Draft_RFP_Att5-QASP_09JUL2018.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE COMMAND,

CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS,

COMPUTERS AND INTELLIGENCE (PEO C4I),

CARRIER & AIR INTEGRATION PROGRAM

OFFICE, PMW 750

C4I Testing, Integration, and Installation, (CTII)

Follow-On Contract

(Attachment 5)

09 July 2018

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) http://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%202_1.html#wp1145507 http://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%203_1.html#wp1139244

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

2.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

3 METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE

3.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS)

3.2 QASP

4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

5 OBSERVING CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Semi-annual Program Reviews

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

6.1 CPARS

6.2 QASP

7 QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

7.1 Assessing Performance

7.2 Reporting

7.3 Reviews and Resolution

LIST OF ENCLOSURES

1 Evaluation Areas

2 Surveillance Method/Measure

3 Surveillance Evaluation Criteria

4 Surveillance Activity Form

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN 1

(QASP) 2

1 INTRODUCTION 4

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the 5

Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled Command, Control, Communications, Computers, 6 and Intelligence (C4I) Testing, Integration, and Installation (CTII) Follow-On Contract. This 7 plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Program Executive Office (PEO) C4I PMW 750 8 will use in ensuring the required performance standards are achieved by the contractor. 9

1.1 Purpose 10

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor 11 performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The 12

QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance 13 standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), 14 and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received. 15

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the PMW 750 16

Government quality surveillance and oversight team, identifies the performance objectives, 17 defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes 18 quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance 19 monitoring results. 20

1.2 Performance Management Approach 21

1.2.1 The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as 22 opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This 23

QASP will define the performance management approach taken by PMW 750 to monitor and 24 manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives 25 communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a 26 capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The 27 ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of 28 performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected 29 outcomes for the project are achieved by the contractor. 30

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality 31 assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing 32 whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from 33 scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A 34 performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is 35 performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only 36 exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling 37 business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility 38 to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical 39 outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met. 40

1.3 Performance Management Strategy 41

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor 42 measures that quality through the contractor’s own Quality Control (QC) program. QC is work 43 output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of 44 whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s 45

QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, 46 responsiveness, customer (U.S. Government (USG)) satisfaction, and other performance 47 requirements in the PWS. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the 48 contractor’s QC program. 49

1.3.2 The Government is responsible for providing surveillance and oversight of the quality of 50 the contractor’s work during this contract. The QASP established for this contract was developed 51 using five of the six evaluation areas of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting 52

System (CPARS): (1) Quality of Service; (2) Cost Control; (3) Schedule; (4) Management; and 53

(5) Small Business Subcontracting. The Government reserves the right to make changes to this 54

QASP during the contract performance period. 55

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 56

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and Program Manager Warfare (PMW) 750 57

Government personnel are responsible for conducting surveillance activities in regards to the 58

Contractor after contract award and throughout contract performance. The PCO and Program 59

Office will utilize the QASP as a tool to evaluate whether the contractor meets the performance 60 standards in the contract. 61

2.1 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) 62

The PCO is duly appointed with the authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and 63 make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO ensures 64 performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms 65 of the contract, and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It 66 is the PCO who ensures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the 67 contract. 68

2.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) 69

The COR is designated in writing by the PCO to act as an authorized representative to assist in 70 administering a contract. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract/task 71 order and ensures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR is 72 not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on 73 the Government’s behalf. Any proposed changes that the contractor believes may affect contract 74 price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. The COR will have the 75 responsibility for ensuring Surveillance Activity Forms (Enclosure 4) are completed by the 76

Integration Platform Lead (IPM) to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s 77 work performance. Government surveillance may occur under any of the inspection clauses 78 included in the contract. 79

2.2.1 Other Government Representatives 80

2.2.1.1 Principle Integration Platform Manager (PIPM) 81

The PIPM provides acquisition support to the Program Manager (PM) and Deputy Program 82

Manager (DPM) by ensuring execution of assigned programs and that objectives are consistent 83 with statute and regulatory requirements defined in Department of Defense (DoD) directives. 84

The PIPM interacts with and communicates all relevant information to the COR and when 85 necessary, the PCO. The PIPM supervises the Integration Platform Managers (IPMs) who 86 manage the development, production and life cycle support of assigned C4I programs platform 87 integration efforts. The PIPM is also responsible, with the IPMs, for developing the acquisition 88 strategy, contracting approach, test strategy, program plan/schedule, integration/installation and 89 life-cycle support requirements, and acquisition documentation required by the program/project. 90

The PIPM also works with product PMWs and other Government stakeholders to ensure 91 compliance with all DoD and Department of Navy (DoN) acquisition program guidance and the 92 close coordination with related programs as they develop Command, Control, Communications, 93

Computers and Intelligence (C4I) capabilities and support C4I baselines. 94

The PIPM is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any 96 contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor proposes that 97 may affect contract price, schedule, scope or terms and conditions shall be referred to the PCO 98 for action. 99

2.2.1.2 Integration Platform Manager (IPM) 101

The IPM is responsible for managing the procurement, integration, and installation of new or 102 existing C4I ship systems assigned. The IPM is responsible for technical administration 103 management of the project and ensures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s 104 performance, as well as provides oversight of the work accomplished by the Platform Leads 105

(PLs). The IPM interacts with and communicates all relevant information to the COR and when 106 necessary, the PCO. 107

The IPM is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual 109 changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor proposes that may affect 110 contract price, schedule, scope or terms and conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. 111

2.2.1.3 Platform Lead (PL) 113

The PL provides detailed technical oversight of the contractor’s performance and reports his/her 114 findings to the COR and IPM in a timely, complete, and impartial fashion. The PL interacts with 115 and communicates all relevant information to the IPM. The PL will complete the SAF on a 116 quarterly basis and submit to the IPM. The PL will draft the CPARS input and submit to the 117

IPM. 118

While the PL may serve as a direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the 120 contractor on technical matters, he/she is not empowered to make any contractual commitments 121 or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the 122 contractor proposes that may affect contract price, schedule, scope or terms and conditions shall 123 be referred to the PCO for action as applicable. 124

3 METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE 125

The purpose of Enclosures (1) through (3) is to define performance evaluation criteria. The 126 absence from these enclosures of any contract requirement, however, shall not detract from its 127 enforceability or limit the rights or remedies of the Government under any other provisions of 128 the contract. In addition, the Government shall have the unilateral right to amend the contents of 129 the enclosed Performance Requirements Summaries any time after providing three months’ 130 notice of the changes to the Contractor. This stipulation is not retroactive. If the Government is 131 responsible for the Contractor’s failure to meet any requirement, the failure shall not be counted 132 against the Contractor. 133

3.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) 134

Per FAR Part 42.15 the Government must collect Contractor past performance information. 135

CPARS was created in 1998 to satisfy this need, designated as the Navy’s official Contractor 136 report card collection systems, and must be used when preparing performance evaluations per 137

Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS) Subpart 5242.15. Any 138 service contract with a value >$1M shall be entered into CPARS. The Contractor has a vested 139 interest in the Government-generated CPARS rating under this contract since Government 140 agencies are required to review a contractor’s CPARS file before awarding a new contract. 141

An evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed annually at the contract level. The 143

Government will address: (1) Quality of Service; (2) Cost Control; (3) Schedule; (4) 144

Management; and (5) Small Business Subcontracting* for the services set forth in the PWS, and 145 will include performance objectives, performance thresholds, minimum acceptance levels, and 146 surveillance methods. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD 147 and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used 148 appropriately and in conjunction with the QASP. 149

*Although area (5) Small Business Subcontracting is evaluated on an annual contact level basis for 151

CPARS, it is not a QASP evaluation area in the TO Surveillance Activity Form (SAF) provided in 152

Enclosure (4). 153

3.2 QASP 154

The Evaluation Areas, Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL), and 155

Remedies/Incentives are provided in Surveillance Method/Measure (Enclosure 2) and shall be 156 used by the COR in the administration of this QASP. The Surveillance Evaluation Criteria 157

(Enclosure 3) and SAF (Enclosure 4) shall be used for documenting each TO’s quality assurance 158 surveillance. 159

