EPF_QASP.docx

UNCLASSIFIED Enclosure (4)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for Engineering, Prototyping, and Fabrication Support Services

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure the systematic Quality Assurance (QA) methods are used in the administration and surveillance of tasking under the Task Order (TO). The intent is to ensure the Contractor performs In Accordance With (IAW) the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the Seaport NxG TO.

The NAWCAD WOLF Engineering & Prototyping (EP) Operations provides rapid organic engineering, prototyping, reverse-engineering, environmental testing, antenna repairs/life cycle extensions, and production capabilities in support of NAWCAD, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), and the NAWCAD WOLF Divisions. The EP Operations, operating under the oLSI® model, has requirements to provide fabrication support and compliance support to include Modeling and Simulation (M&S); machining; sheet-metal design, layout, and fabrication; welding; assembly; composite repairs and fabrication of composite components and structures; woodworking; painting, including preparation and application of corrosion control coatings and powder coating; management of a stockroom (e.g., tooling, hand tools, and fasteners), facilities and personnel safety management and preparedness to include Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT).

This TO will have Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) and FFP LOE (Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort). The TO will have a five year period of performance base and option years. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under TO Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services, products, and documentation called for in the TO that will be executed by the Contracting Officer (KO) or a duly authorized representative.

3. Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between Quality Control Plan (QCP) and the QASP. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for the QCP, which defines the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in the TO.

The QASP provides Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective, and delivering the results specified in the TO.

4. Government Resources

The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this plan:

KO: A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into a contract (Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)), or a person with the authority to administer contracts (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)) and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The ACO will be designated in the resulting TO. KOs are designated via a written warrant that sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering the TO. The COR will be appointed in the resulting TO. The limitations of authority are contained in the letter of appointment.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR): An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the TO. The ACOR will be appointed in the resulting TO. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Government Project Lead (GPL): The COR designates individual GPLs to assist in administering specific efforts under the TO.

5. Responsibilities

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

KO: The KO (PCO or ACO) ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the TO, and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO assures that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the TO. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

COR: The COR is responsible for technical administration of the TO 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 the TO price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

ACOR: The ACOR assists the COR for technical administration of the TO and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The ACOR 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 the TO price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

GPL: The GPL is responsible for assisting in administering specific efforts under the TO. A GPL cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the TO, make commitments, or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): The marketplace for this type of effort is competitive. As such, the successful Offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this TO. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each base or option year. This evaluation will be one determinant in the award of future TOs or option exercises. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of Small Business (SB), and other important areas for this procurement. Some of the monitoring methods to be used will be Government observation, review of reports, customer feedback, and review of Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs). As this information may affect future source selections throughout the Department of Defense (DoD), as well as the continuation of this tasking, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the within the policies of this QASP.

b. QASP: This document will be used by the COR, ACOR, and GPLs in the technical administration of this TO. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of QA surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC).

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the Contractor, COR, ACOR, and GPLs while Enclosure (3) and (4) provide the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance and will be provided to the KO.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing reports to the KO, the COR will maintain a complete QA file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the QA function, including the originals of the QA Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the TO. The COR shall forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the TO.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Performance-Based Standards/Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Data Quality Standards Enclosure (2): Incentives Enclosure (3): Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) Enclosure (4): Annual Surveillance Summary Controlled by: Department of the Navy Controlled by: NAWCAD WOLF CUI Category: PROCURE Distribution/Dissemination Control: FED ONLY POC: Insert PCO name, email address, phone number

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED Version 6.2

UNCLASSIFIED 2

ENCLOSURE (1): PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS

(QA)

Incentives

ENCLOSURE (1): CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL) DATA QUALITY STANDARDS

Method/Measure Incentives

UNCLASSIFIED Enclosure (1)

UNCLASSIFIED Enclosure (2)

UNCLASSIFIED 4

UNCLASSIFIED 5

ENCLOSURE (2): INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this Task Order (TO).

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further option excersize.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further option excersize.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further option excersize.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further option excersize.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further option excersize.*

* The Government reserves the right not to award option Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)/Task Orders (TOs) if the Contractor does not meet the acceptable performance standards, and/or meet all regulatory requirements.

All Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) tasks, including sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following.

Quality of Product or Service: Assess the Contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of TO execution, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces, and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the Contractor meets program quality.

Schedule: Assess the Contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the Contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events (e.g., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of Contractor corrective actions.

Cost Control: Assess the Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling TO cost. Is the Contractor experiencing cost growth or under-run? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For TOs where task or TO sizing is based upon contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the Contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility through the efficient use of resources in each work effort will be assessed.

Business Relations: Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Management: Assess the Contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts. Discuss the extent to which the Contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the TO; identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by the TO; and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the Contractor’s risk mitigation plans.

Utilization of Small Business (SB): The Request for Proposal (RFP)/Request for Offer (RFO) and FAR Subpart 19.109 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contains statutory requirements for complying with the SB Subcontracting Program. Assess whether the Contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for SB (including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes) (including Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women-Owned SBs (WOSBs), HUBZone, Veteran-Owned SBs (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran Owned SBs (SDVOSBs), and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not SDBs or SBs to participate in TO performance consistent with efficient performance of the TO. Evaluation will focus on the metrics of actual SB utilization as compared to the TO required targets and the Contractor’s submitted SB plan.

Other areas: Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the TO or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Exceptional Performance: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many 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: 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: 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: 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: Performance does not meet most 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.

UNCLASSIFIED Enclosure (2)

ENCLOSURE (3): SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST (SAC)

Quarterly Surveillance:

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will perform a quarterly assessment of quality, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of Small Business (SB), and other areas as applicable utilizing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (2).

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

UNCLASSIFIED Enclosure (3)

UNCLASSIFIED 5

UNCLASSIFIED 5

ENCLOSURE (4): ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE SUMMARY

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will perform an assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (2). This assessment will be completed annually covering the previous 12 months.