ATTACHMENT_3_-_QASP.pdf

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013 Contract No. FA4625-13-R-0005

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

LAND MOBILE RADIO MAINTENANCE SERVICES

WHITEMAN AFB MO

23 MAY 2013

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013

1. VISION

The Government’s vision is to gain confidence in the contractor’s way of doing business and rely on the contractor’s internal quality control (QC) processes. Then, we adjust the level of oversight to a point that maintains that confidence. By virtue of this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), it is the Government’s vision to effectively manage this contract through achieved efficiencies, improved customer service, cost savings, and contractor performance.

2. MISSION

The Government’s mission is to manage the acquisition by encouraging contractors to use innovative and cost effective approaches, promoting performance-based services that obtain higher levels of contractor performance, and increasing awareness that performance-based services foster partnerships with all team members. This contract’s mission is for the contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, vehicles, supervision and other items and services necessary to perform troubleshooting, repair, installation and removal of commercial two-way radio communications equipment at Whiteman AFB, Missouri.

3. PURPOSE

This QASP is a Government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

• What will be monitored

• How monitoring will take place

• Who will conduct the monitoring

• How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QASP provides the structure for the Government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s quality control plan. This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance. The Contracting Officer (CO) will revise or modify the QASP as circumstances warrant, throughout the life of the contract, to ensure adequate oversight of contractor performance is maintained.

The Government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances might occur that are outside the control of the contractor.

Bottom line, the QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013

4. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, an “Inspection of Services” clause, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract or order. This acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized representative.

5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

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

Contract Administrator (CA) – Is the focal point for issues regarding the contract; prepares and processes modifications to the contract; assists the CO in ensuring contractor performance meets contract standards; records and transcribes minutes for meetings.

COR Management/Supervisor – Has overall responsibility for developing the PWS and the QASP and ensuring they satisfy mission requirements, are performance-based, foster innovation, and define metrics. COR Management will also be responsible to assign competent and capable functional experts who will be available full time or as warranted by the procurement cycle. COR Management will also assign, as a minimum, a primary and an alternate COR and notify the CO of any changes to this designation. Review contractor performance documentation, prepared by the COR on a regular basis to ensure performance is compatible with contract and mission objectives.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance (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 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.

Contractor Representatives -- The contractor shall comply with the terms and conditions of the contract, participate in the post-award management phase, maintain and implement a QCP that compliments the performance in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS), tender to the Government for acceptance only those supplies or services that conform to contract requirements (also see FAR clause 52.212-4(a) of the contract), and recommend any changes to the contract that will promote efficiency or eliminate unnecessary costs.

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013

6. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

6.1. Contract Surveillance

The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR’s contribution is their professional, non-adversarial relationships with the CO, and the contractor, which enables positive, open and timely communications. The foundation of this relationship is built upon objective, fair, and consistent COR evaluations of contractor performance against contract requirements. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and QC/QA actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

6.2. Performance Elements and Rating Definitions

The COR is required to document, evaluate, and report contractor’s performance. On an annual basis, the COR will complete a narrative summary of contractor’s performance in the online Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and notify the CO. The CPARS website is located at https://www.cpars.gov/. The COR will accomplish Out-of-Cycle CPARS for any significant change in performance.

6.2.1. Performance Elements

Performance Element

Description

Quality of Service Assess the Contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety health standards).

Schedule Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedule, administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or effect the schedule variance).

Cost Control Not required for Firm-Fixed Price or Firm-Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment

Business Relations Assess the integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor’s history or reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, and whether the Contractor met small/small disadvantaged and women owned business participation goals.

Management of Key Personnel

Assess the Contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing when necessary, key personnel.

https://www.cpars.gov/

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013

6.2.2. Performance Ratings. Contractor ratings and criteria are described below. NOTE: The COR should basically start at the “Satisfactory” level and then revise their rating upward or downward based upon specific performance that either exceeded or failed to meet the contractual requirements. Just “meeting” the requirement is Satisfactory. To rate higher or lower, SPECIFICS are required, such as: “Contractor exceeded the time for accomplishing work orders by completing routine work orders 85% of the time in four days or less – contract requires 10 days.” In addition, the Government must receive some associated benefit.

Rating Criteria Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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 benefits. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear 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 contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

7. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT/REPORTING

In conducting an assessment, the CORs are to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating contractor performance against the performance standards. The CORs shall base their evaluation on the end result, not the frequency or method of performance. The contractor must perform all services in accordance with the prescribed performance objectives stated in the Services Summary.

This QASP identifies assessment procedures in concert with active application of the contractor’s QC plan to ensure acceptable contractor performance.

