8._Attch_8,_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Solid State Phased Array Radar System (SSPARS) Solicitation # FA2517-15-R-8001 7 April 2017

Located at:

Cape Cod Air Force Station, Massachusetts Beale Air Force Base, California Thule Air Base, Greenland Clear Air Force Station, Alaska Royal Air Force Fylingdales, United Kingdom

CHANGE CONTROL SUMMARY

Change. A change that is administrative in nature does not require the plan to be re-staffed. Changes may include removing or adding items periodically assessed, frequency of assessment or thresholds, and roles of Multi-Functional Team (MFT) members. 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 will be used to consolidate 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 Quality Assurance Manager’s (QAM) 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 (TOC)

ATTACHMENTS

1. OVERVIEW

1.1. Purpose. The Quality Assurance 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).

1.2. Contracted Services. To operate, maintain and support the Solid State Phased Array Radar System (SSPARS). These services provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week operation for the sites located at Cape Cod AFS, MA; Beale AFB, CA; Thule AB, GL; Clear AFS, AK; and sensitive communications facilities at RAF Fylingdales, UK.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (Not limited to)

2.1. Multi-Functional Team (MFT). A team of stakeholders responsible for a service acquisition. The MFT is a customer-focused team instituted under the authority of senior leadership and responsible for assessing contractor performance and managing the requirement over the life of the contract. The goal is to develop, implement and execute a performance management assessment program that satisfies mission requirements, fosters innovation, and includes defined metrics.

2.1.1. The goal of the MFT is to define the requirement in performance-based terms, ensure contractor compliance with contract requirements and ensure the contract as written continues to meet the overall mission needs. 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. Core MFT members for this contract are the Program Manager (PM), Contracting Officer (CO), Contracting Specialist (CS) and Quality Assurance Manager (QAM). The full MFT consists of Core MFT members, Functional Commanders (FC), Contracting Officer’s Representatives (COR), the contractor and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from various functional areas covering all program service requirements as needed. Membership may also include Legal, Small Business, Labor Relations, management and leadership of various organizations or any other functional experts such as Mobile Contracting Officer’s Representative (MCOR), for whom the MFT has a need. Member participation is contingent upon contract issues requiring a particular MFT member’s participation.

2.1.2.1. MFT Members General Duties and Responsibilities. Specific MFT member duties are defined in paragraphs 2.2 through 2.9.

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

2.1.2.1.2. Develop and foster partnerships and effective communications for the common goal of continuous improvement and success of the contract.

2.1.2.1.3. Identify 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. Support 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. Led by the QAM develop Performance Objectives (PO) and Assessment Items (AI) identifying mission critical or operationally vital Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements requiring periodic COR evaluation.

2.1.2.1.6. Led by the QAM develop, implement, and maintain the QASP. This plan is signed by the PM, CO, QAM, and FCs. During an annual review or as needed, the team will implement changes to maintain effectiveness and meet mission requirements.

2.1.2.1.7. Review the PWS requirements on a periodic basis. Keep abreast of changes to customer requirements and how they may affect PWS requirements. Prepare documentation and advocate for funding/changes.

2.1.2.1.8. Ensure performance-based contract requirements are clearly stated and enforceable.

2.1.2.1.9. Review directives to include Air Force Instructions (AFIs)/Technical Orders (T.O. s) for updates/changes impacting the PWS.

2.2. Contracting Officer (CO).

2.2.1. Ensure 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. Participates in the preparation and submission of annual execution reporting.

2.2.2. 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.

2.2.3. Designate authority and termination for inspection and/or acceptance of service to all CORs in writing and in the CORT Tool.

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

2.2.5. Conduct contract-specific training for all those associated with contract management.

2.2.6. Advises the MFT on QASP development.

2.2.7. Serve as the business advisor to the MFT.

2.2.8. Review all PARs prior to issuance and serves as the issuing authority for PARs (reference paragraph 4.5.2.2). The CO has final authority as to whether a PAR with Finding will be issued.

