M67004-18-R-0002_QASP_ATTACHMENT_2.doc

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS)

LOGISTICS INFORMATION SYSTEMS (LIS) ANALYSIS

1. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with FAR 46.4 and DFARS 237.172, this QASP is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled Logistics Information Systems (LIS) Analysis, Logistics Capabilities Center (LCC). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that will be used in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The QASP describes the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and, if applicable, the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities, identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract/delivery order as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control plan (QCP). Quality control is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract/delivery order regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QCP.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will assess performance using Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The CPAR assesses a contractor’s performance, both positive and negative, and provides a record on a given contract during a specified period of time. More information pertaining to CPARS can be found at: http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsfiles/pdfs/DoD-CPARS-Guide.pdf

Each assessment will be based on objective data (or measurable, subjective data when objective data is not available) supportable by program and contract management data. CPAR performance expectations will be addressed in the Government and contractor’s initial post award meeting. Potential sources of data may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Contractor operations reviews

Status and progress reviews

Production and management reviews

Management and engineering process reviews (e.g. risk management, requirements management, etc.)

Cost performance reports and other cost and schedule metrics

Other program measures and metrics such as:

• Measures of progress and status of critical resources

• Measures of product size and stability

• Measures of product quality and process performance

• Customer feedback/comments and satisfaction ratings

Systems engineering and other technical progress reviews

Technical interchange meetings

Physical and functional configuration audits

Quality reviews and quality assurance evaluations

Functional performance evaluations

Subcontract Reports

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract/delivery order compliance, contract/delivery order administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and the contractor. The KO will designate one full-time COR as the government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the KO.

2.2 Focal Point (FP):

The FP is responsible for:

(1) Ensuring all new contracts that exceed the threshold criteria are registered in CPARS

(2) Collection, distribution and control of CPARS

(3) Assisting the Assessing Official with

a. Training

b. Timely reporting

c. High integrity of program

(4) Providing access to the CPARS AIS for authorized individuals on specific contracts

2.3 Assessing Official (AO)

The COR is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract/delivery order. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action. The COR will act as the AO and will have the responsibility for preparing and processing the CPAR. CORs are encouraged to discuss contract performance with the contractor during the performance period and CPAR process. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract/delivery order. The AO’s responsibilities include:

1) Overall responsibility for execution and achievement of program goals

2) Evaluation of contractor performance including the rating and required narrative to support the rating.

3) Preparation of documentation and assessment ensuring input from specialists and team members, when appropriate

4) Preparing and signing transmittal letters

5) Notifying the contractor that a CPARS is ready for review

6) Entering, modifying and finalizing information in Blocks 1-21, when necessary

7) Notifying contractor of any revisions based on contractor comments

a. Forwarding evaluations to the RO which are in disagreement or when requested by the contractor or when the contractor fails to respond to the assessment, or, in the alternative

2.4 CPAR Reviewing Official (RO)

The RO is a person responsible for:

(1) Providing checks and balances needed to ensure report integrity

(2) Consideration and reconciliation, if possible, of any significant discrepancies between the AO’s evaluation and the contractor’s comments

3. IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

The required performance standards and quality levels are included in the PWS and in this document as Enclosure 1, “Performance Standards”. They are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, the contractor will receive positive CPARS ratings. If the contractor fails to meet the required performance level, the result will be negative CPARS ratings.

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

4.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards and performance monitoring techniques are expressed in Table 1.

4.2 Monitoring System

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the AO, will be reported using CPARS. CPARS evaluations shall be conducted on an annual basis.

5. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

5.1 Determining Performance

5.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards and Performance Thresholds have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements the contractor will receive a negative CPARS review.

Table 1 Performance Requirements Summary

5.3.9 and

5.4.3

Table 2 Deliverables

5.2 Reviews and Resolution

5.2.1 Upon AO review and signature of the CPAR by the AO the contractor will be notified and given the opportunity to review and comment to indicate concurrence/non-concurrence. If the contractor does not concur the RO shall resolve significant discrepancies between the AO’s evaluation and the contractor’s comments.