7.1. Services Summary

The Services Summary is the list of performance objectives and thresholds that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013

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

7.2. Methods Used to Assess Contractor’s Performance.

The COR will use one or more of the following methods to evaluate the contractor provided services:

7.2.1. Periodic Surveillance

The COR will use this type of assessment by selecting samples (tasks) for evaluation on other than 100% inspections or on a statistically random basis. An example of periodic surveillance is daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, inspections and the COR chooses the location and time in other than a random basis (i.e. reviewing preventative maintenance inspections performed). The COR will submit a schedule to the CO/CA the month prior to the month being inspected. Schedule will show time, date, location, and item(s) that will be inspected. Any changes to the schedule will be submitted to the CO/CA when the change occurs.

7.2.2. 100% Inspection Surveillance The COR will use this method of inspecting a requirement every time it occurs. Use of this technique is appropriate when contract requirements have critical impact on mission of safety, occur infrequently or have stringent requirements (i.e., outside plant installations or manhole installations, or anything affecting flight or personnel safety).

7.2.3. Random Sampling Surveillance

The COR will use this method to ensure the Government receives acceptable performance by the contractor if a given percentage or number of scheduled inspections is found to be acceptable. The COR will evaluate randomly selected samples of activity to determine the acceptability of the entire requirement (i.e., a random review of service work orders completed). The COR will submit a schedule to the CO/CA the month prior to the month being inspected. Schedule will show time, date, location, and item(s) that will be inspected. Any changes to the schedule will be submitted to the CO/CA when the change occurs.

7.2.4. Customer Complaints

The COR will use this method to fully validate information obtained through other sources, as well as performance in any area. Any personnel that observe questionable services, incomplete, not performed, or performed improperly, should immediately contact the COR. The COR will receive, document, and validate or invalidate all complaints. If the complaint is invalid, the COR will contact the complainant and explain why the complaint was invalid. The COR will fully document the resolution for each complaint. The COR will notify the contractor of all valid complaints. If the Contractor challenges the validity of any complaint, the COR and Contractor cannot come to agreement, the complaint in question shall be forwarded to the CO for resolution. Complaints will be tracked and if the performance standard is exceeded the COR will notify the CO in writing. In

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013 turn, the CO will notify the contractor and take appropriate action. The process shall accommodate and document positive feedback as well.

7.3. Services Summary Matrix

# Performance Objective PWS

Reference Performance Threshold

Inspection Method

1 Priority Recurring Maintenance Service -- Responds within time limit designated in Technical Exhibit 6

5.9.1. 0 Defects, Lot is number of Priority requests per month

Periodic

2 Priority Recurring Maintenance Service -- Restores Equipment within time limit designated in Technical Exhibit 6

5.9.1. 0 Defects, Lot is number of Priority requests per month

Periodic

3 Routine Recurring Maintenance Service -- Restores Equipment within time limit designated in Technical Exhibit 9. Trouble ticket documentation meets all requirements of para 5.7.

5.9.2. 3 Defects, Lot is number of Routine requests per month

Random Sample

4 Request for Engineering Technical Assistance -- Respond within 10 working days of date requested by the

COR

5.9.3. 0 Defects, Lot is number of Engineering and Technical Assistance requests per month

Periodic

5 Request for Engineering Assistance Documentation -- When requested by the COR, the Contractor shall provide appropriate engineering documentation and cost data within 30 days of completion of engineering service

5.9.3. 0 Defects, Lot is number of requests for Engineering Documentation completed during the month

Periodic

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013

6 Initial Checkout Programming and

Alignment of New Equipment -- Completed Initial Checkout of New Equipment within 10 working days

5.9.4. 5 Defects, Lot is number of requests for Initial Checkout requests performed during the month

Periodic

7 Non-Recurring Maintenance Service -- Work is accomplished within 10 working days of scheduled start date.

Trouble ticket documentation meets all requirements of para 5.7.

5.10. 3 Defects, Lot is number of Non-recurring maintenance requests per month

Random Sample

7.4. Surveillance Schedule

7.4.1. Surveillance Schedule Development

The COR will develop a surveillance schedule based on the PWS requirements, Services Summary, and this QASP. The COR will complete the surveillance schedule and submit to the CO/CA and COR supervisor no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the end of the month. The COR will mark surveillance schedules “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” and shall not show them to the contractor. A surveillance schedule is only required for those performance objectives with “Random Sampling” and “Periodic” inspection methods.

7.4.2. Surveillance Schedule Changes

The COR will make changes to the surveillance schedule as necessary and promptly forward to the CO/CA and COR supervisor. The COR will document the reason(s) for the change to the surveillance schedule and maintain the documentation in the COR file with the corresponding changed surveillance schedule.

