QASP for PfPC International Program Manager.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

CONTRACT NO. ___________________

The QASP is published separately and is not part of the contract. It is issued with the solicitation for informational purposes only. The QASP procedures can be changed unilaterally by the Government at any time. What cannot be changed without formal contract modification by the contracting officer is the Performance-based Matrix that contains the outcomes and associated standards to be surveilled. This matrix is identical to the matrix in the contract. Any modifications made to the matrix in the contract must be reflected in this QASP.

Team Members Coordination & Review:

Date:

Program Office

________________________________________ Date:

Program Office Contracting Officer’s Representative

Contracting Officer

Contractor (After Award)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

CAUTION!

The notion of “Authority” is key to the successful surveillance of this contract. Contract authority is restricted to the contracting officer (CO). However, the CO normally has minor day to day involvement in the contract. The contractor deals with the Contracting Officer's Representative (COTR). A significant problem can occur if the Contractor alleges it acted by direction of the COTR and the contract was constructively changed, that is informally changed.

The legal rule is that the Government is not bound by unauthorized acts of employees and the risk of dealing with unauthorized person falls on the contractor. However, the Government may be bound if the contractor can establish “implied authority,” i.e., the courts will decided if a reasonable person could assume that the Government employee had the authority to take action because it appears to be an integral part of duties assigned. To avoid implied authority problems, remember that the COTR only has that actual authority contained in their letters of appointment.

The other area of concern is “imputed knowledge.” The CO is charged with knowledge that the COTR has a duty to deliver to the CO. There is a legal principle that the nature of the relationship establishes a presumption that the authorized person will be informed. Examples:

non-disclosure of information to the contractor vital to performance but not normally available to contractor, knowledge of additional work, potential claims, and differing interpretations of the contract.

Remember: Keep the CO informed of all significant contract activities.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This QASP:

1.1.1 Identifies the services and products that will be measured.

1.1.2 Establishes the responsibilities for assuring quality performance.

1.1.3 Provides for feedback to the Contractor regarding quality, quantity, and timeliness of the service outputs.

1.1.4 Establishes timeframes for communicating performance improvements needed.

1.2 Since this is performance-based contract, the Government will validate in a timely manner the performance of the Contractor in meeting the services required. This QASP provides a systematic surveillance method for the services, and describes the methodology by which the Contractor’s performance will be monitored.

1.3 This plan contains a Contractor Performance Report (Tab 2) to be utilized in documenting contractor interim, annual, and post contract performance. The Contractor Performance Report will be an additional device for motivating the contractor on the current contract. These reports will also become part of the electronic data basis ultimately consolidated under the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) for past performance evaluations for future contracts. The COTR should use this form as the primary motivational tool to encourage high quality contractor performance. The report will be generated yearly or more frequently if necessary to document outstanding or unsatisfactory performance. The contractor should understand that these reports will remain in a data base for three years and will be available to all government agencies for source selection purposes.

1.4 The contractor should understand that the top two scores (4 and 5) are only available if the contractor exceeds the Government requirements at no additional cost to the Government. The COTR will identify the Government requirements that, if exceeded, will result in higher scores on the evaluation.

1.4.1 In general, many of the performance standards set forth in the contract represent the maximum performance level desired by the Government.

1.4.2 Contractor resources should be dedicated to maintaining these standards and not exceeding these standards if the Government will derive no benefit.

1.4.3 The Contractor may suggest other areas of performance that will benefit the Government in order to earn ratings of 4 and 5. For instance, the Government is interested in any activities by the Contractor that may reduce overall costs to the Government on this contract or subsequent contracts. These areas will be identified by the Government and may be changed unilaterally by the Government at any time.

1.4 Definitions

1.4.1 “Acquisition Team” consists of all participants in the contract including not only the contracting officer and COTR, but also the customers they serve, and the contractor who provides the products and services. The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer’s needs. All participants are responsible for making decisions that deliver the best value service to the customer. The result is a contract that works better and costs less.

1.4.2 “Contract quality requirements” means the technical requirements in the contract relating to the quality of the service and those contract clauses prescribing inspection, and other quality controls incumbent on the contractor, to assure that the product or service conforms to the contractual requirements.

1.4.3 “Government contract quality assurance” means the various functions, including inspection, performed by the Government to determine whether a contractor has fulfilled the contract obligations pertaining to quality and quantity.

1.4.4 “Major nonconformance” means a nonconformance, other than critical, that is likely to result in failure of the supplies or services, or to materially reduce the usability of the supplies or services for their intended purpose.

1.4.5 “Minor nonconformance” means a nonconformance that is not likely to materially reduce the usability of the supplies or services for their intended purpose, or is a departure from established standards having little bearing on the effective use or operation of the supplies or services.

