J-4_Attachment_QASP.pdf

ATTACHMENT J-4

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

For

THIRD PARTY ADVANCED PLANNING IN

SUPPORT OF DDG 51/ CG 47 CLASS SHIPS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the performance based service contract. The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. AUTHORITY

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

3. SCOPE

The QASP is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s efforts to ensure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the contract. This QASP contains a Service Delivery Summary (SDS) that summarizes the performance objectives, identifies the performance standards, and states how performance will be evaluated. The SDS identifies those services considered most important for mission accomplishment and the minimum acceptable performance level. This QASP is a “living document” and the government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the government shall coordinate changes with the contractor. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document.

The contractor’s performance on this contract will be evaluated by the Government as described below.

The first evaluation will cover the period ending nine months after date of contract award with successive evaluations being performed for each twelve-month period thereafter until the contractor completes performance under this contract. For the first period and each subsequent twelve-month period, the Government will evaluate the contractor’s performance. The evaluation will encompass all work performed by the contractor at any time during the twelve-month period but will not include cumulative information from prior reports. For each period, the Contractor will complete a self- assessment of the performance provided, to be delivered to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and PCO NLT 60 days prior to the end of the period of performance. The self-assessment shall cover all areas of the QASP. Based on the evaluation results, the PCO will assign an overall performance rating. If the PCO assigns an "Unsatisfactory" overall performance rating for the period evaluated, the next option period may not be exercised. As options are exercised, improved performance is required as demonstrated in Table 2.

4. GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

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

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) – The PCO ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting and ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interests of the Government in the contractual relationship. It is the PCO that ensures 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. The PCO for this contract is identified in Section G.

Contract Specialist (CS) – An individual assigned by the PCO to assist in the daily administration of the contract. The CS also provides input to the PCO and the COR as to the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) –The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s 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 deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action.

Government Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) – The COR designates an individual Government TPOC to assist in administering specific projects under the contract. The Government TPOC is responsible for assisting in administering a specific project under the contract. A Government TPOC cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

5. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE

a. QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the technical administration and the PCO/CS in non-technical administration of this QASP. The QASP will be a prime determinant in exercising the option.

b. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for information engineering and technical support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this contract. CPARS is a web-enabled application that collects and manages contractor quality/performance, in essence a “report card”. Information on CPARS can be found at www.cpars.csd.disa.mil . 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 an option. The Government for this procurement will address the technical 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.

6. DOCUMENTATION

In addition to providing annual reports to the PCO, 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. The COR shall forward these records to the PCO at termination or completion of the contract.

7. SURVEILLANCE

The SDS below set forth the performance ratings, standards, outcome, surveillance methods, and frequency to document the results of the surveillance on an annual basis as well as interim and informal reviews on a more frequent basis.

The contractor’s performance will be a factor affecting application of the plan, i.e., surveillance frequency may be increased or decreased based upon the contractor demonstrated and documented performance. The government will monitor the contractor’s performance using the surveillance methods identified in the SDS, but may choose to change or add methods from the list described below if performance requires closer surveying. The government retains the right to evaluate any service performed or inspect any item delivered under this effort, to include required tasks not shown in the SDS. In addition, the government reserves the right to add new, delete existing, or change any of the existing tasks identified in the SDS if the contractor's performance in any area of this effort is less than satisfactory. These services/items will be evaluated/inspected using one or more of the surveillance methods described below and will be documented by the COR. If necessary, findings will be provided to the PCO for action. The PCO will handle each documented discrepancy on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/

(a) Performance Ratings: The Government will evaluate the contractor’s performance of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the PCO will assign one of the following ratings:

(1) Excellent

(2) Satisfactory

(3) Unsatisfactory

The standards associated with these ratings are given in the following Table 1.

TABLE 1: OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Overall Performance Rating Standard

Excellent “Excellent” ratings for all performance evaluation criteria in the SDS Satisfactory A minimum of “Satisfactory” ratings for all performance evaluation criteria in the SDS Unsatisfactory A rating of “Unsatisfactory” for one or more performance evaluation criteria in the SDS

(b) Objectives / Determination:

1. Interim/Informal

Interim/informal performance evaluations will be provided to assess performance by the COR.

