Attachment_J-02_TEAMS_ITMA_-_QASP_TrackChanges.pdf

HQ0147-18-R-0004

Attachment J-02 QASP Technical, Engineering, Advisory, and Management Support (TEAMS)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Information Technology Management and Analysis

Revision 1 April 15, 2018

Purpose This QASP is a guideline to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in evaluating contractor performance against contract number TBD . The intent is to assure that the Government is receiving the products and services specified in the contract at the standards prescribed in the contract. The QASP guidelines allow the contractor (1) to understand Government expectations in advance of the annual Contract Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) and (2) to facilitate any corrective actions without impacting Agency operations. The QASP establishes procedures on how the assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It specifies the work requiring surveillance and possible methods of surveillance.

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance and products that meet 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.

Authority Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46.4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Government Contract Quality Assurance, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the products and services called for in the contract. This acceptance is to be executed by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or a duly authorized representative. Nothing in this document shall limit the Government’s inspection authorities shown elsewhere in the contract.

Scope To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between the QCP and the QASP. The Contractor, through its QCP, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract. The QASP establishes Government surveillance of the Contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective, and are delivering products and services as specified in the contract.

Surveillance The standard frequency for Contractor performance meetings (feedback sessions) will be on a quarterly basis.

The Government’s intent is to minimize the level of Government involvement and allow the Contractor to meet or exceed the contract requirements. The frequency of feedback sessions may be reduced when there are indications that the Contractor’s performance is strong. Strong performance will be evaluated on positive Government surveillance results, valid Contractor self-assessment, and effective corrective action plans. If there are indications of poor performance (potential ratings less than satisfactory) or ineffective corrective action plans, the meeting frequency may increase. The Contractor or the Government may request an increase or decrease in the frequency of meetings. Any feedback sessions occurring other than quarterly (more or less frequent) will be at the Government’s discretion and managed by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for this contract. The COR will notify the contractor of meeting frequency and scheduled dates and times for discussions on the results of Contractor performance assessments.

The Contractor will be required to submit a self-assessment of its performance during the assessment timeframe. Contractor inputs (self-assessments) will be required prior to the scheduled government feedback session IAW the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Information Technology Management and Analysis

Revision 1

Methodology Assessments will be based on both objective and subjective data and information, such as Government performance evaluations and feedback, customer comments, quality of products, and general technical interchange and engagement with other Government and Contractor personnel. Surveillance will range between 100% of contract deliverables and task surveillance to a random monitoring of specific tasks and will be determined by the Government prior to the review/feedback session.

Evaluation Criteria Quarterly performance evaluations will be used to provide interim CPAR considerations and the quarterly Contractor performance report will incorporate the CPARS format. The CPAR evaluation fields include Quality of Product or Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Utilization of Small Business, and Regulatory Compliance. Quarterly evaluations are progress reports; while they should be useful to the Contractor in understanding the Government’s view of the acceptability of the Contractor’s performance and what areas of performance the Government may wish to emphasize as more critical at a particular juncture, they depict a snapshot in time. The Contractor’s annual and final CPAR ratings will be determined by overall performance during the period being evaluated.

Performance Standards The principal goal of the assessment process is to establish performance measures and a performance feedback process that support the execution of the CPARs. Evaluations will be IAW guidance for the CPARS. Five principal ratings have been established for assessment of all performance objectives - reference Enclosure 1.

Quality of Product or Service will assess how successfully the contractor meets program office expectations and contract requirements. General areas of focus may include the quality of support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, the integration of contractor personnel, and the knowledge base and professionalism of Contractor personnel. At Enclosure 1, Table A1-1 defines annual CPAR evaluation rating criteria and associated standards.

There are two Quality of Product or Service sub-factors:

Technical accuracy Technical independence

Schedule will assess the Contractor’s adherence to required delivery schedules by assessing the Contractor’s efforts that contribute to or affect schedule variance. The significance of scheduled events may impact evaluation ratings. At Enclosure 1, Table A1-1 defines annual CPAR evaluation rating criteria and associated standards.

There are two Schedule sub-factors:

Timeliness: Meets schedules Completes actions within specified deadlines

Cost Management will assess the Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. The goal of cost management is the successful completion of tasks within specified cost ceilings and support of achieving the best value support to each task. At Enclosure 2, Table A2-2 defines annual CPAR evaluation rating criteria and associated standards.

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Information Technology Management and Analysis

Revision 1

There are two Cost Management sub-factors:

Overall cost control by CLIN Timeliness and accuracy of cost reports, required Limitation of Funds or Cost notifications, and travel and ODC requests.

Management will assess the Contractor’s success with fulfilling contract requirements and efficiency of Contractor efforts to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives, the methodology to coordinate with Government stakeholder(s) to ensure mutual understanding of requirements, and promptness to implement a workforce that maximizes resource utilization.