4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING 160

The list below provides the surveillance options available in the administration of this QASP. 161

Regardless of the methods used below, every TO shall have a SAF completed by the IPM and 162 delivered to the COR on a monthly basis during the Period of Performance (PoP) and a final 163 summary SAF within 30 calendar days after the TO PoP End Date. The SAF will document and 164 summarize any issues or excellent performance that arose during the PoP. The SAFs will be used 165 as the primary source of input for the COR in completing the contractor’s annual CPARS 166 evaluation. It is imperative that the IPM complete and submit the SAF in the time specified 167 above to avoid the degradation of data/records. 168

4.1 Surveillance Techniques 170

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods 171 shall be used by the Government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The 172 primary methods of surveillance are: 173

Random Sampling – Random monitoring or sampling is any inspection that is less than 174

100% and not periodic. Monitoring performance randomly shall be conducted as 175 specified in individual TOs and will be performed by the Government. 176

100% Inspection – This surveillance type is reserved for those tasks that occur 177 infrequently or for those tasks having very stringent performance requirements. When 178 this type of surveillance is used, the Government must inspect and evaluate the 179

Contractor’s performance. 180

Periodic Inspection – Periodic inspections may be conducted as specified in individual 181

TOs. 182

Customer Feedback – Customer feedback may be obtained either from the results of 183 formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer communications. Valid 184 customer feedback must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the 185 feedback, including how schedule, price, etc. were impacted. The COR shall maintain a 186 summary log of all formally received customer feedback as well as a copy of each 187 feedback in a documentation file. The COR will also keep the results of all customer 188 satisfaction surveys on file. 189

5 OBSERVING CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE 190

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop 191

The COR, PIPM, IPM, and/or PL will inspect task performance by either watching actual task 192 performance, physically checking an attribute of the completed task, checking a management 193 report, test witnessing, or otherwise inspecting the task or its results to determine whether or not 194 the performance meets the standards contained in each TO. The PIPM, IPM, and/or PL will be 195 familiar with the standards and requirements set forth in each TO and will notify the COR and 196

PCO when the standards and requirements are not met. 197

5.2 Semi-annual Program Reviews 198

The Semi-annual Program Reviews shall be scheduled at the Government’s request to review 199 contractor performance. The Program Reviews will also provide an open forum of discussion 200 where all invested parties, both Government and contractor, are present to address issues or 201 review processes. All active TOs will be reviewed in relation to cost, schedule, risks, personnel 202 and material management, and contract deliverables. 203

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION 204

6.1 CPARS 205

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the 206

CPARS performance ratings listed in Enclosure (2) and reviewing and analyzing all of the TO 207

SAFs for that assessment period. This annual assessment will be entered into CPARS in 208 accordance with established procedures and processes. The CPARS evaluation is submitted 209 electronically through the CPARS website. 210

6.2 QASP 211

The Surveillance Evaluation Criteria and SAF are provided in Enclosures (3) and (4) 212 respectively. The SAF will be used by Government personnel for monitoring of the Contractor’s 213 performance. The Surveillance Evaluation Criteria and SAF will specify the evaluation areas 214 under surveillance; present the performance standards; provide the method of 215 measurement/surveillance; specify the date accomplished; and provide a performance rating for 216 each of the 5 evaluation areas. 217

7 QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS 218

7.1 Assessing Performance 219

The Government will use the surveillance methods cited to assess whether the performance 220 standards/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may 221 be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring 222 performance up to the required levels. 223

7.2 Reporting 224

SAFs must be completed by the PL and provided to the IPM on a quarterly basis during the 225

Period of Performance (PoP) and within 30 calendar days after the TO PoP End Date. The IPM 226 will provide the completed SAFs to the COR electronically for documentation purposes and 227 reference (See COR for delivery requirements). The IPM will use the SAF data when completing 228 the annual CPARS evaluation. 229

The COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all 231 reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s quality 232 assurance surveillance function, including the originals of all SAFs and metrics collected from 233 the TO(s). All such records will be retained for the life of this contract. The COR shall forward 234 the Quality Assurance file to the PCO at termination or completion of the contract. 235

