Attachment_5_-_QASP.pdf

ATTACHMENT – 5 N00024-16-R-6414

i

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR

COMMON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

2.2 Focal Point (FP):

2.3 Assessing Official (AO)

2.4 CPAR Reviewing Official (RO)

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring System

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reviews and Resolution

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

ENCLOSURE 1: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Statement of Work (SOW) entitled Common Infrastructure Services (CIS). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Program Executive Office (PEO) SUBs, PMS 425 will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the Contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 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 Contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the SOW and the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP), and to ensure that the Government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the Integrated Project Team (IPT), identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of Quality Assurance (QA) monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The SOW structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the Contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by PMS 425 to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the SOW are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability 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 contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional QA concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor 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 contractor 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.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own QCP. Quality control 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 will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the SOW. The Contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated Government representative. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor’s QCP.

The four (4) areas that will be evaluated are: (1) Technical Quality - reviewed at each deliverable submission for timeliness, accuracy, and quality, (2) Cost Performance — reviewed monthly for completeness and timeliness; (3) Contract Management – reviewed monthly for adherence to the proposed management plan; and (4) Customer Responsiveness - randomly sampled for quality.

These four (4) areas were identified as important to overall success of the effort, and are expected to serve as an early identification system for problem areas so that the Government receives the necessary services at the required quality level.

1.3.2 The Government representative(s) will assess performance using Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The CPAR assesses a Contractor’s performance, both positive and negative, and provides a record on a given contract during a specified period of time. More information pertaining to CPARS can be found at:

http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsfiles/pdfs/DoD-CPARS-Guide.pdf

Each assessment will be based on objective data (or measurable, subjective data when objective data is not available) supportable by program and contract management data. CPAR performance expectations will be addressed in the Government and contractor’s initial post-award meeting. Potential sources of data may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Contractor operations reviews Status and progress reviews Production and management reviews Management and engineering process reviews (e.g. risk management, requirements management, etc.)

Cost performance reports and other cost and schedule metrics Other program measures and metrics such as:

Measures of progress and status of critical resources Measures of product size and stability Measures of product quality and process performance Customer feedback/comments and satisfaction ratings

Systems engineering and other technical progress reviews Technical interchange meetings Physical and functional configuration audits Quality reviews and QA evaluations

Functional performance evaluations Subcontract Reports

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring TO compliance, TO administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and the Contractor. The KO will designate one (1) full-time COR as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the KO.

2.2 Focal Point:

The Focal Point (FP) is responsible for:

(1) Registering all new contracts in CPARS that exceed the threshold criteria

(2) Collection, distribution and control of CPARS

(3) Assisting the Assessing Official with

a. Training

b. Timely reporting

c. High integrity of program

(4) Providing access to the CPARS AIS for authorized individuals on specific contracts

2.3 Assessing Official

The COR is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action. The COR will act as the Assessing Official (AO) and will have the responsibility for preparing and processing the CPAR. CORs are encouraged to discuss contract performance with the contractor during the performance period and CPAR process.

Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract. The AO’s responsibilities include:

1) Overall responsibility for execution and achievement of program goals

2) Evaluation of Contractor performance including the rating and required narrative to support the rating.

3) Preparation of documentation and assessment ensuring input from specialists and team members, when appropriate

4) Preparing and signing transmittal letters

5) Notifying the contractor that a CPARS is ready for review

6) Entering, modifying and finalizing information in Blocks 1-21, when necessary

7) Notifying Contractor of any revisions based on Contractor comments

a. Forwarding evaluations to the Reviewing Official (RO) which are in disagreement or when requested by the Contractor or when the contractor fails to respond to the assessment, or, in the alternative

2.4 CPAR Reviewing Official

The RO is a person one level above the AO and is responsible for:

(1) Providing checks and balances needed to ensure report integrity

(2) Consideration and reconciliation, if possible, of any significant discrepancies between the

AO’s evaluation and the contractor’s comments

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

The required performance standards and quality levels are included in the SOW and in Attachment 9, “Performance Specification”. If the Contractor meets the required service or performance level, the Contractor will receive positive CPARS ratings. If the Contractor fails to meet the required performance level, the result will be negative CPARS ratings.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance when appropriate. The COR will use the following methods of surveillance:

Random monitoring

100% Inspection

Periodic Inspection

Customer Survey

User/Customer Complaints

4.2 Customer Feedback

The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction.

Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Performance management drives the Contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the KO, as opposed to the Contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints, investigate and work with the KO and Contractor to resolve the issue.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) included in Enclosure one (1) for Contractor performance are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards and performance monitoring techniques are expressed in Enclosure one (1).

5.2 Monitoring System

The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the AO, will be reported using CPARS.

CPARS evaluations shall be conducted on an annual basis.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards and AQLs have been met. If the Contractor has not met the minimum requirements the Contractor will receive a negative CPARS review.

6.2 Reviews and Resolution

6.2.1 Upon review and signature of the CPAR by the AO the Contractor will be notified and given the opportunity to review and comment to indicate concurrence/non-concurrence. If the Contractor does not concur the RO shall resolve significant discrepancies between the AO’s evaluation and the Contractor’s comments.

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Enclosure one (1) below provides standards that will be used to measure Contractor performance. The Contractor performance will be measured on an annual basis by the AO and depending upon performance, the Contractor will receive either a positive or negative CPARS rating. CPARS ratings are used for future source selection evaluations.

ENCLOSURE ONE (1): PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE ELEMENTS

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD

ACCEPTABLE

QUALITY LEVELS

METHODS OF

SURVEILLANCE /

REPORTING

Technical Quality: Provide tasking performance and data deliverables at a quality level in a complete and accurate manner in accordance with the

SOW

Data deliverables received with a first pass yield 100% of the time

Data deliverables received with a first pass yield at least 95% of the time

Random Inspection documented with results reflected in COR monthly report to KO and CPARS

Cost Performance: Provide services within Task Book Estimates for each Technical Instruction (TI)

Services provided within estimates or revised estimates 100% of the time

Services provided within estimates or revised 100% of the time

Random Inspection documented with results reflected in COR monthly report to KO and CPARS

Management: Provide satisfactory services in accordance with section 3.0 of the SOW while completing customer requests in a timely and efficient manner

For all valid complaints, a plan of resolution is provided within 3 business days and complaints are resolved in a timely manner

For all valid complaints, a plan of resolution is provided within 3 business days and the complaints are resolved in a timely manner

Written User/Customer Complaints documented with results reflected in COR monthly report to KO and CPARS

Customer Responsiveness:

Overall customer satisfaction based on technical performance, schedule adherence, staffing, and overall management

100% of end users satisfied with contractor overall performance

95% of end users satisfied with contractor overall performance

End User Satisfaction Survey documented with results reflected in COR monthly report to KO and CPARS