction. If deficiencies are not corrected by the Contractor within a specified period of time, the COR will notify the KO for action. If the Contractor disagrees with the performance discrepancy or an agreement with the COR for remedy cannot be reached, the COR will notify the KO for a final decision.

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

3.4.2.3.2. Remedies for Non-Conforming Supplies, Work Products, Deliverables, etc.

If Government inspections determine supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. do not meet the AQLs (such as non-conformance to contractual requirements, faults, failures, discrepancies, inaccuracies, incompleteness, spelling / grammatical errors, improper format, etc.), it may be immediately rejected without further review and the COR will notify the Contractor of the deficiencies for correction. The Contractor will then be expected to take corrective actions to address the identified deficiencies prior to resubmission. Corrected supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. will be resubmitted by the contractor prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government. If the additional Government guidance is required to produce acceptable supplies, work products, deliverables, etc., the contractor must request a meeting with the COR. Draft versions of deliverables inspected by the Government may be determined as acceptable with feedback, revisions, or comments provided for incorporation into the final version. All the Government's comments must be incorporated in the succeeding version unless directed to correct in the current version of the deliverable. All supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. that do not meet the AQLs will not be accepted until discrepancies, deficiencies, etc. identified have been corrected to the Government’s satisfaction.

3.4.3. Performance Standards

All products and services rendered will be prepared compliant with the performance standards described in the PWS. The contractor is required to perform all functions in a professional manner. The Contractor is permitted to use subcontractors as appropriate to conduct the work (i.e. tasks, subtasks, etc.) described in the PWS. However, use of subcontractors does not relieve or alleviate the prime contractor of the responsibility for ensuring successful performance.

The following is an outline of the Government’s expectations for satisfactory contract performance:

3.4.3.1. Performance Ratings and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs)

The following information describes the Government’s performance ratings and decrements that will be utilized throughout the duration of this TO. These ratings enable the Government to determine whether contractor performance is acceptable and if not, what decrements to payment are appropriate. The Government does not have an expectation of perfection in the performance of this contract and the target performance rating / AQL is “Satisfactory” or greater. However, the contractor must ensure consistent qualitative and timely performance is rendered.

Inconsistent performance or failure to meet the “Satisfactory” rating constitutes “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory” contract performance and may result in a decrement or withholding of payment, depending upon the degree to which the “Satisfactory” rating has been breached. Exceeding the

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

“Satisfactory” rating constitutes “Very Good” or “Exceptional” contract performance, but only if the Government realizes specific benefits such as services or work products without any defects, accelerated deliveries of supplies or deliverables, etc. Exceeding the “Satisfactory” rating will not result in any additional payment or incentives. Assessment and assignment of performance ratings will be performed monthly by the Government for each CLIN at the Task Order (TO) level. For example, in the monthly review of the contractor’s services for a specific TO, the Government may assign a rating of “Satisfactory” for CLIN 0001, “Marginal” for CLIN 0002, “Exceptional” for CLIN 0003, etc. Any decrements or payment withholdings associated with a rating below “Satisfactory” will be applied at the CLIN level throughout the duration of contract performance until performance is validated as improved. The COR will analyze the monthly individual performance ratings assigned for all CLINs to generate an overall contractor performance rating for the month. The overall monthly performance rating will be assigned by the COR based upon the lowest individual performance ratings assigned to the CLINs for the month. For example, if the contractor receives “Satisfactory” for CLIN 0001, “Marginal” for CLIN 0002, and “Exceptional” for CLIN 0003, the overall performance rating will be “Marginal” because it is the lowest rating for the month.

Upon the contractor submission of the MSR deliverable described in the PWS for inspection and acceptance, the COR will evaluate the contactor’s monthly performance, document their monthly rating assignments in the MSR, and provide a copy to the contractor. The contractor will provide a response to the Government within five (5) business days if they do not agree with the COR’s ratings as assigned. In the event of the contactor not agreeing with the COR’s ratings, the KO will review the contractor’s response and make the final rating determination.

3.4.3.1.1. General Performance Ratings

The following general performance ratings will be utilized by the Government for all services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. rendered by the contractor on this TO. All deliverables must be submitted compliant with the timelines identified in this PWS.

Assessment and assignment these performance ratings will be performed by the Government at for each of the following TO CLINs:

• CLIN 0001 – Transition In

• CLIN 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002 – Admin Support & Program Management

• CLIN 0008 – Transition Out

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

General Performance Ratings / AQLs

Rating Description

Exceptional

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. clearly exceed contractual requirements and achieved Government acceptance with no defects, deficiencies, negative customer feedback, or problems requiring corrective action reported.

