SE4 - Attachment 5 - QASP (29MAR2018).pdf

SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND (SPAWAR)

SHORE GLOBAL

COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, COMPUTER,

INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (C4ISR)

INSTALLATIONS CONTRACT

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

29 MARCH 2018

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 (KO)

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

2.3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Team

3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS) ENCLOSURES

3.1 Individual Task Order Quality PRS

3.2 Individual Task Order Schedule PRS

3.3 Overall Contract PRS

4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT SYSTEM (CPARS)

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

6.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

6.2 Monitoring Forms

7 QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

7.1 Assessing Performance

7.2 Quality Assurance Assessment

7.3 Reviews and Resolution

LIST OF ENCLOSURES

1 INDIVIDUAL TASK ORDER QUALITY PRS CHART

2 INDIVIDUAL TASK ORDER SCHEDULE PRS CHART

3 OVERALL CONTRACT PRS CHART

4 QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

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 SPAWAR Shore Global C4ISR Installations Contract. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines SPAWAR Fleet Readiness Directorate (FRD)

Installation Offices (FIOs) will use in ensuring the required performance standards are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of a QASP is to manage contractor performance assessment by ensuring that systematic quality assurance methods are utilized to validate that the contractor's quality control efforts are timely, effective, and are delivering the results specified in the contract or task order.

The QASP directly corresponds to the performance objectives and standards (i.e., quality, quantity, timeliness) specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and details how, when and by whom the Government will survey, observe, test, sample, evaluate, and document contractor performance results to determine whether the contractor has met the required standards for each objective in the PWS.

1.1.2 This QASP identifies the performance aspects and standards as:

1. Quality:

(i) SOVT Functional Performance (does not include workmanship)

(ii) Workmanship Quality

(iii) Quality of CORN Submissions

(iv) Quality of Shore Drawings

(v) Document Deliverable Quality

2. Schedule:

(i) Meeting Schedule for Completion of Production Work

(ii) Meeting Schedule for Completion of All Task Order Work

(iii) Delivering documents through Task Orders

This QASP also defines the roles and responsibilities of Government representatives, defines the surveillance techniques used to assess the Contractor’s performance, identifies the acceptable quality levels and quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the means of rating the results of quality assurance monitoring.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The Performance Work Statement (PWS) structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work

System Operational Verification Test

Change Order Request Notification

(i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the FIOs 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 Management System (QMS).

Quality Control (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 will employ a performance management system, which aligns people, processes, resources, and a QMS to achieve performance expectations set in the Task

Order PWS. The Contractor’s QMS will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer (U.S. Government (USG)) satisfaction, and other performance objectives in the PWS. The Contractor’s QMS must comply with the requirements of the Statement of Work and ASQ/ANSI/ISO 9001:2015: Quality Management

Systems - Requirements standards.

1.3.2 The Government will determine incentives based on performance data and notify the

Contractor. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to improve performance.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer (KO)

The Contracting Officer (KO) or Ordering Officer (OO) 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 KO or OO will designate the COR in writing as the Government authority for performance management. The KO or OO will also identify and designate representatives to serve as technical inspectors, the number of which depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the Contractor’s performance. This will include the other Government representatives identified in Section 2.3.1.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The COR is designated in writing by the KO or OO to act as his or her 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 KO or OO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing Enclosure 4: Quality Assurance

Monitoring Form used 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.

2.3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Team

A Quality Assurance Surveillance Team is led by the KO or OO and the COR’s representatives.

Day-to-day working-level surveillance activities will typically be performed by SPAWAR

Systems Center Atlantic (SSC LANT) or Pacific (SSC PAC) FIO employees. The following roles and responsibilities are further defined in Section 1 of the SPAWAR Shore Installation

Process Handbook (SIPH).

2.3.1 Other Government Representatives

2.3.1.1 Regional Shore Installation Manager (RSIM)

The Regional Shore Installation Manager (RSIM) is responsible for overseeing installations within a defined region.