2.2.9. Co-chair MFT meetings on all contractual issues.

2.2.10. Negotiate all requirement changes and formalizes them via a contract modification.

2.2.11. Active contributor to the Annual Execution Review (AER) and annual Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) processes.

2.3. Program Manager (PM).

2.3.1. Manage the program ensuring performance management focuses on risk management and meets cost, schedule and performance baselines. Develop and implement a risk management plan. Plan, program and advocate for adequate funding. Ensure program is executed within available funding.

2.3.2. Co-chair 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. Coordinate with organizations to ensure MFT members are assigned or made available as needed.

2.3.3. Ensure documents developed by the MFT satisfy mission requirements and are as performance based as possible. Lead the MFT on the resolution of issues involving the application of prescriptive AFIs.

2.3.4. Serve as the Assessing Official (AO) for the CPAR; collect inputs from the MFT and prepare the narrative.

2.3.5. Conduct scheduled Program Management Reviews (PMRs).

2.3.6. Prepare, submit, and brief the AER.

2.3.7. Manage the PWS requirements and Document Change Request (DCR) processes.

2.3.8. Participate in contract-specific training.

2.3.9. Act as Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) Acceptor for all contractor invoices.

2.4. Functional Commander (FC); COR Supervisor.

2.4.1. The FC is the on-site military unit commander with overall functional responsibility to ensure contracted services adequately support the organization’s mission.

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

2.4.3. Attend Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC) provided COR management training and contract-specific training.

2.4.4. Ensure CORs have completed required training prior to assuming duties as directed by the CO.

2.4.5. Ensure CORs are technically qualified or have reach back capabilities to functional experts to perform COR duties.

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

2.4.7. Ensure the contractor is made aware of any pending non-conformance investigations and notifies the core MFT.

2.4.8. Avoid working non-conformances through undocumented means such as verbal agreements to avoid any potential unauthorized acts or the appearance thereof. Ensure the proper use of the PAR Form (reference Attachment 2).

2.4.9. Stay current on mission changes that could require contract modifications. Notifies the MFT of any AFI update/changes to applicable directives such as AFIs and TOs with an impact to the PWS.

2.4.10. Reviews COR submitted monthly surveillance report for adverse performance trends. When applicable, coordinate with the CO to address problems/trends in contractor performance. Documentation of review is required.

2.4.11. Coordinates the preparation and submits the monthly Certificate of Service (COS) to the CO and QAM NLT the 15th workday of each month to cover the previous month’s reporting.

2.4.12. May delegate responsibilities to the SCOR.

2.5. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

2.5.1. When dealing with the contractor, the COR has the responsibility to monitor and document contractor performance IAW this plan, PWS and contract requirements.

2.5.2. Provide information necessary to assess actual or potential conflicts of interests and immediately notify the CO if subsequent situations arise.

2.5.3. Participate, as required, in requirements definitions activities.

2.5.4. Establish and/or maintain a COR Performance Assessment Folder. Upon termination of COR designation, all documents, shall be maintained on site. This documentation is part of the official contract file and will be maintained for continuing Quality Assurance (QA) assessments.

2.5.5. Remain abreast of changes in terms and conditions of the contract resulting from contract modifications.

2.5.6. Perform those duties/responsibilities designated by the CO in the CO’s Designation Letter.

2.5.7. Assess, document and report contractor’s performance IAW this plan and PWS requirements.

2.5.7.1. Develop, utilize and update checklists as needed to maintain assessment consistency and effectiveness. Document all assessments with enough detail to ensure others understand what was observed and how the contractor complied or did not comply with PWS requirements.

2.5.7.2. Notify the core MFT members when performance nonconformities are identified. As needed, a special MFT may include the participation of the FCs and CORs in the review of the nonconformities.

2.5.7.2.1. Prepare a PAR with Finding to accurately reflect and document contractor performance for core MFT review.

2.5.7.2.2. Provide PAR to the FC for issuance after core MFT and CO approval (reference paragraph 4.5.2.2).

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

2.5.8. Participate in MFT meetings and recommends updates to the PWS and this plan when needed. Initiate Document Change Requests (DCRs) as required.