7.3 Reviews and Resolution 236

7.3.1 The PCO may require the Contractor’s program manager, or a designated alternate, to 237 meet with the PCO and other designated Government representatives as deemed necessary to 238 discuss performance. The PCO will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the Contractor, 239 including appropriate self-assessments by the Contractor; however, if the need arises, the 240

Contractor will meet with the PCO, COR or other designated Government representatives as 241 often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include: 242

Performance assessment data and trend analysis 243

Issues and concerns of both parties 244

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a 245 corrective action plan analysis 246

Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness 247

7.3.2 The PCO will coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and 249 concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance. 250

7.3.3 The COR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of 252 action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly 253 documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a 254 contract modification at the convenience of the PCO. 255

Enclosure 1: Evaluation Areas

All TOs will be assessed on the following:

a) Quality of Service – Assess whether the contractor’s performance is complete, accurate, and meets the contract requirements, specifications, and standards. Assess whether the contractor’s methodologies and technical performance/products are in accordance with commonly accepted technical or professional standards, and reflect complete understanding of the PWS and program objectives. Assess how successfully the contractor meets expected quality.

b) Cost Control – Assess whether the contractor’s incurred cost and hours are consistent with the value of services and products received by the Government. For TOs where the level of effort and cost were based on a contractor’s proposal, the relationship of these estimates to actual cost will be assessed for accuracy in cost estimating. Assess the invoices/vouchers to verify that they are accurate, complete, and submitted in accordance with contract requirements. Assess any contractor-innovative cost saving solutions. Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. If the contractor is experiencing cost growths, assess the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns.

c) Schedule – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule in relation to meeting scheduled milestone events during the relevant assessment period that contribute to or affect the program’s schedule. Assess all schedule delays, causes for the delays, and the contractor’s corrective action plan. Determine if schedule impact is due to Government- or contractor-caused delay.

d) Management – Assess the contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction. Assess the contractor’s effectiveness and efficiency of managing personnel in response to changing priorities, as well as matching personnel qualifications to requirement tasking. Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of problem identification, resolution, and corrective actions plans.

e) Small Business Subcontracting – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the small business goals. Assess the timeliness, completeness, and quality of Individual Subcontract Reports and/or

Summary Subcontract Reports.

Enclosure 2: Surveillance Method/Measure

The following Surveillance Method/Measure applies to all five evaluation areas listed in paragraph 1.3.2 (Performance Management Strategy).

Surveillance Method/Measure

Quarterly SAFs and a final summary SAF will be the primary surveillance method. Additional surveillance techniques listed under paragraph 4.1 above will be used if necessary. The SAFs will be used to document the

Government’s evaluation and provide information for the annual CPARS evaluation.

The overall performance rating will be entered and assigned by the COR with input from PMW 750 Government personnel.

Evaluation

Area

Performance Standard and Acceptable

Quality Level (AQL) Remedy / Incentive

Quality of

Service

The Contractor provides quality services and related Contract Data Requirements List

(CDRL) deliverables that are accurate, complete, and meet TO requirements, specifications and standards. The Contractor follows their Quality Assurance Plan documents.

The Contractor’s methodologies and technical performance/products are in accordance with commonly accepted technical or professional standards, and reflect complete understanding of the PWS and program objectives.

Remedy: Failure to provide services within the Performance Standard and AQL may require the Contractor to perform the services again in conformity with the contract requirements for no additional fee, as required in accordance with FAR Clause 52.246-5.

Multiple failures may provide a basis for termination and/or a negative CPARS report.

If a second rework is required, it is at no cost to the Government. If replacement of personnel due to failures is required, relocation/replacement costs shall be borne by the Contractor. Continued failure may result in default.

Incentive: Overall performance that exceeds the standard and AQL will be reflected in

CPARS as Very Good or Exceptional.

Cost Control

Contractor-incurred cost and hours are consistent with the value of the services and products received by the Government. The value received is commensurate with the cost and hours expended.

All funding and cost status reports are accurate and complete and submitted in accordance with contract requirements and contract clauses.

The Contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility. The Contractor effectively forecasts, manages, and controls cost through cost and program management and effective and efficient use of staffing resources.

Remedy: The Contractor shall accurately explain the causes of cost growths, cost increases, and cost and/or funding discrepancies, and propose and implement corrective solutions that are satisfactory to the

Government. Remedies may also include those stated in the contract’s Clause 52.246-5.

Incentive: Substantial cost savings realized through innovative processes and/or the use of staffing resources will be reflected in CPARS as Very Good or Exceptional.

Enclosure 2: Surveillance Method/Measure

Schedule

The Contractor conducts PWS tasking in alignment with TO schedules and milestone events. Appropriate PWS tasking is performed without causing programmatic delays. All services and products are submitted on time. If there is a delay or the schedule has shifted, it is documented and communicated to the Government.

The Contractor is proactive in forecasting and notifying the Government of any schedule delays regardless of cause or source.

Remedy: The Contractor shall provide an explanation for schedule slips or other delays, to include a complete explanation for the schedule slips or delay. The Contractor shall prepare, submit for review by the

Government, and implement approved corrective action plans if necessary. Other remedies may include those stated in the contract’s Clause 52.246-5.

Incentive: Performance that substantially exceeds the standard and AQL will be reflected in CPARS as Very Good or

Exceptional.

Management/

Business

Relations

The Contractor manages the contract to a successful completion of each milestone, overall TO, and contract requirements.

The Contractor’s management results in reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

The Contractor takes a proactive role in identifying, responding, and resolving all issues in a timely fashion.

Remedy: The Contractor shall prepare, submit for review by the Government, and implement approved corrective action plans as determined by the PCO.

Incentive: Management oversight and processes that substantially exceed the performance standard and AQL will be reflected in CPARS as Very Good or

Exceptional.

Small Business

Subcontracting

The Contractor complies with all terms and conditions in the contract/TO relating to

Small Business participation.

The Contractor achieves each individual goal stated within the contract/TO or subcontracting plan including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved.

Remedy: The Contractor shall accurately explain the causes of underutilization of Small

Business, and propose and implement corrective solutions that are satisfactory to the

Government.

Incentive: Small Business utilization that substantially exceeds the standard and AQL will be reflected in CPARS as Very Good or

Exceptional.

Enclosure 3: Surveillance Evaluation Criteria

The surveillance evaluation criteria are as follows:

Performance

Rating Criteria

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective. No significant weaknesses were identified.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective. No significant weaknesses were identified.

Satisfactory

The contractor will not receive a rating lower or higher than Satisfactory for performance that meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions were taken by the

Contractor without negative impact. No significant weaknesses were identified.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions, or 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 contains serious problem(s) for which there were no corrective actions identified, or the Contractor’s proposed corrective actions appear to be or were ineffective.

Enclosure 3: Surveillance Evaluation Criteria

The surveillance evaluation criteria specific to Small Business Subcontracting are as follows:

Performance

Rating Criteria

Exceptional

Contractor performance exceeds all statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB.* Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/TO. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract/TO.

Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract

Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Very Good

The contractor met all of the statutory goals or goals as negotiated. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR 52.219-8. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract/TO. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Satisfactory

The contractor demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories. Complied with FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract/TO. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract/TO. Completed and submitted

Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Marginal

The contractor was deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/TO. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary

Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan.

Unsatisfactory

The contractor was noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract/TO. Did not submit Individual

Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan.

*Socio-economic categories: Small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB), and service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB).

Enclosure 4: Surveillance Activity Form

CONTRACT NUMBER TASK ORDER # CONTRACTOR NAME DATE

TASK ORDER NAME COR NAME (Last, First, MI)

POP START DATE POP END DATE

PIPM IPM PL

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Quality Performance Areas Exceptional* Very Good* Satisfactory Marginal** Unsatisfactory**

A. Quality of Service ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

B. Schedule ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

C. Cost Control ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

D. Management ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

*Any rating above Satisfactory should be supported. Please provide information/documentation below that demonstrates the Contractor’s performance as being above Satisfactory:

**Any rating below Satisfactory should be supported. Please provide information/documentation below that demonstrates the Contractor’s performance as being below Satisfactory:

Preparer (PL): __________________ Date: __________ Reviewer (IPM): _________________ Date: ___________