2.3.1.2 On-Site Government Representative (OSGR)

On-Site Government Representatives (OSGRs) assist the Project Engineer in overseeing on-site installation work. An OSGR will perform on-site quality surveillance of the Contractor’s work including Installation Drawing Packages and As-Built drawings, conduct inspections, and coordinate correction of non-conformance and workmanship issues.

2.3.1.3 Project Engineer (PE)

The Project Engineer (PE) is responsible for an installation project from inception to completion to include installation design, production planning and scheduling, installation execution, system turnover, and project closeout. They are normally the SPAWAR employee the FIO assigns to manage the cost, schedule, and performance of specific projects. PEs provide weekly status reports on project progress (potentially including Contractor performance issues) to RSIMs.

2.3.1.4 Quality Representatives (QRs)

Quality Representatives (QRs) or Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAEs), as referenced in the

SIPH, conduct scheduled and unscheduled inspections of the Contractor’s production efforts using QA checklists for and on behalf of the FIO. QRs can assist the FIO during final walk-throughs and inspections made at the time of project completion. QRs will gather data to enter into the FIO’s database that will be used to determine the Contractor’s overall quality performance rating.

2.3.1.5 Technical Point of Contact (TPOC)

The KO or OO may designate representatives to serve as technical inspectors or Technical Point of Contact (TPOC).

3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS) ENCLOSURES

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 Individual Task Order Quality PRS

Enclosure (1) provides the Quality PRS for Individual Task Orders. It will be used to assess the

Contractor’s quality performance on individual Task Orders. The degree to which the Contractor meets each quality performance aspect will be converted into a numerical value (1 for unsatisfactory, 3 for satisfactory, or 5 for outstanding) and entered, along with the weighting value for that performance aspect (provided in the task order), into the contract Incentive Fee

Plan (Microsoft Excel) spreadsheet. The spreadsheet will use this data, along with cost and schedule data, to calculate the incentive fee earned for the task.

3.2 Individual Task Order Schedule PRS

Enclosure (2) provides the Schedule PRS for Individual Task Orders. It will be used to assess the Contractor’s schedule performance on individual Task Orders in the same manner as discussed in Section 3.1 above.

3.3 Overall Contract PRS

Enclosure (3) provides the PRS for the overall performance of the contract based on all tasks completed during the performance period. The Government reserves the right to restrict

Contractor participation on future task orders when overall performance objectives are not met.

4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

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

Random Sampling – The OSGR or other Government representative will conduct sampling using an initial verification Level of III as defined by MIL-STD-1916. The

OSGR will also conduct random sampling of Contractor’s QA documentation and

Security certification.

100% Inspection – The COR, or other designated Government representative, will review generated documentation, Contractor QA processes, and qualification/certification records.

Opportunity Sampling – The Government will document and investigate any discrepancies discovered outside of a predetermined random sample set through observations made while conducting normal business.

The Periodic Inspection – The COR, OSGR, or Government designated representative will perform periodic inspections (typically on a monthly/weekly/daily basis) as specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Inspections required to inspect quality during key events will normally be identified in the task order PWS. Additional scheduled or unscheduled inspections may be conducted to witness key events or to address issues discovered during prior inspections.

Walk-through Inspection – Upon completion, each installation will have a walk-through inspection conducted by the OSGR or QR.

Random Monitoring – The COR or Government designated representative will perform random monitoring.

Scheduled Examinations – QR’s will typically conduct scheduled examinations of shore installations at approximately the 10, 30, 60, and 90 percent installation completion points.

Physical/Visual Examination – The OSGR or other designated Government representative will witness operational verification testing of installed system(s).

Customer Satisfaction Survey – The COR, or other designated Government representative, will conduct periodic surveys of key personnel to measure customer satisfaction.

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 or OO 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 informal customer complaints.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) for Contractor performance are identified in Enclosures (1) through (3), Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) tables.

5 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT SYSTEM (CPARS)

The QASP and CPARS are assessed independently. The CPARS ratings and metrics performance will be a factor when determining whether to award additional tasks. For this procurement the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, management, utilization of small business, regulatory compliance, and other important areas, as well as whether or not the metrics were met. The annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool.

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

6.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in Enclosures (1) and (2), and assessed using the performance monitoring techniques addressed in Section 4.

