Attachment_C_QASP.pdf

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 assistance with the Rapid Response Munitions Testing and Engineering Services support. The resulting performance based contract will be firm fixed price. 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 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 – The Procurement Contracting Officer (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. The PCO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance. The PCO for this contract is identified in Section G.

Contract Administrator – An individual assigned by the PCO to assist in the daily administration of the contract. The Contract Administrator also provides input to the PCO and the COR as to the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP. The Contract Administrator for this contract is identified in Section G.

Contracting Officer’s Representative – 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 the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action.

Government Technical Point of Contact – The COR designates an individual Government Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to assist in administering specific projects under the contract. The Government TPOC is responsible for assisting in administering a specific project under the contract. A Government TPOC cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract, make commitments or authorize any changes 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 contract. 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 contract, 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 contract.

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 Contract (Period 1)

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory”

Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Contract.

(+) 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 Contract.

(+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as condition for exercise of Option II.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance 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 Contract.

(+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as condition for exercise of Option III.*

(-) Does not meet the 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 Contract.

(+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as condition for exercise of Option IV.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance 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 Contract.

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 and 4 of this contract 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 contract 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 contract 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 contract policy.

Contractor ensures staff training remains current.

Price 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

SOW

Task Area

Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level

Quality Assurance

Surveillance Plan Typical

Monitoring Methods

3.2 The Contractor shall

perform all tests identified in MIL- STD-810. The Contractor shall simulate environments for hazardous articles up to 20 feet long for the following environmental and dynamics tests.

Analyses and investigations include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Current DoD policy and/or industry standards are followed.

Results delivered IAW agreed upon schedules.

Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date.

Government oversight of review/ comment/approval process.

3.3 The Contractor shall

perform component and system level tests, at a single location, in accordance with

NAVSEAINST

8020.8 (Department of Defense Ammunition and Explosive Hazard Classification Procedures), MIL- STD-2105 (Hazard Assessment Tests for Non-Nuclear

Analyses and investigations include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Current DoD policy and/or industry standards are followed.

Results delivered IAW agreed upon schedules.

Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% include comprehensive recommendations proposed to allow for expeditious Government action. 95% completed by due date.

Government oversight of review/comment/ approval process, timeliness and review of methods and procedures.

Munitions) and all applicable North American Treaty Organization (NATO) Standard Agreement

(STANAG)

documents.

3.4 The Contractor shall

perform the following fuze, sensor and Command Control Communication and Intelligence (C3I) testing. The Fuze and Fuze Components (Environmental and Performance) tests shall be conducted

(IAW MIL-STD-331

with all applicable North American Treaty Organization (NATO) Standard Agreement

(STANAG)

documents.

Analyses and investigations include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Current DoD policy and/or industry standards are followed.

Results delivered IAW agreed upon schedules.

Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% include comprehensive recommendations proposed to allow for expeditious Government action. 95% completed by due date.

Government oversight of review/comment/ approval process, timeliness and review of methods and procedures.

3.5 The Contractor shall

perform transportation and packaging safety testing.

Analyses and investigations include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Current DoD policy and/or industry standards are followed.

Results delivered IAW agreed upon schedules.

Analyses and reports require no more than two

(2) review/comment/ approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date.

Government oversight of review/ comment/approval cycle.

3.6 The Contractor shall

support Ammunition, Weapons, and Munitions Performance Characterizations for small, medium, and large caliber gun, mortar, and rocket live fire.

Analyses and investigations include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Current DoD policy and/or industry standards are followed.

Results delivered IAW agreed upon schedules.

Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/ approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date.

Government oversight of review/ comment/approval cycle.

3.7 The Contractor shall

perform mechanical function, fatigue and cycling tests.

Analyses and investigations include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Current DoD policy and/or industry standards are followed.

Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/ approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date.

Government oversight of review/ cycle.

Results delivered IAW agreed upon schedules.

3.8 The Contractor shall

provide exploitation support of asset weapons, equipment and munitions.

Analyses and investigations include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Current DoD policy and/or industry standards are followed.

Results delivered IAW agreed upon schedules.

Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/ approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date.

Government oversight of review/ comment/approval cycle.

3.9 The Contractor shall

provide ammunition, weapons, munitions handling and storage.

Analyses and investigations include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Current DoD policy and/or industry standards are followed.

Results delivered IAW agreed upon schedules.

Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/ approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date.

Government oversight of review/ cycle.