2.0 Method of Surveillance

2.1 The Performance-based Matrix at Tab 1 lists the services to be monitored and the standards to be applied.

2.2 This QASP is based on the premise that the Government desires to maintain a quality standard for required services.

2.3 The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. The role of the Government is quality assurance to ensure contract standards are achieved.

2.4 In this contract, the Contractor’s inspection system (quality control program) is the basis for service quality. The Contractor is required to deliver only services that conform to or exceed the requirements of this contract.

3.0 Roles and Responsibilities of the Acquisition Team

3.1 Contracting Officer

1.4.1 The Contracting Officer has the overall responsibility for overseeing the Contractor’s performance.

1.4.2 The CO will be responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract management, and the resolution of all issues relative to the language of the contract.

1.4.3 Although the CO will have overall responsibility for overseeing the Contractor’s performance, The CO may delegate to the COTR the responsibility for the day-to-day monitoring of the Contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, property control; and reviewing the COTR’s and the customers’ assessments of the Contractor’s performance.

1.4.4 The CO has the sole authority to resolve all differences between the Government’s version and the Contractor’s version of the contract language. The COTR has no authority to interpret contract language.

1.4.5 The CO is the:

1.4.5.1 SOLE authority for any decisions that produce an increase or decrease in the scope of the contract

1.4.5.2 SOLE authority for any actions subject to the “Changes” clause;

1.4.5.3 SOLE authority for any decision rendered under the “Disputes” clause;

1.4.5.4 SOLE authority for negotiation modifications to the contract;

1.4.5.5 SOLE authority to approve the substitution or replacement of key personnel;

1.4.5.6 SOLE authority to approve the Contractor’s invoices for payment;

1.4.5.7 SOLE authority to monitor and enforce Department of Labor promulgated labor requirements;

1.4.5.8 SOLE authority to arrange and supervise quality assurance activities under this contract;

1.4.5.9 SOLE authority to determine the acceptability Contractor’s inspection system or Quality Control Program.

1.4.6 The Contracting Officer's Representative

1.4.6.1 Verifies that the contractor fulfills the contract quality requirements.

1.4.6.2 Ensures that nonconformances are identified, and establishes the significance of a nonconformance when considering the acceptability of supplies or services which do not meet contract requirements.

1.4.6.3 Develops and applies efficient procedures for performing Government contract quality assurance actions under the contract in accordance with the written direction of the contracting office.

1.4.6.4 Performs all actions necessary to verify whether the supplies or services conform to contract quality requirements.

1.4.6.5 Maintains, as part of the performance records of the contract, suitable records reflecting—

1.4.6.5.1 The nature of Government contract quality assurance actions, including, when appropriate, the number of observations made and the number and type of defects; and

1.4.6.5.2 Decisions regarding the acceptability of the products, the processes, and the requirements, as well as action to correct defects.

1.4.6.6 Implements any specific written instructions from the CO.

1.4.6.7 Reports to the CO any defects observed in contract quality requirements.

1.4.6.8 Recommend any changes necessary to the contract, specifications, instructions, or other requirements that will provide more effective operations or eliminate unnecessary costs.

1.4.6.9 Has primary responsibility for signing off on all invoices and documenting the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s performance.

1.4.6.10Works closely with the customer and the Contractor to ensure good communication and resolve any problems not requiring the CO’s authority.

1.4.7 The Contractor: The contractor is responsible for carrying out its obligations under the contract by—

1.4.7.1 Controlling the quality of supplies or services;

1.4.7.2 Tendering to the Government for acceptance only those supplies or services that conform to contract requirements;

1.4.7.3 Ensuring that vendors or suppliers of raw materials, parts, components, subassemblies, etc., have an acceptable quality control system;

1.4.7.4 Maintaining substantiating evidence, as required by the contract, that the supplies or services conform to contract quality requirements, and furnishing such information to the Government as required.

1.4.7.5 Provide and maintain an inspection system or program for the control of quality that is acceptable to the Government. The control of quality by the contractor may relate to, but is not limited to—

1.4.7.5.1 Testing and examination, to ensure that practices and equipment provide the means for optimum evaluation of the characteristics subject to inspection;

1.4.7.5.2 Reliability and maintainability assessment (life, endurance, and continued readiness);

1.4.7.5.3 Technical documentation, including drawings, specifications, handbooks, manuals, and other technical publications;

1.4.7.5.4 Preservation, packaging, packing, and marking; and

1.4.7.5.5 Procedures and processes for services to ensure that services meet contract performance requirements.

1.4.7.6 The contractor is responsible for performing all inspections and test required by the contract.

1.4.7.7 Complies fully with the terms and conditions of the contract.

1.4.7.8 Participates as a member of the acquisition team in the management of the contract.

1.4.7.9 Ensures that non-conforming contract services are identified and corrected and the inspection system is revised to prevent recurrence.