6.2 Monitoring Forms

The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR and the Quality Assurance

Surveillance Team, will be reported using the monitoring form (Enclosure (4)). The form, when completed, will document the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance. The

COR will retain a copy of all completed QA monitoring forms.

7 QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

7.1 Assessing Performance

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

AQLs have been met.

7.2 Quality Assurance Assessment

During the period of performance, the QAE may surveil, assess, and issue Corrective Action

Reports (CARs) to the Contractor for observed deviations from quality standards. The

Contractor is required to assess and mitigate deviations, and submit a Formal Corrective Action

Response. At the end of the period of performance of the Task Order(s), the COR will review the results of the quality assurance surveillance collected during the Contractor’s performance.

This assessment, which includes the Contractor’s report submissions and the completed quality assurance monitoring form (Enclosure (4)), will become part of the FRD contract document repository.

7.3 Reviews and Resolution

7.3.1 The KO or OO may require the Contractor’s program manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the KO or OO and other designated Government representatives as deemed necessary to discuss performance. The KO or OO 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 KO or OO, 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 KO or OO will coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

7.3.3 When the Contracting Officer notifies the Contractor that a systemic or major quality assurance problem requires corrective action, the Contractor shall prepare a formal corrective action response that addresses the problem and its root causes. The Contractor’s response shall be delivered to the contracting officer within seven (7) working days and it shall provide root cause analysis information and identify any preventive or corrective actions to be implemented by the Contractor, to include implementation schedule dates. The Contracting Officer may decide to suspend the award of additional tasks to the Contractor until after the corrective actions are implemented or the major issue is otherwise resolved.

ENCLOSURE 1: INDIVIDUAL TASK ORDER QUALITY PRS CHART

Performance Aspects Performance Standards Acceptable

Quality Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Performance Rating

Criteria (for Incentive

Awards when applicable)

SOVT Functional

Performance

Installation completed in accordance with GFI specification and documentation

Installation passes all

SOVT functional tests

90% of completed SOVT tests and checks adhere to GFI specification and documentation, and no failures identified in functional testing are solely attributable to

Contractor

Physical / Visual

Examination of

System

Operational

Verification Test

(SOVT)

functional performance

Outstanding: Greater than 95% of completed

SOVT tests and checks adhere to GFI specification and documentation, and no failures identified in functional testing are solely attributable to

Contractor

SAT: Between 90% and

95% of completed SOVT tests and checks adhere to GFI specification and documentation, and no failures identified in functional testing are solely attributable to

UNSAT: Less than 90% of completed SOVT tests and checks adhere to GFI specification and documentation, or failures identified in functional testing are solely attributable to

Workmanship Quality

Installation workmanship quality complies with

Appendix AC of the

SPAWAR Shore

Installation Process

Handbook (SIPH) standards

Installation workmanship quality passes SOVT Stage

1: Inspection and

Validation, and Stage 2:

Cold Checks

80% of checklist items comply with SIPH

Standards, and installation passes SOVT

Stage 1 and Stage

2 with no failures identified in

SOVT Stage 1 and Stage 2 are solely attributable to Contractor

Physical / Visual

Examination of checklist items and System

Operations and

Verification Test

(SOVT) Stage 1 and Stage 2 workmanship quality

Outstanding: Greater than 95% of checklist items comply with SIPH

Standards, and no failures identified in

SOVT Stage 1 and Stage

2 are solely attributable to Contractor

SAT: Between 80% and

95% of checklist items comply with SIPH

Standards, and no failures identified in

SOVT Stage 1 and Stage

2 are solely attributable to Contractor

Performance Aspects Performance Standards Acceptable

Quality Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Performance Rating

Criteria (for Incentive

Awards when applicable)

Workmanship Quality

(Continued)

UNSAT: Less than 80% of checklist items comply with SIPH Standards, or installation fails SOVT

