Section_J _Attachment_3 _QASP.doc

UNCLASSIFIED

FA4600-15-R-0000

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT

Command and Control Software Engineering Services III

FA4600-XX-XX-XXXX

TBD

Multi-functional team member review and approval

DATE: _________________

NAME

C2SES III Program Manager

USSTRATCOM/J864

DATE: _________________

NAME

C2 Operational Capabilities Branch

USSTRATCOM/J864

DATE: _________________

Quality Assurance Program Coordinator 55th CONS/LGCP

DATE: _________________

Contracting Administrator

55th CONS/LGCZ

DATE: _________________

Contracting Officer

55th CONS/LGCZ

DATE: _________________

Contracting Officer (Contractor)

TBD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.

Purpose

11.1.

Description of Services

11.2.

Performance Management Approach

21.3.

Performance Management Strategy

32.

Multi-FUNCTIONAL TEAM (mft) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

32.1.

Government Personnel

32.1.1.

Contracting Officer (CO)

32.1.2.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

32.1.3.

Contracting Officer’s Representatives Supervisor

32.1.4.

Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC)

32.1.5.

Contracting administrator (CA)

32.1.6.

Contractor

43.

PERFORMANCE Requirements and method of surveillance

43.1.

Performance Assessment Folders

43.1.1.

RECORDS

43.2.

contract Surveillance

43.2.1.

Inspection Methods

53.3.

Deficiency Identification

53.3.1.

Contractor Identified Discrepancies (CIDs)

53.3.2.

Government Identified Discrepancies (GIDs)

53.3.3.

Customer Complaints

74.

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

74.1.

The Performance Management Feedback Loop

74.2.

Monitoring Forms

74.2.1.

Remedies for Non-Conformance

74.2.2.

Performance Assessment Report (PAR)

74.2.3.

Customer Complaint RECORD (CCR)

74.2.4.

Corrective Action Report (CAR)

74.2.5.

Combating trafficking in persons (CTIP) Checklist

84.2.6.

Categories of Findings

84.2.7.

Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

84.3.

performance rating definitions

105.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

105.1.

Determining Performance

105.2.

Reporting

105.3.

Reviews and Resolution

116.

PERFORMANCE SERVICE SUMMARY

127.

attachments:

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides the methods and procedures the Government will use to ensure it receives the services under the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Command and Control Software Engineering Support (C2SES) III contract as identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This QASP describes a systematic approach for conducting contract performance surveillance. Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) will use the QASP to ensure the objectives of the contract are met. The key contract performance objectives (POs) will be evaluated using the PWS.

The QASP is based on the premise that the Contractor is responsible for management and Quality Control (QC) actions to meet the terms of the contract. Good management and use of an adequate Quality Control Plan (QCP) will allow the Contractor to operate within specified performance requirements. The Contractor is required to submit a QCP 30 days after contract award. The role of Government quality assurance is to ensure contract objectives are achieved. The COR must be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating Contractor’s performance against the objectives and contract documents.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the multi-functional team (MFT), identifies the POs, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

In addition, the purpose of this QASP is to ensure the completeness, timeliness, and appropriateness of the services delivered under the C2SESIII PWS. This QASP outlines how Government personnel will evaluate and assess contractor performance. The QASP is intended to be a “living” document that may be revised or modified as circumstances warrant. It is based on the premise that the Contractor, not the Government, is responsible for managing and ensuring a QCP that meets the terms of the contract. The COR will evaluate the Contractor’s performance based upon the feedback from the Government customer and periodic inspections of the Contractor’s QC program.

Management oversight of this contract’s FFP tasks are in accordance (IAW):

· Air Force Instruction (AFI) 63-138, Acquisition of Services

· AFI 63-101, Chapter 8, Acquisition of Services

· Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5301.602-2(d), Designation, Assignment and Responsibilities of a Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

· MP5346.103, Contracting Office Responsibilities

· DoD Instruction 5000.72, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Certification

1.1. Description of Services

This contract provides software engineering, systems engineering, program management/systems management, operational support and systems sustainment services required to support USSTRATCOM. The Government’s focus is outcome based and the Contractor has the flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved.