Timeliness: The contractor consistently rendered services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. before due dates and there are no action items, tasks, subtasks, activities, etc. past due.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Very Good

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. met or exceeded contractual requirements and achieved Government acceptance with minor defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported. Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback have clearly resolved any performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: The contractor rendered services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. on or before due dates and there are no action items, tasks, subtasks, activities, etc. past due. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Satisfactory

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. met contractual requirements or achieved Government acceptance with defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported. Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback appear to have resolved any performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: The contractor rendered services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. on or slightly after due dates (no later than 1 – 5 business days past due) or there are action items, tasks, subtasks, activities, etc. slightly past due (no later than 1 – 5 business days). Delays associated with performance were verified to not have caused impact to fuels operations or DLA Energy mission. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were implemented on or before an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Marginal

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. may not have met contractual requirements, narrowly meets contract requirements, or achieved Government acceptance with significant defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported. Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address significant defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback appear to be marginally effective at resolving performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: The contractor rendered services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. after due dates (between 6 – 10 business days past due) or there are action items, tasks, subtasks, activities, MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

General Performance Ratings / AQLs

Rating Description etc. past due (between 6 – 10 business days). Delays associated with performance may have caused a slight impact to fuels operations or DLA Energy mission. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were not fully implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 80% of the invoice amount.

Unsatisfactory

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. clearly did not meet contractual requirements or failed to achieve Government acceptance. Serious defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback was reported and corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be or were confirmed as ineffective at resolving performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: The contractor did not render services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. or rendered them significantly behind schedule (greater than 6 business days past due) or recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Delays associated with performance have impacted fuels operations or DLA Energy mission. Corrective actions were not implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

Possible issues include, but are not limited to: missed deliverables / milestones, low quality documents requiring multiple reviews and rewrites, significant or serious complaints submitted by the customers, services do not comply with PWS requirements, or one or more cure notices have been issued.

The COR will recommend withholding contractor payment and notify the Contracting Officer (KO) immediate remedy is needed.

Table 3 – General Performance Ratings / AQLs

Example: The contractor rendered their services and delivered work products on time and met contractual requirements by achieving Government acceptance with some defects requiring corrective action. The contractor implemented corrective actions for the defective services and work products on or before the Government an agreed upon date, which appear to have resolved performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction. The contractor would receive a “Satisfactory” rating for the month and the COR would recommend payment of 100% for the applicable CLIN.

3.4.3.1.2. Preventative Maintenance (PM) Performance Ratings

The performance ratings for Preventive Maintenance (PM) will be evaluated based on the quality and timeliness of the contractor’s services. As part of the evaluation of services rendered, the Government will review the percentage of PM actions overdue each month (first

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

day-last day of the month). All PM services will be pre-designated each month by the contractor derived from the ATG/IAS/OPE PM schedule. The contractor will provide data on the timeliness and percentage of PMs completed for each month in the MSR to assist the Government in the evaluation of PM services and performance. Assessment and assignment these performance ratings will be performed by the Government for the following TO CLINs:

• CLIN 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003 – Preventative Maintenance (PM)

Preventative Maintenance (PM) Performance Ratings / AQLs Rating Description

Exceptional

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. clearly exceed contractual requirements and achieved Government acceptance with no defects, deficiencies, negative customer feedback, or problems requiring corrective action reported.

Timeliness: 100% of scheduled PM’s were completed for the month.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Very Good

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. met or exceeded contractual requirements and achieved Government acceptance with minor defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported. Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback have clearly resolved any performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: 95%-99% of scheduled PM’s were completed for the month. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Satisfactory

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. met contractual requirements or achieved Government acceptance with defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported. Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback appear to have resolved any performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: 90%-94% of scheduled PM’s were completed for the month. Delays associated with performance were verified to not have caused impact to fuels operations or DLA Energy mission. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were implemented on or before an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Marginal

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. may not have met contractual requirements, narrowly meets contract requirements, or achieved Government acceptance with significant defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported. Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address significant defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback appear to be marginally effective at resolving performance problems to

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

Table 4 – PM Performance Ratings / AQLs

Example: The contractor achieved Government acceptance with no defects reported for eight (8) out of ten (10) total PM services scheduled for the month (i.e. timeliness of 8/10 for SNOW cases or 80%). During weekly status reporting, the contractor failed to provide an acceptable justification for extension / deferment of untimely PM services. The contractor would receive a “Marginal” rating for the month and the COR would recommend payment of 80% for the applicable CLIN.

3.4.3.1.3. Tier II Technical Support Services Performance Ratings

The performance ratings for the contractor’s Technical Support will be evaluated based on the quality and timeliness of the contractor’s services. As part of the evaluation of services rendered, the Government will review the percentage of SNOW cases completed compliant with the service level requirements and Service Level Agreement (SLA) described herein based upon

Preventative Maintenance (PM) Performance Ratings / AQLs Rating Description the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: 80%-89% of scheduled PM’s were completed for the month. Delays associated with performance may have caused a slight impact to fuels operations or DLA Energy mission. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were not fully implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 80% of the invoice amount.

Unsatisfactory

Quality: Services, supplies, work products, deliverables, etc. clearly did not meet contractual requirements or failed to achieve Government acceptance. Serious defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback was reported and corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be or were confirmed as ineffective at resolving performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: Less than 80% of scheduled PM’s were completed for the month. Delays associated with performance have impacted fuels operations or DLA Energy mission.

Corrective actions were not implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

Possible issues include, but are not limited to: missed deliverables / milestones, low quality documents requiring multiple reviews and rewrites, significant or serious complaints submitted by the customers, services do not comply with PWS requirements, or one or more cure notices have been issued.

The COR will recommend withholding contractor payment and notify the Contracting Officer (KO) immediate remedy is needed.

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

EST/UTC-4 Government Duty Hours. The Government will utilize this SLA in conjunction with the performance standards identified as follows to assess and assign performance ratings for the following TO CLINs:

• CLIN 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, 4004 – Tier II Technical Support

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

Technical Support Team Service Level Agreement (SLA)

Priority Description Assignment Initial Review & Contact Target Resolution / Escalation Timetable

Emergency

Government contacts contractor requesting emergency services due to a catastrophic system outage or critical safety hazard impacting fueling operations, posing a severe risk or issue to mission, personnel, assets, or the environment.

SNOW case assigned to technician within one (1) hour (regardless of time zone)

Verifiable attempt to establish responsive contact with the customer/user within two (2) hours (regardless of time zone) of SNOW case assignment to technician

Contractor maintains continuous status reporting until problem/issue resolved and SNOW case closed within one (1) calendar day of assignment to contractor support group.

Contractor maintains continuous status reporting until problem/issue resolved and SNOW case closed within a Government approved timetable.

Contractor maintains continuous status reporting until SNOW case problem/issue investigated, root cause(s) identified, and escalated for CM/Repair approval within a Government approved timetable.

High

A significant system malfunction or performance degradation impacting fueling operations, mission, personnel, or assets with available workarounds or redundancies.

SNOW case assigned to technician within one (1) business hour

Verifiable attempt to establish responsive contact with the customer/user within two (2) business hours of SNOW case assignment to technician

Problem/issue resolved and SNOW case closed within three (3) business days of assignment to contractor support group.

SNOW case problem/issue investigated, root cause(s) identified, and escalated to the Government for CM/Repair approval within three

(3) business days of assignment to contractor support group.

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

Technical Support Team Service Level Agreement (SLA)

Priority Description Assignment Initial Review & Contact Target Resolution / Escalation Timetable

Medium

A non-critical system malfunction or performance degradation causing minor impact or disruptions to fueling operations, mission, personnel, or assets.

SNOW case assigned to technician within two (2) business hours

Verifiable attempt to establish responsive contact with the customer/user within four (4) business hours of SNOW case assignment to technician

Problem/issue resolved and SNOW case closed within ten (10) business days of assignment to

Government for CM/Repair approval within ten

(10) business days of assignment to contractor support group.

Low

General, routine, or minor system adjustments, requests, or non-urgent repairs that do not impact fueling operations, mission, personnel, or assets.

SNOW case assigned to technician within four (4) business hours

Verifiable attempt to establish responsive contact with the customer/user within eight (8) business hours of SNOW case assignment to technician

Problem/issue resolved and SNOW case closed within fifteen (15) business days of assignment to

Government for CM/Repair approval within fifteen

(15) business days of assignment to contractor support group.

Table 5 – Technical Support Team SLA

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

Utilizing SNOW case metrics reported in the WAR and MSR deliverables in comparison to the SLA, the following criteria will be applied by the Government for evaluation of the contractor’s Technical Support Team services:

Technical Support Performance Ratings / AQLs

Rating Description

Exceptional

Quality: Technical support services, work products, deliverables, etc. clearly exceed contractual requirements and achieved Government acceptance with no defects, deficiencies, negative customer feedback, or problems requiring corrective action reported.

Timeliness: 100% of SNOW cases assigned to contractor technical support were successfully addressed within the SLA timeline based upon priority levels.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Very Good

Quality: Technical support services, work products, deliverables, etc. met or exceeded contractual requirements and achieved Government acceptance with minor defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported. Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback have clearly resolved any performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: 95% - 99% of SNOW cases assigned to contractor technical support were successfully addressed within the SLA timeline based upon priority levels. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Satisfactory

Quality: Technical support services, work products, deliverables, etc. met contractual requirements or achieved Government acceptance with defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported. Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback appear to have resolved any performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: 90% - 94% of SNOW cases assigned to contractor technical support were successfully addressed within the SLA timeline based upon priority levels. Delays associated with performance were verified to not have caused impact to fuels operations or DLA Energy mission.

Corrective actions taken by the contractor were implemented on or before an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 100% of the invoice amount.

Marginal

Quality: Technical support services, work products, deliverables, etc. may not have met contractual requirements, narrowly meets contract requirements, or achieved Government acceptance with significant defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback reported.

Corrective actions taken by the contractor to address significant defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback appear to be marginally effective at resolving performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

Technical Support Performance Ratings / AQLs

Rating Description

Timeliness: 85% - 89% of SNOW cases assigned to contractor technical support were successfully addressed within the SLA timeline based upon priority levels and/or contractor technical support performance borders on unacceptability in terms of timeliness. Delays associated with performance may have caused a slight impact to fuels operations or DLA Energy mission. Corrective actions taken by the contractor were not fully implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

The COR will recommend the contractor be paid 80% of the invoice amount.

Unsatisfactory

Quality: Technical support services, work products, deliverables, etc. clearly did not meet contractual requirements or failed to achieve Government acceptance. Serious defects, deficiencies, or negative customer feedback was reported and corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be or were confirmed as ineffective at resolving performance problems to the Government’s satisfaction.

Timeliness: Less than 85% of SNOW cases assigned to contractor technical support were successfully addressed within the SLA timeline based upon priority levels and/or contractor technical support performance has been less than acceptable in terms of timeliness. Delays associated with performance have impacted fuels operations or DLA Energy mission. Corrective actions were not implemented prior to an agreed upon date as determined by the Government.

Possible issues include, but are not limited to: missed deliverables / milestones, low quality documents requiring multiple reviews and rewrites, significant or serious complaints submitted by the customers, services do not comply with PWS requirements, or one or more cure notices have been issued.

The COR will recommend withholding contractor payment and notify the Contracting Officer (KO) immediate remedy is needed.

Table 6 – Technical Support Performance Ratings / AQLs

3.4.3.1.4. Corrective Maintenance (CM) / Repair Services Performance Ratings

The performance ratings for the contractor’s CM/Repair Services will be evaluated based on the quality and timeliness of the contractor’s services. As part of the evaluation of services rendered, the Government will review the percentage of SNOW cases completed compliant with the SLA described herein based upon EST/UTC-4 Government Duty Hours. The Government will utilize this SLA in conjunction with the performance standards identified as follows to assess and assign performance ratings for the following TO CLINs:

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

• CLIN 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005, 4005 – CM/Repair

MX TO # SP4706-26-0002

QASP

CM/Repair Services Service Level Agreement (SLA)

Priority Description Target Resolution / Escalation Timetable

Emergency

Government contacts contractor requesting emergency services due to a catastrophic system outage or critical safety hazard impacting fueling operations, posing a severe risk or issue to mission, personnel, assets, or the environment.

Contractor maintains continuous status reporting until problem/issue resolved and SNOW case closed within five (5) calendar days of authorization to execute CM/Repair services.

Contractor maintains continuous status reporting until problem/issue resolved and SNOW case closed within a Government approved timetable for execution of CM/Repair services.

Contractor maintains continuous status reporting until SNOW case problem/issue investigated, root cause(s) identified, and escalated with appropriate documentation to assist with conversion into Complex CM / Site Support project within a Government approved timetable.

High

A significant system malfunction or performance degradation impacting fueling operations, mission, personnel, or assets with available workarounds or redundancies.

Problem/issue resolved and SNOW case closed within ten (10) calendar days of authorization to execute CM/Repair services.

Problem/ issue resolved and SNOW case closed within a Government approved timetable for execution of CM/Repair services.

SNOW case problem/issue investigated, root cause(s) identified, and escalated with appropriate documentation to assist with conversion into Complex CM / Site Support project within a Government approved timetable.

Medium

A non-critical system malfunction or performance degradation causing minor impact or disruptions to fueling…