Stage 1 or Stage 2

Quality of CORN

Submissions

Submitted CORN documentation clearly defines:

a. The problem / condition found by the contractor that is the basis for the CORN,

b. The proposed solution to correct the problem / deviation ,

c. The impact to the installation if the proposed solution is not approved,

d. Detailed labor, material, travel, and

ODC costs that are reconcilable and traceable back to the proposed solution

No more than one

(1) CORN

submission is rejected by the

Contracting

Officer

100% Inspection Outstanding: No CORN submissions are rejected

SAT: No more than one

(1) CORN submission is rejected by the

Contracting Officer

UNSAT: More than one

(1) CORN submission is rejected by the

Contracting Officer

Quality of Shore

Drawings

(Installation Design

Package (IDP), Installation Requirements

Drawing (IRD), As-Built, Red-lines, minor construction drawings*)

* comply with NAVFAC

UFC 1-300-09N

Drawings meet SPAWAR

Shore Installation Process

Handbook (SIPH) standards and/or

Installation Requirements

Drawing (IRD) standard as per Task Order

Shore drawing packages comply with standards and there are no more than 5% of technical checklist line items showing technical content errors (includes incomplete parts lists), and the drawing format compliance score

(automatically generated by a formatting checklist) is at least 90%

100% Inspection Outstanding: In the first submittal of a Shore drawing package the

Government does not find more than 2% of technical checklist line items showing technical content errors (includes incomplete parts lists), the drawing format compliance score

(automatically generated by a formatting checklist) is at least 95%. All errors identified by the

Government are corrected in the

Contractor’s resubmittal.

No violations of shore design or safety standards are found. All applicable

Performance Aspects Performance Standards Acceptable

Quality Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Performance Rating

Criteria (for Incentive

Awards when applicable)

Quality of Shore

Drawings (Continued) drawing types are provided.

SAT: In the first submittal of a Shore drawing package the

Government does not find more than 5% of technical checklist line items showing technical content errors (includes incomplete parts lists), the drawing format compliance score

(automatically generated by a formatting checklist) is at least 90%. All errors identified by the

Government are corrected in the

Contractor’s resubmittal.

No violations of shore design or safety standards are found. All applicable drawing types are provided.

UNSAT: The conditions required for a satisfactory rating are not met

Document Deliverable

Quality

Delivered documents are detailed, clearly written and error free

No more than one

(1) delivered document submission requires a second review cycle

100% Inspection Outstanding: All delivered document submissions are accepted by the Government upon initial review cycle

(1) delivered document submission requires a second review cycle

UNSAT: Two (2) or more delivered document submissions require a second review cycle

ENCLOSURE 2: INDIVIDUAL TASK ORDER SCHEDULE PRS CHART

Performance Aspects Performance Standards Acceptable

Quality

Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Performance Rating

Criteria (for Incentive

Awards when applicable)

Meeting Schedule for

Completion of Production

Work

Production work begins and ends according to schedule or approved extension, rounded up to the next whole day

Start and end dates

(milestones) are within

97% and

103% of time allotted for completion

100%

Inspection

Outstanding: Production work is completed in 97% or less of the scheduled time allotted for production in the Task

Order. In other words, production work is completed 3% early. (The time that it takes to complete will be rounded up to the next whole day when making this calculation.)

SAT: Production work completion takes more than 97% and less than

103% of the time allotted for production in the Task

Order

UNSAT: Greater than

103% of the time allotted for production in the Task

Order

Meeting Schedule for

Completion of All Task

Order Work

Contractor completes all

Task Order work within the start and end dates provided in the Task Order. Start and end dates will be provided at the Task Order level

Start and end dates

(milestones) are within

97% and

103% of time allotted for completion

100%

Inspection

Outstanding: Work is completed in 97% or less of the total schedule time allotted in the Task Order.

In other words, Task Order is completed 3% early.

(The time that it takes to complete will be rounded up to the next whole day when making this calculation.)