The primary objective of the contract is that USSTRATCOM systems deliver an increasingly higher level of effectiveness, reliability and performance (technically, functionally and in terms of customer support) while reducing ownership costs. The Contractor is to provide world-class, industry standard information technology services. The design, development and delivery of efficient and reliable systems to reduce ownership costs while improving system performance, combined with strong and up-to-date knowledge of technology solutions are key components of this service. Additionally, the Contractor is expected to be a partner with USSTRATCOM personnel and a proactive catalyst in continuously improving the effectiveness of USSTRATCOM systems and the products these systems provide to USSTRATCOM customers in supporting current and emerging missions. The Contractor is expected to bring the tools, experience, practices and leadership to USSTRATCOM necessary to sustain its information technology in a proactive, highly customer responsive atmosphere following best business practices.

1.2. Performance Management Approach

This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by USSTRATCOM to monitor and manage the Contractor’s performance ensuring the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the Contractor.

1.3. Performance Management Strategy

The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own QC program. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by Contractor employees or by subcontractors. The Contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The Contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated Government representative. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor’s QCP.

2. Multi-FUNCTIONAL TEAM (mft) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

By virtue of this QASP, the MFT will manage this contract and strive to achieve efficiencies, improve customer service and contractor performance, and ensure cost savings. Additional goals are as follows:

· Maximize performance

· Encourage innovation

· Promote performance-based services

The MFT will plan and manage this service contract throughout the life of the requirement. The MFT shall:

· Develop a business/acquisition strategy that will meet customer requirements and foster partnerships with industry

· Develop, implement, and execute performance based acquisition strategy

· Perform market research to ensure best commercial practices

· Conduct source selection ensuring selection is based upon the requirements detailed in the PWS

· Conduct contract performance management, to include collection of past performance information

· Provide support to leadership, as required, to ensure dissemination of acquisition information and to ensure involvement on services/mission risks

· Ensure funding is adequate and within approved funding CLIN values

· Manage risk to ensure mission performance is within cost and schedule constraints

· Identify opportunities to improve performance throughout the life of the acquisition and recommend changes to the QASP as needed

· Work together to ensure success in building the acquisition strategy, soliciting the requirement, and executing contract performance management.

The MFT will include the following individuals listed herein to oversee and coordinate surveillance activities:

2.1. Government Personnel

2.1.1. Contracting Officer (CO)

The Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the COR and the Contractor. The CO will designate one full-time COR as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the Contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the CO.

2.1.2. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written designation letter. The COR working with the Program Managers (PM) is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the Contractor’s performance. The COR/PMs will use the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance (QA) file that accurately documents the Contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the Contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the CO. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the CO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting Contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

2.1.3. Contracting Officer’s Representative’s Supervisor

Nominates CORs in writing and sends nomination and COR nominee qualification documentation to the CO, ensures the COR is trained before performing any COR duties and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities, reviews COR documentation on a regular basis, evaluates performance of COR duties as part of performance assessment throughout the period of the contract.

2.1.4. Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC)

The QAPC assists in matters involving the Quality Assurance Program and assists the CO in training the COR.

2.1.5. Contracting administrator (CA)

The CA is the individual within the contracting office who performs day-to-day administration of the contract. The CA may also be the CO if that individual has a warrant.

2.1.6. Contractor

The Contractor shall develop, submit, and maintain a QC program to ensure services are performed IAW the PWS and CDRL A002, Quality Control Plan.

3. PERFORMANCE Requirements and method of surveillance

3.1. Performance Assessment Folders

Performance assessment documents must be developed and maintained by each COR in the CORT Tool. The CORT Tool must contain the documentation for the following sections and may contain other sections or information that the COR finds necessary.

3.1.1. RECORDS

Records used for filing all documentation associated with performance, including but not limited to the customer complaint reports (both active and resolved), corrective action reports, correspondence, and contractual letters of interpretation from the CO. Records must be retained with the task order and must be provided to the CO upon task order expiration or changes in personnel assignment.

3.2. contract Surveillance

To facilitate the Performance Assessment of the Contractor's quality program, CORs/PMs will verify Contractor compliance with designated POs. The intent of the Performance Assessment approach is to gain confidence in the Contractor’s ability to provide satisfactory services and then adjusting the level of Performance Assessment to a point that maintains confidence. This Performance Assessment approach is subject to change based on the Contractor’s performance.

3.2.1. Inspection Methods

This plan may use a combination of surveillance methods which adequately assures the Government of the Contractor’s performance.

The CORs/PMs will utilize two methods of inspection; either periodic or 100%, as identified in the Surveillance Method column in the table below, to assess the applicable POs. The CORs/PMs will assess the Contractor’s performance by physically checking or inspecting/testing the results to determine whether or not the performance meets the threshold.

