Exhibit 2 QASP 03SEP24.pdf

CUI

Controlled By: DISA Controlled By: IE 16, Optimization Performance Branch CUI Category: Service Distribution/Dissemination Control: FEDCON POC: Frank Harder, frank.m.harder.civ@mail.mil, 301-225-2741

Template updated February 2023

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract or Task Order Title: Commercial Ethernet Gateway – Hawaii (CEG-HI)

2. Purpose: This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

What will be monitored?

How monitoring will take place.

Who will conduct the monitoring?

How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

3. Roles and Responsibilities:

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides program oversight and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities.

Contracting Officer (KO) – The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

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 the oversight/surveillance process.

The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance: Continuous monitoring and 100% inspection are the two primary but not exclusive methods of surveillance that will be used on this contract. The Surveillance Matrix is provided as Attachment 1.

100 Percent Inspection. This is usually only the most appropriate method for infrequent tasks or tasks with stringent performance requirements, e.g., where safety or health is a concern. With this method, performance is inspected/evaluated at each occurrence. One hundred percent inspection is too expensive to be used in most cases.

Random Sampling. This is usually the most appropriate method for recurring tasks. With random sampling, services are sampled to determine if the level of performance is acceptable. Random sampling works best when the number of instances of the services being performed is very large and a statistically valid sample can be obtained. Computer programs may be available to assist in establishing sampling procedures.

Periodic Inspection: These services are monitored weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annually, etc. Periodic types of activities are perfect for periodic inspection because not only are they infrequent, but there is normally a predetermined, specified time frame within which the tasks must be accomplished.

Therefore, you know exactly when to conduct the evaluations. Periodic inspections automatically become 100 percent evaluations or "100 percent checks." Inspections should be divided and scheduled by frequency: annual, semiannual, quarterly, monthly, weekly and as required. Sometimes services are required for which the time or frequency cannot be predicted, such as accident investigations, one-time special tasking by higher headquarters, etc. These would be labeled "as required inspections." Others are known and predictable such as the quarterly status report or the monthly travel report currently included in some DISA service contracts.

Customer Input. Although usually not a primary method, this is a valuable supplement to more systematic methods. For example, in a case where random sampling indicates unsatisfactory service, customer complaints can be used as substantiating evidence. In certain situations where customers can be relied upon to complain consistently when the quality of performance is poor, e.g., dining facilities, building services, customer surveys and customer complaints may be a primary surveillance method, and customer satisfaction an appropriate performance standard. In all cases, complaints should be documented, preferably on a standard form.

Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (Appendix 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performance surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The AQL performance Standard Table should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

5. Performance Standards:

(U) Performance Standard

(U) Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

(U) Methods of Calculation (U) Method of Surveillance

(U) Task 1,2- Ethernet Gateway Delivery - Contractor establishes a gateway that connects their carrier Ethernet network to the DISN and that fully complies with the DISA CEG Design Document.

(CUI) Target Level: Gateway installed and passes acceptance test not later than (NLT) 30 days after receipt of TO from DISA or receipt of GFI (if later than TO release). System meets all Attachment B, SCRM and IPv6 requirements.

(CUI) Minimum Acceptable:

Gateway installed and passes acceptance test NLT 60 days after receipt of GFI from DISA.

System meets all Attachment B, SCRM and IPv6 requirements.

(U) Calculations Delivery: Number of days between TO/GFI receipt date and NOC submission date.

(U) CEG Design: Gateway Design complies with requirements outlined in Attachment B.

(U) SCRM: Components comply with requirements outlined in SCRM Plan.

(U) Ipv6: Components and implementation comply with NIST SP 500-267, and the corresponding declarations of conformance defined in the USGv6 Test Program.

(CUI) 100%

Inspection

(U) Task 1,2- Ethernet Network/Gateway O&M - Contractor Gateway is reliable and available.

Complies with

MEF 6.2.

(CUI) Minimum Acceptable:

Contractor Network and Gateways must meet the following requirements (See Attachment B paragraphs for additional information): CEG Threshold MTU for Trunk NNI of 4400 (2.3.1).

CEG Objective MTU for Trunk NNI of 9000

NNI Zero Packet loss (2.5) RT latency < 25ms/350miles

(2.5.1) Meets Service Category Assured

#1 service levels (2.5.3) and which are as follows:

(CUI) Frame/Packet Loss: NTE 0.00001% (1 out of 10 million frames/packets dropped) - NNI Gateway Only (2.5.2).

(CUI) Availability: NLT 99.5% (End to End) (CUI) Jitter: NTE 5ms

(U) Calculations:

Gateways will be continuously monitored by DISA-EOC for packet loss, jitter and latency and outages/ downtime. Availability will be calculated on an annual basis i.e., fractional hours of downtime in 12-month period/8760.

(CUI) Continuous monitoring of deliverable services.

(U) Task 1,2- Ethernet Virtual Connection (EVC) Delivery – circuits are installed and operational at the bandwidth required by the Government.

(CUI) Minimum Acceptable:

All circuits ordered are installed and fully operational NLT 60 Days after receipt of TO (or receipt of GFI if later than TO). System meets all Attachment B, SCRM and IPv6 requirements.

(U) Calculations Number of days between TO/GFI receipt date and NOC submission date.

(CUI) 100%

Inspection

(U) Performance Standard

(U) Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

(U) Methods of Calculation (U) Method of Surveillance

(U) Task 2 -EVC Service Levels

(CUI) Minimum Acceptable EVC must meet the following requirements (See Attachment B paragraphs for additional information):

Access Site MTU Threshold of

4400 (2.3.2) Access site MTU Objective of

9000 (2.3.2) Meets Attachment B Service

Category Assured #2 service levels for sites ordered in Attachment A or subsequent TOs.

