Att_12_-_QASP.docx

AAV Survivability Upgrade Program Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

22 November 2013

AAV-PLN-01004

Version 1.1

PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied guideline to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in performance-based services contracts and any subsequent tasks issued for the Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault (PM AAA) Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) Survivability Upgrade Program. This QASP establishes procedures to utilize in ensuring the Contractor performs in accordance with the basic contract Statement of Work (SOW), provides quality products in response to all requirements, and the Government only pays for acceptable levels of service. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the SOW and the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP).

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

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

Government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the Contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The Government will make determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the Contractor of those decisions. The Contractor shall be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 46.4, which provides for inspections and acceptance of articles, services, and documentation specified by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or duly authorized representative by appointment.

GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Government is responsible for implementing this QASP. The Government resources under this QASP and associated responsibilities are identified below:

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contract actions such as basic awards or task orders and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government.

Responsibilities: Ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the terms of the basic contract, and safeguards the interest of the United States in the contractual relationship. Assure the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the basic contract. Determine the final adequacy of Contractor performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) An individual designated in writing by the PCO to act as the authorized representative to assist in the administration of specific contracts, as specified by appointment. The source of authority for the COR is the PCO.

Responsibilities: Monitors contract performance; evaluates work as it progresses; exercises appropriate technical direction within the scope of the contract; inspects and accepts completed work for the Government; and assists the PCO with Contractor’s performance evaluations.

METHODS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for engineering and technical services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year of performance. This evaluation will be one determinant in exercising any options. For this contract, the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the order, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

QASP - The methods of surveillance listed below will be used by the PCO and the COR in the technical administration of this QASP.

QUALITY SURVEILLANCE AND ASSESSMENTS

The AAV Survivability Upgrade Program is a performance-based contract addressed by this QASP. The Government team described above is responsible for the execution of this assessment process. Deliverables presented by the Contractor shall provide data that the Government may use in conjunction with other data in order to assess performance. This QASP will focus on the definition of each quality standard, the methodologies, process and forms to be utilized in the gathering and assessment of contractor performance data and the communication process necessary to ensure effective and timely identification and resolution of Contractor performance issues.

Quality Performance Standards

a. Assessments will be based on objective facts and supported by program and contract management data, such as functional and program performance evaluations, customer comments, quality of products, customer feedback, and general technical interchange and engagement with team members.

b. The principle goal of the AAV Survivability Upgrade Program assessment process is to ensure that the Contractor performs requirements at acceptable quality levels (AQL), and that the Government receives services and products that satisfy the requirements of the contract. The AAV Survivability Upgrade Program assessment must be:

Accurate: All data collected must be reflective of actual Contractor performance.

Fair: The assessment must be based on known baseline requirements.

Relevant: Data must be reflective of those quality assessment areas identified in the SOW.

Comprehensive: Data shall be comprehensive enough to facilitate identification of shortfall root causes not just the fact that a shortfall exist.

A Repeatable Process: The processes, forms, analysis methodology and reporting system must remain consist across each contract and each task order throughout the life of the effort.

Timely: Assessment reporting cycle must ensure timely notification of issues so as to enable timely resolution.

Joint Agreement: The processes, quality standards and frequency of assessment must be clearly understood by all parties.

Consistent: The processes used to conduct the assessment must be consistent across tasks.

Measures of Contractor Performance All SOW/CDRL tasks, including SOW/CDRL sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following five (5) core measures of Contractor performance by the Program Office(s), and other stakeholders. The Contractor shall employ the necessary resources to ensure contract objectives are accomplished in a timely manner, and in accordance with basic contract and task requirement. The five (5) core measures of Contractor performance are:

Performance Measure #1: Management Effectiveness Performance Measure #2: Technical Performance Performance Measure #3: Quality of Work Performance Measure #4: Timeliness Performance Measure #5: Cost Control

Each area will be rated at the end of the Base Contract Option and annually thereafter (Options, if exercised), and supporting statements will be annotated as needed. The ratings are:

· Exceptional – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

· Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

· Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

· Marginal - Performance does not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed reflect 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.

· Unsatisfactory – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the task or sub-task contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s actions appear or were ineffective.

Expectations should be tailored to the difficulty, complexity, and time limitations for the task. The following areas should be considered when evaluating the contractor under the performance measure criteria.

Performance Measure #1: Management Effectiveness Performance in the area of Management Effectiveness will consider the following:

· Personnel quality: selecting, assigning, utilizing, developing, and motivating personnel; providing qualified and well trained personnel in accordance with task proposals; developing, maintaining and enhancing employee currency in relevant disciplines; retaining qualified employees

· Liaison Effectiveness: Contractor provides updates on the task progress, pro-active identification and avoidance of potential problems, proposed solutions, cost or schedule overruns, and other pertinent information that could impact cost, schedule, deliveries, technical performance, and quality of work inclusive of cost control

· Planning and Execution: items to consider include the ability of the Contractor to have the right personnel at the right place at the right time, anticipation of problems, ability to execute a plan, the ability of the Contractor to react to unexpected events in a timely manner without adverse impact on the mission

· Management Control: Contractor’s directing of team members, applying quality assurance and control processes, partnering with the Government to resolve problems that impact effective mission accomplishment, safeguarding, processing, handling and accounting for Government Furnished Property (GFP), complying with contract provisions and Small Business Utilization

· Business Management: Contractor's business and performance are complementary and supportive of the Government’s; cooperating with the Government in working out task and business problems that impede mission accomplishment or compliance; cooperating with Government and other Contractor personnel in presenting a favorable image, submitting timely invoices for services Performance Measure #2: Technical Performance Performance in the area of Technical Performance will consider the following:

· Technical Competence: qualifications of personnel assigned to the task and the degree to which Contractor work products reflect high quality and technical expertise, understanding of technical requirements, performance in meeting Government expectations; addressing complex issues; providing quality studies, analyses, reports or services; developing sound approaches reflective of state-of-the-art technology

· Problem Solving: applying established and creative problem solving techniques to activities such as anticipating problems, generating workarounds, developing realistic and workable technical solutions to problems; recovering from setbacks; and applying lessons learned Performance Measure #3: Quality of Work Performance in the area of quality of work will consider the following:

· Adherence to task specified requirements

· Professional products delivered on due date in useable form

· Technical accuracy and completeness

· Clear and understandable products

· Punctuation, grammar, spelling, syntax, and error free documents Performance Measure #4: Timeliness Performance in the area of Timeliness will consider the following:

· Completion of work in accordance with Government approved schedules, timelines, or established milestones

· Performance in demonstrating ingenuity to short-fused deadlines

· Notifying the Government of potential technical or resource problems on a task before they adversely impact task accomplishment

· Seeking Government concurrence on significant task issues and implementing Government feedback and guidance

· Accommodating Government-directed rearranged priorities or revised program direction emphasis

· Adhering to timeliness requirements considering difficulties associated with accomplishing the schedule such as frequently changing scope of effort, unexpected loss or gain of personnel, test item/test equipment difficulties or failures, technical challenges, software anomalies or changes, test scheduling windows, or unexpected issues

· Developing realistic time estimates Performance Measure #5: Cost Control Performance in the area of Cost Control will consider the following:

· Effectively attending to cost control issues

· Completing tasks in accordance with task proposal estimates

· Providing timely notification to Government personnel of task changes and resource readjustments

· Developing the proper mix of labor categories and labor levels for various tasks

· Taking an active role in minimizing contract costs to include establishment of policies and practices intended to minimize overtime and travel costs (Options, if exercised)

M67854-14-R-0001 Attachment 12

AAV-PLN-01004, V1.1

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

1) Management Effectiveness

2) Technical Effectiveness

3) Quality of Work

4) Timeliness

5) Cost Control

PM efficiently and effectively executed tasks necessary to complete the SOW requirements.

PM meets qualifications identified in RFP

COR Observations

1) Management Effectiveness

2) Technical Effectiveness

3) Quality of Work

4) Timeliness

100% of material is acceptable at PAC closeout COR Observations

2) Technical Effectiveness

3) Quality of Work

4) Timeliness

Data Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% acceptable on first submission to Government 100% acceptable on subsequent submission to Government 100% Inspection by Program Subject Matter Expert (SME)

1) Management Effectiveness

2) Technical Effectiveness

3) Quality of Work

4) Timeliness

100% of material is acceptable at PDR closeout

a) COR Observations

b) Presentation material meets CDRL requirement

c) Actions Items are Closed

2) Technical Effectiveness

3) Quality of Work

4) Timeliness

Data Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the CDRL.

95% acceptable on first submission to Government 100% acceptable on subsequent submission to Government 100% Inspection by Program Subject Matter Expert (SME)

1) Management Effectiveness

2) Technical Effectiveness

3) Quality of Work

4) Timeliness

100% of material is acceptable at CDR closeout

a) COR Observations

b) Presentation material meets CDRL requirement

c) Actions Items are Closed

Note: Performance Standards will be updated prior to any option awards.