1.4.7.10Tenders to the Government for acceptance only those services that conform to contract requirements.

1.4.7.11Recommends any changes to the contract that will provide more effective operations or eliminate unnecessary costs.

1.4.8 Federal employees & contractor employees

1.4.8.1 Other than those mentioned above, no federal employees or contractor employees have the authority to modify this contract in any manner.

1.4.8.2 Report any instances of outstanding contractor performance or instances of failure to meet contractual requirements to the CO or COTR.

4.0 Surveillance: The COTR will evaluate the performance objectives through periodic inspections of the contractor’s during each service month. The COTR will also solicit customer input to evaluate the Contractor’s performance. The COTR should record both outstanding and unacceptable performance.

See Tab 3 for a sample of a COTR Monthly Evaluation Report.

4.1 The following information will be included:

1.4.1 Contract paragraph number referencing the requirement.

1.4.1 Short description of the requirement being surveilled.

1.4.1 Date, time, and location of surveillance.

1.4.1 Results of surveillance.

1.4.1 Signature of individual accomplishing the surveillance.

1.4 All performance will be documented, whether acceptable or unacceptable.

1.5 When unacceptable performance is documented, the COTR will take the following actions:

1.5.1 If Government actions or non-actions caused the unacceptable performance, take steps to prevent it in the future.

1.5.2 If the unacceptable performance was not caused by the Government, inform the Contractor’s

Quality Control representative of the unacceptable performance and the reasons why it is unacceptable.

1.5.3 If the Contractor wants to dispute the results of the surveillance, refer the Contractor to the CO for resolution.

1.5.4 Performance will be determined unacceptable only after all contributing factors have been considered.

1.6 The Government reserves the right to periodically inspect all services and deliverables prior to acceptance regardless if it is shown on the Performance-based Matrix.

1.7 In reviewing the inspection system initially at your office, make sure that the actual inspections promised are performed, the results reported, any corrective action noted, any required follow up action indicated and subsequently taken, and that the company performs an audit of the system outside the supervisory organization.

1.8 At your discretion, inspect the actual work to validate the accuracy of the inspection reports.

1.9 Monetary deductions are a remedy of last resort. If the contractor can redo or perform the work within the contract schedule they should be permitted to do so. This would then constitute acceptable work. If the work cannot be reperformed within the contract schedule, then provide the CO with a recommended deduction. Deductions should be calculated in the following manner:

1.9.1 Reduce the value of the contract price by the value of the work not performed. That is, recommend a deduction of the value of the labor required to have performed the task correctly.

1.9.2 Deduct the value of all your time spent handling the non-performance. Do not deduct the time it took to perform the original inspection. Do deduct the time spent plus travel for any re-inspection.

1.9.3 Deduct the value of the contractor’s non-performance of their proposed quality control effort. Normally, this will be the amount of time their inspection system stated would be devoted to checking the performance of this requirement.

1.10 Unless a safety issue is involved, do not direct contractor employees to do any work or rework. Always notify the contractor supervisor of the deficient performance. It is generally a good practice to conduct the inspection of the contractor’s work accompanied by the contractor supervisor. This joint inspection should be unannounced.

1.11 Maintain a detailed record of all quality assurance performance to include all communications with the contractor supervisor.

1.12 You are not the contractor’s primary inspector. The contractor is responsible for assuring performance that meets the contract standards.

1.13 Keep the CO over-informed. You can never provide the CO with too much information.

Documentation is essential for both inadequate as well as exceptional performance.

1.14 For tasks to be surveyed by random sampling procedures, random selection must be generated by a statistically valid computer program. Use the table at Tab 6 to determine performance requirement and sample size.

5.0 Standards: The contractor shall meet all standards in the Performance-based Matrix as well as all other deliverable dates and other contractual requirements.

For fixed price orders, the Government pays for results only. In this case, failure to meet a standard constitutes breach of contract. The Government is entitled to consideration from the Contractor for breach of contract for failure to meet contract requirements.

Failure to meet a standard is unexcusable unless the contractor can establish all of the following:

1. The non-performance or lateness is not the contractor’s fault;

2. The cause of the non-performance or lateness was not foreseeable;

3. It was beyond the contractor’s control to anticipate the cause of the non-performance or lateness by taking other actions such as arranging backup suppliers, departing earlier for the worksite, or having backup cleared employees on call.

5.1 All work shall be performed in accordance with the contract. The COTR will not consider the services complete until all unacceptable performance has been corrected.

5.2 The COTR will determine whether the failure was a minor non-conformance or a major non-conformance. (See paragraph 6.3 and Tab 4 for a decision matrix for Nonconforming Performance of fixed price contracts.)