SAT: Task Order than 97% and less than

103% of the total time allotted in the Task Order

UNSAT: Task Order than 103% of the total time allotted in the Task Order

ENCLOSURE 2: INDIVIDUAL TASK ORDER SCHEDULE PRS CHART

Performance Aspects Performance Standards Acceptable

Quality

Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Performance Rating

Criteria (for Incentive

Awards when applicable)

Delivering documents through Task Orders;

requiring a specific document deliverable and completion date

All documents are delivered on time

No more than one (1) document is delivered more than five

(5) business days late

100%

Inspection Five

(5) business days for

Government review)

Outstanding: All Task

Order document deliverables are completed on-time

(1) document deliverable is delivered more than five

(5) business days late

UNSAT: More than one

(1) document deliverable is delivered more than five

(5) business days late

ENCLOSURE 3: OVERALL CONTRACT PRS CHART

Evaluation Area Acceptable Performance

Definition

Methods of Surveillance Incentives

Quality: No individual Task Orders show a Quality Performance

Rating of UNSAT

Midpoint of the assessment period (6 month) evaluation using data from the

Government databases for the previous six-month period

Poor overall performance may limit the amount of future work awarded

Schedule: No individual Task Orders show a Schedule Performance

Rating of UNSAT

Midpoint of the assessment period (6 month) evaluation using data from the

Government databases for the previous six-month period

Poor overall performance may limit the amount of future work awarded

Cost Performance: No individual Task Orders show a Cost Performance

Rating of UNSAT

Midpoint of the assessment period (6 month) evaluation using data from the

Government databases for the previous six-month period

Poor overall performance may limit the amount of future work awarded

Small, Disadvantaged, and

Women-Owned Business

Participation:

Contractor meets Goals for

Small Business Participation, Part 1

Note 1: “Small business” is defined to include:

1) Small Disadvantaged

Business

2) Women-Owned Small

Businesses

3) Veteran-Owned Small

Businesses

4) Service-Disabled Veteran-

Owned Small Businesses

5) HUBZone Small

Businesses and Historically

Black Colleges or

Universities and Minority

Institutions

a. During the first six months of performance under the contract, the Contractor attains at least 60% of its goal for overall small business participation

b. During its first 12 months of performance under the contract, the Contractor attains at least 70% of its goal for overall small business participation, and attains at least 60% of its goal for each of the specific categories of small business listed under

Note 1

c. During its first 18 months of contract, the Contractor attains at least 80% of its goal for overall small business participation and attains at least 70% of its goal for each of the specific categories of small business listed in Note 1

100 % inspection of previously submitted actual cost data (6 mos. intervals)

Poor overall performance

ENCLOSURE 3: OVERALL CONTRACT PRS CHART

Evaluation Area Acceptable Performance

Definition

Methods of Surveillance Incentives

Contractor meets Goals for

Small Business Participation, Part 2

Note 2: “Contractor’s goals” are defined as the minimum percentages of both overall small business participation – and specific small business category participation – contained in the Contractor’s approved

“Subcontracting Plan for small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns.”

d. During its first 24 months of performance under the contract, the Contractor attains at least 90% of its goal for overall small, disadvantaged, and women-owned business participation and at least 80% of its goal for each of the specific categories of small, disadvantaged, and women-owned business listed previously in Note 1

e. During its first 30 months of contract and beyond, the

Contractor meets all of its goals for small business participation

100 % inspection of previously submitted actual cost data (6 mos. Intervals)

Poor overall performance

ENCLOSURE 4: QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

CONTRACT NUMBER TASK ORDER NUMBER CONTRACTOR NAME DATE

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

SHORT TITLE

CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE (COR)

NAME (Last, First, MI)

PERIOD OF SURVEILLANCE

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Quality Performance Aspects Weight Outstanding

(5)

Satisfactory

(3)

Unsatisfactory

(1)

Weighted

Score

A. SOVT Functional Performance ☐ ☐ ☐ ___

B. Workmanship Quality ☐ ☐ ☐ ___

C. Quality of CORN Submissions ☐ ☐ ☐ ___

D. Quality of Shore Drawings ☐ ☐ ☐ ___

E. Document Deliverable Quality ☐ ☐ ☐ ___

Schedule Performance Aspects Weight Outstanding

(5)

Satisfactory

(3)

Unsatisfactory

(1)

Weighted

Score

A.

Meeting Schedule for Completion of

Production Work

B.

Meeting Schedule for Completion of

All Task Order Work

C.

Delivering documents through Task

Orders

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

Preparer: __________________ Date: ____________ Reviewer: _________________ Date: _____________