2.5.9. May be required to prepare and submit a monthly COS to the FC with collected performance assessments data from the previous month. The COS is due NLT the 15th workday of the month. The COS format template is found in Attachment 3 with COS generation process found in Attachment 4.

2.6. Senior Contracting Officer Representative (SCOR).

(If assigned, includes duties identified in paragraphs 2.4, (with the exception of 2.4.1 and 2.4.2) and 2.5.)

2.6.1. Prepare and submit a monthly COS to the FC with performance data from each assessment area for the previous month for the FCs review and signature.

2.6.2. Serve as the focal point for COR performance assessment activities, documentation and reporting.

2.6.3. Provide assessment documentation to the core MFT.

2.6.4. Participate in MFT meetings.

2.7. Mobile Contracting Officer’s Representative (MCOR).

2.7.1. Assess documents and reports on contractor’s performance IAW the PWS.

2.7.1.1. Notify the QAM of any significant performance nonconformities and evaluate adequacy of corrective action plans.

2.7.3. Coordinate with QAM on performance assessment audit reports. Assess performance as part of the Contractor Performance Assessment Team (CPAT) or support teams. While performing as a member of any assessment team, MCORs will provide a daily brief to the QAM on results. The MCOR will provide a draft narrative report prior to the audit out brief.

2.8. Quality Assurance Manager (QAM).

2.8.1. Review COR’s reports for completeness/accomplishment.

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

2.8.3. Assist in identification of critical Performance Objectives (POs) other non-critical PWS requirements needing periodic assessment for inclusion in this QASP.

2.8.4. Lead the MFT in development of this plan and ensures an annual review is conducted.

2.8.5. Review PAR with Findings with CO 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. Assists the COR in the writing of the PAR prior to review with the CO; reviews the contractor responses to ensure corrective and preventive actions are acceptable.

2.8.6. Issuing authority for PAR with Findings (see paragraph 4.5.2.2.)

2.8.7. Participate in contract specific training; providing CORs specific details of this plan.

2.8.8. Plan, lead and execute CPAT Audits. Provide a written audit report to the FC.

2.8.9. Conduct Staff Assistance Visits (SAV) to assess CORs performance and compliance with the QASP. Provide results to the MFT.

2.8.10. Review the contractor’s quality program. Determine the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the program to ensure adherence to all aspects of contract requirements.

2.8.11. Administers the program electronically using the SharePoint website (https://cs3.eis.af.mil/sites/OO-SC-SP-98/default.aspx).

2.9. Contractor Performance Assessment Team (CPAT).

2.9.1. A team led by the QAM consisting of MCORs and any other SMEs as deemed necessary.

2.9.2. The CPAT will document audit results through the QAM. The QAM will use data and nonconformities discovered by these teams to trace back the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality system.

3. TRAINING. This is a training ‘Type B’ contract.

3.1. Training requirements Table. The following must be completed prior to COR designation:

SCOR

MCOR

http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/courses.aspx?crs_id=1731

SCOR

MCOR

http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/courses.aspx?crs_id=248

SCOR

MCOR

http://icatalog.dau.mil/onlinecatalog/courses.aspx?crs_id=422

SCOR

MCOR

DoD - http://ctip.defense.gov/Training/ContractingAcquisition.aspx

COR

SCOR

MCOR

SCOR

MCOR

3.2. COR Tracking (CORT) Tool. Instructions will be provided to each FC and COR during Contract Specific Training. The site FC is responsible for completing the nomination letter. Only the COR can load their training and nomination documents. Therefore, each COR is responsible for creating their profile and beginning the nomination process using the CORT Tool (https://wawf.eb.mil/). The CO will complete the nomination process by uploading the designation letter.

4. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

4.1. 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. The level of assessment is then adjusted to maintain confidence.

4.2. 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.