6.0 Procedures: The Government will inspect performance to ensure Contractor compliance and record results of inspection, noting the date and time of inspection.

6.1 Unacceptable performance and customer complaints shall be referred to the COTR for investigation/validation. The COTR will investigate/validate the unacceptable performance or customer complaint and notify the Contractor’s Quality Control representative. The Contractor will be given a reasonable amount of time to correct the unacceptable performance and notify the COTR that the deficiency has been corrected. If deficiencies are not corrected, the COTR will notify the CO and recommend a course of action.

6.3 Nonconforming supplies or services. (See Tab 5 FAR Clauses)

6.3.1 The COTR should make a recommendation to the CO to reject supplies or services not conforming in all respects to contract requirements. In those instances where deviation from this policy is found to be in the Government’s interest, such supplies or services may be accepted only as authorized in this section.

6.3.2 The CO ordinarily must give the contractor an opportunity to correct or replace nonconforming supplies or services when this can be accomplished within the required delivery schedule. Correction or replacement must without additional cost to the Government.

6.3.3 The CO ordinarily must reject supplies or services when the nonconformance is critical or major or the supplies or services are otherwise incomplete. However, there may be circumstances (e.g., reasons of economy or urgency) when the COTR determines acceptance or conditional acceptance of supplies or services is in the best interest of the Government.

6.3.4 The COTR must make this determination based upon—

6.3.4.1 Advice of the technical activity that the item will perform its intended purpose;

6.3.4.2 Information regarding the nature and extent of the nonconformance or otherwise incomplete supplies or services;

6.3.4.3 A request from the contractor for acceptance of the nonconforming or otherwise incomplete supplies or services (if feasible);

6.3.4.4 A recommendation for acceptance, conditional acceptance, or rejection, with supporting rationale; and

6.3.4.5 The contract adjustment considered appropriate, including any adjustment offered by the contractor.

6.3.5 Before making a decision to accept, the COTR must obtain the concurrence of the activity responsible for the technical requirements of the contract.

6.3.6 If the nonconformance is minor, the COTR may make the determination to accept or reject, except the authority to reject is withheld by the CO.

6.3.7 The COTR must discourage the repeated tender of nonconforming supplies or services, including those with only minor nonconformances, by appropriate action, such as rejection and documenting the contractor’s performance record.

6.3.8 When supplies or services are accepted with critical or major nonconformances, the CO must modify the contract to provide for an equitable price reduction or other consideration. In the case of conditional acceptance, amounts withheld from payments generally should be at least sufficient to cover the estimated cost and related profit to correct deficiencies and complete unfinished work.

6.3.9 The COTR must document in the contract file the basis for the amounts withheld. For services, the COTR can consider identifying the value of the individual work requirements or tasks (subdivisions) that may be subject to price or fee reduction. This value may be used to determine an equitable adjustment for nonconforming services. However, when supplies or services involving minor nonconformances are accepted, the contract need not be modified unless it appears that the savings to the contractor in fabricating the nonconforming supplies or performing the nonconforming services will exceed the cost to the Government of processing the modification.

6.3.10 Notices of rejection issued by the CO must include the reasons for rejection and be furnished promptly to the contractor. Promptness in giving this notice is essential because, if timely nature of rejection is not furnished, acceptance may in certain cases be implied as a matter of law.

6.3.11 The notice will be in writing if—

6.3.11.1 The supplies or services have been rejected;

6.3.11.2 The contractor persists in offering nonconforming supplies or services for acceptance; or

6.3.11.3 Delivery or performance was late without excusable cause.

7.0 Contract Performance Evaluation

7.1 FAR 42.15 – Contractor Performance Information establishes the Government responsibility for recording and maintaining contractor performance information. This requirement does not apply to procedures used in determining incentive awards or other incentive systems, although the two systems should be mutually supporting.

7.2 FAR 42.1501 states: Past performance information is relevant information, for future source selection purposes, regarding a contractor's actions under previously awarded contracts. It includes, for example, the contractor's record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; the contractor's record of forecasting and controlling costs; the contractor's adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to patient satisfaction; and generally, the contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the patient.

7.3 The general procedures to be used are addressed in the following FAR section.

42.1503 Procedures.

(a) Agency procedures for the past performance evaluation system shall generally provide for input to the evaluations from the technical office, contracting office and, where appropriate, end users of the product or service.

(b) Agency evaluations of contractor performance prepared under this subpart shall be provided to the contractor as soon as practicable after completion of the evaluation. Contractors shall be given a minimum of 30 days to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional information. Agencies shall provide for review at a level above the contracting officer to consider disagreements between the parties regarding the evaluation. The ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation is a decision of the contracting agency. Copies of the evaluation, contractor response, and review comments, if any, shall be retained as part of the evaluation. These evaluations may be used to support future award decisions, and should therefore be marked “Source Selection Information.”

1 The form at Tab 2 will be completed at least annually and more frequently if necessary to motivate or reward the contractor.

Tab 1: Performance Based-Matrix: (Corresponds to Tab 1 in the PBPWS) Performance Objective PWS Paragraph Performance Standard Incentives The Contractor shall ensure effective planning and execution of Consortium events.

3 100% of assigned events are successfully planned and executed.

Process improvements that increase effectiveness, save money and/or time

Tab 2: Contractor Performance Report

SYSTEMS CPAR FORM

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (When Filled In)

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CPAR) -

(Source Selection Sensitive Information)(See FAR 3.104)

SYSTEMS

1. NAME/ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Division)

2.

INITIAL INTER-

MEDIATE

FINAL

REPORT

ADDENDUM

3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE BEING ASSESSED

CAGE CODE DUNS+4 NUMBER 4a. CONTRACT NUMBER 4b. DOD BUSINESS SECTOR & SUB-SECTOR

FSC OR SERVICE CODE SIC CODE 5. CONTRACTING OFFICE (ORGANIZATION AND CODE)

6. LOCATION OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE (If not in item 1) 7a. CONTRACTING OFFICER 7b. PHONE NUMBER

8. CONTRACT AWARD DATE 9. CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE

10. CONTRACT PERCENT COMPLETE/DELIVERY ORDER STATUS

11. AWARDED VALUE 12. CURRENT CONTRACT DOLLAR VALUE

13. COMPETITIVE NON-COMPETITIVE

14. CONTRACT TYPE

FFP

FPI

FPR

CPFF

CPIF

CPAF

MIXED

OTHER

15. KEY SUBCONTRACTORS AND DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT PERFORMED

16. PROGRAM TITLE AND PHASE OF ACQUISITION (If applicable)

17. CONTRACT EFFORT DESCRIPTION (Highlight key components, technologies and requirements; key milestone events and major modifications to contract during this period.)

18. EVALUATE THE FOLLOWING AREAS PAST COLOR RED YELLOW GREEN GOLD BLUE N/A

a. TECHNICAL (QUALITY OF PRODUCT)

(1) PRODUCT PERFORMANCE

(2) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

(3) SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

(4) LOGISTIC SUPPORT/SUSTAINMENT

(5) PRODUCT ASSURANCE

(6) OTHER TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE

b. SCHEDULE

c. COST CONTROL

d. MANAGEMENT

(1) MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS

(2) SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT

(3) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT & OTHER

MANAGEMENT

e. OTHER AREAS

(1)

(2)

SYSTEMS CPAR FORM (continued)

19. VARIANCE (Contract to date) CURRENT COMPLETION

COST VARIANCE (%)

SCHEDULE VARIANCE (%)

20. PROGRAM MANAGER (i.e., PMS, PMA, OR EQUIVALENT INDIVIDUAL) RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAM, PROJECT, OR TASK/JOB ORDER EXECUTION NARRATIVE (SEE PARA. 1.3)

21. TYPE NAME AND TITLE OF PROGRAM MANAGER (SEE PARA. 1.3) ORGANIZATION AND CODE PHONE NUMBER

SIGNATURE DATE

22. CONTRACTOR COMMENTS (Contractor’s Option)

23. TYPE NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE PHONE NUMBER

SIGNATURE DATE

24. REVIEW BY REVIEWING OFFICIAL (Comments Optional)

25. TYPE NAME AND TITLE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL ORGANIZATION AND CODE PHONE NUMBER

SIGNATURE DATE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING A SYSTEMS CPAR FORM

A1.1 All information on the form will be typewritten; no handwritten CPARs will be accepted by the CPAR focal points for inclusion into CPAR libraries. Reduced or condensed print (type smaller than 10 point) is not acceptable. All authorized additional pages must be annotated at the top with the contractor's name, contract number, period covered by report, and page number. The Systems Business Sub-Sectors are: Shipbuilding, Aircraft, Space, Ordnance, Training Systems, Ground Vehicles, or Other Systems.

A1.2 Block 1 - Name/Address of Contractor. State the name and address of the division or subsidiary of the contractor performing the contract. Identify the parent corporation (no address required). Identify the contractor's Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code1, Data Universal Numbering System DUNS+4 number,2 Federal Supply Classification (FSC) or Service Code3, and Standard Industry Classification (SIC) Code4.

1 CAGE Code: Unique five character company identification number issued by the Defense Logistics Service Center (DLSC) to identify DoD contractors. It is automatically assigned and validated in the registration process.

2 DUNS: Unique nine character company identification number issued by Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. DUNS+4 is a four character suffix assigned by the trading partner to identify a division or affiliate.

3 FSC or Service Code: The 4-character federal supply classification or service code that describes the contract effort. To find the code, look in Section I of the Department of Defense (DoD) Procurement Coding Manual (MN02). There are three categories of codes to choose from. In some cases, use a 4-character code from a list of 4-character codes; in other cases, construct a code using the instructions in the Manual. If more than one category or code applies to the contracting action, enter the one that best identifies the product or service representing the largest dollar value.

4 SIC Code: These codes are in the OMB Standard Industrial Classification Manual. If more than one code applies to the contracting action, enter the one that best identifies the product or service representing the largest dollar value.

A1.3 Block 2 - Type Report. Indicate whether, in accordance with section C, paragraph 5, the CPAR is an initial, intermediate, or final report. If this is an out-of-cycle report, check “intermediate”. If this is a report to record contractor performance relative to contract close-out or other administrative requirements, check “Addendum.”

A1.4 Block 3 - Period of Performance Being Assessed. State the period of performance covered by the report (dates must be in MM/DD/YY format). In no instance should a period of evaluation include previously reported effort (i.e., CPARs are not cumulative or overlapping). CPAR assessments for "intermediate" reports should only cover a 12 month period of performance; therefore, the report should not reflect a period of performance greater than 12 months. Exceptions to this rule for special circumstances, such as a period of performance that ends one month before contract completion, must be approved by the CPAR focal point. The CPAR focal point has the authority to approve extensions when special circumstances arise.

A2-1

A1.5 Block 4a - Contract Number. Self-explanatory.

Block 4b - DoD Business Sector and Sub-Sector. Identify the DoD Systems business sector and sub-sector: Aircraft, Shipbuilding, Space, Ordnance, Ground Vehicles, Training Systems, or Other Systems.

A1.6 Block 5 - Contracting Office (Organization and Code). Self-explanatory.

A1.7 Block 6 - Location of Contract Performance. Self-explanatory.

A1.8 Block 7a - Contracting Officer. Self-explanatory.

Block 7b. - Phone Number. Self-explanatory.

A1.9 Block 8 - Contract Award Date. Self-explanatory.

Al.10 Block 9 - Contract Completion Date. Self-explanatory.

A1.11 Block 10 - Contract Percent Complete/Delivery Order Status. State the current percent of the contract that is complete. If cost performance reports (CPR) or cost/schedule status reports (C/SSR) data is available, calculate percent complete by dividing cumulative budgeted cost of work performed (BCWP) by contract budget base (CBB) (less management reserve) and multiplying by 100. CBB is the sum or negotiated cost plus estimated cost of authorized undefinitized work. If not indicated elsewhere, include the cutoff date for the CPR or C/SSR used. If CPR or C/SSR data is not available, estimate percent complete by dividing the number of months elapsed by total number of months in contract period of performance and multiplying by 100. In the event an indefinite delivery (ID) contract is utilized, divide the dollars obligated through the end of the reporting period by the dollar value listed in Block 12 and multiply by 100.

Al.12 Block 11 - Awarded Value. Total estimated value of contract including unexercised options and orders.

A1.13 Block 12 - Current Contract Dollar Value. State the current face value of the contract as of the report date. For incentive contracts, state the target price or total estimated amount.

A1.14 Block 13 - Basis of Award. Identify the basis of award by placing an "X" in the appropriate box.

A1.15 Block 14 - Contract Type. Identify the contract type. For mixed contract types, check the predominate contract type and identify the other contract type in the "mixed" block.

Al.16 Block 15 - Key Subcontractors and Description of Effort Performed. Identify subcontractors performing either a critical aspect of the contracted effort or more than 25 percent of the dollar value of the effort. Provide a description of the effort being performed.

A1.17 Block 16 - Program Title and Phase of Acquisition. Provide a short descriptive narrative of the program. Spell out all abbreviations. Identify overall program phase and production lot (for example, concept development, engineering and manufacturing development, low-rate initial production, or full-rate production (Lot 1)). Identify milestone phases, if applicable.

A1.18 Block 17 - Contract Effort Description. Provide a complete description of the contract effort that identifies key technologies, components, subsystems, and requirements. This section is of critical importance to future performance risk assessment groups (PRAGs) and source selection authorities. The description should be detailed enough to assist a future PRAG in determining the relevancy of this program to their source selection. Also, keep in mind that users of this information may not understand program jargon. It is important to address the complexity of the contract effort and the overall technical risk associated with accomplishing the effort. For intermediate CPARs, a brief description of key milestone events that occurred in the review period may be beneficial (e.g., critical design review (CDR), functional configuration audit (FCA)), as well as, major contract modifications during the period. For task/delivery order contracts, state the number of tasks issued during the period, tasks completed during the period, and tasks which remain active. For contracts which include multiple functional disciplines or activities, categories should be designated to: (1) reflect the full scope of the contract, and (2) allow grouping similar work efforts within the categories to avoid unnecessary segregation of essentially similar specialties or activities. Each category or area should be separately numbered, titled and described within Block 17 to facilitate cross-referencing with the evaluation of the contractor's performance within each category in Blocks 18 and 19. If necessary, the description within this block may be extended to one additional typewritten page.

A1.19 Block 18 - Evaluation Areas. Evaluate each area based on the following criteria:

A1.19.1 Each area assessment must be based on objective data that will be provided in Block 20. Facts to support specific areas of evaluation must be requested from the contracting officer and other government specialists familiar with the contractor's performance on the contract under review. Such specialists may, for example, be from engineering, manufacturing, quality, logistics (including provisioning), contract administration services, maintenance, security, data, etc.

A1.19.2 The amount of risk inherent in the effort should be recognized as a significant factor and taken into account when assessing the contractor's performance. For example, if a contractor meets an extremely tight schedule, a blue (exceptional) may be appropriate, or meeting a tight schedule with few delinquencies, a green (satisfactory) with an upward arrow assessment may be given in recognition of the inherent schedule risk. When a contractor identifies significant technical risk and takes action to abate those risks, the effectiveness of these actions should be included in the narrative supporting the Block 18 ratings.

A1.19.3 The CPAR is designed to assess prime contractor performance. However, in those evaluation areas where subcontractor actions have significantly influenced the prime contractor's performance in a negative or positive way, record the subcontractor actions in Block 20.

A1.19.4 Many of the evaluation areas in Block 18 represent groupings of diverse elements. The program manager should consider each element and use the area rating to highlight significant issues. In addition, the program manager should clearly focus on the contractor’s “results”, as they may be appropriate for the period being assessed, in determining the overall area rating.

A1.19.5 Evaluate all areas which pertain to the contract under evaluation, unless they are not applicable-- ”N/A”.

A1.19.6 When performance has changed from one period to another such that a change in color results, the narrative in Block 20 must address each change.

A.1.19.7 The program manager should use customary industry quantitative measures where they are applicable if the contract is for commercial products.

A1.19.8 Scoring will be in accordance with the definitions described below in Figure A1.1, "Evaluation Ratings."

Blue (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.

Gold (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 were effective.

Green (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.

Yellow (Marginal). Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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.

Red (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.

NOTE 1: Upward or downward arrows may be used to indicate an improving or worsening trend insufficient to change the assessment status.

NOTE 2: N/A (not applicable) if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation.

Figure A1.1. Evaluation Ratings.

A1.20 Block 18a - Technical (Quality of Product). This element is comprised of an overall rating and six sub-elements. Activity critical to successfully complying with contract requirements must be assessed within one or more of these sub-elements. The overall rating at the element level is the program manager’s integrated assessment as to what most accurately depicts the contractor’s technical performance or progress toward meeting requirements. This assessment is not a predetermined roll-up of the sub-element assessments.

A1.20.1 Block 18a(1) - Product Performance. Assess the achieved product performance relative to performance parameters required by the contract.

A1.20.2 Block 18a(2) - Systems Engineering. Assess the contractor's effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated system design solution.

Areas of focus should be: the planning and control of technical program tasks, the quality and adequacy of the engineering support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, the integration of the engineering specialties, management of interfaces, and the management of a totally integrated effort of all engineering concerns to meet cost, technical performance, and schedule objectives. System engineering activities ensure that integration of these engineering concerns is addressed up-front and early in the design/development process. The assessment should cover these disciplines: systems architecture, design, manufacturing, integration and support, configuration control, documentation, test and evaluation. The assessment for test and evaluation should consider success/problems/failure in developing test and evaluation objectives; planning (ground/air/sea) test, simulations and/or demonstrations; in accomplishing those objectives and on the timeliness of coordination and feedback of the test results (simulations/demonstrations) into the design and/or manufacturing process. Other activities include: producibility engineering, logistics support analysis, supportability considerations (maintenance personnel/skills availability or work-hour constraints, operating and cost constraints, allowable downtime, turn-around-time to service/maintain the system, standardization requirements) survivability, human factors, reliability, quality, maintainability, availability, inspectability, etc. Although some of these activities will be specifically addressed in other elements/sub-elements (such as product assurance), the focus of the assessment of systems engineering is on the integration of those specific disciplines/activities. The assessment of systems engineering needs to remain flexible to allow the evaluator to account for program unique technical concerns and to allow for the changing systems engineering environment as a program moves through the program phases, e.g., Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production.

