N0002423R5310 Att 2 - QASP Egypt NMSS.docx

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, COMPUTERS AND INTELLIGENCE (PEO C4I)

INTERNATIONAL C4I INTEGRATION PROGRAM OFFICE (PMW 740)

EGYPTIAN NAVY

NATION-WIDE MARITIME SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (NMSS)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

June 2022 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Statement of Work (SOW) entitled Egyptian Navy Nation-Wide Maritime Surveillance System (NMSS). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Government will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the Contractor.

Purpose The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and identify the required documentation and 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 level of services received.

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

Performance Management Approach 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 defines the performance management approach to be taken by the Government to monitor and manage the Contractor’s performance to ensure 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.

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 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 contractual effort as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or desired performance levels are being met.

Performance Management Strategy The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own Quality Control Program (QCP). The Contractor measures the quality of all work performed under this contract through the Contractor’s own QCP regardless of whether the work is performed by Contractor employees or by subcontractors. The Contractor’s QCP will set forth 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.

Government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the Contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The Government will make determinations regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the Contractor of those decisions. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Procuring Contracting Officer The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contractor. The PCO will designate in writing the 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 PCO.

Contracting Officer’s Representative The COR is designated in writing by the PCO 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 PCO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

Performance assessments will be conducted in accordance with the Department of Defense (DoD) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) processes and ratings will be consistent with CPARS ratings. CPARS Evaluation Areas involve technical, schedule, cost control, management, regulatory compliance, and other areas defined in Enclosure 2, “Performance Requirements Summary”.

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the SOW and in Enclosure 2. For example: If the Contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be rated as SATISFACTORY on the annual CPAR report. If the Contractor exceeds the service or performance level, it is eligible to receive an EXCELLENT on the annual CPAR. Failure to meet the required level of quality will result in an UNSATISFACTORY rating in the annual CPAR.

Performance is assessed and entered into CPARS in accordance with the following rating definitions in Table 1:

Table 1. Evaluation Rating Definitions

DEFINITION

RATING

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefits. 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.

Exceptional

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 action taken by the Contractor was effective.

Very Good

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 was effective.

Satisfactory

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.

Marginal

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 actions appear or were ineffective.

Unsatisfactory

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

Surveillance Techniques To minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods will be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance when appropriate. The Government’s primary methods of surveillance are:

· Random monitoring,

· 100% Inspection –eview the generated documentation and enter summary results into the Performance/Surveillance Requirements Checklist (Enclosure 2).

· Periodic Inspection – the Government typically performs the periodic inspection on an annual basis.

· The Government will monitor services in accordance with CPARS processes, specifically monitoring SOW requirements for the following:

· Written documentation is submitted in a complete, clear, concise, technically accurate, and easily understood format

· Delivery and maintenance of management and financial data are accurate, timely, and traceable to the source of information

· Contractor provides approaches and documentation that meet PMW 740 goals and schedule milestones

· Contractor maintains and coordinates schedules and appointments

· Effective and timely close-out of open action items following meetings

· Quality of presentations (i.e., complete, logical, and substantive)

· Promptness in correcting any deficiencies to products or services delivered

· Overall quality of analysis and work performed

· Contractor anticipates problems, identifies risks, and measures to resolve or mitigate issues independently.

Customer Feedback The Contractor shall 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 PCO and/or COR 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 and investigate.

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

Acceptable Quality Levels The Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) for Contractor performance, as identified in Enclosure 2, Performance Requirements Summary Matrix (PRSM), are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance. All AQLs will be in accordance with the DoD CPARS processes, and ratings will be consistent with CPARS ratings.

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

Performance Management Feedback Loop The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the SOW and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Enclosure 2, PRSM.

Monitoring Forms The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR will be reported using the monitoring forms in Enclosure 2 and 3. The forms, when completed, will document the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results or service or quality levels are being achieved.

The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

Determining Performance Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the Contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it 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. Failure to meet the AQL may result in an UNSAT CPARS. Likewise, if the Contractor exceeds the performance standards, an EXCELLENT CPARS rating can be awarded.

Reporting At the end of each quarter, the COR will prepare a written report summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the Contractor’s submitted quarterly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring form (Enclosure 3), will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

Reviews and Resolution The COR may require the Contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the PCO, Program Manager (PM) and other Government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The PCO will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the Contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the Contractor; however, if the need arises, the Contractor will meet with the PCO, the COR or PM as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. 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

· Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

The PCO and COR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The PCO, COR, PM, and the Contractor 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 will be incorporated as a contract modification issued by PCO as soon as practicable.

ENCLOSURE 1: CPARS EVALUATION AREAS

All SOW tasks, including sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following:

Technical/Quality of Product or Service Assess the Contractor’s conformance to contract/order requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship including work completion, adhering to the specifications (i.e., PRSM), complying with the Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) and any special contract clauses.

Schedule/Timeliness Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

This evaluation of the Contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the Contractor’s efforts during the evaluation period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also, address significance of scheduled events (e.g., Program Management Reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of Contractor corrective actions. This element applies to contract/order closeout activities as well as contract/order performance. Instances of adverse actions such as the issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract/order schedule and should, therefore, be noted in the evaluation.

Cost Control Assess the Contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/order cost. If the Contractor is experiencing cost growth or underrun, discuss the causes and Contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns or underruns. For contracts/orders where task or contract sizing is based upon Contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate task 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.

Management or Business Relations Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract/order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, and keeping lines of communication open between the USG and other Contractors, including the Contractor’s performance of data collection, recording, and distribution as required by the contract.

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

Assess the Contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel.

ENCLOSURE 2: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY MATRIX

Program Management: Measures the financial health, schedule performance, risk identification/mitigation, and technical delivery (performance/execution) status of the program.

Engineering/System Delivery:

System Operational Verification Test (SOVT)

Successful completion (“Pass”) of SOVT events

Final Operational Capability Demonstration (FOCD)

Successful completion (“Pass”) of FOCD

Training Conduct

Conduct a comprehensive Operations & Maintenance training course

ENCLOSURE 3: QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________

REFERENCED ENCLOSURE DOCUMENTATION IN ABOVE QASP:

ENCLOSURE 1: CPARS EVALUATION AREAS

ENCLOSURE 2: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ENCLOSURE 3: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORIING FORM