Enclosure 4-QASP.pdf

04/2025

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

HEADQUARTERS (HQ)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR THE

NASA RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES

(NRESS) III

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) was prepared by the following:

Sara Riall

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

Chanda Cannon

Contracting Officer (CO) NASA HQ Office of Procurement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NASA RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES (NRESS) III

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 Contracting Officer (CO)

2.2 COR/Alternate COR

2.3 Task Order Monitors (TOMs)

2.4 Technical/Task Monitors (TMs)

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Surveillance Activities

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs)/Acceptable Performance Levels (APLs)

Error! Bookmark not defined.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the statement of work (SOW) entitled NRESS III. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines NASA HQ will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and identify required documentation and resources to be employed. The

QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the SOW and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and ensure the government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all surveillance members, identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The SOW structures the acquisition around what service or quality level is required, as opposed to how the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance).

This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by NASA HQ to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the SOW are achieved.

1.2.2 Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, if the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law

(federal, state, and local), agency and center mandated procedures and processes (e.g., NPRs, NPDs) and compelling business situations, such as safety, environmental, and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract if the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s internal quality control (QC) program.

QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or subcontractors. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the SOW. The contractor will use its internal quality control system to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

All surveillance activities will be implemented using NASA civil servant and NASA support-contractor personnel.

2.1 Contracting Officer (CO)

2.1.1 The CO is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control, and resolving any differences between observations documented by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the contractor. The CO will delegate a COR as the government authority for performance management. The number of additional alternate CORs depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and delegated by the CO.

2.1.2 The CO is ultimately responsible for the acceptance of services received under this contract.

2.1.2 The CO will complete an annual contractor performance assessment report using the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) that will also be reviewed by the contractor. The CPARS includes an assessment of contractor quality performance.

2.2 COR/Alternate COR

2.2.1 The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the NASA Form

1634, COR Delegation. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance.

The COR monitors the technical work performed under the contract, evaluates contractor performance, serves as the primary interface for the contractor and the CO for all technical matters, reports on contract status to Program/Project Management, and recommends corrective action when necessary. The COR shall keep the CO apprised of performance problems early on when identified. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes the contractor deems may affect the contract and task orders price, terms, or conditions must be referred to the CO for action. The COR maintains documentation on file to preserve a history of the contractor’s performance to ensure standards in the contract are being met.

Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

2.2.2 The COR assumes full responsibility for directing the surveillance activities identified in this plan. The COR also trains Task Monitor(s) on evaluation procedures for evaluating contractor performance.

2.2.3 The COR will assist the CO in the completion of the contract’s annual performance assessment report using CPARS.

2.3 Task Order Monitors (TOMs)

2.3.1 TOMs are individuals appointed by the COR for developing task order requirements, reviewing the contractor’s task plans and task order reports, and monitoring task order performance. Task orders will include quantitative metrics, as appropriate. TOMs provide detailed technical oversight of the contractor’s performance and report findings to the COR in a timely, complete and impartial fashion. While the TOMs may serve as a direct conduit to provide government guidance and feedback to the contractor on technical matters, the TOMs are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf.

2.4 Technical/Task Monitors (TMs)

2.4.1 TMs are individuals appointed by the COR for the oversight of specific technical work on the contract. TMs provide detailed technical oversight of the contractor’s performance and report findings to the COR in a timely, complete and impartial fashion. While the TMs may serve as a direct conduit to provide government guidance and feedback to the contractor on technical matters, the TMs are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

Performance standards are expressed in the SOW and assessed using the performance monitoring techniques in this QASP.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

To minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance to be used for this contract are:

• Random monitoring – This is generally most appropriate for recurring tasks; services are sampled to determine whether the level of performance is acceptable which shall be performed by the COR, TMs, and TOMs.

• 100% Inspection - This method will be used for contractor submissions and deliverables (tangible items). Each quarter, the COR shall review the generated documentation and document a summary of those results, this review includes DRDs submissions, etc. The COR/TOM/TM will use 100% inspection method to evaluate all interim and final reports submitted under this contract and/or task orders. The

COR, with assistance from the TOM/TM and CO, if necessary, accepts or rejects these services/deliverables based on the criteria and performance standards outlined in the task order, documents all results of surveillance actions, and subsequent contractor re-performance tasks if applicable.

• Periodic inspection – This type of surveillance consists of the evaluation of samples selected on other than a 100-percent or statistically random basis. An example of periodic audit is the inspection of report submittals when the COR chooses the location and time in other than a statistically random manner. Information obtained from periodic audit activities may be used by the CO for other actions taken against the contractor. The COR will consolidate responses by TMs and TOMs and provide a summary of those results monthly to the CO and contractor.

• Customer Feedback - Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate. Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.1.1 The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the SOW and assessed using the performance monitoring techniques in this QASP.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

The government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs/APLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels

6.2 Reporting

At the end of each quarter, the COR will prepare a written report summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report will become part of the quality assurance documentation. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager or designated alternate to meet with the CO, TM, TO and other government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss the performance evaluation. The CO, and/or COR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor;

however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR as often as required. The agenda of the reviews may include:

• Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

• Issues and concerns of both parties

• Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis.

• Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

• Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes.

6.3.2 The CO and COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The COR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the procuring CO.