5._Attch_5 _Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.doc

Attachment 3

Certificate of Service (sample)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

GROUND-based ELECTRO-OPTICAL

DEEP SPACE SURVEILLANCE (GEODSS)

FA2517-15-C-XXXX

AT

Detachment 1 White Sands Missile Range, NM Detachment 2 Diego Garcia, BIOT

Detachment 3 Maui, HI Revision 0, Effective 01 Oct 2015

The following members of the MFT have signed this plan to represent all MFT members:

_____________________Date:______

_____________________Date:______ Quality Assurance Manager

Contracting Officer

21 SW/PMD

21 CONS/LGCZB

_____________________Date:______

_____________________Date:______

Functional Commander Program Manager

21 OSS/CC

21 SW/PMD

CHANGE CONTROL SUMMARY

Change. A change administrative in nature does not require the plan to be re-staffed. Changes removing or adding items periodically assessed, affecting items assessed in frequency of assessment or thresholds, and affecting roles of Multi-Functional Team (MFT) members must be re-staffed for signatures. Consolidate changes when possible and identify as Change 1, Change 2, etc. Include a summary of the changes incorporated in the change table. Ensure change bars have been inserted.

Revision. A revision should be used to conform all changes into a new basic document with a new basic date. It should be used to clean up the document when it begins to become ambiguous with too many changes. It is the MFT’s decision when to revise the plan. Number the revision and include a summary of the revisions in the change table. Remove all change bars when the document is revised since the revised document takes all previous changes into account. Do not remove changes from the change table when the plan is revised since they may lend important historical value to the plan.

Table of Contents

Contracted Services

1.2.

ATTACHMENTS

1. OVERVIEW

1.1. The Quality Assessment Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) an effective and systematic assessment method while defining the roles and responsibilities of the Multi-Functional Team (MFT) using a team concept.

1.2. Contracted Services. The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the three GEODSS Detachments located at 21 OG Detachment 1 White Sands, NM, Detachment 2 Diego Garcia, BIOT and Detachment 3 Maui, HI.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (Not limited to)

2.1. Multi-Functional Team (MFT). The goal of the MFT is to give all members/ stakeholders the ability to maintain the highest quality representative services to our customers and propose/initiate improvements through the life of the contract. Under this concept, continual contract assessment will be focused on ensuring the contract, as written, continues to meet the needs of the customer.

2.1.1. The MFT should strive to achieve efficiencies in the contract performance and improve customer support. The goal of the team is to define the requirement in performance-based terms, assure contractor compliance with contract requirements and ensure the contract as written continues to meet the needs of the functional organization. The role entails planning, programming, and budgeting for adequate funds, ensuring program execution within the approved funding and to ensure the contract supports mission requirements within the approved scheduled baseline.

2.1.2. The MFT is responsible for effective contract assessment and management. Core MFT members for this contract are the Program Manager (PM), Contracting Officer (CO), Functional Commanders (FC), Contracting Officer’s Representatives (COR) and Quality Assurance Manager (QAM). The extended MFT consists of Core MFT members, the contractor and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from various functional areas covering all program service requirements. It may also include Legal, Small Business, Labor Relations, management and leadership of various organizations or any other functional experts such as Contract Performance Assessment Team (CPAT). Member participation is contingent upon contract issues requiring a particular MFT member’s participation.

2.1.2.1. General Duties and Responsibilities.

2.1.2.1.1. Evaluates contract performance and assessment in accordance with (IAW) this plan.

2.1.2.1.2. Develops and fosters partnerships and effective communications for the common goal of continuous improvement and success of the contract.

2.1.2.1.3. Identifies opportunities to improve performance throughout the life of the contract. This includes benchmarking against industry, identifying initiatives, assessing risk associated with these initiatives, using this plan for implementing initiatives and monitoring success of implementation.

2.1.2.1.4. Supports senior leadership by providing meaningful performance metrics, data reporting, briefings and early warning of significant variances in cost, schedule or performance.

2.1.2.1.5. Develops Performance Objectives (PO) and Assessment Items (AI) identifying mission critical or operationally vital Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements requiring periodic evaluation by the COR.

2.1.2.1.6. Develops, implements, and maintains the QASP. This plan is signed by the PM, CO, QAM, and FC. Conducts an annual review of this plan and implements changes to maintain effectiveness and meet mission requirements.

2.1.2.1.7. Reviews Performance Assessment Reports (PAR) with findings prior to issuing to the contractor.

2.2. Program Manager (PM).

2.2.1. Manages the program, ensuring performance management focuses on risk management and meets cost, schedule and performance baselines. Develops and implements a risk management plan. Plans, programs and advocates for adequate funding. Ensures program is executed within available funding.

2.2.2. Co-chairs the MFT, sharing leadership responsibility with the CO and prepares the minutes of the meetings. Tasks requiring interface with the contractors are led by the CO, and tasks requiring interface with the government are led by the PM. Coordinates with organizations to ensure MFT members are assigned or made available as needed.

2.2.3. Ensures documents developed by the MFT satisfy mission requirements and are as performance-based as possible and leads the MFT on the resolution of issues involving the application of prescriptive AFIs.

2.2.4. Serves as the Assessing Official for Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); collects inputs from the MFT and prepares the narrative.

2.2.5. Manages the PWS requirements and Document Change Request (DCR) process.

2.2.6. Ensures the program is within approved funding limits; co-develops Government Estimate for reacquisition with the MFT.

2.2.7. Acts as Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) Acceptor for all contractor invoices.

2.3. Contracting Officer (CO).

2.3.1. Ensures requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and its supplements are met. Ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interests of the government to include cost and property control. Ensures contractors receive impartial, fair and equitable treatment.

2.3.2. The CO is the only person with authority to direct the contractor, make interpretations on changes to the contract, and resolve disputes or conflicts with the contractor.

2.3.3. Designates authority for inspection and/or acceptance of service to the CORs, CPATs in writing. Issues termination of COR duties to CORs, and CPAT.

2.3.4. Informs the contractor of the names, duties, and limitations of authority for all personnel assigned to the contract.

2.3.5. Conducts contract specific training for CORs, CPAT and QAM.

2.3.6. Participates in the preparation and submission of annual execution reporting (AER).

2.3.7. Serves as the business advisor to the MFT. Reviews all PARs prior to issuance; serves as an issuant authority for PARs.

2.3.8. Co-chairs MFT meetings on all contractual issues.

2.3.9. Negotiates all requirement changes and contractor change proposals.

2.3.10. Active contributor to the AER and CPAR processes.

2.3.11. Performs at a minimum, annual Staff Assistance Visits (SAVs) on CORs and provides written results to the MFT.

2.4. Functional Commander (FC); COR Supervisor.

2.4.1. The FC is the first-level commander having functional responsibility for the contracted services. The FC retains the overall responsibility to ensure contracted services adequately support the organization’s mission.

2.4.2. Nominates CORs using the COR Nomination Memorandum, affirms all information, and assumes responsibilities contained within the memorandum. When nominating CORs, the FC understands the primary responsibility of any COR is to fulfill quality assurance duties and will ensure all CORs will be afforded necessary resources (time, opportunity, supplies, and equipment) to perform assigned/designated COR duties.

2.4.3. Attends QAPC-provided local COR training.

2.4.4. Ensures CORs have completed required DAU courses (CLC 222, 107 and CLM 003) and contract specific training prior to assuming duties.

2.4.5. When the FC is not the COR’s direct supervisor, the FC will provide COR performance details to the direct supervisor. The COR’s direct supervisor will include the FC’s performance details as part of the COR’s annual performance appraisals.

2.4.6. Ensures CORs assess, document, and report the contractor’s performance IAW this plan and PWS requirements.

2.4.7. Stays current on changes that could require contract modifications. FC notifies the MFT of any AFI update/changes to applicable directives such as AFIs and T.O.s that may impact the PWS. This does not relieve the contractor of their responsibilities under the contract PWS.

2.4.8. Reviews COR-submitted monthly surveillance report for adverse performance trends. When applicable, coordinates with the CO to address problems/trends in contractor performance.

2.4.9. Coordinates the preparation and submits the monthly Certificate of Service (COS) to the CO and QAM NLT the 10th working day of each month to cover the previous month’s reporting.

2.5. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

2.5.1. Provides information necessary to assess actual or potential conflicts of interests and immediately notifies the CO if subsequent situations arise.

2.5.2. Stays current on changes that could require contract modifications, notifies the MFT of any AFI update/changes to applicable directives such as AFIs and T.O.s that may impact the PWS. This does not relieve the contractor of their responsibilities under the contract PWS.

2.5.3. Participates, as required, in requirements development/pre-award activities.

2.5.4. Reviews monthly assessments for adverse performance trends. When applicable, coordinates with the CO to address problems/trends in contractor performance.

2.5.5. Prepares and submits a monthly COS to the FC per Attachment 4, COS Generation Process to cover the previous month’s reporting.

2.5.6. Participates in MFT meetings and recommends updates to the PWS and this plan when needed. Initiate/review Document Change Requests (DCRs), as required.

2.5.7. Establishes and/or maintains a COR Performance Assessment Folder. Upon termination of COR designation, all files shall be turned over to subsequent assigned personnel. All documentation is part of the official contract file.

2.5.8. Remains abreast of changes in terms and conditions of the contract resulting from contract modifications.

2.5.9. Performs those duties/responsibilities designated by the CO in the CO’s Designation Letter.

2.5.10. Assesses, documents, and reports contractor’s performance IAW this plan. Assessments will be conducted and documented using the PAR form throughout the month. All assessments will be forwarded to the FC and CO monthly. In addition to assessing PO(s) and AI(s) COR(s) are encouraged to assess at least three additional PWS requirements monthly. COR(s) retain the right to inspect and test any service per FAR 52.246-4 Inspection of Services--Fixed-Price. (c) The Government has the right to inspect and test all services called for by the contract, to the extent practicable at all times and places during the term of the contract. The Government shall perform inspections and tests in a manner that will not unduly delay the work.

2.5.10.1. Develops, utilizes, and updates checklists as needed to maintain assessment effectiveness. Documents all assessments (PAR form) with enough detail to ensure understanding of the observation and how the contractor complied or did not comply with contract requirements.

2.5.10.2. Notifies the FC, CO, PM, and QAM as soon as possible when performance deficiencies are identified. When a discrepancy is suspected the COR will determine if the contractor has self-identified the discrepancy within the contractor’s quality process. If the contractor has not self-identified, the COR will promptly notify the site manager of the discrepancy and document the notification on the PAR. The COR will immediately forward the PAR form to the FC, CO, PM and QAM for review.

2.5.10.3. Prepares a PAR to accurately reflect and document contractor performance, forwards all PAR(s) to FC and CO monthly.

2.5.10.4. Issues PARs (with findings) after core MFT approved.

2.5.10.5. Analyzes contractor response to PARs with Findings for adequacy of the root cause, corrective actions, and actions taken to prevent recurrence. Perform follow-up assessment as needed.

2.5.11. Participates in MFT meetings and recommends updates to the PWS and this plan when needed. Initiates/Reviews Document Change Requests (DCRs) as required.

2.6. Contract Performance Assessment Team (CPAT).

2.6.1. Assesses documents and reports on contractor’s performance IAW the PWS.

2.6.1.1. Notifies the QAM of any significant performance deficiencies and evaluates adequacy of corrective action plans.

2.6.2. Identifies new or changing requirements affecting the contract/sites and assists with site issues.

2.6.3. Coordinates with QAM on performance assessment audit reports.

2.7. Quality Assurance Manager (QAM).

2.7.1. Reviews CORs’ reports for completeness/accomplishment.

2.7.2. Advises CORs on effective quality assurance practices. Assists when needed in resolving issues associated with contractor assessment.

2.7.3. Assists in identification of critical Performance Objectives (POs) from the PWS Service Summary (SS) items. The POs from the SS are then included in this plan.

2.7.4. Assists in identification of other non-critical PWS requirements needing periodic assessment. Assessment Items (AI) are developed to ensure compliance in functional areas not covered as a PO.

2.7.5. Leads the MFT in development of this plan and ensures an annual review is conducted.

2.7.6. Reviews PAR with findings with the MFT prior to PAR issuance to the contractor. Ensures PAR with finding is well stated, accurate, and effective to convey the full scope of the nonconformity to the contractor and assists the CO and COR in review of contractor responses to PARs with finding.

2.7.7. Issuing authority for PAR with findings.

2.7.8. Participates in CO contract-specific training; provides CORs specific details of this plan.

2.7.9. Plans, leads, and executes performance assessment audits utilizing CPATs as part of the assessment team; provides a written audit assessment report to the MFT.

2.7.10. Whenever the CO is unable to travel, performs a minimum, annual Staff Assistance Visits (SAVs) on CORs and provides written results to the MFT.

2.7.11. Reviews the contractor’s quality program to determine the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the program to ensure adherence to all aspects of contract requirements.

2.8. Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC) (not limited to)

2.8.1. Act as the liaison between the contracting to provide training and record keeping per the 21 CONS-21 SW/PMD MOA.

2.8.2. Develop and maintain curriculum to train 21 SW and applicable mission partners Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs).

2.9. Quality Manager (QM)

2.9.1. Manages the 21st Space Wing’s Contract Quality Assurance Program including Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) development, implementation, and performance assessment activities.

2.9.2. Functions as the primary focal point for all quality related issues or concerns.

2.9.3. Selects and ensures implementation of quality auditing techniques and procedures for contract performance assessment evaluation teams.

2.9.4. Advises MFT and its customers of the appropriate methods and measures of performance assessment for contracted services.

2.9.5. Stays abreast of changing philosophies, techniques and procedures for quality assurance and informs QAMs and MFTs of the changes.

2.9.6. Conducts COR Staff Assistance Visits (SAV), as needed.

3. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

3.1. Strategy. To rely to the maximum extent on the contractor’s quality efforts in ensuring PWS requirements are met (with QAM periodic validation of the contractor quality system). CORs will assess the contractor’s performance in a manner to sufficiently validate delivery of services and gain confidence in the contractor’s performance.

3.2. Assessment Methods. A number of assessment methods exist. The selection of the assessment method is dependent on the characteristics of the item to be assessed. In limited cases, 100 percent inspections may be used but a sampling of services on a periodic basis may be sufficient based on criticality of the requirement and contractor past performance.

3.2.2. Use of Metrics. Contract performance data should be used to the maximum extent to document and report contractor success or failure in meeting contract requirements. If contractor generated metrics are used, the COR must validate the accuracy of the metrics.

3.2.3. Analyzing Trends. CORs should analyze performance assessment data for performance trends. The trending data should be used in subsequent reporting of contract performance.

3.2.4. External Assessments. External assessments are accomplished by entities outside of the MFT such as Environmental-Safety-Occupational Health Compliance Assessment Management Program, Air Force or Defense Contract Management Agency audits, Airfield Traffic Safety Evaluation Program, etc. External assessment reports should be provided to the MFT and included in the COS. CORs will validate external assessment reports against PWS requirements to determine contractual nonconformance. PARs with Findings may be issued for deficiencies identified when within the scope of the PWS contract.

3.3. Performance Objectives (PO) and Assessment Items (AI). POs and AIs identify the minimum performance assessments required by the COR.

3.3.1. POs mirror the Services Summary (SS) in the PWS. The MFT may develop AIs to reasonably ensure compliance in functional areas not covered in the POs. Each PO or AI has a corresponding performance threshold; the minimum acceptable performance level. Each PO and AI also contains a method of assessment for the COR to use, the minimum frequency to accomplish the assessments and the COR responsible to perform the assessment.

3.3.2. The government maintains the right to assess all contract requirements to the extent practicable but will make every attempt not to delay the contractor's workflow. All assessments of the contractor must be documented and reported. Assessments will be conducted and documented throughout the month.

3.4. Performance Assessment Report (PAR). The PAR is used to document contractor assessments. PAR Section I is used to document assessment results. PAR Section II is used to document nonconformities (findings) identified during the assessment documented in Section I and forwarded to the contractor for response. When a PAR Section II is used to document nonconformity, it is known as a PAR with Finding. The COR will utilize the PAR to document all contractor assessments/ observations. If an assessment results in a non-conformance, these reports will be sent to the QAM and or MFT for review before issuing to the contractor. The COR will promptly notify the site manager of the discrepancy and document the notification on the PAR.

3.5. Types of Nonconformities. There are two types of nonconformities, contractor identified or Government identified.

3.5.1. Contractor-Identified Nonconformities. CORs will review contractor-identified nonconformities to ensure corrective measures were successfully implemented with all necessary actions taken to prevent recurrence. If documentation exists to substantiate the contractor has identified the deficiency and timely corrective action is being taken to correct the deficiency, the deficiency may be excused from a PAR with Finding. If the nonconformity has not yet been resolved but the contractor has established a timely estimated completion date (ECD) for correction and resolution, CORs will monitor the contractor’s resolution efforts until the nonconformity has been corrected.

3.5.1.1. A PAR with Finding for contractor-identified nonconformities are considered if:

a. The deficiency is identified in the Service Summary.

b. The deficiency is an identified repeat nonconformity.

c. The contractor fails to follow through with an effective corrective action.

3.5.2. Government/COR-Identified Nonconformities. Nonconformities shall be documented upon discovery on a PAR with Finding. The PAR with Finding must be reviewed by the core MFT prior to issuance to the contractor. Upon completion of the MFT review, the PAR is issued to the contractor with instructions on when and how to reply. When the contractor’s reply is received and deemed to be acceptable by the MFT, the COR will then monitor corrective action until completed. Track PAR status in the monthly COS until the contractor’s response is accepted and the PAR is closed.

3.5.2.1. When considering a PAR with Finding, the COR should allow for re-performance prior to determining if the PAR is warranted.

3.5.2.2. Investigate to determine if the contractor has self-identified the nonconformity within their quality system.

3.5.2.3. FC, COR, QAM, and CO are PAR-issuing officials. However, a PAR cannot be issued without concurrence of the core MFT. If agreement cannot be obtained by all MFT members, the CO has final authority as to whether a PAR with Finding will be issued.

3.6. Performance Assessment File. CORs maintain and add to existing Performance Assessment File(s) for their area(s) of responsibility. Multiple CORs on the same contract should share common documents for increased efficiency. The performance assessment file should be electronic and paperless to the maximum extent practicable. These files shall be passed on to the subsequent COR appointed to the contract and shall be retained as part of the official contract file. The file must contain:

Section 1 - Contract Documents: Includes the PWS and Attachments.

Section 2 - Quality Documents: Includes the QASP and the Contractor’s Quality Control/Program Plan.

Section 3 - Reserved Section 4 - Nomination and Designation Letters/Training Certificates: COR’s supervisor nomination letter, training certificates, and CO designation letter.

Section 5 - Records: Includes PAR, COS for contract requirements assessed as well as any other pertinent records.

Section 6 - Other Items (Optional): Optional use for any other records or data pertinent to this contract.

3.7. Performance Assessment Types

3.7.1. COR and QAM Assessment. CORs assess and document POs, AIs, and other PWS requirements. The QAM and CORs will use performance requirements data to gauge the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality system. QAMs are focused on the overall quality system ensuring the contractor’s processes are effective and comply with PWS requirements. Assessment results are documented and efforts should be made to evaluate all PWS requirements throughout the life of the contract.

3.7.2. Contractor Self-Assessments. The contractor assesses their own performance IAW their quality system requirements and maintains documentation of the results IAW the PWS and their quality plan. The contractor may generate contractor-identified nonconformities and devise corrections and subsequent actions to prevent recurrence.

3.7.3. CPAT. Assesses performance as part of the GSU Audit or support teams. The audit team headed by the QAM will use a narrative report as documentation of audit results. The narrative report is generated by the team through the QAM. The QAM will use performance requirements data to gauge the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality system.

3.7.4. External Assessments. The site COR will review external party assessment reports to validate performance against PWS requirements. Validated results will be included in the monthly COS. The COR will use performance requirements data to gauge the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality system.

4. Managing ContractOR Performance

4.1. Approach. To ensure the contractor meets cost, schedule, and performance requirements.

4.1.1. MFT Meetings. The MFT meets monthly to review on-going issues, special projects and cost and performance data. Minutes of meetings are recorded and distributed to applicable MFT members for review before finalization.

5. Reporting Performance Results

5.1. PARs The COR will utilize the PAR to document all contractor assessments/observations. If an assessment results in a non-conformance, these reports will be sent to the QAM and or MFT for review before issuing to the contractor. The COR will promptly notify the site manager of the discrepancy and document the notification on the PAR.

5.1. Certificate of Service (COS). CORs report all performance assessment results in a monthly COS to the FC, QAM, PM, and CO. Performance results identified in the COS certifies services provided by the contractor were accepted by the government. Accuracy and completeness of each COSs is critical.

5.2. Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). The CPAR is an annual report of contractor performance. It is based on the twelve monthly COSs (at each site) CPARs are used to provide past performance information to source selection teams for consideration in other acquisitions, therefore, accuracy, completeness, and ratings within the CPAR are critical.

6. Assessment Records. Maintained in the performance assessment folder, for the life of the contract. All assessments (PAR forms) will be forwarded to the CO monthly, for inclusion in the contract file The CO may specify a periodic transfer of these records to the contracting office for inclusion into the official file. CORs must contact the CO for the final disposition instructions upon contract completion.

Performance Objectives

Frequency:

Monthly

Evaluator:

COR

PO 1: Chapter 2- Space Object Identification (SOI) Tasking’s PWS paragraph 2.1.2.2

Complete 100 percent of SOI-tasked objects for the month.

Performance Threshold:

100 percent of SOI-tasked objects.

Assessment Method:

Percentage of SOI tasking collected shall be calculated as follows:

Complete 100 percent of SOI taskings each month. Objects that never rise 15 degrees above the site’s horizon will not be counted as tasked objects. Objects tasked that are missed and are not above 30 degrees elevation, and/or not between 15,000 and 50,000 kilometers, and/or with a sun angle of above 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees out of earth shadow, will be candidates for removal of tasking for negative acquisition. Note: If an object is never visible to the site due to weather when it is above 15 degrees elevation, it will not count as a tasked SOI object for this PO.

Document assessment results on PAR and file in assessment folder.

Frequency:

Monthly

Evaluator:

COR

PO 2: Sensor Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc) by site PWS paragraph 2.1.7.1.

Acc Calculation: Maintain an overall sensor Acc each calendar month of not less than 99% to meet mission operational requirements defined in SD 505-1(S) Vol I and II. See Section 2, GEODSS Service Summary. Acc is expressed as a percentage and represents that portion of time the system is performing its assigned mission based on the Contractor liable downtime (CLD) relative to a specified operating time. The Acc is calculated on a monthly basis as follows:

Acc = Active Minutes – CLD Downtime

Active Minutes

Performance Threshold:

Maintain an overall sensor Acc each calendar month of not less than 99% to meet mission operational requirements.

Assessment Method:

The Acc is calculated on a monthly basis as follows:

Acc = Active Minutes – CLD Downtime

Active Minutes

Document assessment results on PAR and file in assessment folder.

Performance Objectives

Frequency:

Monthly

Evaluator:

COR

PO 3 : IMDS Data Entries.

PWS paragraph 4.2.4.1

Accurately input all MDC data into IMDS in a near real-time basis

Performance Threshold:

MDC data will be entered into IMDS with 95% initial accuracy, 98% accuracy within 72 hours and 100% accuracy within 5 days

Assessment Method:

21 OSS Maintenance Data System Analyst (MDSA) and 21 OSS site support will review IMDS Maintenance Action Review Reports daily for data accuracy.

Errors will be identified and emailed to site contractor for correction. Corrections must be made with 5 days. Job Data Documentation error reports will be sent out weekly and monthly containing the initial error rate and correction rate.

Document assessment results on PAR and file in Assessment folder

Frequency:

Monthly

Evaluator:

COR

PO 4: TMDE.

PWS paragraph 5.0

Maintain a TMDE program that ensures all TMDE is available when needed, and is repaired, calibrated, and certified.

Performance Threshold:

No missed TMDE inspections

Assessment Method:

Review the Schedule Forecast Report provided by the PMEL lab and ensure all equipment due for calibration has been shipped to the lab.

Document assessment results on PAR and file in assessment folder

Frequency:

Monthly

Evaluator:

COR

PO 5: Chapter 7 - Communications Security (COMSEC PWS paragraph 7.3.3;

Manage, control, protect and safeguard COMSEC material, equipment and accounts. Coordinate requirements with issueing COMSEC Manager

Performance Threshold:

No COMSEC findings

Assessment Method:

Review COMSEC self-inspection documents maintained by the Contractor’s IAW AFI 33-201, Vol 2. Verify the contractor complies with host issuing COMSEC manager procedures and verify COMSEC inspections and self-inspections are completed with no findings.

Document assessment results on PAR and file in assessment folder

Performance Objectives

Frequency: Monthly Evaluator:

COR

PO 6: Industrial/Information Security.

PWS paragraph 11.1

Perform industrial security functions and actions IAW the DD Form 254; DoD 5220.22-M; and DoD 5220.22-R to ensure zero security incidents.

Performance Threshold:

Zero security incidents

Assessment Method:

Verify the contractor complies with National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). DoD 5220.00-M, NISPOMSUP and all applicable security directives established at the site.

a. Examine the contractor’s security policies and practices to ensure they are integrated with those of the installation.

b. Monitor contractor’s policies, procedures, and responsibilities governing access to and accountability of classified material, classified material storage, transmission of classified material, disposition of classified material (including destruction), security education, visit request/certification of security clearances, end-of-day security checks of work areas, emergency destruction and protection requirements, industrial and information security inspection, and investigation of security incidents.

c. Monitor the contractor to ensure that they provide escorts for contractor sponsored individuals.

d. Audit records to ensure the contractor conducts physical security indoctrination and annual refresher training.

e. Ensure the contractor appoints a security representative who is knowledgeable and capable of administering the Industrial Security Program.

Assessment Item(s)

Frequency:

Monthly

Evaluator:

COR

AI 1: Equipment Status Reporting (ESR).

PWS paragraph 2.4.3

Ensure equipment status updates are entered into the IMDS ESR subsystem.

Performance Threshold:

In accordance with AFI21-103 paragraph 6.4.5.2 Report equipment status and inventory changes as quickly as possible after each event and process changes in accordance with AFCSM 21-560.

Assessment Method:

Review IMDS ESRs weekly to verify entries are input into IMDS as the status changes. If any ESR contains errors, the contractor and COR will determine fault.

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

For Check Blocks, enable and lock Forms Toolbar

Section I. Performance Assessment

Minor Nonconformity Major Nonconformity

7. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT—DESCRIBE CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

Section II. Nonconformities Identified

13. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FINDING (Include PWS reference narrative)

14. FINDING IMPACT

15. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRACTOR: If a suspense date is entered in block 12, respond with a corrective action plan, Detail the corrective action of the cited nonconformity, the root cause of the nonconformity, and actions taken to prevent recurrence. If date was not entered in Block 12, the Contractor is not required to provide a response.

16. COR ASSESSMENT TO CONTRACTOR’S ACTION PLAN

Accepted Rejected

Continuation Sheet

INSTRUCTIONS. The PAR is used to document contract performance assessments, to report nonconformities to the contractor and to request correction actions taken by the contractor to prevent recurrence. Instructions are included for blocks not self-explanatory.

SECTION I - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. Use to document assessments of contractor performance with PWS requirements. At a minimum, document assessments of Performance Objectives (PO) and Assessment Items (AI) from the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

Block 4, Finding Category: Check one block only.

No Finding: Performance meets PWS requirements.

Major Finding: A conclusion identifies a condition has a significant adverse effect on the quality of the activity under review such as:

1. Failure to meet a Performance Threshold.

2. Significant mission degradation in any Contractor operated function.

3. A situation is likely to result in hazardous or unsafe conditions for individuals (or any other government resource) coming into contact with the work.

4. Failure to provide adequate corrective action to prevent reoccurrence of government identified findings.

5. Failure of the contractor to provide corrective action to self identified nonconformities within a reasonable time frame dependent on deficiency complexity.

6. Any failure to adhere to security regulations resulting in a security incident.

Minor Finding: A departure from established standards having little bearing on service provided. If the same minor finding is repeatedly identified, it may be an indication of problem with the Contractor’s quality system. This would indicate a trend in performance and action has not prevented recurrence. In this case, the Minor Finding may be elevated to the level of a Major Finding and a new PAR initiated.

Block 5, Contract Requirement: Identify contract requirement, i.e., Civil Engineering.

Block 7, Performance Assessment: Enter the particular details and results of the assessment. Detailed results of assessments are required to report and manage contract performance. When possible, avoid Pass/Fail descriptions of contract performance.

SECTION II - NONCONFORMITIES IDENTIFIED. Used to document nonc1onformities identified during an assessment. Section II is used to notify the contractor of the finding and request corrective action.

Block 10, Control Number: Assigned by the issuing authority. Track all findings with a Control Number containing the first two letters of the name of the site - the last two digits of the fiscal year - and a three digit number starting with 001 and progressing upward through the fiscal year. For example, the 1st PAR finding for Peterson for FY10 is: PE-10-001. When the QAM issues a PAR with Findings, the QAM will use the same format and add a “Q” designator after the last two digits of the fiscal year. For example, PE-10Q-001.

Block 11, Issuing Authority Name/Grade: Enter the name and grade of the person issuing the PAR. The issuing authorities for a PAR with Finding are the FC, CO, QAM and COR (when delegated by the FC in writing). Prior to issuing a PAR with Finding Issuing Authority must get MFT Concurrence.

Block 12, Suspense Date: Enter the date the response is due from the contractor for the cited nonconformity. Normally, this is two calendar weeks unless extenuating circumstances exist. The response suspense date is for initial response from the contractor and not necessarily the complete corrective action plan.

Block 13, Brief Description of the Finding (Include PWS reference): Clearly and briefly, state the details of the finding including the PWS reference and quote. For example:

PWS para 3.4 reads: “The contractor shall maintain an MSDS in the work area for all hazardous materials used in the work center.” The contractor did not have the MSDS for “Simple Green” in the building 100 work area.

Block 14, Finding Impact: Enter the impact the finding has, or could reasonably have, on mission accomplishment.

Block 16, COR Assessment to Contractor’s Action Plan: Indicate if the contractor has corrected the nonconformity and if the preventive actions appear to be sufficient to prevent recurrence. In some cases, an action plan may need to be monitored for a period of time to determine its effectiveness. Include this information in this block.

PAR Continuation Sheet. The PAR continuation sheet may be used to expand upon information in Section I or II. The continuation sheet may also be used to document recurring assessments during the contract year. For example, if the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan requires the COR to assess a certain PWS requirement every 30 days, a table of those checks could be developed and inserted into the continuation sheet. This allows the COR to have only one PAR per year generated for each recurring assessment requirement. If a deficiency is identified, complete a separate PAR for that particular finding.

For Example:

PWS Reference

Assessment Sample (with Findings)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

For Check Blocks, enable and lock Forms Toolbar

Section I. Performance Assessment

Minor Nonconformity Major Nonconformity

7. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT—DESCRIBE CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

Reviewed 36 of 75 IMDS data entries from the period 1 Nov 12 thru 1 May XX. Of the 36 entries reviewed 35 were incomplete and reflect major errors. Performance of this PWS requirement is not acceptable.

Mr. Jim Richey, GS11

15 May 2013

Section II. Nonconformities Identified

DG-15-002

DG=location

15=FY

02=Sequence # of PAR issued

13. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FINDING (Include PWS reference narrative)

(PWS 4.2.4.1) Contractor failed to enter MDC data into IMDS with 95% initial accuracy, 98% accuracy within 72 hours and 100% accuracy within 5 days

14. FINDING IMPACT

Failure to properly record maintenance actions in IMDS creates inaccurate record of system health, without accurate records the Government may realize unnecessary maintenance costs or fail to program system replacement.

15. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRACTOR: If a suspense date is entered in block 12, respond with a corrective action plan, Detail the corrective action of the cited nonconformity, the root cause of the nonconformity, and actions taken to prevent recurrence. If date was not entered in Block 12, the Contractor is not required to provide a response.

16. COR ASSESSMENT TO CONTRACTOR’S ACTION PLAN

Accepted

Continuation Sheet

Assessment Sample (No Findings)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

For Check Blocks, enable and lock Forms Toolbar

Section I. Performance Assessment

Minor Nonconformity Major Nonconformity

7. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT—DESCRIBE CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

Reviewed 36 of 75 IMDS data entries from the period 1 Nov 12 thru 1 May 13. Of the 36 entries reviewed 35 were complete with no errors, the error on the remaining entry was minor and corrected on the spot. Performance of this PWS requirement is acceptable.

Mr. Jim Richey, GS11

15 May 2015

Section II. Nonconformities Identified

13. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FINDING (Include PWS reference narrative)

14. FINDING IMPACT

15. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRACTOR: If a suspense date is entered in block 12, respond with a corrective action plan, Detail the corrective action of the cited nonconformity, the root cause of the nonconformity, and actions taken to prevent recurrence. If date was not entered in Block 12, the Contractor is not required to provide a response.

16. COR ASSESSMENT TO CONTRACTOR’S ACTION PLAN

Accepted

Continuation Sheet

MEMORANDUM FOR:

FROM:

SUBJECT: FA2517-15-C-XXXX, Certificate of Service for November 2015.

1. The following is provided for your information/action regarding subject contract. Services for this month were/were not acceptable.