4.2.1. Collecting Customer Feedback. Customer Feedback Surveys are often used as a method of performance assessment on customer service contracts. CORs may establish customer feedback processes to allow customers to provide positive as well as negative feedback on the services being provided. Positive and negative customer feedback may be reported in the COS with substantiated performance excluding recognition of any individual.

4.2.1.1. Negative Customer Feedback. CORs must first validate negative customer feedback against PWS requirements. If negative feedback is discovered to be invalid, the COR will inform the customer of the reason(s) why it is not valid. If the comment is valid, the COR will notify the contractor to allow them a chance to provide additional input. If warranted, the COR prepares a PAR with Finding. The COR should provide feedback to the customer on the status of their comments.

4.2.1.2. Positive Customer Feedback. Positive customer feedback should be validated by CORs to ensure the feedback received is not simply a normal contract requirement. Once validated, positive feedback may be included in the COS excluding recognition of any individual.

4.2.2. Use of Metrics. 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 to establish confidence in their accuracy.

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

4.2.4. External Assessments. External assessments are accomplished by entities outside of the MFT such as Environmental Stage 2 Programmatic Assessments, Communications Security (COMSEC) Inspections, etc. External assessment reports should be provided to the Core MFT and included in the COS. PARs with Findings may be issued for nonconformities identified when within the scope of the PWS. The core MFT should be contacted prior to issuing any potential PARs with Finding based on these external assessments.

4.3. Performance Objectives (PO) and Assessment Items (AI). The POs and AIs listed in Attachment 1 identify the minimum performance assessments required by the COR.

4.3.1. POs and AIs mirror the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) identified in the PWS. The MFT may develop additional POs or AIs to reasonably ensure compliance in functional areas not covered. Each PO or AI has a corresponding performance threshold; the minimum Acceptable Quality Level. Each PO or 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. POs are also directly reflected as inputs in the Contractor Assessment and Performance Reporting (CAsPR) Matrix. AIs although not directly reflected in CAsPR, are considered under Quality of Product or Service and Schedule.

4.3.2. 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 in the COS.

4.4. Performance Assessment Report (PAR). The PAR (see Attachment 2) is used to document contractor assessments both positive and negative. PAR Section I may be used to document assessment results to include any Strengths or Weaknesses identified. PAR Section II is used to document nonconformities (findings) identified during the assessment documented in Section I. When a PAR Section II is used to document nonconformity, it is known as a PAR with Finding.

4.4.1. Strengths and Weaknesses. A Strength is an assessment where contractor performance exceeds contractual requirement(s) to the government’s benefit. A Weakness is an area where performance is less than fully effective but may not represent a nonconformity with contract requirements.

4.4.2. Nonconformity. A nonconformity refers to a failure to comply with requirements in the contract.

4.5. Types of Nonconformities. Nonconformities can be either contractor or government identified.

4.5.1. Contractor-Identified Nonconformities. CORs will be notified of a contractor-identified nonconformity to ensure a review is conducted and 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 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.

4.5.2. Government-Identified Nonconformities. Nonconformities shall be documented upon discovery as a PAR with Finding. The PAR with Finding must be reviewed by the core MFT and approved by the CO prior to issuance to the contractor. Dependent on the nature and time sensitivity of the nonconformity, a special MFT may be convened. 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 applicable MFT members, the COR will then close and file the PAR and provide a copy to the QAM.

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

4.5.2.2. FC, QAM and CO are PAR issuing officials. The CO has final authority as to whether a PAR with Finding will be issued.

4.6. Performance Assessment File. As CORs are designated, they are responsible for maintaining and adding to existing Performance Assessment File(s) for their area(s) of responsibility. Multiple CORs at the same location should share common documents for increased efficiency. The performance assessment file should be electronic and paperless to the maximum extent practicable. These files may also be centrally located and accessed on the SharePoint (https://cs3.eis.af.mil/sites/OO-SC-SP-98/default.aspx) or CORT Tool (https://wawf.eb.mil/) electronic system. The file must contain at a minimum:

Section 1 - Contract Documents: Includes the PWS and Attachments Section 2 - Quality Documents: Includes the QASP and the Contractor’s Quality Control/Program Plan. CORs must be well versed in both of these documents.

Section 3 - Continuity Log: A record of actions taken in the performance of COR duties providing a brief synopsis of contract assessment activities, meetings and conversations with the contractor regarding contract performance and/or interpretations from the CO. This Log should be used to provide continuity between CORs at the same location or to share with future replacements (e.g. Thule). Items contained in this log are at the discretion of the COR but efforts should be made to ensure it is utilized as effectively as possible.

Section 4 - Training Certificates, Nomination Letters, Designation Letters and Termination Letters: COR Tracking (CORT) Tool (https://wawf.eb.mil/) will be used to record this nomination. Each COR should also maintain a copy for back-up purposes.

Section 5 - Records: Includes PARs for contract requirements assessed, supporting documentation and any other pertinent records to be maintained.

4.7. Performance Assessment Types. Performance Assessment is accomplished in the following ways:

4.7.1. COR and QAM Assessment. CORs assess and document POs, AIs and other PWS requirements within their functional areas, as needed. The QAM 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. Other PWS requirements may also be assessed. Assessment results are documented in the monthly COS and efforts should be made to evaluate all PWS requirements.

4.7.2. 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. This is the vehicle whereby the contractor may generate contractor-identified nonconformities and devise corrections and subsequent actions to prevent recurrence. Contractor self-identified nonconformities do not preclude issuance of a PAR if one is warranted.

4.7.3. Contractor Performance Assessment Team (CPAT) Audit. A government-led assessment of the contractor to ensure they are compliant with contract requirements. CPAT audits are performed IAW the QASP focusing on the functional areas outlined in the PWS. The audit team will use a narrative report as documentation of audit results.

4.7.4. External Assessments. CORs will review and report external party assessment reports to validate performance against PWS requirements. Results of any of these external assessments will be included in the monthly COS. The COR will use performance requirements data as a result of external assessments to gauge the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality system.

5. MANAGING CONTRACT PERFORMANCE

5.1. Approach. To manage the contract and ensure the contractor is meeting cost, schedule and performance requirements. The MFT utilizes performance assessment outcomes and/or other applicable indicators to continuously implement improvements wherever possible. Some methods used to manage contract performance include:

5.1.1. MFT Meetings. MFTs meet 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.

5.1.2. Market Research. Continuous research to keep the MFT informed of current commercial concepts and industrial capabilities. Results should be considered for use to improve performance when possible.

5.1.3. Contractor Assessment and Performance Reporting (CAsPR) Matrix. Used to incentivize contractor performance above and beyond established PWS requirements to the benefit of the Government. In order for CAsPR to be effective and work as intended, it is important to understand and precisely follow the Matrix. Performance evaluators should be very familiar with the assessment criteria and reporting requirements for each element and sub-element.

6. REPORTING PERFORMANCE RESULTS

6.1. 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; provides performance data for statistical analysis and feedback to the contractor. COS assessments are also used as the source document for the CAsPR Matrix, and subsequently Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR ) and the Annual Execution Review with the Program Executive Office. Accuracy and completeness of each COS is critical. The CORs should present clear, supportable information for each area based on objective facts supported by program, quality, and other performance data in each applicable category to accurately describe the contractor's performance.

6.2. Contractor CAsPR Matrix. The Matrix provides detailed, objective, comprehensive performance data for each of the CPARS categories that are consistent with the CPARS definitions and are tailored to the specific requirement. When populated, the CAsPR Matrix contains a Contractor's quality data for the purposes of their CPARS ratings, and thus becomes source selection information and must be protected, in accordance with the CPARS guide. In the event of a problem of "serious magnitude," the Government reserves the right to assign a CPARS rating based on the severity of the event, regardless of the final score. The CPARS Guide states, "A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating." Detailed directions for using CAsPR are included on the Instructions Tab of the Matrix.

6.3. Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). The CPAR is an annual report of contractor performance. It is based on Contractor's quality data contained in the CAsPR Matrix. 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.

7. ASSESSMENT RECORDS. Maintained in the performance assessment folder, other designated locations or the contract file for the life of the contract or as specified by the records disposition schedule. The CO may specify a periodic transfer of these records to the contracting office or at the conclusion of the contract for inclusion into the official contract file. CORs must contact the CO for the final disposition instructions upon contract completion. Upon contract expiration each site may stage and store all records related to the contract with their host base records management facility.

Prepared By:

Michael Gusta, QAM Email Address: michael.gusta@us.af.mil Telephone Number: 719-554-2917

DSN 692-2917

Effective Date: 1 Sep 18

SSPARS

ATTACHMENT 1 – Performance Objectives (POs) and Assessment Items (AIs)

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES (PO)

Beale AFB, Cape Cod AFS, Clear AFS and Thule AB Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: Radar Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc) of not less than 99.7%

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor provided metrics, operational logs or other documentation to determine systems are operationally available and maintained IAW the PWS.

Applies to all sites Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: DSCS Acc rate of not less than 99.7%

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor provided metrics, operational logs or other documentation to determine systems are operationally available and maintained IAW the PWS.

Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: Milstar Acc of not less than 99.7%

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor provided metrics, operational logs or other documentation to determine systems are operationally available and maintained IAW the PWS.

Beale AFB, Cape Cod AFS, Clear AFS, RAF Fylingdales (only maintenance and system administration functions), and Thule AB Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: CPS Acc of not less than 99.7%

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor provided metrics, operational logs or other documentation to determine systems are operationally available and maintained IAW the PWS.

Acceptable Quality Level: Maintain an email, web, file/print, and network infrastructure Acc rate of 99.7%.

Assessment Method: COR will verify hardware, Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has maintained system availability IAW PWS requirements.

ASSESSMENT ITEMS (AI)

Beale AFB, Cape Cod AFS, Clear AFS and Thule AB Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc) of not less than 99.0%

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor provided metrics, operational logs or other documentation to determine systems are operationally available and maintained IAW the PWS.

Applies to all sites Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: 100% compliance within the specified time frame in the TCTO.

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine TCTO actions are executed within PWS requirements.

Acceptable Quality Level: All approved-for-repair XD items repaired within three calendar days of MSI.

Acceptable Quality Level: All XF items repaired within seven calendar days of MSI.

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine repair actions are executed within PWS requirements.

Thule AB Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: TMDE availability rate exceeds 93 percent.

Assessment Method: COR/MCOR will monthly review documentation in PAMS to ensure TMDE availability rate is being met.

Applies to all sites Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: Process all actions that deplete stock within 4 duty hours.

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine supply actions are executed promptly to restore supplies within PWS requirements.

Acceptable Quality Level: Account for all HAZMAT within three (3) duty days of receipt in EESOH-MIS.

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has responded IAW PWS requirements.

Acceptable Quality Level: Complete repair: 95% within 30 days of receipt of materials; if materials are on hand, complete remaining 5% within 30 days of request.

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has completed repairs to meet PWS requirements.

Acceptable Quality Level: Restore power within 2 minutes (Beale and Clear AFS).

Acceptable Quality Level: Restore power within 5 minutes (Cape Cod AFS).

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has maintained E-mail, DMS, and Web, File/Print services IAW PWS requirements.

Acceptable Quality Level: Respond immediately and begin restoral actions within two (2) hours of the reported failure.

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has responded IAW PWS requirements.

Acceptable Quality Level: Respond to outages and begin restoral to mission-critical communication service within one hour of notification.

Acceptable Quality Level: Respond to outages and begin restoral to non-mission critical communication service by the next business day.

Assessment Method: COR will verify hardware, Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has responded IAW PWS requirements.

Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: Acc of 99%

Assessment Method: COR will verify hardware, Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has maintained system availability IAW PWS requirements.

Beale AFB, Cape Cod and Clear AFS Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: Respond within one hour for catastrophic IDS failures and major malfunctions and repair to at least a partial failure within 24 hours with full system operation within 72 hours.

Acceptable Quality Level: Respond no later than 24 hours for malfunctions classified as partial failures with full system operation within 72 hours.

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has responded IAW PWS requirements and restored system.

Clear AFS Frequency: Monthly

Acceptable Quality Level: : Maintain all Government vehicles and equipment in a safe and serviceable condition to meet Installation Commander established Mission Essential Levels (MELs)

Assessment Method: COR will verify Contractor files, logs or other documentation to determine if the Contractor has maintained MELs IAW PWS requirements.

Frequency: Monthly

Applicability: Applies as identified in Site Applicability in the PWS.

Acceptable Quality Level: 100% conformance to PWS requirements.

Assessment Method: COR will monthly complete a sampling of PWS requirements by chapter based on the ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY SCHEDULE identified below. The COR can use checklists provided by the QAM, MCOR, developed by the site, or specific PWS paragraphs to accomplish this assessment. Coordinate with Subject Matter Expert/MCOR or QAM as required to facilitate completion. During technical verification assessments, CORs shall sample key service processes of the contractors’ quality program for the particular functional areas. When contractor generated audit data is used, CORs must validate the accuracy of the data to a degree to establish confidence in the contractors reporting methods. The number of items assessed should be to the degree to ensure the government has confidence the contractor is performing to the PWS requirements for the applicable chapter. Understanding schedules may have to shift due to unexpected workload and mission requirements. If this occurs, the COR should annotate their Activity Log and notify the QAM of these schedule changes. This assessment will also serve to facilitate an annual review of the PWS to ensure requirements haven’t changed and references are current. Note: This is not meant to imply that the CORs should only be assessing these chapters during the months specified only that during these months additional emphasis shall be placed on these chapters for a deep look at contractor compliance.

ASSESSMENT FREQUENCY SCHEDULE

(includes sub-paragraphs)

Frequency: Annually, Monthly

Threshold: ensure the QPP addresses the following processes: control of documents, control of records, internal audits and inspections, correction of non-conforming services, and preventing non-conforming services from recurrence.

Assessment Method: QAM will annually interview contractor QC personnel and review sufficient inspection records to ensure the Quality Program encompasses all functions and requirements of the contract and satisfies the requirements in the Inspection of Services clause and keeps the contractor’s management staff informed of all issues affecting quality. Review inspection records for the number and type of observations made, review inspection records for causes of nonconformities, review inspection records for corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence. Review records of internal audits, inspections and tests supporting operation of the QC program. Review deficiency responses for timely, effective actions and cause of deficiency.

Review contractor audit, inspection and test procedures and instructions to ensure contract requirements are met. Determine if they prescribe activities in clear, complete and concurrent instructions; include specific criteria for acceptance/rejection of services. Verify government representatives are notified of changes to inspection instructions.

AI #14. Quality Program (Quality Status Report). Report performance data in a QSR.

Threshold: Ensure the QSR includes: details of audits and inspections accomplished during the reporting period, all nonconformities identified, the cause of each deficiency, corrective actions, the impact, actions taken to preclude recurrence, and current status of all issues yet to be resolved, and a self-assessment of the contractor’s performance during the reporting period to include those areas identified in the CPARS matrix and AQLs identified in the PWS.

Assessment Method: QAM will monthly analyze the COS, Quality Status Report (QSR) and other documentation for trends of government identified nonconformities for type, frequency, cause and functional area. Make determination utilizing all factors whether identified nonconformities are attributable to a failing of the Quality Program to detect, correct, and prevent recurrence of nonconformities. A determination will be made of contractor performance and contractor Quality Program effectiveness based upon analysis made on identified nonconformities contained in the COS and the QSR. Document and report analysis to MFT as required.

ATTACHMENT 2 – Performance Assessment Report (PAR) and Instructions

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

For Check Blocks, enable and lock Forms Toolbar

Section I. Performance Assessment

|_| No Finding |_| 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

|_|…