7.4.3. End-of-month Completed Surveillance Report

The COR will submit an end-of-month completed surveillance report to the CO/CA no later than the 10th of the new month. The report will identify the number of scheduled surveillances and the number of conducted surveillances along with the “acceptable” and “unacceptable” performance objectives observed and any significant contractor performance issues. Both the COR and COR supervisor will sign and date the report.

7.5. Process for Unacceptable Performance

When the contractor’s performance is deemed unacceptable, the COR will determine the cause of the unacceptable performance and forward his/her findings to the CO.

7.5.1. Government Caused

If any Government actions, or lack of action, caused or contributed to the unacceptable performance, the contractor will not be held responsible for the unacceptable performance. The COR will take

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013 action to ensure Government action, or lack of action, does not interfere with the contractor’s performance in the future. The COR will completely document the circumstance.

7.5.2. Not Government Caused

When the unacceptable performance is not the result of Government action, or lack of action, the COR will promptly notify the contractor and direct the contractor to re-perform the service, if possible, without additional cost to the Government. If the contractor challenges the validity of the COR’s unacceptable assessment finding, and the COR and contractor cannot come to an agreement, the matter shall be referred to the CO for resolution.

7.5.3. CO Notification

7.5.3.1. Major Finding

If at any time the COR identifies a condition as having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the activity, such as those stated below, the COR will document their findings and notify the CO immediately in writing (email is acceptable).

a. Contractor failure to meet a Performance Standard.

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

c. Failure to provide corrective action to deficiencies identified by the COR within a prescribed suspense period.

d. Any failure to comply with security regulations.

e. Any failure to comply with safety regulations.

7.5.3.2. Minor Finding

If the COR finds that the contractor has deviated from established standards, but the deviation has little bearing on the service provided, the COR will document the finding in a memorandum for record (MFR). The COR is not required to immediately notify the CO, but will forward the MFR as an attachment to the monthly report. However, if the COR repeatedly identifies the same minor finding, it may be an indication that a major finding is occurring because the Contractor has not taken proper steps to prevent recurrence. In this case, the COR will notify the CO in writing.

7.5.4. Remedies for Unacceptable Performance

7.5.4.1. If Services Do Not Conform

In accordance with the contractor’s Inspection of Services Clause(s), if any of the services do not conform to the contract requirements, the Government may require the contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount.

7.5.4.2. If Services Cannot Be Corrected by Re-Performance

When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government may require the contractor to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements and reduce the contract price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed.

This may include a reduction in payment to reflect the total non-performance period.

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013

7.5.4.3. If Contractor Fails to Promptly Perform Services Again If the contractor fails to promptly perform services again or to take the necessary action to ensure future performance in conformity with contract requirements, the Government may by contract or otherwise, perform the services and charge to the contractor any cost incurred by the Government that is directly related to the performance of such service; decrease invoice if stated in the PWS related to performance, or terminate the contract.

8. NON-SERVICES SUMMARY ITEMS

Everything that is written into the PWS is required to be provided by the contractor, thus the Government has the right to inspect all services called for by the contract, to the extent practicable at all times and places during the term of the contract. Therefore, the COR has the right to conduct surveillances for Services Summary items and non-Services Summary items as well.

9. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICES

The contractor will submit invoices via the Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) system for services provided in accordance with the contract. The COR will act as the “inspector” of the services and ensure that all backup documentation is attached. If COR encounters errors in contractor’s invoice, COR consults with on site contract manager/project manager to mutually rectify the problem. If contractor disagrees with COR the issue is forwarded to the CO for resolution.

10. PARTNERING

Partnering/teaming is an attitude that defines a relationship of teamwork, cooperation, and good faith performance to meet mission objectives of the contract. The Government and contractor should work together, communicate their expectations, agree on common goals and methods of performance, and identify problems early. This Government-contractor relationship should prove effective in promoting achievement of mutually beneficial goals. It involves an agreement in principles to share the risks involved in completing a project and to establish and promote a nurturing partnership environment. Partnering is not a contractual agreement nor does it create any legally enforceable rights or duties; it seeks to create a new cooperative attitude in completing Government contracts.

QASP for Land Mobile Radio Maintenance Services 23 May 2013

REVIEW & ACCEPTANCE

The following signatures indicate their review and acceptance of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for troubleshooting, repair, installation and removal of commercial two-way radio communications equipment and system services. These signatures indicate coordination on this QASP at the time of development. This document is not contractually binding.

MARK VETTER, SMSgt, USAF JESSICA A. SIMON 509 CS/SCO COR Management Contracting Officer

ANGELA KOYLES GWENDOLYN McKINLEY Contract Administrator QA Program Coordinator

JENNIFER WAKEFIELD, MSgt, USAF YECENIA CABAN-JIMENEZ, SSgt, USAF COR (Primary) COR (Alternate)

ARTEM KUKHAREV, SSgt, USAF COR (Alternate)