3.2.1.1. 100 Percent Inspection Method

The 100 percent inspection method requires complete inspection of a contract requirement and will be used for requirements identified in the services summary or where there is some reason for suspecting that the PO is not being met (and therefore, should be more closely monitored). All POs requiring a 100% evaluation e.g. milestones/test type events/certain deliverables which require Government acceptance/permission to proceed will be complied with when the event is scheduled or upon delivery.

Evaluation procedures: Observed defects for a service monitored by 100 percent inspection is compared to the applicable POs threshold column in the services summary.

3.2.1.2. Periodic Inspection Method

The periodic inspection provides a systematic way of looking at service outputs and forming conclusions about the Contractor's level of performance in accordance with POs identified in the Services Summary. Evaluation by periodic inspection is designed to inspect, at varying intervals of time, (does not have to be every time event happens) some or all of the products and services being monitored.

Evaluation procedures: To ensure valid results, evaluation will follow an inspection schedule. Observed defects for services monitored by periodic inspection will be totaled at the end of each quarter. The results of periodic inspections will be evaluated using the Services Summary PO threshold.

3.3. Deficiency Identification

Effective contract Performance Assessment relies on identification of unacceptable performance – Contractor Identified Discrepancies (CIDs) and Government Identified Discrepancies (GIDs).

3.3.1. Contractor Identified Discrepancies (CIDs)

· CIDs are generated when contract employees detect discrepancies during performance of routine daily services or through the Contractor’s QC Program. When CIDs are reviewed by the applicable COR, the COR will take the following actions:

· Review corrective actions taken by the Contractor to resolve the issue or discrepancy.

· Determine whether the issue has been addressed or the discrepancy has been corrected. If resolved, review the corrective action taken and any applicable procedures the Contractor has established to preclude recurrence of the problem.

· If a CID has not been resolved and the Contractor has established an Estimated Completion Date (ECD) for resolution of the discrepancy, the COR will monitor the Contractor’s efforts in resolving the issue or discrepancy. If the COR determines the estimated completion date for resolution of the discrepancy is excessive based on the nature of the discrepancy, the CO will be notified. The CO will then evaluate the recommendation to determine the appropriate course of action.

· If a CID has not been resolved, and the COR determines that the Contractor has not established an ECD for resolution of the issue or discrepancy, or has failed to perform a follow-up action for resolution of a discrepancy, the COR will issue a Corrective Action Report (CAR); see Para 4.2.4. The Contractor will be given a suspense date to provide corrective action to the Government’s findings and describe the Contractor’s plan to preclude repeat deficiencies. The COR will monitor the Contractor’s efforts to resolve the issue or discrepancy, and report any Government issues to the CO.

3.3.2. Government Identified Discrepancies (GIDs)

GIDs are generated as a result of COR/PM inspection of Contractor performance that identifies noncompliance with contractual requirements. The quality assurance person will record a GID on a Corrective Action Report (CAR); see Para 4.2.4. Before a CAR is generated, the Contractor will be given the opportunity to show whether the discrepancy has already been identified and resolved. If documentation exists which substantiates that the Contractor’s quality program has identified the issue or discrepancy and timely corrective action is being taken to address the discrepancy, a CAR will not be initiated.

3.3.3. Customer Complaints

The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The PO of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Performance management drives the Contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR as opposed to the Contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate using the Customer Complaint Record.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

When customer complaints are to be used as a method of Performance Assessment, the following must be accomplished:

· The COR will provide education to customers of the service being provided by the Contractor.

· The customer feedback form shall include clear and simple instructions to the customer on recording their comments. The form should allow for both positive and negative feedback.

· If immediate response to a complaint is needed, the COR will provide the customer with instructions on how to proceed.

· The COR will gather and retain all completed customer feedback forms.

· The COR will conduct an investigation to determine the validity of any negative feedback.

· If the COR determines that the negative feedback is not valid, the customer will be informed of the reason(s) why and carry on further correspondence if necessary.

· For validated negative feedback, and following coordination with the CO, the COR will provide the Contractor with the opportunity for investigation and comment. Any documented response from the Contractor shall be retained in the COR files.

· The COR will notify the customer of the corrective action taken by the Contractor, if applicable.

· The COR, with assistance from the CO, will conduct trend analysis of validated negative comments.

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

4.1. The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and assessed using the performance monitoring techniques identified in the QASP.

