OTES QASP 2 Aug 11.docx

DOCX document 28 KB Posted

Attached to
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION SERVICES (OTES) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
FA7046-11-R-0003
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Test Center

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION SERVICES (OTES), newest first.
File Type Posted
FA7046-11-R-0003-0004.doc DOC document
OTES TO 0003 Amendment 3 - 14 Oct 11.doc DOC document
OTES TO 0003 Amendment 3 - 14 Oct 11.doc DOC document
OTES_RFP_Amendment 2 - 14 Oct 11.doc DOC document
PWS TO_01_Nuclear_Space Amendment 2 - 14 Oct 11.docx DOCX document
OTES Final RFP-PPI QuestionsResponses 14 Oct 11.xls XLS spreadsheet
Section L Amendment 2 - 14 Oct 11.docx DOCX document
Amendment 1Section L 10-7.docx DOCX document
ppi_tool.accdb —
Amendment 1OTES_QASP 10-7.docx DOCX document
AFTECMAN99-101.pdf PDF
Amendment 1 PWS Oct 7.docx DOCX document
Amendment 1 RFP.doc DOC document
Form_4.pdf PDF
Form_6.pdf PDF
Form_2.pdf PDF
Form_1.pdf PDF
Form_2.xfdl XFDL file
Form_5.xfdl XFDL file
Final_ TO_02_Det_5_Bomber_Test_Division.docx DOCX document
Final_Sample_TO_03 JSPDS.docx DOCX document
Form_6.xfdl XFDL file
DRAFT OTES Responses.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
form_1.xfdl XFDL file
Final_TO_01_Nuclear_Space.docx DOCX document
FINAL OTES_QASP.docx DOCX document
Source_Interested Parties List.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
OTES PWS 25_ Jul_ 11_AFL_A.docx DOCX document
TO Nuclear Space 15_JUL_11_AFL.docx DOCX document
AFOTEC_99-101 _Conduct_of_Operational_Test_ _Evaluation.pdf PDF
AFI_99-103 _Capabilities-based_Test_ _Evaluation.pdf PDF
Defense_Acquisition_Guidebook_(DAG).pdf PDF
DoD_Directive_5000.1 _The_Defense_Acquisition_System.pdf PDF
DoD_5400.7R _DoD_Freedom_of_Information_Act_(FOIA)_Program _AF_Supplement.pdf PDF
JSPDS Task Order 15_Jul_11_AFL.docx DOCX document
AFI_33-200 _Information_Assurance_Program.pdf PDF
OTES CDRLs 27 Jun 11.docx DOCX document
CJCS_Instruction_3170.01G_Joint_Capabilities_Intergration_ _Development_System.pdf PDF
Det 5 Bomber Test Division TO_7_15_11_AFL.docx DOCX document
AFI_16-1002 _Modeling_ _Simulation_(M S)_Support_to_Acquisition.pdf PDF
AFI_33-100 _User_Responsibilities_ _Guidance_for_Information_Systems.pdf PDF
DoD_Instruction_5000.2 _Operation_of_the_Defense_Acquisition_System.pdf PDF
513408p CBRN DoD Implementation Directive.pdf PDF
AFOTEC_OT E_Guide _6th_Edition.pdf PDF
AFMAN_63-119 _Certification_of_System_Readiness_for_Dedicated_Operational_Test_ _Evaluation.pdf PDF
AFI_63-101 _Acquisition_ _Sustainment_Life_Cycle_Management.pdf PDF
DD254.docx DOCX document
AFOTEC_OT_of_IA_Guide _2nd_Edition.pdf PDF
DoD_Instruction_8500.2 _Information_Assurance_Implementation.pdf PDF
AFOTECPAM_99-104 _AFOTEC_Operational_Suitability_Test_ _Evaluation_Guide.pdf PDF
Show all 50

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION SERVICES (OTES) has more files on GovTribe.

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for

Operational Test and Evaluation Services (OTES) at

Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC)

1.0. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (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 be 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. 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 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.

2.0. 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.

3.0 Roles and Responsibilities

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) – The PCO 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 PCO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Assigned PCO: Paulette S.L. Windley Organization: AFOTEC/A-7K Telephone: 505-846-8423 Email: paulette.windley@kirtland.af.mil

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – At a minimum, one COR will be assigned to each task order issued under the OTES effort. 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 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 PCO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the PCO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to many any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

COR Supervisor – The COR Supervisor provides primary program oversight, nominates the COR, ensures the COR is trained before performing any COR duties and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities.