General areas of focus subject to evaluation include the extent to which the Contractor demonstrates responsibility for integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract, identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements, assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by contract, and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements and contracting officials in a timely manner. At Enclosure 3, Table A2-3 defines annual CPAR evaluation rating criteria and associated standards.

There are four management sub-factors:

Efficiency in planning and management of contract requirements;

Timelines, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, and proposal submittals;

Ability to respond, plan, and implement staffing changes;

Effective business relations.

Small Business Utilization will assess the Contractor’s compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to Small Business participation. At Enclosure 4, Table A2-4 defines annual CPAR evaluation rating criteria and associated standards. The following factors will be considered:

Compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business;

Compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitation on Subcontracting

Regulatory Compliance will assess the Contractor’s adherence to applicable laws and federal, DoD, or MDA regulations. In addition to the following, any applicable events cited in Section A3- 31 of the CPAR Guide dated July 2014 are subject to evaluation. At Enclosure 5, Table A2-5 defines annual CPAR evaluation rating criteria and associated standards.

Contractor’s enforcement of laws and regulations;

Correction of deficiencies when out of compliance;

Communication of laws and regulations to subcontractors.

NOTE: Specific consideration will be applied to the requirements of FAR.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons. The Contracting Officer's Representative shall inform the Contracting Officer immediately of- (i) Any action by the contractor employees that they may have personally observed that is in violation of the FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons; and (ii) Any credible information they receive from any source (including host country law enforcement) that alleges a Contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee, or their agent has engaged

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Information Technology Management and Analysis

Revision 1 in conduct that violates the policy in paragraph (b) of the clause at FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons.

Enclosure 1 Table A1-1: Performance Rating Structure

Performance Rating

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Standard Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (majority) to the Government's benefit

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit

Performance meets contractual requirements

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements and impacts Government operations

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner

Performance Accomplished with none to minor problems

Accomplished with some minor problems

Accomplished with some minor problems

Reflects a serious problem contains a serious problem(s)

Significant Weakness

No significant weakness

No significant weakness

No significant weakness

Significant weakness

Significant weakness

Corrective Actions

Highly effective Effective Satisfactory Not identified, marginally effective, or not fully implemented

Not identified, not effective

Benefit/ Impacts

Significant event(s) and benefit(s) identified

A significant event and benefit identified

Minor and major problems recovered without impact to the contract/order

A significant event with difficulty overcoming and impact identified

Significant event(s) with trouble overcoming and impact identified

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Information Technology Management and Analysis

Revision 1

Enclosure 2 Table A2-2: Cost Management Rating Structure

Performance

Element Standards Presumptive Rating Definitions

Cost Management Cost Control :

Effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/order cost;

innovation that resulted in cost savings; provision of additional products while maintaining required cost control.

Cost Reporting:

Accuracy and timeliness of reported financial data and analysis documents i.e.: cost reports, notifications (LOF, LOC), invoices, and travel and ODC requests.

Exceptional: Exceeded expectations and performance/products provided in a manner that created greater efficiency to the Government. Exceptional performance may be demonstrated by:

Cost underruns of at least 7.5% of Estimated Cost of each Labor CLIN Zero reporting errors Zero late or missed reporting deadlines for any required report and early delivery for all cost reports by at least five work days

Very Good: Performance/products provided at a manner higher than stipulated by the contract and expectations of the Government. Very Good performance may be demonstrated by:

Cost underruns between 1%-7.4% of Estimated Cost of each Labor CLIN No more than one reporting error Zero late or missed reporting deadlines and early delivery of some cost report

Satisfactory: Performance/products fulfilled expectations, met standards and only minor problems were identified or major problems were identified, but the contractor recovered from those problems without impact to the contract. Cost underrun less than 1% or overrun less than 5% with mitigating circumstances.

Marginal: Performance/products did not meet the standard dictated by the contract, but were delivered and:

Government approved corrective action plan(s) in place Cost overrun between 5%-8.4% of the Estimated Cost of any Labor

CLIN

Three–four reporting errors Three–four late or missed reporting deliverables

Unsatisfactory: Performance/products did not meet the standard dictated by the contract and/or was not delivered/ performed and:

No documented progress in correcting cost overrun greater than 8.5% of the Estimated Cost of any Labor CLIN No Government-approved corrective action plan(s) in place or the corrective action plan(s) fail to provide improvement Five or more reporting errors Five or more late or missed cost reports

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Information Technology Management and Analysis

Revision 1

Enclosure 3 Table A2-3: Management Rating Structure

Management Program Management:

Efficiency in planning and management of contract requirements

Responsiveness:

Timelines, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, and proposal submittals

Staffing:

Ability to respond, plan, and implement staffing changes

Business Relations:

Reasonable and cooperative behavior and customer satisfaction

Exceptional: Exceeded expectations and performance/products provided in a manner that created greater efficiency to the Government and:

Zero unresolved non-performance issues All requested corrective action plans and proposals delivered in a timely manner All staffing issues and staffing changes promptly and effectively resolved Zero complaints validated by the Contracting Officer

Very Good: Performance/products provided at a manner higher than stipulated by the contract and expectations of the Government and:

No more than one unresolved non-performance issues No more than one late corrective action plans and/or proposals No more than one staffing issue or staffing change promptly and effectively resolved No more than one complaint validated by the Contracting Officer

Satisfactory: Performance/products fulfilled expectations, met standards and only minor problems were identified or major problems were identified, but the contractor recovered from those problems without impact to the contract.

Marginal: Performance/products did not meet the standard dictated by the contract, but were delivered and:

More than two unresolved non-performance issues More than two staffing issues or staffing changes that were not promptly and effectively resolved Three–four complaints validated by the Contracting Officer

Unsatisfactory: Performance/products did not meet the standard dictated by the contract and/or was not delivered/ performed and:

No documented progress in correcting any performance issue No Government-approved corrective action plan(s) in place or the corrective action plan(s) fails to provide improvement Five or more staffing issues or staffing changes that were not promptly and effectively resolved Five or more complaints validated by the Contracting Officer

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Information Technology Management and Analysis

Revision 1

Enclosure 4 Table A2-4: Small Business Utilization Rating Structure

Rating

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Standard

*50% Rule - Compliant with

FAR 52.219-14,

Limitations on Subcontracting

*50% Rule - Compliant with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting

*50% Rule - Compliant with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting

*50% Rule – Not Compliant with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, but has a recovery plan acceptable to the government

*50% Rule – Not Compliant with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting and did not have a recovery plan acceptable to the government OR was not compliant at the end of the contract performance period

FAR 52.219-8 -

Prime contractor plus 1st tier SB subcontractor performs at least 90% of the labor effort

FAR 52.219-8 -

Prime contractor plus 1st tier SB subcontractor performs at least 80% of the labor effort

FAR 52.219-8 -

Prime contractor performs at least 50% of the labor effort

FAR 52.219-8 -

Prime contractor plus 1st tier SB subcontractor performs less than 50% of the labor effort

FAR 52.219-8 -

Prime contractor plus 1st tier SB subcontractor performs less than 50% of the labor effort

ALL standards must be met in order to receive an Exceptional Rating

ALL standards must be met in order to receive a Very Good Rating.

ALL standards must be met in order to receive a Satisfactory Rating.

If any of the standards apply, no higher than a Marginal Rating can be achieved

If any of the standards apply, no higher than an Unsatisfactory Rating can be achieved

Contract Deliverables

Met - deliver on time and met all requirements of the deliverable

Met - deliver on time and met all requirements of the deliverable

Met - deliver on time and met all requirements of the deliverable

Deficient – did not deliver on time or did not met all deliverable requirements but corrected deficiencies in a timely fashion

Noncompliant – did not deliver on time or did not met all deliverable requirements and deficiencies not corrected in a timely fashion

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Information Technology Management and Analysis

Revision 1

Enclosure 5 Table A2-5: Regulatory Compliance Rating Structure

Regulatory Compliance

Legal/Regulatory Compliance:

Contractor complies with laws and federal, DoD and MDA regulations

Deficiency Correction:

In the event a deficiency is realized, the Government is notified and correction is made

Personnel and

Subcontractor Management Compliance:

Training and communications are implemented to ensure all involved parties are aware

Exceptional: Exceeded expectations and there was:

Zero legal or regulatory compliance issues Zero evidence of a lack of training for prime contractor personnel or lack of communication to subcontractors in regard to regulatory compliance

Very Good: Exceeded expectations and:

No more than one noted deficiency Any deficiency was quickly and effectively corrected Very minor evidence of a lack of training on legal and regulatory issues, but was documented and corrected in a timely manner

Satisfactory: Met standards and only minor problems were identified or major problems were identified, but the contractor recovered from those problems without impact to the contract.

Marginal: The Contractor had repeated compliance issues and:

Any deficiency was quickly and effectively corrected by the implementation of the corrective action plan Three–four noted deficiencies Three–four instances of a lack of training or communication to a subcontractor

Unsatisfactory: The Contractor had repeated compliance issues and:

No documented progress in correcting noted deficiencies No Government-approved corrective action plan(s) in place or the corrective action plan(s) fails to provide improvement Five or more noted deficiencies Five or more instances of a lack of training or communication to a subcontractor