4.2. Monitoring Forms

4.2.1. Remedies for Non-Conformance

If inspections indicate unacceptable performance, the COR will notify the Contractor’s POC of the deficiencies for correction. If deficiencies are not corrected within the required time frame, the COR 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

4.2.2. Performance Assessment Report (PAR)

PARs (attachment 1) will be will be generated by the COR to report good performance and ALL minor discrepancies. PAR will be sent to the Contractor for corrective action (if applicable). Contractors will be given 10 days to correct PARs unless they have requested an extension. If 3 minor discrepancies are found, combine them and process a CAR.

4.2.3. Customer Complaint RECORD (CCR)

The COR must furnish instructions to the customer receiving the Contractor’s service. The customer must retain supporting evidence of complaint or feedback using the CCR (attachment 2). After the COR validates feedback or complaint demonstrating Contractor noncompliance, the COR processes a PAR or CAR to the CO. ALL Customer Complaint forms WILL be validated by the COR prior to notifying the Contractor.

4.2.4. Corrective Action Report (CAR)

The CAR (attachment 3) will be forwarded to the COR for review. The COR will forward the CAR to the CO for action. A copy will be provided to the Contractor’s representative by the CO. The CAR shall be corrected by the Contractor within 10 working days, or an agreed upon time frame, depending on the complexity of the finding. Major findings require a Contractor response. Minor findings may require a Contractor response at the discretion of the COR initiating the CAR. The Contractor will be asked the status of the CAR on a monthly basis. The COR will keep electronic copies of all CARs in the CORT Tool.

4.2.5. Combating trafficking in persons (CTIP) Checklist

The COR will monitor the Contractor’s performance regarding trafficking in persons such that non-compliance with FAR clause 52.222-50, Combatting Trafficking in Persons, will be brought to the immediate attention of the CO. The CTIP compliance checklist (attachment 4) will be submitted to the CO within 30 days of contract award. Annual verification of compliance will be obtained prior to exercise of an option period.

4.2.6. Categories of Findings

A finding is any Government-identified noncompliance with contract requirements that specifies that an activity or action did not take place or was not performed to the quality or timeliness standard required by the contract. A finding can be categorized as “Major” or “Minor.” Findings will be documented on a CAR and must also be tracked see paragraph 3.1 regarding Section 3 of the Performance Assessment folder. Major/Minor Findings are defined as follows:

4.2.6.1. Major Findings

A Major Finding is a conclusion that identifies a condition having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the service under review such as:

· Failure to meet a Performance Threshold

· Significant mission degradation in or as the result of any Contractor provided service or function

· Any situation that results, or is likely to result, in hazardous or unsafe conditions for individuals (or any other Government resource) coming into contract with the work

· Failure to provide adequate corrective action to preclude reoccurrence of Government identified findings

· Failure to provide corrective action to issues or deficiencies identified by the Contractor within a prescribed suspense period

· Failure to adhere to security regulations, resulting in a security incident

4.2.6.2. Minor Findings

A Minor Finding is a departure from established standards having little bearing on service provided. However, if the same minor finding is repeatedly identified, it may be an indication that Major Finding (4.2.6.1) above has occurred because the Contractor quality system has not acted to prevent recurrence. In this case, the Minor Finding should be elevated to the level of a Major Finding and a new CAR initiated.

4.2.7. Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

CPARS will be initiated 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.

4.3. performance rating definitions In evaluating the quality of Contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used.

· Exceptional - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

· Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor was effective.

· Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

· Marginal - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

· Unsatisfactory - Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

5. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

5.1. Determining Performance

Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the Contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

5.2. Reporting

At the end of each month, the COR will collect and retain performance information for each program and upload all submitted reports to the CORT Tool. On a quarterly basis, the COR will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the Contractor’s submitted monthly report and the PAR, will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

5.3. Reviews and Resolution

The CO may require the Contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO and other Government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The CO will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the Contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the Contractor; however, if the need arises, the Contractor will meet with the CO as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly Performance Assessment data and trend analysis

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

· Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes The CO/COR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The CO, COR, and Contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the CO.

6. PERFORMANCE SERVICE SUMMARY

<To be inserted at the negotiation of FFP future growth task order>

7. attachments:

1. Performance Assessment Report (PAR)

2. Customer Complaint Record (CCR)

3. Corrective Action Report (CAR)

4. Combatting Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) Checklist

Section J, Attachment 3

PAGE

Source Selection Sensitive IAW FAR 2.101 and 3.104