PO #1, Monthly:

Space Object Identification (SOI) Taskings

PWS paragraph 2.1.2.2 Complete 100 percent of SOI-tasked objects for the month

Acc %

Met or Didn’t Meet

Det 1

Det 2

Det 3

PO #2, Monthly:

Sensor Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc) by site

PWS paragraph 2.1.7.1.

Maintain an overall sensor Acc each calendar month of not less than 99% to meet mission operational requirements

SOI %

Met or Didn’t Meet

Det 1

PO #3, Monthly:

IMDS Data Entries.

PWS paragraph 4.2.4.1 Accurately input all MDC data into IMDS in a near real-time basis

SOI %

Met or Didn’t Meet

Det 1

PO 4, Monthly:

TMDE.

PWS paragraph 5.0 Maintain a TMDE program that ensures all TMDE is available when needed, and is repaired, calibrated, and certified.

SOI %

Met or Didn’t Meet

Det 1

PO #5, Monthly:

Communications Security (COMSEC

PWS paragraph 7.3.3 Manage, control, protect and safeguard COMSEC material, equipment and accounts. Coordinate requirements with issuing COMSEC Manager

SOI %

Met or Didn’t Meet

Det 1

PO #6, Monthly:

Industrial/Information Security.

PWS paragraph 11.1 Perform industrial security functions and actions IAW the DD Form 254; DoD 5220.22-M; and DoD 5220.22-R to ensure zero security incidents.

SOI %

Met or Didn’t Meet

Det 1

AI 1: Equipment Status Reporting (ESR).

PWS paragraph 2.4.3 Ensure equipment status updates are entered into the IMDS ESR subsystem.

In accordance with AFI21-103 paragraph 6.4.5.2

Report equipment status and inventory changes as quickly as possible after each event and process changes in accordance with AFCSM 21-560.

Site

SOI %

Met or Didn’t Meet

Det 1

A. Quality of Product/Service The contractor met/ did not meet all performance objectives for this month. (If the contractor did not meet one of the service summary items describe why)

Det 2: SOI tasking was not met due to weather conditions at site 2. Site 2 was OPSCAP Red for weather 25 days and OPSCAP Yellow for the remainder during September. A non-conformance PAR was not issued to the contractor as weather is an excusable condition.

Performance Assessment Report Issued: None

Other Observed Deficiencies: None Det 1 - Det/CC reviewed the IA e-file with Det 1’s Site Manager. The Site Manager provided a list of IA completed training dates for all contractor personnel. The Det/CC requested to see two IA certificates to conduct a spot check and verify the accuracy of the training list. One of the two certificates requested was out of date. The Site Manager called the operator whose certificate was out of date, and the operator was able to provide the current year’s certificate and the issue was corrected on the spot. Additionally, there was no IA certificate on file for the new Ops Supervisor. The Ops Supervisor was present for the inspection and said his training is complete and he will file his IA certificate in the e-file.

Over and Above Initiatives: None

B. Schedule The contractor tracked all tasked objects for this month.

Other Observed Deficiencies: None

Over and Above Initiatives: None

C. Business Relations The contractor worked with depot to resolve a TO issued. This resulted in clear guidance on how the system should be maintained in the future.

Other Observed Deficiencies: None

Over and Above Initiatives: None

D. Management of Key Personnel Other Observed Deficiencies: None Det 2 - The contractor is currently staffed at 60%, 7 out of 13 employees are currently performing the contract requirements at Diego Garcia. The primary mission is being accomplished even with the manning shortage at Det 2. However, secondary tasks and additional duties are starting to fall behind.

Over and Above Initiatives: None E. Overall Comments and Evaluation The contractor is meeting the requirements of the contract. The Det CC’s have identified minor discrepancies during their assessment that have not resulted in non-conformance. The contractor corrected these discrepancies on the spot or have opened an AR under their quality program.

2. Please direct any questions to the undersigned at commercial (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

Signature

FUNCTIONAL COMMANDER

cc:

21 SW/PMD (PM’s Name) 21 SW/PMD (QAM’s Name)

21 CONS/LGCZB (CO’s Name)

All GEODSS Detachment Commanders (CORs)

New Company Name By 4th working day of the month

1.

Each Det CC/COR submits a draft site COS to the CO, PM and QAM per Attachment 3. NOTE: The draft COS(s) is not provided to any contractor personnel.

By 6th working day of the month

2.

The CO, PM and QAM reviews each draft site COS and returns to each Det CC/COR. The Det CC/COR edits, and forwards to the FC for signature.

By 10th working day of the month

3.

FC reviews, provides comments, if any, into Section III, signs upon concurrence, and routes the signed COS to the Det CC/COR, CO, PM and QAS. The CO will place a copy of the COS in the contract file.

COS Generation Timeline

4th working day draft COS to the CO, PM and QAM

6th working day

CO, PM and QAM review draft COS and returns to Det CC/COR.

Det CC/COR edits, and forwards to the FC for signature.

10th working day

FC reviews, signs upon concurrence, and routes the signed COS to the Det CC/COR, CO, PM and QAM.