Attachment_2_QASP_Data_Center.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

PLAN

Joint Base Andrews Data Center Electrical Installation

July 16, 2015

1. Performance Management. The Government will manage the performance of the Joint Base Andrews Data Center Electrical Installation. A series of surveillance methods will be utilized to ensure compliance with the tasks and deliverables laid out in the Statement of Work (SOW), which includes a project management plan, materials and personnel. The Project Management Plan was developed by the Multi-functional Team (MFT) to inform the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and contractor the “what” and “how” surveillance will be conducted. Performance Management and Assessment Management are main headings explained through the sub-paragraphs.

2. Objective. The Joint Base Andrews Data Center Electrical Installation will relocate 4 RC-100 Cooling units, allowing them to be reclaimed rather than purchasing new units, implement a 60KW Power Distribution Unit (PDU) with the associated installations of power feeds, vertical and horizontal “In-Rack” feeder PDUs to provide power to the networking equipment installed in each 19” equipment rack.

3. Results. The Joint Base Andrews Data Center Electrical Installation will ensure that sufficient power exists to support installed equipment, that the proper in-rack PDU’s are installed so that equipment is not chaffing, or otherwise touching or rubbing against the power feeds eliminating a current unsafe condition resulting from an equipment re-configuration.

Additionally, the project will allow the 844th Communications Group to reclaim and re-locate four RC-100 in-row air conditioning units, so that they can be reused rather than purchasing new replacements at a much higher cost than simply moving older, but available units.

4. Roles and Responsibilities of members.

The MFT is comprised of the following key members and their responsibilities include:

4.1. Contracting Officer (CO).

CO duties are detailed in FAR subpart 1.602-2. The CO is the only Government agent authorized to award or modify contracts; therefore, the CO is the only person authorized to contractually obligate the Government. The CO is also the individual who will sign any notifications to Contractors regarding performance issues and accepts Government surveillance methods utilized for each TO. The CO approves/appoints all CORs assigned by the Functional Director/Functional Commander. The CO can be reached at DSN: 612-6151 or Commercial 240-612-6151.

4.2. Contract Specialist (CS). The CS is the Government agent within the contracting office who performs day-to-day administration of the contract. The CS can be reached at DSN: 612- 6185 or Commercial 240-612-6185.

4.3. Program Manager (PM).

Ensures key stakeholders participate in the development, implementation, and execution of the acquisition strategy. Review Purchase Request for compliance and coordination. Develops Performance Work Statements (PWS), Justification and Authorization (J&A), Conducts the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) documents. Provides the metrics for task Develops reports to provide early warnings of significant variances in cost, schedule, or performance to senior leadership when requested. Complete and report performance reviews.

Plans, programs, and budgets adequate funds to ensure the execution is within approved funding baseline. Ensures that the users’ needs are being addressed

4.4. Contracting Officer Representative (COR) Primary and an Alternate.

The COR is ultimately responsible for implementing all QA matters and procedures. The COR should be at a level where other duties don’t prevent proper oversight of Contractor performance.

The COR must maintain both technical competency and evaluation proficiency in Contractor surveillance procedures. The COR should Assist in the development of the Services Summary and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The COR should conduct surveillance and document contractor performance in accordance with the PWS and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the CO.

This includes benchmarking against industry, identifying initiatives, assessing the risk associated with these initiatives, using the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan to implement initiatives and monitoring the success of implementation. Develops, implements, and executes performance measurement and management in accordance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

Maintains QA assessment documentation in a surveillance folder. The COR cannot assume duties until assigned by the requiring agency (FC/FD), complete COR required training (CO/QAPC and CO Led training), and appointed by the CO. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

4.5. Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC). The QAPC assists the CO and the COR in managing the overall QA program and supports customers in developing and adhering to TO-specific QASPs. The QAPC can be reached at DSN: 612-6140 or Commercial 312-612-

4.6. Contractor. The Contractor complies with contract requirements, identifies problems to the Contracting Officer or MFT and works with MFT to resolve issues. Provides Government with requested data and deliverables from which the contractor will be measured. If the contractor receives a Corrective Action Report (CAR), it will provide corrective plan of action within ten working days. If the MFT (ES/Engineer) requests support in the resolution of deficiency reports on any of the items produced by the contractor under this contract, the contractor shall aid the government in analysis of the failure

5.0. Management Strategy. The Project Manager and COR will be actively involved in following up on work performed to determine current status and to identify any issues. Issues identified will be communicated to the contractor by the COR. Serious issues (such as defective workmanship) will be addressed in writing while any safety issues will be addressed immediately at the work site and in writing to the contractor. The MTF will meet at Andrews AFB at least quarterly do review performance and to discuss performance issues. The MFT will also discuss any changes or improvements desired or required to the PWS and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan at this time. Critical, serious or safety issues may warrant an out of cycle meeting.

6.0. Metrics. The COR will collect all metrics, therefore all required reports shall be delivered electronically to the Primary and Alternate CORs as well as the Project Manager. Compliance will be reported by the COR monthly by the 15th of each month.

7.0. Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). While the dollar threshold for this effort is well below the amount specified in FAR Part 42.1502 for reporting on an IT contract via the CPARS system, at the discretion of the Program Manager, a CPARS report may still be submitted. CPARS generated Past Performance Information (PPI) is one of the tools used to communicate contractor strengths and weaknesses to Source Selection Officials and Contracting Officers (COs). The MFT may use past performance information from the CPARS system throughout the life of the contract. The Program Manager may assess the contractor’s performance using the current Department of Defense (DoD) CPARS Policy Guide. The Program Manager may use contractor performance indicators (for example: information contained in monthly reports, e-mails and other written records) maintained in the contract file or COR surveillance folder in paper or electronic format.

8.0. Contract Surveillance. The QASP is developed to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate Contractor performance. The Contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract. However, because of the nature of the work performed by Contractors, the Government cannot rely solely on the Contractor’s quality program but must have a method to gain insight in the entire contracting process. The Government does this through the QASP and can inspect or test all services called for by the contract, to the extent practicable, at all times and places, during the term of the contract. The COR’s contribution is their professional, non-adversarial relationships with the CO, CS, PM and the contractor, which enables positive, open and timely communications. This relationship is built upon regular, objective, fair, and consistent COR evaluations of Contractor performance against contract requirements, and the ability to discuss inspection results, trends, and items of mutual interest with the Contractor. The COR uses the methods in this QASP and the PWS to achieve this goal.

8.1. Surveillance Assessment/Reporting. In conducting assessment, the COR will evaluate contractors performance against the performance standards. The COR shall base their evaluation on the end result, not the frequency or method of performance. The contractor must perform all services, but not limited to, those in accordance with (IAW) the prescribed performance objectives stated in the Service Delivery Summary. This QASP identifies assessment procedures to ensure acceptable contractor performance

8.2. Services Delivery Summary (SDS) Matrix. This is the list of performance objectives/critical tasks and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance objectives/tasks. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file. Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards 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 performances. The Services Delivery Summary Matrix should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

Performance Objectives

PWS

Para. Performance Threshold Method of Surveillance

Provide a Project Plan

4.1.2 100% of the time, updated within 2 working days of any change in the plan

Within 10 working days of contract award. Provide electronically to the COR, 744CS SCX and 844CG SCXC in a Microsoft Office Format

Provide as built Schematic drawings 4.1.2 100% of the time, 100% accurate

Due in an electronic and paper format at project turn-over.

Provide to COR and 744CS SCX

Provide Configuration and Low Level Design Documentation

4.1.2 Provide Configuration and Low Level Design Documentation

Due in an electronic and paper format at project turn-over.

Provide to COR and 744CS SCX

Provide Weekly Progress Report 4.1.26 100% of the time

Due first working day of each week. Provide electronically to the COR, 744CS SCX and 844CG SCXC in a Microsoft Office Format

Provide Critical Issues Report 4.1.27 100% of the time

Due within 24 hours of any critical occurrence having a negative impact on performance. Provide electronically to the COR and

744CS/SCX.

Provide Hardware Registration and Warranty Documentation

4.1.4 100% of the time

Due in an format provided by equipment manufacturer at project turn-over. Provide to COR and

744CS SCX

8.3. Inspections. The COR may perform inspection/surveillance at any time during contract performance IAW FAR 52.246-4, Inspection of Services. The COR will retain all audit and inspection documentation until contract closeout, unless otherwise approved by the CO.

8.3.1 Non-conformances and Deficiencies. Audit or Inspection results that fall below contractual standards shall be identified as non-conformances or deficiencies. The COR will notify the contactor and document all non-conformances, referencing the specific PWS requirement that the Contractor did not meet, document the name of the individual contacted, and date and time of notification. If the Contractor fails to take corrective actions in a reasonable time-frame, the COR will notify the CS/CO and QAPC for further actions.

8.3.2 Types of Non-conformance.

8.3.2.1 Minor Non-conformance. A minor non-conformance is a non-conformance, which by itself does not adversely impact mission, safety of personnel and/or equipment, performance (quality), schedule (delivery), or cost. A minor non-conformance normally does not increase risk to the Government.

8.3.2.2. Major Non-conformance. A major non-conformance is a non-conformance that adversely impacts mission, safety of personnel and/or equipment, performance (quality), schedule (delivery), or cost. A major non-conformance also increases risk to the Government.

An example of increasing risk would be significant number of recurring non-conformances, which indicates inadequate preventive measures or actions, thus lowering the Government’s confidence that quality services will be provided on time and at cost.

8.3.2.3. Non-conformance Notification. If a deficiency is found during inspection of the Contractor’s performance, the COR will determine the type of notification based on the category of the non-conformance (see Table 2) and pursue non-conformance resolution.

8.3.2.4. First or Second Notices (see Attachment 1). As shown in Table 2, First and Second Notices provide written notification from the Government to the Contractor of minor non-conformances. Initial minor non-conformances should be addressed with a First Notice to the applicable Contractor representative. The COR will notify both the CS/CO and the QAPC of the issue, and prepare the notice for CO signature. The COR will provide a final, signed copy to the CS/CO and QAPC. The CO will First and Second notices to the contractor with a suspense date for the contractors reply. If the Contractor fails to respond by the specified due date, the COR will notify the CO/QAPC for action. If the Contractor fails to resolve the issue as documented in the Notice, the COR should elevate the issue to the next level (Second Notice or CAR).

Corrective/preventive actions initiated and/or completed by the Contractor will be verified by CORs on the scheduled inspection and documented accordingly.

8.3.2.5. Corrective Action Report (see Attachment 2). A CAR provides written notification from the Government to the Contractor of significant performance discrepancies. The Primary COR will recommend to the CS/CO and QAPC that a CAR be issued when previous notifications failed to result in corrective actions or when severe deficiencies exist. If a CAR is deemed necessary, the QAPC will assist the primary COR in filling out the CAR. The draft CAR will be routed within ten duty days after the event to the CO for review and signature, as the CO is the only person who has authority to issue a CAR to the Contractor.

Table 2 - NON-CONFORMANCE NOTIFICATIONS.

Non-conformance Category Notification Type

Minor Step 1: First Notice Step 2: Second Notice

Major Corrective Action Report

8.3.2.5.1. CAR Closeout. To satisfactorily close-out a CAR, the following criteria must be met:

the Contractor must meet the suspense; the corrective action must have already begun; and the Contractor's actions must correct the deficiency and if applicable, be within specified standards.

8.3.2.5.2. Unsatisfactory Report. If the corrective action is deemed UNSATISFACTORY by the COR, annotate the CAR accordingly and forward it to the CO with a brief explanation, including an estimate of the Government's loss due to the deficient performance. The estimate may account for loss or destruction of property, supplies, or equipment, and hours lost to re-perform the task. If the task cannot be re-performed, indicate the number of hours it ordinarily would have taken to do the task.

8.3.2.5.3. CAR Log. The COR will maintain a non-conformance log documenting all First and Second Notices and CARs. The log will include the date sent to the Contractor, issue, due date for response and actual response date. If a detailed response is required, include a link to the response and include the response in the applicable COR folder tab

8.4. Method of Acceptance of Services. The contractor will submit invoices via the Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) system for acceptable services tendered IAW the contract. The COR will act as the “inspector” of services and ensure that all backup documentation is attached. Backup documentation includes invoices for material; work orders and time sheets for time and materials; and certified payroll to support work performed under the Davis Bacon Act or Service Contract Act. After the COR inspects, the COR “accepts,” and DFAS will process the invoice.

8.5. 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.

8.6. Government-Caused. If any Government action, 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 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.

8.7. 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. Via the CO, the COR may issue a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) (Attachment

4) to the contractor to assure corrective action is taken. The contractor shall be required to return all completed CDRs to the CO no later than the suspense date indicated on the CDR.

Unacceptable performance re-performed by the contractor shall still count as unacceptable performance.

8.8. Surveillance Folder: Define documentation the COR will generate for surveillance. This includes documentation that will be forwarded to the PCO/ACO for payment. If delegated to DCMA, this may not be applicable. The team must have some mechanism to ensure surveillance is occurring on the contract. ALL surveillance records are considered FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY documents, and must be marked and safeguarded as such. Minimum Surveillance Folder Components:

TAB A: Copy of the Performance-Based Work Statement, Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, and Contract Data Requirements Lists for Services Summary Objectives only

TAB B: MFT Appointment letter (or COR ) Primary & Alternate Appointment COR., QA Documentation-Phase I & II Certification, Letter to the contractor from the CO stating who the Primary and Alternate COR are and their limited authorization).

TAB C: Official Inspection Documents-Performance Assessment Report (PAR), Corrective Action Report (CAR), Customer Complaint Report (CCR)

TAB D: Performance Documentation-Metrics, Contractor reports

TAB E: MFT meeting Minutes

TAB F: Miscellaneous Correspondence, etc.

9. ATTACHMENTS

First or Second Notice Template

MEMORANDUM FOR (Contractor, ATTN: Contractor POC)

FROM: AFDW/PKAB

SUBJECT: First/Second Notice for Contract for (brief name for non-conformance) on

FA7014-XX-X-XXXX)

1. Contracting Officer Representative: (Mr. John Doe)

2. Office: (COR Office symbol)

3. Date of First Notice: (if 2nd notice)

4. Date response due from Contractor: (dd-mmm-yyyy)

5. Requirement Reference: (PWS section and paragraph; Deliverable, Services Summary (SS))

6. Performance Requirement: (State what action the Contractor should have performed IAW the reference above)

7. Description of Non-Conformity: (provide objective evidence of the Contractor’s performance discrepancy(ies))

ADAM G. CLONICK, TSgt, USAF

Contracting Officer