Attachment_3_TFITS_SI_Overarching_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan_(QASP)x.docx

Product Manager, Total Force IT Systems

Systems Integrator Consolidated Contract

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

January 2014 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is in support of the Product Manager’s (PdM’s) TFITS Consolidated Systems Integrator (TCSI) initiative and pursuant to the requirements listed in each Task Order (TO) Performance Work Statement (PWS). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines PdM TFITS will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the TCSI.

Purpose The purpose of the QASP is to describe 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 TCSI is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and the TCSI’s Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP).

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the Integrated Project Team (IPT), identifies where and how the performance objectives are identified, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the TCSI’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

Performance Management Approach The PWS of each TO structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required. This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by PdM TFITS to monitor and manage the TCSI’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. The TCSI’s QAPP describes the performance management approach 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 TCSI.

Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. A performance-based approach enables the TCSI 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 TCSI flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

Performance Management Strategy The TCSI is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The TCSI measures that quality through the TCSI’s own quality assurance and control program. The TCSI’s QAPP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements. The TCSI will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to PdM TFITS. This QASP describes how PdM TFITS intends to evaluate TCSI quality and performance.

PdM TFITS will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the TCSI in the Monthly Status Report (MSR) for each TO to determine how the TCSI is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make determinations regarding future ordering period options based on performance measurement metric data and notify the TCSI of those decisions. The TCSI will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

PdM TFITS Product Manager (PdM) TFITS is responsible for the overall performance evaluation and assessment of the TCSI’s performance.

The Contracting Officer The Contracting Officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Performance Evaluation Review Team (PERT) chaired by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

The Contracting Officer’s Representative The COR is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the TCSI’s performance. The COR will chair the PERT and be supported by Government Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The number of SMEs serving as technical inspectors on the PERT depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the TCSI’s performance. The COR will have the responsibility for establishing and completing Quality Assurance (QA) monitoring via TFITS SharePoint used to document the inspection and evaluation of the TCSI’s work performance.

Deputy Product Manager The Deputy Product Manager (DPdM) is TFITS competency subject matter expert in Program Management. Besides providing Program Management (PM) expertise to the evaluation and assessment of the TCSI’s performance the DPdM is able to represent the PdM’s objectives and goals for the TCSI effort.

Assistant Product Managers Assistant Product Managers (APdMs) are TFITS competency subject matter experts. For TFITS the competencies are Systems Engineering, Information Assurance, Budget & Financial Management and Logistics. The APdMs have a very important role in the evaluation and assessment of TCSI performance. Besides being SMEs in their respective fields they also understand the broad objectives and goals their competency leadership has for programs and have an intricate understanding of each programs needs and opportunities to consolidate competency related efforts across programs.

Tier 2 Leads Tier 2 Leads are Senior Project Managers responsible for multiple systems as well as being well-versed in the project management and acquisition process. During the evaluation and assessment of the TCSI performance, Tier 2 Leads will represent and discuss concerns relating to the systems they are responsible for managing to the PERT.

Tier 3 Project Managers The Tier 3 Project Manager will review the TO MSR performance report against the PWS performance standards and AQLs and provide their endorsement via the TFITS SharePoint list to the Tier 2 Lead and COR. As needed, the Tier 3 PjM will brief the PERT to address specific performance issues.

The Deliverable Captains The Deliverable Captains are designated by the COR in coordination with the Tier 2 Leads, Tier 3 PjMs and Competency Leads. The Deliverable Captains are responsible for coordinating Deliverable review consolidating comments and making a Deliverable disposition recommendation to the COR via the TFIST SharePoint list for TCSI deliverables. As needed, Deliverable Captains will brief the PERT to address specific performance issues.

IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

System performance requirements are provided in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for each TO. The PWS contains the minimum performance standards (Acceptable Quality Levels-AQLs) that the TCSI will need to achieve for acceptable accomplishment of the major task requirements in the PWS.

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

Active Surveillance Techniques In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, the governemnt will use simplified surveillance methods to evaluate TCSI performance. The primary methods of surveillance are:

· Deliverable review and evaluation: Each Deliverable will be reviewed for content, accuracy and compliance with contractual requirements. Deliverables are typically accepted, rejected or conditionally accepted by the Government within 10 working days; however, the Program Management Office (PMO) will specify the number of working days , as it should reflect the size and scope of the deliverable (e.g., a Risk Management Plan may take more time then review of a Technical Data Package).

· Rejected Deliverables must be corrected and resubmitted within 10 working days. All Government provided comments will be adjudicated. The Government will review the Deliverable as if it was submitted for the first time. The resubmitted Deliverable can be accepted, rejected or conditionally accepted.

· Conditionally accepted Deliverables will be corrected and resubmitted. The Government will review to ensure comments were adjudicated.

· Performance Evaluation Reviews: The COR will chair Performance Evaluation Reviews (PERs) to evaluate surveillance results. PERs will occur no less than quarterly. At the COR’s discretion, the PER frequency may increase for reasons such as: performance problems resolution is not timely; pending critical milestones require closer performance scrutiny; etc. Upon completion of a PER a Memorandum for the Record (MFR) and minutes will be signed by the COR and stored at the TFITS SharePoint portal. PER results will be entered into the TCSI Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Passive Surveillance Techniques The primary objective is the ability to gauge the TCSI’s influence on customer satisfaction ratings. Customer satisfaction is typically in the area of system performance, system usability, system support materials, the number of helpdesk calls, the number of Trouble Tickets and the quality of Helpdesk personnel. Possible tools to support customer satisfaction include:

User Satisfaction Surveys Customer satisfaction feedback may be obtained from the results of customer satisfaction surveys.

User Feedback Customer satisfaction will be gleamed from User feedback provided directly to the Helpdesk or to the Program Management Office.

Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels Performance standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) are very important in that they identify minimally acceptable performance levels and map directly to the requirements in the Task Order PWS. Performance standards and AQLs must be measurable and represent a best value determination between risk and cost.

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and assessed by the Tier 3 PjM in the TFITS SharePoint Portal as an endorsement to the TO MSR. Other Deliverables are reviewed and assessed by the Deliverable Captain. These reviews occur before the PERT meets in order for the Government to accept Deliverables via the TFITS SharePoint Portal.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

Determining Performance The Government PERT will determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met via the MFR, based on the endorsement of the TO MSR by the Tier 3 PjM. If the TCSI has not met the minimum requirements, The TCSI may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels

Reporting At least quarterly, the PERT will meet and review the TCSI’s performance. The TO Monthly Status Reports (MSRs) and associated Tier 3 PjM endorsements, Deliverable assessment, and user feedback from each project are planned to be the primary input to the PERT review. After the PERT review, the COR will prepare a MFR for the Contracting Officer summarizing the overall results of the PERT review on the quality assurance of the TCSI’s performance. This written report will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the TCSI is meeting the stated performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling standards/requirements.

Reviews and Resolution The PERT includes the COR as chair along with the TCSI’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to discuss performance evaluation at least quarterly. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

The KO will send the MFR to the TCSI and work with the COR and TCSI to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The COR and TCSI should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics may be incorporated after PERT approval as a contract modification at the convenience of the COR and KO.

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System During the course of the contract and at the end of each TO the COR will input results of its quality assessment into the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

D-1