CSS3 QASP.docx
DOCX document 46 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- CSS3-Draft-RFP
About this file
This document is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for the Cyber Support Services 3 (CSS3) contract. The QASP outlines the key performance requirements, surveillance methods, and quality thresholds for services such as customer service, compliance with contract data requirements lists (CDRLs), incident response, media duplication, purchasing, and task order updates. It also covers requirements for the government's transition to the new contractor, IT facility management, warehouse management, supply chain risk management, and government furnished equipment. The QASP will be used to monitor and evaluate the contractor's performance on the CSS3 contract. This QASP is related to a pre-solicitation draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the upcoming CSS3 contract, which is being issued by the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center at Hanscom Air Force Base to gather industry feedback on the draft requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CSS3 Draft RFP Questions and Responses_Final.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| CSS3_ ExhibitA_Instr_26APR24 Final_Edited.docx | DOCX document | |
| CSS3 Draft RFP Questions.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| CSS3_Draft_PWS 2.1.docx | DOCX document | |
| CSS3 J-8 Section M Evaluation Criteria draft RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| CSS3 J-7 Section L Instructions draft RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| CSS3 CLINS.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Cyber Support Services 3 (CSS3) Quality Assurance Plan (QASP) Service Delivery Summary
Performance PWS Requirement Paragraph
PWS
(includes applicable sub-sections)
| Performance Threshold |
| Surveillance Method(s) |
| Surveillance Frequency |
| Quality of Customer Service |
| All |
| Contractor receives no more than two 2 COR or PCO validated customer complaints per functional requirement during the contract year |
| Formal customer feedback survey |
Unsolicited customer feedback Review of comments during an incident and documented within EITSM 6 months, ongoing
SEC
Replenishment
| 3.1 |
| Certifications, skill sets, & experience levels, are maintained at 95% |
| Notifications of a staffing gap and restored staffing are submitted to the PMO within the PWS required timeframe |
| Ongoing |
CDRL
Compliance
| Multiple |
| CDRL due dates are met (95%) per month |
| Tracking of CDRL submissions per Exhibit A criteria as well as acceptance/rejection, or comments sent back |
| Ongoing |
CDRL
Compliance
| Multiple |
| CDRLs are in the proper format, with appropriate content, and with no rejections (95%) per month |
| Tracking of CDRL submissions per Exhibit A criteria as well as acceptance/rejection, or comments sent back |
| Ongoing |
| Transition Plan |
| 3.11 |
| Approved |
Integrator transition IMS is successfully executed. No more than a total of five (5) business day Contractor slip to the critical path
| Progress meetings between the Contractor, Incumbent and Government PM/PMO. |
| Ongoing for duration of transition |
| Incident Investigation, Diagnosis, and Resolution |
| 4.2 |
| ARC response and resolution timeframes are met in accordance with the PWS 95% |
| Monitored via EITSM Incident comments and incident time stamps |
| The COR and Sustainment team will review |
EITSM monthly
Monthly Incident Review Panel (IRP) Reviews
Bi-weekly Management Review
Monthly Status Report
ARC Customer Satisfaction
| 4.2 |
| No more than 10% of incidents with a failing customer satisfaction score, based on a monthly average |
| Reviewed by Sustainment team through customer feedback reports |
| Monthly review of customer satisfaction score performed by Sustainment team. |
| ARC Ticket aging |
| 4.2 ? |
| No more than 2% break/fix incidents are more than 30 days old without a technical solution identified or a Gov’t PM/COR approved exception |
| Review of incidents and incident reports and communication with ARC technician |
| Bi-weekly review |
| Media Duplication |
| ??? |
| All duplication tickets shall be shipped no more than 2 business days old |
| Review of incidents and incident reports and communication with ARC technician |
| Bi-weekly review |
| Purchasing |
| ??? |
| RFQ submitted within 2 business days 95% of the time |
| Review of incidents and incident reports |
| Bi-weekly review |
| Purchasing |
| ??? |
| Upon government approval purchases are executed within 1 business days 95% of the time |
| Review of incidents and incident reports |
| Bi-weekly review |
TOs Up-To-Date
| 4.5.1 |
| TOs impacted by TCTO or vulnerability analysis are updated annually (85%) of the time |
| Number of TOs updated this FY (1 Oct and 30 Sep) divided by number of TOs impacted by TCTO or vulnerability assessment between of the previous FY (1 Oct and 30 Sep) |
| COR and TOMA will quarterly report the TOs impacted, and updated |
| TCTO Time and Accuracy |
| 4.5.2 |
| TCTOs are published on time (95%) as defined by PWS table 7. |
| Tracking of delivery to the TOMA (or alternative provided by the COR or PCO). |
| ITF Management |
| 4.6 |
| Two (2) or fewer validated instances of unscheduled outages every six months resulting in the inability of customer accomplishing daily tasks/tests. Includes network and system outages, does not include building related issues, such as power or environmental outages. |
| Solicited/Unsolicited customer feedback through the ITF Sharepoint page. |
Review of customer comments/requests through Remedy ticketing.
Formal customer feedback to the Project Leads email, provided on the ITF Sharepoint page PM and/or COR will review 100% of all feedback.
Ongoing
| Warehouse Management |
| 5.0(TBD) |
| All assets incoming or leaving the CSS3 warehouse are documented by the contractor in an Asset Management Form (AMF – CDRL 006) that is delivered to the government once a week. |
| Government randomly audits up to 100% of the warehouse data in appropriate ITEC account (in the Hanscom ECAM2 database) and to assure all of the assets in the weekly A006 CDRL AMF have been added or removed from that account. |
| The COR and HNIB PMO will conduct the inspection comparison no less than once every quarter. |
| Warehouse Management |
| 5.0(TBD) |
| Contractor provides to the Government warehouse ITEC at Hanscom all of the asset data as defined in PWS section x.x needed to enter to enter a newly Contractor procured asset within 3 days of the asset arriving at the CSS3 warehouse so that the government can add the asset to the DPAS database 95% of the time. |
| Government randomly compares the assets in the warehouse inventory management system (CLASS) with the data in DPAS. |
| Quarterly review by |
the COR, ITEC accounts manager, or any designated PMO personnel
SCRM
| FER Support Assessment |
| 6.0 |
| FER Task Requests Performance to Schedule |
| Input from OPS POC’s and HNI PM’s |
| Semi-annually |
* Describe what we are looking for, score/grade SME Support Assessment
| 7.0 |
| COR validated PM feedback |
| Input from HNI PMs and OPS POC’s |
| Semi-annually |
| Obsolescence |
| 4.1.1 |
| No more than 2 CDRL rejections per year |
| CDRL Review |
| Ongoing |
Baseline
< No more than 2 CDRL rejections per year
| CDRL Review |
| Ongoing |
| Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) |
| 3.10.1 |
| 100% accuracy of all Government Furnished Equipment |
| ECAMv2 review |
| Semi-annually |
| Task Request Notiification (TRN) |
| XXXX |
| Cost and Schedule |
| IMS / Cost Reviews |
| Bi-weekly |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .