Performance Plan2 NCC revised 26 Jan 09.pdf

PERFORMANCE PLAN

FOR

NETWORK CONTROL CENTER

FA3022-08-Q-0001

Columbus AFB, MS

26 January 2009

1. Objective. The objective of this service is to provide site management of Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence (C4I) information resources for decision-makers, war fighters and other site users. Additionally, the service contractor is expected to be a partner with the base community in continuously improving the quality of programs and services offered to customers. This Performance Plan (PP) has been developed to evaluate contractor actions while implementing the Performance-based Work Statement (PWS). It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring contractor performance for each listed objective on the Service Delivery Summary (SDS) in the Network Control Center (NCC) contract. This Performance Plan is based on the premise that the contractor, and not the government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. The role of government quality assurance is to ensure contract standards are achieved.

In this contract, the quality control program is the driver for service quality. The contractor is required to develop a comprehensive program of inspections and monitoring actions. The first major step to ensuring a “self-correcting” contract is to ensure that the quality control program, submitted at the beginning of the contract, provides the measures needed to lead the contractor to success. Once the quality control program is accepted by the government, careful application of the process and standards presented in the remainder of this document will ensure a robust quality assurance program.

2. Goals of the Multi-functional Team. The multi-functional team was established and meetings were held under the title of Business Strategy Planning Session. The goals of this team are to manage this and other Communication Squadron contracts and to provide an avenue to collectively work together to create a strong working relationship between the using agency, contracting and the contractor to ensure the highest level of contract performance and customer service.

3. Multi-functional Team Members and their Responsibilities. The membership, goals and responsibilities of the Multi-functional Team members are outlined in the Business Requirements and Advisory Group (BRAG) charter. The BRAG is a sub-group of the multi-functional team formed specifically for this contract. Upon award of the contract, the contractor will become a member of this BRAG.

4. Performance Assessment - Service Delivery Summary (SDS). The services required by this PWS are summarized in the performance objectives below. The performance thresholds briefly describe the minimum acceptable levels of service the Contractor is required to achieve for each service. These thresholds are critical to mission success. The performance objectives below will be the key indicators for MOASP reporting, if required.

No. Performance Objective PWS Para Performance Thresholds Method of

Surveillance 1 Provide Technical

Solutions Para 1.20.1.3 & 2.1.2 & 4.6 No more than 2 validated customer complaints per quarter.

Customer Complaint

2 Base Communications Center Management

Para 2.2 thru 2.2.10 & 14.10 No more than 2 validated customer complaints per quarter.

Customer Complaint

--Base Communications Center Management

Para 2.2 thru 2.2.10 No instances where the contractor is in violation of security mandates.

Periodic

3 Provide AMHS System Administration

Para 1.48.2, 9.4.2 & 2.2 thru 2.2.10

Maintain system reliability of 97% per month. No instances where the contractor is in violation of security mandates.

Monthly/ Periodic

4 Network Management Para 1.12, 1.52, 2.3 thru

2.6.25 & 3.5 Maintain system reliability of 97% per month

Monthly

5 Firewall Administration Para 1.38.1 - 1.38.1.3 & 14.12.2

No instances where the contractor has failed to apply security updates/configurations as directed

Periodic

6 Network Security Para 1.53 - 1.53.1 & 2.1.6,

2.3.19 - 2.3.20 & 2.6.21

No instances where the contractor is in violation of security mandates.

Periodic

7 Base Software License Management

Section 8 No instances of errors in accountability

Periodic

8 SIPRNET Administration Para 1.19, 2.3.6, 3.3.1, & 3.5 Maintain system reliability of 97% per month. No instances where the contractor is in violation of security mandates.

Monthly/ Periodic

9 AFEKMS Para 3.3.3 No instances of errors in accountability Periodic

10 COMSEC Para 3.3.4, 3.5, 9.4.2 &

14.12.5 – 14.12.6

No instances of errors in accountability

Periodic

11 COMPUSEC

Management

Para 3.3.5, 9.4.2 & 14.12.5 – 14.12.6

Meet all suspense dates and no more than 2 validated customer complaints per month.

Periodic/Customer Complaint

12 EMSEC Para 3.3.7, 9.4.2 & 14.12.5 – 14.12.6

No more than 2 validated customer complaints per quarter.

Customer Complaint

13 Secure Voice Management

Para 3.3.9 & 14.5.3 No instances in errors of accountability

Periodic

14 CAW Program Para 3.4 No instances in errors of accountability

Periodic

15 Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted 16 CSA Training Para 9.4 No more than 2 validated customer complaints per quarter.

Customer Complaint

17 Documentation and reports

Throughout Document All actions accomplished as required with no more than 2 discrepancies per month.

Periodic/ Customer Complaint

18 Equipment control Throughout Document No instances in errors of accountability

Periodic

19 C4-NOTAM, (CTO),

TCNO, TCTO

Para 1.16, 1.38.1.3, & 2.3.6 Meet all suspense dates and no more than 2 validated customer complaints per month.

Periodic/Customer Complaint

20 Plans Para 2.3.8, 2.3.10, 14.2.3,

14.3.7 & 14.10.1

Meet all suspense dates and no more than 2 validated discrepancies per semi-annual

Periodic

21 Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted 22 Storage Area Network Section 11 Meet all suspense dates and no more than 2 validated discrepancies per quarter

Periodic

23 Systems Management Server

Section 12 Meet all suspense dates and no more than 2 validated

Periodic discrepancies per quarter 24 PDA Support Section 6 Meet all suspense dates and no more than 2 validated discrepancies per quarter

Periodic

25 Thin Client Support Section 5 No more than 3 validated customer complaints per month.

Customer Complaint

26 Deleted Deleted Deleted Deleted

4.1 Customer Complaints. The NCC Quality Assurance Personnel (QAP) will provide instructions to the customers of the NCC on Columbus AFB on the procedures of the Customer Complaint process. These instructions will include the required information and points of contact. Any customer receiving unacceptable service or sub-standard products should immediately submit an e-mail to the QAP. The QAP will conduct an investigation to determine the validity of the complaint upon receipt. If the QAP determines the complaint as invalid, he will document the written complaint of the findings and notify the customer. If the complaint is validated, the QAP shall verbally notify the Contractor’s Quality Control Inspector (QCI) or Point of Contact (POC) to pick up the written customer complaint. The contractor shall be given an appropriate time frame (depending on the discrepancy identified) after notification to correct the unacceptable performance. The QAP will inform the customer of the approximate time the discrepancy(s) will be corrected. A discrepancy will not be recorded if proper and timely correction of the unacceptable conditions(s), product or service is accomplished and our thresholds listed in Para 4, Service Delivery Summary, have not been breached. If the QCI/POC disagrees with complaint after investigation and challenges the validity of the complaint, the QAP will notify the CO. The QCI/POC shall return the written customer complaint document, properly completed with actions taken, to the QAP, who will file a copy of the complaint for future recurring performance. The QAP will then forward the original annotated e-mail to the Contracting Officer (CO).

4.2 Periodic Surveillance. The government QAP will inspect the performance objectives as indicated in the Service Delivery Summary (SDS) in paragraph 4 to ensure contractor compliance with the appropriate paragraphs of the PWS for those objectives listed above utilizing Period Surveillance. These periodic inspections shall be tracked on a schedule/calendar as appropriate, and conducted using locally developed checklists. Inspections are conducted with checklists for specific SDS entries and PWS elements that are not specifically referenced.

Copies of these checklists are provided to the contractor. For those areas not specifically defined, the QAP will use the Inspection of Services clause as authority to inspect. The QAP will record results of inspection, noting the inspector’s name, contractor POC, date and time of inspection and CO name if present during inspection.

4.3. Standard. Recurring discrepancies are not permitted for any of the service items listed above. For example, if a customer has a valid complaint, the contractor must correct the discrepancy through re-performance, if possible. No discrepancy will be recorded against the contractor’s performance. However, if the same situation occurs again during the reporting period to bring the performance threshold below the acceptable level, a discrepancy will be recorded and reported to the CO for appropriate action in accordance with FAR 52.212.4, Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items. Additionally, if the same discrepancy(s) occur repeatedly throughout different reporting periods, this will reflect upon the contractor’s performance. The QAP will annotate the unacceptable performance and notify the CO in order to address the problem areas with the contractor, and a BRAG meeting will be scheduled if needed.

4.4. Surveillance of Non-SDS Items. All other tasks required under the PWS may be inspected at a frequency determined by the Functional Commander (FC), CO and/or QAP.

4.5. Remedies for Non-Conformance. If inspections indicate unacceptable performance, the QAP will notify the contractors QCI/POC of the deficiencies for correction. The contractor shall be given an appropriate time frame (depending on the discrepancy identified) after notification to correct the unacceptable performance. If deficiencies are not corrected within the required time frame, the QAP should notify the CO for action. If the contractor disagrees with the noted discrepancy and an agreement cannot be reached, the CO shall be notified for a final decision.

5. Performance Management

5.1 Market Research. Market research will be used as a tool throughout the life of the contract in order to remain current with the most efficient and effective assessment methods and techniques of the commercial marketplace. As a minimum, market research will be conducted annually prior to exercising the option periods.

5.2 Multi-functional Team Meetings. The multi-functional team and contract-specific BRAG will manage the contract for the life of the requirement. This team will form a partnership between the government and the contractor to ensure the best possible service is provided.

5.2.1 Performance assessment data will be reviewed at these meetings. If performance improvement is necessary, a plan of action will be created. The BRAG will continually review data and procedures to improve efficiency. If multi-functional team meetings are required more often than annually, they will be scheduled. The contract-specific BRAG will meet as needed throughout the life of the contract.

5.2.2 The goal of the multi-functional team is to give all members, government and contractor, a vested interest in maintaining the highest quality service to our customers and the ability to propose/initiate improvements. The success of the contract is a combined effort of all multi-functional team members.

5.3 Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). CPARS will be updated at least annually documenting contractor performance for this specific contract. More frequent updates may be made as required to document a significant improvement or degradation of the level of contract performance. The Assessing Official Representative will be the QAP; the Assessing Official will be the contracting officer; and the Reviewing Official will be either the 14th Contracting Squadron Commander or Director of Business Operations. The contractor representative also has input prior to this report being finalized.

5.4 Management and Oversight of Acquisitions Process (MOASP). In addition to CPARS, contractor performance will be documented in MOASP reports as required, including an initial transition report and annual reports at the end of each performance period.

5.5 Disputes. Attempts will be made to resolve all disputes arising under this plan using the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) as outlined in FAR 33.214. The objective is to increase the opportunity mutually agreeable resolutions to disputes that are relatively inexpensive and expeditious.

6. Revisions to this PERFORMANCE PLAN. Revisions to this Performance Plan are the joint responsibility of the FC, CO and QAP as members of the BRAG. The QAP provides recommendations for improving the PWS and Performance Plan through the FC/FD to the CO and/or BRAG for review. This is a living document that may be changed at any time; however, if changes are made to the PP or to the PWS, the QAP/CO must ensure that the PP corresponds with the requirements of the PWS throughout the life of the contract.