Vendor must support untagged and 802.1Q tagged interfaces to customer devices.

(U) Calculations:

Each EVC will be continuously monitored by DISA-EOC for packet loss, jitter and latency and outages/downtime.

Availability will be calculated on an annual basis i.e., hours of downtime in 12-month period/8760.

(CUI) Continuous monitoring of deliverable services.

(U) Task 2 Task Subtasks 1 and 2 Changes to VLAN Assignments.

(CUI) Minimum Acceptable VLAN changes must be completed NLT 5 business days after service request is made.

(U) Calculations Date that Service Request is submitted plus 5 business days.

(CUI) Review of Service Requests made for VLAN changes.

(U) Task 1- SCRM

– components used by Contractor meet

DISA SCRM

requirements.

(CUI) Target Level: Contractor submits fully acceptable SCRM Plan NLT 30 days after contract award. Contractor fully complies with SCRM throughout life of contract.

(CUI) Minimum Acceptable:

Contractor submits fully acceptable SCRM Plan NLT 90 days after contract award.

Contractor fully complies with SCRM throughout life of contract.

(U) Calculations:

Days between Contract Award Date and date SCRM Plan approved by DISA. DISA will subtract its review days from the total calculation.

(CUI) 100%

Inspection

6. Documenting Performance:

Acceptable Performance.

The Government shall document positive performance. A Performance Assessment Report (PAR) template is attached (Appendix 2). Any report may become part of the supporting documentation for fixed price payments, award/incentive fee payments, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) entries, or other actions. Government acceptance of services permits the contractor to invoice for the service fee.

Unacceptable performance.

Unacceptable contractor performance can be identified by customer complaints (Appendix 3) or upon schedule surveillance evaluations. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file and provide a copy to the KO.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Corrective Action Report (CAR). The CAR is forwarded to the KO for dissemination to the contractor. A CAR template is attached to this QASP (Appendix 4).

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing. The CAR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CAR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the KO and COR. The Government may withhold payment for services until corrective action is taken. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. Upon Government acceptance of the corrected services the contractor will be permitted to invoice for the service fee.

Any CAR may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, CPARS or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

7. Mandatory or regulatory compliance items: The contractor will provide initial proof of compliance with regulatory and compliance items contained in the contract. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (KO) will evaluate the initial submission and will conduct ad hoc reviews of the contractor's compliance throughout the remainder of the contract. The COR must notify the Contracting Officer if there are any potential or actual noncompliance issues with federal statues, laws, or regulations, the KO is the only person that can resolve these noncompliance issues related to law or regulations. The contractor will monitor compliance as required by FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and report any issues to the KO.

8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

The AQL is listed in Appendix 1 – Surveillance Matrix

9. Evaluation Method:

The COR will document the time of verbal notification to the contractor. The COR will document the official time and date of notification on the Maintenance Call Record. The COR will review self-diagnostic systems logs, conduct a comparison with actual maintenance performance and otherwise verify and validate contractor performance. The contractor shall enter in the record the official time the system is restored to full operational status. The COR will confirm the date and time of problem resolution in the record.

10. Performance Rating:

The COR will document the time of verbal notification to the contractor. The COR will document the official time and date of notification on the Maintenance Call Record. The COR will review self-diagnostic systems logs, conduct a comparison with actual maintenance performance and otherwise verify and validate contractor performance. The contractor shall enter in the record the official time the system is restored to full operational status. The COR will confirm the date and time of problem resolution in the record.

Rating Definition Note

Exceptional

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.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good

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

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

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.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

Marginal

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.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A

Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory

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.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government.

A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An

Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Levels

Methods of Calculation

Surveillance

Results/Ratings

Deliverables are submitted on time and the Contractor manages performance of the overall requirement in accordance with the Project Schedule.

Contractor ensures performance of all tasks meet the requirements of the

PWS.

Target Criteria:

Deliverables contain required information and are delivered on time at least 90% of the time.

Revisions that occur are minor and are resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Schedules and provided implementation plans are accurate 95% of the time. Issues that occur are minor and are resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Minimum Acceptable:

Deliverables contain required information and are delivered on time at least 85% of the time.

Schedules and provided implementation plans are accurate 85% of the time.

Calculation:

Deliverables provided by the due dates specified in the PWS and contain the required information are considered on time.

Deliverables provided after the due dates are considered late.

Accuracy of schedules and implementation plans measured against actual milestone completion dates.

Measurement Interval:

The Measurement Interval is monthly.

Measurement Period:

The Measurement Period begins at start of contract and ends at contract end period of performance.

Source of Measurement Data:

Receipt of Deliverables by specified recipients in Delivery Schedule table in Section 11 of TO.

Method of Surveillance:

Random sampling of deliverables, schedules, and implementation plans

Timing of Measurement:

Measurements are taken within thirty (30) days of the end of the Measurement Period.

Reporting Frequency:

Reporting to commence upon Contract Award and continue throughout the Period of Performance.

Pass/Fail

Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER

NUMBER

2. CONTRACTOR 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE

5. COR PHONE 6. SUSPENSE DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT

APPLY)

NEW

REPEAT

NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM

REVIEWED

9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF DEFICIENCY

BOX WAS CHECKED)

10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CONCUR

NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION

DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON

FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. CONCUR NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

Appendix 3 – Customer Complaint Record

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING

NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

Appendix 4 – Corrective Action Report

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY MAJOR MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

ACCEPTED REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE