Attachment_7_-_QASP.doc

Virginia-class Canister Welding & Final Machining N00167-19-R-0010 Attachment 7

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

1. INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in performance under this contract. The contractor shall perform in accordance with the QASP performance metrics, and the Government shall receive the quality of services identified in the contract. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this acquisition. In addition, the results of the quality assurance surveillance will be utilized as an important factor in determining whether or not to execute a future delivery order.

This contract provides support to the Virginia-class propulsor manufacturing program. The resulting contract will be an Indefinite Definite Indefinite Quantity contract. The period of performance for this contract will an ordering period of five (5) years. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the overall objectives of this procurement.

2. SCOPE

The purpose of the QASP is to describe the approach taken by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division (NSWCCD) to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes for the Electron Beam Welding and final machining of a variety of nickel aluminum bronze canister configurations. The contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting contract standards. 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. The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own Quality Control Plan (QCP). Quality control is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements. This QASP does not replace the contractor’s QCP.

This QASP

· Defines the roles and responsibilities of those who will perform the monitoring.

· Defines the methodologies used in surveillance of the contractor’s performance.

· Describes how the surveillance will be recorded.

· Identifies the performance objectives & rating definitions.

3. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in service contracts, to be executed by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or a duly authorized representative.

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this QASP:

PCO – The PCO ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interest of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the PCO that assures the contractor receives impartial, fair and equitable treatment under the contract.

Contract Specialist – An individual assigned by the PCO to assist in the daily administration of the contract. The contract specialist also provides input to the PCO and the COR as to the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP. The contract specialist is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

Contracting Officer’s Representative – The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that may affect contract order price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. The COR is responsible for the surveillance of the contractor’s performance and documentation in accordance with this QASP.

Government Technical Advisor – The COR designates an individual Government Technical Advisor to assist in administering specific projects under the contract. A Government Technical Advisor cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

5. METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE

The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the administration of this QASP.

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) – The market place for information technology, engineering, and management support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year of performance. This evaluation will also be a determinant in exercising an option. For this procurement, the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, management, and regulatory areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool in addition to the QASP.

The methods of surveillance may include but are not limited to:

· Direct Observation of performance

· 100% Inspection of all invoices, final deliverables and stringent requirements such as tasks required by law, safety, or security.

· Periodic Inspection of performance and/or draft deliverables

· Customer Feedback including investigation of all customer complaints and customer monthly input to the COR

6. DOCUMENTATION

The contractor may provide a written self-assessment to the COR 30 days prior to the conclusion of the semiannual performance determination based performance standards discussed below.

In addition to providing semiannual reports to the PCO, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file as a portion of their COR file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the quality assurance function. The COR shall forward these records to the PCO at termination or completion of the contract or at termination of their appointment.

During each reporting period, the COR should record all surveillance conducted. The record should include the determined rating for each performance objective and any action taken in regards to performance in this section. Overall results of contractor’s performance shall also be documented by the COR in the COR Monthly Report to ensure communication with the PCO on contractor performance on each Performance Standard.

7. SURVEILLANCE

Informal

Informal performance evaluations will be prepared to assess performance each month.

Semiannual

The Government’s quality assurance surveillance, accomplished by the COR, in conjunction with the PCO.

The contractor’s performance will be evaluated using the criteria and standards provided for each objective and is identified in Table 2 of this contract’s QASP.

This performance evaluation does not replace any other requirement for evaluating contractor performance that may be required by this contract such as a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report or other required reports.

The tables below set forth the performance ratings and performance objectives to document the results of the surveillance on a semiannual basis as well as informal reviews (i.e., In-Process Reviews (IPRs)) on a more frequent basis.

The following performance ratings will be assigned to each element and sub-element listed in table 2 below.

Table 1: Performance Ratings

Table 2: Performance Evaluation Criteria and Standards

GOOD

EXCEPTIONAL

I. Task Performance

II. Staffing

Contractor provides marginally qualified or unqualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage occur regularly.

Contractor provides marginally qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverable occur more than occasionally.

Contractor provides qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage occur occasionally and are successfully managed by the contractor with to minimize impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute resumes submitted IAW contract reqmts.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume qualifications.

Contractor provides a mix of qualified and highly qualified personnel.

Lapses in coverage are rare and are successfully managed by the contractor with little or no impact on timeliness or quality.

New/and or substitute resumes submitted IAW contract reqmts.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume qualifications Contractor provides highly qualified personnel.

No lapses in coverage.

New/and or substitute resumes submitted IAW contract reqmts.

Personnel work products fully consistent with resume qualifications.

III. Customer Satisfaction

IV. Management Performance

Table 3: Performance Requirements Summary Table

APPLY to ALL areas of SOW Performance:

Key and Non-Key personnel’s performance to assist, analyze, support, improve, assess, evaluate, and develop products as required by the contract requirements Section C Task Area Requirements

a) Performance

(b) Deliverable Content

(a) Performance of SOW tasks are commensurate with specialized experience and labor categories as set forth in the SOW. Organizational structure provides for qualified personnel assigned with duties, responsibilities, and authority necessary to achieve project goals. Lines of communication facilitate timely exchange of information, both technical and contractual, in order to meet project goals.

(b) Deliverables reports are technically accurate, grammatically correct. clear, and concise, and follows DID format/content requirements, and delivered on time per CDRL. Discrepancies are minor. Analyses, Reports and drawings include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues.

APPLY TO ALL:

Government Oversight Team (TA/COR) inspections / reports are 90%- 100% positive with respect to Performance Standards, with major and minor issues/ problems resolved as follows:

No Major Performance Objective issues OR when found are immediately addressed by contractor QC with adequate plan to resolved within two weeks.

Minor issues are easily correctable

Repeatable minor issues identified over consecutive months or recurring issues over two of three months will be raised to Major issue level.

Any CDRL deliverable requiring government approval shall have no more than two (2) review/ comment/ approval cycles to meet acceptance

APPLY TO ALL:

100% inspection of all Deliverables

Random Inspections / Audits / Observations of Performance and Products

Periodic SME/COR feedback surveys (e.g. monthly reports, CPARs assessments)

8. OUTCOME

The Government evaluation of the contractor performance must include no unsatisfactory performance characteristics within the applicable evaluation period. Nevertheless, the Government reserves the unilateral discretion to offset one minor instance of unsatisfactory performance with a finding that the contractor exhibited an equivalent or higher number of exceptional performance characteristics during the same evaluation period, provided the unsatisfactory instance had minimal impact to cost or schedule. Retaining this discretion in no way obligates the Government to exercise it in any evaluation.