Assigned COR Supervisor: TBD by each individual task order Organization:

Telephone:

Email:

Contractor Representatives

The following employees of the contractor serve as the contractor’s Program Manager and Task Manager for this contract. (Complete this section after the contract award)

Program Manager - <upon award, enter name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

Task Manager - <upon award, enter name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

Other Key Contract Personnel - <upon award, enter name or delete these lines if not applicable> Title: <enter title> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

4.0 Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance

4.1 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 PCO, COR Supervisor 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.

4.2 Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (Attachment 1) is the list of performance objectives 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 elements. 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 performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The Surveillance Matrix should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

4.3 Performance Rating Definitions

In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used.

Performance Rating Criteria

Excellent / Outstanding
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 was 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 assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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.

5.0. Assessment Schedule

5.1 The COR will assess the contractor performance on a monthly basis with the first assessment due NLT the 10th of the month after contract award and NLT the 10th for each subsequent month. Mission requirements may require deviations from the assessment schedule. Assessment should be performed as close to the schedule as is practicable. The COR shall conduct assessment of the contractor’s performance by determining whether or not the performance meets the standards contained in the contract, the PWS and the Surveillance Matrix items.

5.2 Assessment Documentation shall include as a minimum, the date, time, and location the assessment was conducted, results of the assessment (acceptable or unacceptable), PWS paragraph number referencing the requirement, a short description of the requirement being surveyed, applicable remarks, signature of COR conducting the assessment. When the COR determines that contractor performance is unacceptable, the specific reason for the unacceptable performance shall be recorded on the COR’s assessment documentation.

5.3 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, COR has the right to conduct assessment for Surveillance Matrix items and non-Surveillance Matrix items as well. When the COR identifies unacceptable performance on non-Surveillance Matrix, the COR will follow the same process for noncompliance with Surveillance Matrix items.

6.0 Contractor’s Quality Control Plan

6.1 The contractor shall establish and maintain a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to ensure the requirements of the contract are provided as specified. The contractor shall provide a QCP describing the inspection system for the services required in the PWS. The contractor shall develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent and ensure non-recurrence of unacceptable services. The contractor shall update the plan as changes occur and changes shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the Contracting Officer Quality Assurance: Quality assurance activities focus on the processes being used to manage and deliver the services or deliverables. Organizational charts, communication lines, decision making authorities, criteria to be employed when determining if and when to elevate a performance issue are among the areas that should be thoroughly described in the QCP.

Attachment 1 Surveillance Matrix

Performance Objective
PWS Ref
Performance Threshold
Method of Assessment
Item 1: Provide responsive Task Order/team management including quick response to contingencies, to include timely and accurate task order document and report requirements, customer interaction and feedback, and contributions to meetings and reviews.
All
Contractor receives no more than three customer complaints per assessment period. Unsatisfactory performance must be resolved within 10 working days
Customer Complaint as validated by COR and PCO
Item 2: The Contractor must effectively monitor funding on each individual Task Order and effectively control the expenditures of all Other Direct Costs (ODCs). .
3.1.1
The Contractor can receive no more than three total customer complaints (substantiated by the COR and the PCO), to include timely CDRL delivery, per assessment period. Unsatisfactory performance must be resolved to the action within 10 working days
Customer Complaint as validated by COR and PCO
Item 3: The Contractor must be responsive to Government requirements, ensure PWS compliant performance, provide prompt identification and resolution of problems, effectively communicate concerns with the Air Force Contracting Officer Representative (COR)/Program Manager, and meet the delivery schedule required in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).
All
The Contractor can receive no more than three total customer complaints (substantiated by the COR and the PCO), to include timely CDRL delivery, per assessment period. Unsatisfactory performance must be resolved to the action within 10 working days
Customer Complaint as validated by COR and PCO
Item 4: Comply with applicable portions of the DD Form 254 for Task Order requirements.
All
Compliance is mandatory; no failures to meet security requirements are acceptable. Each security violation must be resolved to the government's satisfaction within 3 working days using the CDR process.
Customer Complaint as validated by COR and PCO
Item 5: Overall Quality of Performance: Contractor must efficiently perform all PWS tasks, including those requiring contributions to meetings and reviews.
All
No more than three total instances of failure to meet PWS requirements, listed in the above items per assessment period.
Customer Complaint as validated by COR and PCO

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .