DRAFT_Att_3_SAC.pdf

DRAFT

F-35 JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE (F-35 JPO) / CHIEF ENTERPRISE SUPPORT

OFFICE (CESO)

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE BASED SERVICES

Single Award Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (SA ID/IQ)

Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC)

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS DOCUMENT IS MANDATORY

1.0 Purpose

This Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic Quality Assurance (QA) methods are used in the administration and surveillance of tasking under the Contract. The intent is to ensure the Contractor performs In

Accordance With (IAW) the Statement of Work (SOW), and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the Task Order (TO) SOW.

This Statement of Work (SOW) scope is for Program Management Knowledge Based Services

(PM KBS) in support of the F-35 JPO in Arlington, VA. Specifically, the contractor shall provide the range of PM KBS support that generally fall under the three (3) primary Standard

Occupational Labor Categories: Program Manager (11- 1021), Program Analyst (13-1111) and

Financial Analyst (13-2051). These services are critical to the successful fielding of the F-35 mission capabilities. They will support the prediction of future upgrade costs of emergent technologies throughout the entire program life cycle, including deployment, sustainment, and ultimate disposal.

This Contract will have Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) term Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for labor and corresponding cost reimbursable CLINs for Travel (ODC). The Contract will have a five (5) year ordering period. A properly executed SAC will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2.0 Authority

Authority for issuance of this SAC is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and

Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation https://hub.jsf.mil/sites/OCIO/win10 called for in service contracts, to be executed by the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) or a duly authorized representative.

3.0 Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between Quality Control Plan (QCP) and the SAC. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for the QCP, which defines the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in the Contract and all resultant orders.

The SAC provides Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective, and are delivering the results specified in the contract and each TO.

4.0 Government Resources

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

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO): A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into a contract (Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)), or a person with the authority to administer contracts (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)) and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this Contract and contact information is identified in the Contract’s Section A. Procurement Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer Representative (COR): An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering the Contract. The COR will be appointed in the resulting Contract. The limitations of authority are contained in the letter of appointment. The COR and contact information is identified in the Contract’s Section G.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR): An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the Contract. The ACOR will be appointed in the resulting Contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment. The ACOR and contact information is identified in the Contract’s Section G.

Technical Point of Contact (TPOC): The COR designates an individual TPOC to assist in administering of specific efforts under the Contract. The TPOC and contact information is identified in the Contract’s Section G.

5.0 Responsibilities

The following Government resources will have responsibility for the implementation of this

SAC:

PCO: The PCO 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. The PCO assures that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the Contract. The PCO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

COR: The COR is responsible for technical administration of the Contract and assures proper

Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. In addition to the continuous monitoring of performance, the COR will also submit an annual assessment in the Navy’s

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). 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 deems may affect the Contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action.

ACOR: The ACOR assists the COR for technical administration of the Contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The ACOR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect the Contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action.

TPOC: The TPOC is responsible for assisting in administering specific efforts under the

Contract. The TPOC provides advisement to the PM/COR, and PCO on the contractor performance on the technical requirements of the contract. The TPOC cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the Contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the

Government’s behalf.

6.0 Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): The marketplace for in-service and engineering support, IPS, technical data and configuration management, and technical and project management support 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 ordering year. This evaluation will be one determinant in the award of future contracts or

TOs. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of Small Business (SB), and other important areas for this procurement. Some of the monitoring methods to be used will be Government observation, review of reports, customer feedback and review of Contract Data Requirements

Lists (CDRLs). As this information may affect future source selections throughout the

Department of Defense (DoD), as well as the continuation of this tasking, the annual

Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool within the policies of this SAC.

b. SAC: The below listed methods of surveillance will be used by the COR, ACOR, and

TPOC in the technical administration of this Contract. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of QA surveillance is the Surveillance Activity

Checklist (SAC).

7.0 Surveillance

Enclosure (1) and (3) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the Contractor, the COR/ACOR, and TPOC while Enclosures (2) and (4) provide the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance and will be provided to the PCO.

8.0 Documentation

In addition to providing reports to the PCO, the COR will maintain a complete QA file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the

Government’s performance of the QA function, including the originals of the QA Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the Contract. The COR shall forward these records to the PCO at termination or completion of the Contract.

9.0 Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Services Summary

Enclosure (2): Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC)

Enclosure (3): Quarterly Evaluation by CDRL

Enclosure (4): Annual Surveillance Summary

ENCLOSURE (1): SERVICES SUMMARY

The Services Summary is a list of critical tasks that must be performed by the Contractor, the performance threshold, and the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate/inspect these tasks. Inspection of each task will be documented in the QA file or the Contractor Management

System (CMS). This includes the Services Summary captured in the table below and any additional services summaries prescribed at the task order level.

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE STANDARD ACCEPTABLE QUALITY

LEVEL (AQL)

METHOD OF

SURVEILLANCE

Provide qualified people for

ID/IQ and T/O performance

IAW SOW paragraphs 3.1-

3.10, 9.0 (and sub-paragraphs), Attachment 2 and the

Awardee’s approved staffing plan

Qualified personnel are in place at performance start, or as specified in the respective requirement.

Performance is acceptable when:

Qualified personnel are in place for ID/IQ and T/O performance with minimal to no delays in performance start, unless previously negotiated by the

PCO.

COR inspection of deliverables and hiring status throughout performance of the contract

Retain personnel with specified / awarded qualifications at a minimum of a 75% general retention rate goal for all positions throughout each respective

PoP SOW paragraph 7.1.1

Effectively retains personnel at a 75% general retention rate goal for all personnel.

Calculated as:

Step 1: Total # of Employees Leaving /

Avg. # of funded positions

= Turn-over Rate

Step 2: 100 – Turn-over Rate =

Retention Rate

Example: 25 Employees left during

PoP & there were 250 funded positions.

25 / 250 = 10% Turn-over or 90%

Retention

Performance is acceptable when:

The Contractor maintains a 75% general retention rate goal for all positions throughout each PoP

Monthly Reports, Turn- over data, and customer feedback

Deliverables Management

SOW paragraph 7.0 (and subparagraphs) and as prescribed in resulting task orders.

Develop and submit all required deliverables IAW stated timelines

Performance is acceptable when:

a) 100% of deliverable requirements are met and received on time*; AND

b) Information is current and accurate

*Non-current or inaccurate deliverables (or those with conflicting information) may be considered late

CORs will use the one hundred percent inspection method to evaluate all reports delivered

Provide a proactive system of quality control and quality assurance practices and procedures that is effective in delivering only products and services that meet or exceed all cost, schedule and performance specification of this SOW and subsequent T/Os.

Paragraph 8.0 (and subparagraphs) and the

Awardee’s QCP

Develop, document, implement, maintain and continuously improve a comprehensive higher-level QMS

No major non-conformances are allowed (A Major

Nonconformance adversely impacts (or has the potential to) mission, safety of personnel and/or equipment, environment, performance (quality), schedule

(delivery), and/or cost)

The COR will review the QCP

IAW requirements of the solicitation and subsequent awarded task order; and ensure the awardee is implementing approved procedures

ENCLOSURE (2): SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST (SAC)

Quarterly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a quarterly assessment of quality, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of SB, and other areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (4).

QUARTERLY EVALUATION BY SOW PARAGRAPH

Description Surveillance

Method/Measure Dates

Quality

Assessment

Schedule

Assessment

Cost Control

Assessment

Business

Relations

Assessment

Management

Assessment

Utilization of SB

Assessment

Other

Areas

Assessment

Chief Management

Office (CMO)

Support IAW paragraph 3.1

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Air Vehicle (AV)

PMO Support IAW paragraph 3.2

100% Inspection by

Office of the Chief

Information Officer

(OCIO) Support

IAW paragraph 3.3

100% Inspection by

Office of the Chief

Strategy Officer

(OCSO) Support

IAW paragraph 3.4

100% Inspection by

Directorate of

Affordability

Support IAW paragraph 3.5

100% Inspection by

Directorate for

Partners and

Foreign Military

Sales (P&F)

Support IAW paragraph 3.6

100% Inspection by

Maintenance

Systems PMO

Support IAW paragraph 3.7

100% Inspection by

Propulsion PMO

Support IAW paragraph 3.8

100% Inspection by

Training Systems and Simulation

PMO Support IAW paragraph 3.9

100% Inspection by

Combat Data

System PMO

Support IAW paragraph 3.10

100% Inspection by

ENCLOSURE (3): QUARTERLY EVALUATION BY CDRL

Description Surveillance Method/Measure Dates

Due

Dates

Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of

Req’d

Rework

Percentage

On Time Comments

Management and Staffing Plan

CDRL A002

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Quality Control Plan

CDRL A002

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Kick-Off Meeting & Slides

CDRL A001

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Operations Security (OPSEC)

Plan CDRL A002

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Monthly Status Report

CDRL A003

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Monthly Expenditure Report

CDRL B001

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

In-Progress Review (IPR)

CDRL A001

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Weekly Activity Reports (WAR)

CDRL A003

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Hiring Status Report

CDRL A003

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Transition-In Plan

CDRL A002

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Trip Report

CDRL C001

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Problem Notification

CDRL A004

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

45-Day Report

CDRL B001

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Transition-Out Plan

CDRL A002

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

TBD

Level of Effort Table

CDRL A003

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or TPOC

Metric Summary: Current Period Cumulative

Total Number of Deliverables Submitted:

Total Number of Deliverables Submitted Late:

Total Number of Deliverables Requiring Revision:

Percentage of Deliverables Submitted Late:

Percentage of Deliverables Requiring Revision:

ENCLOSURE (4): ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE SUMMARY

The COR will perform an assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure

(4). This assessment will be completed annually covering the previous twelve (12) months.

Description Surveillance Method/Measure Date Planned Date Completed Summary Rating/Results

Quality of Product or Service Review of Quarterly Ratings TBD

Schedule Review of Quarterly Ratings TBD

Cost Control Review of Quarterly Ratings TBD

Business Relations Review of Quarterly Ratings TBD

Management Review of Quarterly Ratings TBD

Utilization of SB Review of Quarterly Ratings TBD

Other Areas Review of Quarterly Ratings TBD

Annual Surveillance Completed By: _______________________

Date Completed: ________________

All SOW and CDRL tasks, including sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following.

Quality of product or service: Assess the Contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution.

Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the

Contractor meets program quality.

Schedule: 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 (i.e., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of Contractor corrective actions.

Cost control: Assess the Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing and controlling contract cost. Is the Contractor experiencing cost growth or under-run? 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 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.

Business relations: Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Management: Assess the Contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts, including whether the Contractor met small/small disadvantage and women-owned business participation goals. Discuss 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 mitigation plans.

Utilization of SB: The Request for Proposal (RFP) and FAR Subpart 19.7 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contains statutory requirements for complying with the SB Subcontracting Program. Assess whether the Contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for SB

(including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes) (including Small Disadvantaged Businesses (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women Owned SBs (WOSBs), HUBZone, Veteran Owned SBs (VOSBs), Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB

(SDVOSB), and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) or SBs to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the Contract. Evaluation will focus on the metrics of actual SB utilization as compared to the Contract required targets and the Contractor’s submitted SB plan.

Other areas: Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the Contract or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Exceptional Performance: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance: 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.

Marginal Performance: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated 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.

Unsatisfactory Performance: 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.

For non-performance-based TOs, hours delivered by each TO compared to the TO required hours will be evaluated and will influence the ratings awarded above. Cost and/or labor hour variances greater than 10% cannot earn an Exceptional or Very Good for Cost Control evaluation criteria.