Final_RFP_ATT5_QASP.pdf

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE COMMAND,

CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, COMPUTERS

AND INTELLEGENCE (PEO C4I), CARRIER &

AIR INTEGRATION PROGRAM OFFICE,

PMW 750

C4I Testing, Integration, and Installation, (CTII) Follow-On Contract

(Attachment 5)

20 August 2018

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

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

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) Testing, Integration, and Installation (CTII) Follow-On Contract. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Program Executive Office (PEO) C4I PMW 750 will use in ensuring the required performance standards 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 PWS 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 PMW 750 Government quality surveillance and oversight team, 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 monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PWS 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 PMW 750 to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS 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 achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (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 Quality Control (QC) program. QC 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 (U.S. Government (USG)) satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The Government is responsible for providing surveillance and oversight of the quality of the contractor’s work during this contract. The QASP established for this contract was developed using five of the six evaluation areas of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): (1) Quality of Service; (2) Cost Control; (3) Schedule; (4) Management; and

(5) Small Business Subcontracting. The Government reserves the right to make changes to this QASP during the contract performance period.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and Program Manager Warfare (PMW) 750 Government personnel are responsible for conducting surveillance activities in regards to the Contractor after contract award and throughout contract performance. The PCO and Program Office will utilize the QASP as a tool to evaluate whether the contractor meets the performance standards in the contract.

2.1 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

The PCO is duly appointed with the authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. 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. It is the PCO who ensures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract.

2.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The COR is designated in writing by the PCO to act as an authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract/task order 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 proposed changes that the contractor believes may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for ensuring Surveillance Activity Forms (Enclosure 4) are completed by the Integration Platform Lead (IPM) to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under any of the inspection clauses included in the contract.

2.2.1 Other Government Representatives

2.2.1.1 Principle Integration Platform Manager (PIPM)

The PIPM provides acquisition support to the Program Manager (PM) and Deputy Program Manager (DPM) by ensuring execution of assigned programs and that objectives are consistent with statute and regulatory requirements defined in Department of Defense (DoD) directives.

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

The PIPM also works with product PMWs and other Government stakeholders to ensure compliance with all DoD and Department of Navy (DoN) acquisition program guidance and the close coordination with related programs as they develop Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) capabilities and support C4I baselines.

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

2.2.1.2 Integration Platform Manager (IPM)

The IPM is responsible for managing the procurement, integration, and installation of new or existing C4I ship systems assigned. The IPM is responsible for technical administration management of the project and ensures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance, as well as provides oversight of the work accomplished by the Platform Leads (PLs). The IPM interacts with and communicates all relevant information to the COR and when necessary, the PCO.

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

2.2.1.3 Platform Lead (PL)

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

IPM.

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

3 METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE

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

3.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS)

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

CPARS was created in 1998 to satisfy this need, designated as the Navy’s official Contractor report card collection systems, and must be used when preparing performance evaluations per Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NMCARS) Subpart 5242.15. Any service contract with a value >$1M shall be entered into CPARS. The Contractor has a vested interest in the Government-generated CPARS rating under this contract since Government agencies are required to review a contractor’s CPARS file before awarding a new contract.

An evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed annually at the contract level. The Government will address: (1) Quality of Service; (2) Cost Control; (3) Schedule; (4) Management; and (5) Small Business Subcontracting* for the services set forth in the PWS, and will include performance objectives, performance thresholds, minimum acceptance levels, and surveillance methods. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately and in conjunction with the QASP.

*Although area (5) Small Business Subcontracting is evaluated on an annual contact level basis for CPARS, it is not a QASP evaluation area in the TO Surveillance Activity Form (SAF) provided in Enclosure (4).

3.2 QASP

The Evaluation Areas, Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL), and Remedies/Incentives are provided in Surveillance Method/Measure (Enclosure 2) and shall be used by the COR in the administration of this QASP. The Surveillance Evaluation Criteria (Enclosure 3) and SAF (Enclosure 4) shall be used for documenting each TO’s quality assurance surveillance.

4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING

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

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

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 primary methods of surveillance are:

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

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

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

Periodic Inspection – Periodic inspections may be conducted as specified in individual TOs.

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

5 OBSERVING CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

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

5.2 Semi-annual Program Reviews

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

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

6.1 CPARS

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS performance ratings listed in Enclosure (2) and reviewing and analyzing all of the TO SAFs for that assessment period. This annual assessment will be entered into CPARS in accordance with established procedures and processes. The CPARS evaluation is submitted electronically through the CPARS website.

6.2 QASP

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

7 QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

7.1 Assessing Performance

The Government will use the surveillance methods cited to assess whether the performance standards/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.

7.2 Reporting

SAFs must be completed by the PL and provided to the IPM on a quarterly basis during the Period of Performance (PoP) and within 30 calendar days after the TO PoP End Date. The IPM will provide the completed SAFs to the COR electronically for documentation purposes and reference (See COR for delivery requirements). The IPM will use the SAF data when completing the annual CPARS evaluation.

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 quality assurance surveillance function, including the originals of all SAFs and metrics collected from the TO(s). All such records will be retained for the life of this contract. The COR shall forward the Quality Assurance file to the PCO at termination or completion of the contract.

7.3 Reviews and Resolution

7.3.1 The PCO may require the Contractor’s program manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the PCO and other designated Government representatives as deemed necessary to discuss performance. 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, COR or other designated Government representatives as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

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

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

7.3.3 The COR and 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 at the convenience of the PCO.

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: ___________