A1.20.3 Block 18a(3) - Software Engineering. Assess the contractor's success in meeting contract requirements for software development, modification, or maintenance. Results from Software Capability Evaluations (SCEs) [using the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM) as a means of measurement], Software Development Capability Evaluations (SDCEs), or similar software assessments may be used as a source of information to support this evaluation.

Consider the amount and quality of software development resources devoted to support the contract effort.

A1.20.4 Block 18a(4) - Logistic Support/Sustainment. Assess the success of the contractor's performance in accomplishing logistics planning.

For example, maintenance planning; manpower and personnel; supply support; support equipment; technical provisioning data; training and support; computer resources support; facilities; packaging, handling, storage and transportation; and design interface;

and the contractor's performance of logistics support analysis activities and the contractor's ability to successfully support fielded equipment. When the contract requires technical/engineering data deliverables, the cognizant cataloging/standardization activity comments should be solicited.

A1.20.5 Block 18a(5) - Product Assurance. Assess how successfully the contractor meets program quality objectives; e.g., producibility, reliability, maintainability, inspectability, testability, and system safety, and controls the overall manufacturing process.

The program manager must be flexible in how contractor success is measured; e.g., data from design test/operational testing successes, field reliability and maintainability and failure reports, user comments and acceptance rates, improved subcontractor and vendor quality, and scrap and rework rates. These quantitative indicators may be useful later, for example, in source selection evaluations, in demonstrating continuous improvement, quality and reliability leadership that reflects progress in total quality management.

Assess the contractor's control of the overall manufacturing process to include material control, shop floor planning and control, statusing and control, factory floor optimization, factory design, and factory performance.

A1.20.6 Block 18a(6) - Other Technical Performance. Assess all the other technical activity critical to successful contract performance. Identify any additional assessment aspects that are unique to the contract or that cannot be captured in another sub-element.

A1.21 Block 18b - Schedule. Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, administrative requirements, etc.

Assess the contractor's adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the contractor's efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or effect the schedule variance. Also, address significance of scheduled events (e.g., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

A1.22 Block 18c - Cost Control (Not required for Firm Fixed Price or Firm Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment). Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost.

Is the contractor experiencing cost growth or underrun? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For contracts where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor provided person-hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate task cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources in each work effort, should be assessed.

Al.23 Block 18d - Management. This element is comprised of an overall rating and three sub-elements.

Activity critical to successfully executing the contract must be assessed within one or more of the sub-elements. This overall rating at the element level is the program manager’s integrated assessment as to what most accurately depicts the contractor’s performance in managing the contracted effort. It is not a predetermined roll-up of the sub-element assessments.

A1.23.1 Block 18d(1) - Management Responsiveness. Assess the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals (especially responses to change orders, engineering change proposals (ECPs), or other undefinitized contract actions), the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Consider the contractor’s responsiveness to the program needs during the period covered by the report.

A1.23.2 Block 18d(2) - Subcontract Management. Assess the contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts, including whether the contractor met small/small disadvantaged and women-owned business participation goals.

Identify the percentage of the contract work that was represented by subcontracted efforts, and assess the prime contractor’s effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether subcontractors were an integral part of the contractor’s team. Consider efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance.

A1.23.3 Block 18d(3) - Program Management and Other Management. Assess the extent to which the contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract; identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by contract; communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the contractor’s risk management practices, especially the ability to identify risks and formulate and implement risk mitigation plans. If applicable, identify any other areas that are unique to the contract, or that cannot be captured elsewhere under the Management element.

Integration and coordination of activities should reflect those required by the Integrated Master Plan/Schedule. Also consider the adequacy of the contractor’s mechanisms for tracking contract compliance, recording changes to planning documentation and management of cost and schedule control system, and internal controls, as well as the contractor’s performance relative to management of data collection, recording, and distribution as required by the contract.

A1.24 Block 18e - Other Areas. Specify additional evaluation areas that are unique to the contract, or that cannot be captured elsewhere on the form. More than one type of entry may be included, but should be separately labeled. If extra space is needed, use Block 20.

A1.24.1 If the contract contains an award fee provision, enter "award fee" in the "Other Areas" block (18e).

Use the columns, beginning with the "Past Color" column, to record the award fee percentages earned.

Subsequent columns should be used if there was more than one award fee earned during the period covered by the CPAR (as reflected in Block 3). For example, if two award fees were earned during the period covered by report and the contractor earned 80% on both, the Block 18e entry under "Past Color" would read: "1--80%" and under "Red" the entry would read: "2--80%." In addition, the program manager should translate the award fee earned to color ratings, which could prove more useful for using past performance to assess future performance risk in…