2. Annual

The PCO will make a performance determination at the end of each evaluation period. The determination will be based upon COR’s recommendations, the contractor’s comments including any Self-Evaluation Report, and any other information deemed relevant by the PCO. The PCO shall resolve disagreements between the COR’s recommendations and the contractor’s comments/report regarding the evaluation. The PCO’s performance determination is unilateral and final. The PCO will document the determination and provide a copy to the contractor within 30 days of receipt of the contractor’s self-assessment.

TABLE 2: OBJECTIVES

Assessment Period

Acceptable Performance Definition How Measured Outcome

Base:

Summary Task Performance rating of at least "Satisfactory" based on the roll up of Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6.

After the first nine months using the QASP evaluation ratings; annually using the CPARS system covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of option 1.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option 1.*

Option I:

based on the roll up of Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Annually using the QASP evaluation ratings; annually using the CPARS system covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option. 2.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option. 2.*

Option II:

Summary Task Performance rating of at least "Satisfactory" based on the roll up of Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Annually using the QASP evaluation ratings; annually using the CPARS system covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option 3.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option 3.*

Option III:

Summary Task Performance rating of at least "Satisfactory" based on the roll up of Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6, with two or more areas rated "Excellent". See Below.

Annually using the QASP evaluation ratings; annually using the CPARS system covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option 4.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option 4.*

Option IV:

based on the roll up of Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6, with two or more areas rated "Excellent". See Below.

Annually using the QASP evaluation ratings; annually using the CPARS system covering the previous 12 months.

Final CPARS ratings.

* The Government may not exercise the next option year term unless the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

(c) Performance Evaluation Criteria. The contractor’s performance will be evaluated using the criteria and standards provided for each objective, and identified in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6. Based on this evaluation, each assessment period will be given an overall rating resulting from the rolled up objective. Each of the criteria in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 must score a minimum of "Satisfactory" to receive and overall performance rating of "Satisfactory" in each assessment period. Additional ratings of "Excellent" are required in the last two option years as shown in the table above.

(d) Organization. The performance evaluation organization consists of the PCO, who will serve as the Determining Official, and the COR. In some instances, a TPOC will be assigned to the contract in addition to a COR.

(e) This performance evaluation does not replace any other requirement for evaluating contractor performance that may be required such as a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report.

8. SERVICE DELIVERY SUMMARY (SDS)

Criteria Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Method of Evaluation

Frequency of Evaluation

Technical Quality

- Submission of deliverables is timely.

- Documents are readable, clear, and accurate.

- Documents are in the specified format.

Timeliness, accuracy, and quality.

At least 95% of the time deliverables are submitted on time and in the format required with only minor corrections to documents required 10% of the time or less

Government evaluation of deliverables received in accordance with each CDRL submission date.

Assessed with each deliverable and documented quarterly

Cost Reporting

All deliverables and invoices regarding incurred costs are accurate and timely

All deliverables meet contract requirements as to content and submission schedule.

Detailed variance reports are provided

Progress and expenditure reports are timely and accurate.

Reported and invoiced costs are accurate and timely.

Government review of Monthly Progress reports

(CDRL A012)

Monthly

Contract Management

Contractor implements management approach described in their proposal.

Contract management is proactive and effective. At least 20% of the work (measured in funded dollars) is performed by Small Business.

- Contractor management is responsive to Government input and/or concerns.

- Effective communication processes are in place.

- Contractor is proactive in addressing performance issues.

- Meets or exceeds Small Business participation goals provided in subcontracting plan.

Government intervention is rarely, if ever, necessary to address performance issues.

Small Business participation goal (including sub-categories) is met 100% of the time during contract performance.

Continuous review by Government personnel based on Monthly Progress report data

Monthly

Customer Responsiveness

Timely addressing customer inquiries and discrepancy notifications

Quality (timely, professional, accurate, etc.)

