WRI_QASP_tk.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for United States Marine Corps Enterprise Land Mobile Radio

Western Region Infrastructure

M67854-14-R-4950

Prepared by:

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Marine Corps Systems Command

Information Systems and Infrastructure

Emergency Response Systems

21 February 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Unclassified iii

Table of Contents

Contents

1 Purpose

2 Authority

3 Scope

4 Government Resources

5 Responsibilities

6 Methods of QA Surveillance

7 Documentation

8 Ratings

9 Identified QA Surveillance Tasks

Appendix A – Performance Requirements Summary Appendix B - Quality Assurance Monitoring Form Appendix C - Contract Discrepancy Report

Unclassified iii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 Purpose This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of this performance-based service order. The intent is to verify that the contractor performs in accordance with (IAW) the performance metrics and that the Government receives services at the quality level called for in the contract.

This requirement addresses contractor services necessary for the Enterprise Land Mobile Radio (E-LMR) Western Region Infrastructure (WRI) project effort under the cognizance of the United States Marine Corps (USMC), Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC), Program Manager (PM) Information Systems and Infrastructure (IS&I) Product Manager (PdM), Emergency Response Systems (ERS). The resulting vehicle will be a multiple-award, Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (ID / IQ) contract. This contract will be for a (3) three year base period with (2) two option years. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

The support services to be provided shall include, but not be limited to: program management, systems engineering, system test and evaluation, information assurance (IA) accreditation and certification, new equipment training, site installation / activation, technical documentation, and sustainment and warranty services. The plan is designed to limit surveillance to the necessary measures to verify the contractor is satisfactorily performing services directly related to the performance requirements of the E-LMR WRI Performance Work Statement (PWS).

2 Authority Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in service contracts, to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3 Scope The QASP is put in place to provide Government surveillance and oversight of the contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective, and are delivering the results specified in the E-LMR WRI contract. As part of the QASP, the Government will provide an evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) at the end of each task order period. The contractor’s performance on this ID / IQ contract will be evaluated by the Government as described below.

The first evaluation will cover the surveillance period ending with each task order period after date of contract award. Additionally, successive evaluations will be performed for each task order period thereafter until the contractor completes performance of all task orders (if awarded) under this contract.

For the first surveillance period and each subsequent task order period, the Government will evaluate the contractor’s performance using the surveillance methods outlined in Section 6.

The evaluation will encompass all work performed by the contractor at any time during the task order period but will not include cumulative information from prior reports. For each task order, the contractor will complete a self-assessment of the performance provided, to be delivered to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer no later than (NLT) 60 days prior to the end of the period of performance. The self-assessment shall cover all areas of the Government QASP. Based on the evaluation results, the Contracting Officer will assign an overall performance rating. If the Contracting Officer assigns an overall “Unsatisfactory” performance rating for the period evaluated, the next option period will not be exercised.

4 Government Resources The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this plan:

a. Contracting Officer: A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The contracting officer is identified in Section G of the contract. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant which sets forth limitations of authority.

b. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): An individual appointed in writing by the contracting officer to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. The COR will be designated in the resulting contract. The COR engages in Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not authorized to make any commitments or changes that will affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or any other term or condition of the contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of designation.

c. Technical Point of Contact (TPOC): An individual designated by the COR to serve as the coordinator and lead technical Government representative for the E-LMR WRI activity efforts.

d. Contract Specialist: An individual assigned by the contracting officer to carry out the day to day contractual requirements of the delivery orders.

5 Responsibilities The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this QASP:

a. Contracting Officer: The Contracting Officer ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the Contracting Officer that assures the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract. The Contracting Officer is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance

b. Contracting Officer’s Representative: The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s technical performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor believes may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

c. Technical Point of Contact: The TPOC is responsible for the technical review and contract compliance by the contractor to individual task orders.

The TPOC will be responsible for the following: definition of contract tasks and subtasks; review of requested delivery order work orders, and sourcing concurrence for delivery orders; and resume qualification review/approval for key positions. The TPOC is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor believes may affect contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

d. Contract Specialist: The Contract Specialist is a DAWIA Level I, II or III certified individual assigned to assist in the daily administration of the contract. The specialist may also provide input to the contracting officer and the COR as to the quality of performance areas addressed in the

QASP.

6 Methods of QA Surveillance The COR will use the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP to determine whether the contractor is effectively and efficiently complying with all terms and conditions of the contract, PWS, System Design

Specification (SDS), and Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). The Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) listed in Appendix A, contains the performance objectives that are being measured. In addition, the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form, provided as Appendix B, will be used to document the findings.

a. Inspection: A method carried out by visual examination.

i. Monthly: The COR shall review the generated documentation (e.g., meeting minutes, engineering reviews, data from testing, reports, or installation documentation) and enter summary results into the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form.

ii. Ad hoc: The COR shall conduct ad hoc inspections as required and enter summary results into the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form.

b. Analysis: A method carried out by detailed examinations, calculations, and tests derived from data associated with a deliverable to determine if applications and / or techniques are appropriate and effective.

c. Demonstration: A method carried out by operation of the system, or part of the system, that relies on observable functional operation.

d. Test: A method using instrumentation or calibrated test equipment to obtain performance data for subsequent analysis.

e. Customer Feedback: A method by which installation operators may submit feedback on the performance of the system.

f. CPARS: An evaluation will be performed as described above. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, and management, as this information may affect future source selections throughout the Department of Defense (DoD) and the continuation of the order. The CPARS assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

7 Documentation In addition to providing quarterly reports to the Contracting Officer, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the quality assurance function. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

8 Ratings The table below sets forth the performance ratings and standards the Government shall use to grade contractor performance. The Government will evaluate the contractor’s performance of the PWS for each task order, and the Contracting Officer will assign one of the following ratings:

a. Exceptional

b. Very Good

c. Satisfactory

d. Marginal

e. Unsatisfactory

The standards associated with these ratings are given in Table 1. The ratings shall be provided to the Contracting Officer at the end of each surveillance period.

Table 1 Overall Performance Ratings

Overall

Performance Standard

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.

The Contracting Officer will make a performance determination for each task order at the end of each evaluation period. The determination will be based upon the COR’s recommendations, the contractor’s comments including any Self-Evaluation Report, and any other information deemed relevant by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer shall resolve disagreements between the COR’s recommendations and the contractor’s comments/reports regarding the evaluation.

The Contracting Officer’s performance evaluation is unilateral and final. The Contracting Officer will document the determinationand provide a copy to the contractor within 30 days of receipt of the contractor’s self- assessment.

9 Identified QA Surveillance Tasks Appendix A sets forth the performance standards and surveillance methods for the contractor and COR while Appendix B provides the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance. Appendix B will be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis. Appendix C provides a method of documenting contract discrepancies for remediation.

Appendix A – Performance Requirements Summary

Performance Objective Description

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)

Surveillance Method/Measure

Section 3.2: E-LMR WRI System Configuration

Requirements

System Requirements Satisfied IAW SDS, CPD, APCO P25

Standards, NTIA mandates, DIACAP certification & accreditation

Task completion to the DoD standards fulfilled in the PWS and SDS requirements (i.e. Ao= 99.9%, 95% RF coverage, etc.)

within 12 months of task order award and negotiated price

Inspection, Analysis, Demonstration, Test

IAW TEMP,

Customer Feedback, CPARS

Section 3.2.1: E-LMR WRI Solutions by USMC Installation

System Requirements Satisfied IAW SDS, CPD, APCO P25

Standards, NTIA mandates, DIACAP certification & accreditation

Task completion to the DoD standards fulfilled in the PWS and SDS requirements (i.e. Ao= 99.9%, 95% RF coverage, etc.)

award and negotiated cost

IAW TEMP,

Customer Feedback, CPARS

Section 3.2.2 Other Installation and Configuration

Requirements: System Security, System Safety, Environment Compliance

Requirements, Energy Efficiency, System

Monitoring, and Mirrored System Considerations

System Requirements

Satisfied IAW SDS, CPD, APCO P25

Standards, NTIA mandates, DIACAP certification & accreditation standards fulfilled in the PWS and SDS requirements (i.e. Ao= 99.9%, 95% RF coverage, etc.)

award and negotiated cost

IAW TEMP,

Customer Feedback, CPARS

Section 3.2.3 Mirrored System Considerations

System Requirements Satisfied IAW SDS, CPD, APCO P25

Standards, NTIA mandates, DIACAP certification &

Task completion to the DoD standards fulfilled in the PWS and SDS requirements (i.e.

Ao= 99.9%, 95% RF coverage, etc.) within 12 months of task order award and negotiated cost

Demonstration, Test IAW TEMP, Customer

Feedback, CPARS

Section 3.3 Program Management; Scheduling, Meetings & Deliverable Reviews t Naval Correspondence

Manual and Government-furnished templates standards and fulfilled the PWS requirements within the negotiated cost

Inspection, Customer Feedback, CPARS

Section 3.4: Systems Engineering

3.4.1 System Definition and

Description

RF Engineering; Safety Certification; Spectrum

Certification; Government-furnished templates

Task completion to the DoD standards and fulfilled the PWS and SDS requirements within the negotiated cost

Inspection, Analysis, Demonstration Test IAW

TEMP, Customer Feedback, CPARS

Section 3.4: Systems

Engineering

3.4.3 System Engineering

Technical Review

System Requirements Review Critical Design Review (CDR) ; Factory Acceptance Test (FAT);

Test Readiness Review (TRR); Site Acceptance

Test (SAT)

This task was completed within the schedule set forth in the contract and satisfied the PWS

3.4.4 Information Assurance

Certification and Accreditation

Certification and

Accreditation; DIACAP Documentation

This task was completed within the schedule set forth in the contract and satisfied the PWS and SDS requirements within the negotiated cost

IAW TEMP,

3.4.4 Information Assurance

Certification and Accreditation

Vulnerability Scanning;

Vulnerability Mitigation;

Vulnerability Management

The task was completed to the DOD standards and fulfilled the PWS requirements within the negotiated cost

Inspection, Analysis, Demonstration, Test

IAW TEMP,

Section 3.9:

Sustainment

3.9.1 Warranty

Satisfied Requirements

IAW PWS

This task was completed within the schedule set forth in the contract and satisfied the PWS

Demonstration,

3.9.5.1 Preventative Maintenance

Satisfied Requirements IAW

PWS

This task was completed within the schedule set forth in the contract and satisfied the PWS

3.9.5.2 Corrective

Maintenance

This task was completed within the schedule set forth in the contract and satisfied the PWS

3.9.6.1 24x7 Remote Network Monitoring and Diagnostics

SDS, PWS

This task was completed within the schedule set forth in the contract and satisfied the PWS

3.9.6.2 Telephone

Help Desk

This task was completed within the schedule set forth in the contract and satisfied the PWS

3.9.7 Extended

Warranty

This task was completed within the schedule set forth in the contract and satisfied the PWS

Appendix B - Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

Service or Standard:

Survey Period:

Surveillance Method (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

Level of Surveillance (Check):

Monthly Quarterly Ad hoc

Percentage of Items Sampled During Survey Period: %

Analysis of Results:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: %

Service Provider’s Performance (Check): Meets Standards

Does Not Meet Standards

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

Prepared By: _ Date:

Appendix C - Contract Discrepancy Report

Date and Time:

Contract Number:

Contractor:

Site:

Description of Discrepancy: (reference contract clause/PWS/SDS/other directive)

Date(s) of Verbal Notification:

Originator’s Signature:

Above portion of form is to be filled out by COR Contractor’s response as to cause, corrective action, and action(s) to prevent recurrence. Cite applicable QA program procedures or new QA procedures:

Signature of Contractor Representative:

Date:

Above portion to be filled out by contractor Government Evaluation (Acceptance, Partial Acceptance, Rejection):

Close Out (to be filled out when discrepancy has been satisfactorily resolved):

Function Name/Title Signature Date Originator

Contractor

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.