90% of the customer feedback received or obtained is positive

COR will solicit or receive feedback from field offices regarding contractor’s quality of support

Randomly and documented semi-annually

(a) Established Procedures. Each contractor assessment shall follow an established procedure for surveillance, recording, reporting and follow-up, outlined as follows:

a. The frequency of surveillance will be in accordance with the schedule identified in the SDS.

b. Surveillance will be performed in accordance with the SDS and results and comments recorded in the contract file (the COR will place in their file and also forward a copy to the Contracting Officer).

c. The government will have ten (10) working days to accept or reject submissions in writing, and notify the contractor of the acceptance or the cause of the rejection. The contractor shall then have ten (10) working days to correct the deficiency and resubmit.

d. Performance/non-performance for particular tasks will be recorded and filed, and addressed with the Contracting Officer if agreement is not reached between the COR and contractor for how to resolve any non-performance incidences. If no deficiency exists in contractor performance, no action is required.

e. If the contractor’s performance does not meet the specified criteria, the course of action will be dependent on the severity/impact/frequency of the deficiency. Re-work shall be the first action the contractor shall employ to resolve deficiencies. When the COR determines a deficiency is not government related and is significant to the performance of the contract, a DD Form 2772, Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) included as Attachment J-5 may be initiated. The COR will complete blocks 1 through 6 of the form and send it to the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will evaluate the validity of the CDR and if appropriate, sign and send it to the contractor to complete blocks 9 and 10. The contractor shall return the CDR to the Contracting Officer within five (5) business days of receipt. Upon receipt of the contractor’s response, the Contracting Officer, in consultation with the COR, will evaluate the contractor’s response and take the appropriate action. The contracting officer must document the evaluation (in block 11) and action taken (in block 12) on the CDR.

f. When corrective action is reported by the contractor, the COR will follow up with additional surveillance to verify implementation.

(b) In-Process Reviews (IPRs). The government may schedule In-Process Reviews (IPRs) regularly, or as needed, during the performance of the effort. The purpose of the IPRs will be to discuss status of efforts, concerns or issues, etc. The contractor shall be required to record minutes of all IPRs and submit them to the COR no later than five (5) business days after the meeting.

TABLE 3: TECHNICAL QUALITY EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS

CRITERIA UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT

Quality Work product fails to meet the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in the SDS.

Work product meets the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in the SDS

Work product exceeds the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in the SDS

Timeliness

Contractor frequently misses deadlines, schedules, or is slow to respond to government requests or is non-responsive to government requests.

Contractor routinely meets deadlines, schedules, and responds quickly to government requests.

Contractor always meets deadlines, schedules, and responds immediately to government requests.

Customer Satisfaction Fails to meet customer expectations Meets customer expectations.

Exceeds customer expectations.

TABLE 4: COST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS

CRITERIA UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT

Cost Management

Contractor fails to complete the effort within the originally agreed to estimated cost, i.e. cost overruns frequently occur.

Contractor completes the effort within the originally agreed to estimated cost.

Contractor provides measures for controlling all costs at estimated costs. Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effective manner. No major resource management problems are apparent.

Reductions in direct costs to the Government below contract estimated costs are noteworthy.

Contractor provides detailed cost analysis and recommendations to Government for resolution of problems identified. Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available. Documented savings are apparent.

Cost Reporting

Reports are generally late, inaccurate incomplete or unclear.

Reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written.

Problems and/or trends are addressed, and an analysis is also submitted.

Reports are clear, accurate, and pro-active. Problems and/or trends are addressed thoroughly, and the contractor’s recommendations and/or corrective plans are implemented and effective.

TABLE 5: CONTRACT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND

STANDARDS

CRITERIA UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT

Problem Resolution

Problems are unresolved, repetitive, or take excessive government effort to resolve.

Problems are resolved quickly with minimal government involvement.

Problems are non-existent or the contractor takes corrective action without government involvement.

Communications

Contractor often fails to communicate with government in an effective and timely manner.

Contractor routinely communicates with government in an effective and timely manner.

Contractor takes a proactive approach such that communications are almost always clear, effective and timely.

Small Business Goals

Less than 20% of the work(measured in funded dollars) is performed by Small Businesses

Meets Small Business participation goals (including sub-categories) provided in subcontracting plan

Exceeds Small Business participation goals (including sub-categories) provided in subcontracting plan

TABLE 6: CUSTOMER RESPONSIVENESS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND

STANDARDS

CRITERIA UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXCELLENT

Responsiveness Contractor’s management is unresponsive to government requests and concerns.

Contractor’s management is responsive to government requests and concerns.

Contractor’s management takes proactive approach in dealing with government representatives and anticipates Government concerns.

Feedback Contractor fails to meet the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in the SDS.

Contractor meets the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in the SDS

Contractor exceeds the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in the SDS