QASP.doc

N00421-11-R-0045

Attachment 3 N00421-11-R-0045

Attachment 3

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

For Warfare Analysis, Engineering & Technical Services for AIR 4.10

1.

Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the performance based service order under the planned contract. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the order.

Specifically, the contract requirement is for warfare analysis, engineering and technical services for Naval and Joint warfighting capability assessments and Modeling and Simulation (M&S) to supplement and enhance AIR-4.10 government and military warfighting analytic efforts that are conducted in support of Program Executive Offices (PEOs), the Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE), and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV). The required support is multi-faceted and provides services in support of warfare analysis, M&S, software development, and analytic program requirements. Additionally, analytic efforts may be assessed relative to Joint capability requirements to provide time-phased capabilities within Joint Capability Areas (JCAs). This work will employ disciplines embracing various types of operational analysis, systems engineering, software engineering, and computer science performed at the warfare campaign, mission and / or engagement level.

The resulting vehicle will be an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) single award contract. The contract will have cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price labor CLINs and cost-reimbursable CLINs for travel, material, and NMCI. The task order will be for a base period of one year with two, one-year option terms, if exercised. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2.

Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided in the Contract under Inspection and Acceptance heading, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in task orders, to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3.

Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between Quality Control Plan and the QASP. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the order.

The QASP on the other hand, is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the order.

4.

Government Resources The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this plan:

Contracting Officer (Procuring Contracting Officer) (PCO) or (Administrative Contracting Officer) (ACO) - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into or administer contracts and make related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this contract is AIR 2.5.1.3. The ACO will be designated in the resulting contract. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. The COR will be appointed in the resulting task order. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) - An individual assigned to each task order awarded under the contract to provide technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The TPOC serves as the direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the contractor on technical matters and serves as the Subject Matter Expert (SME).

5.

Responsibilities

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

Contracting Officer – The Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer that assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair and equitable treatment under the contract. The Contracting Officer is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative – The 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 the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

Technical Point of Contact - The TPOC is the primary resource responsible for observing, evaluating and documenting the contractor’s performance in meeting the critical performance standards identified in each task order. Once the task order is awarded, the TPOC is responsible for reviewing monthly status reports to monitor technical performance and expended costs as the task order is executed; notifying the COR immediately of any discrepancies relative to contractor performance in the execution of the order; and providing recommendations, via email, relative to acceptance of each deliverable specified. Upon delivery of the final analytic product, the TPOC is responsible for providing a final evaluation to the COR that assesses the overall quality of contractor performance under the task order. This individual is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or authorize any changes to the terms of the task order on the Government’s behalf.

6.

Methods of QA Surveillance a.

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for Program Management and Engineering support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS rating under this contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the midpoint of each period of performance. Feedback will be requested from the TPOC of each delivery order and compiled into one CPARS report. This evaluation will be one determinant in exercising an option. The Government for this procurement will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, management, and other 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 with the QASP.

b.

QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the technical administration of this QASP. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of quality assurance surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist provided as Enclosure (4) herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor and COR while enclosure (4) provides the means for the COR to document on an annual basis the results of the surveillance and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on an annual basis.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing annual reports to the Contracting Officer, 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 performance of the quality assurance function, including the originals of the Quality Assurance Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the task order. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the task order.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) –Engineering Support Performance Standards

Enclosure (2) - Data Performance Standards

Enclosure (3) - Incentives

Enclosure (4) - Surveillance Activity Checklist

ENGINEERING SUPPPORT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Perform warfighting assessments and effectiveness analyses of operational nodes, systems, subsystems, System of Systems (SoS), and Family of Systems (FoS) in the operational context, including campaign, mission, engagement and force structure analysis at various levels of fidelity in support of the pre-acquisition, acquisition and sustainment of naval aviation systems and to determine the right naval warfighting capability and capacity required to address threats of the future in accordance with PBSOW.

The Contractor shall perform warfare analysis and assessments as delineated in task orders and maintain 95% customer satisfaction in accordance with monthly status reports with task support.

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Method/

Measure Incentives

Briefings

CDRL A001

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Acquisition Documents

CDRL A003

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Plan of Action & Milestones

CDRL A004

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Modeling & Simulation (M&S) Support Plans

CDRL A005

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Project Review Material

CDRL A007

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Hardware

CDRL A008

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Meets performance requirements for hardware functionality.

See enclosure 3.

Software Descriptions

CDRL A009

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Software

CDRL A00A

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Meets performance requirements for software functionality.

See enclosure 3.

Fully executable.

See enclosure 3.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

User Manuals

CDRL A00D

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

Tools, Databases & Websites

CDRL A00F

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Meets performance requirements for functionality; content is complete, accurate and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Monthly Status Report - Technical & Cost

CDRL A00J

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Trip Reports

CDRL A00K

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Non-Disclosure Agreement (Company)

CDRL A00L

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

Non-Disclosure Agreements (Individual)

CDRL A00M

Submission is in accordance with the instructions cited in the CDRL.

Correct, complete content, and on time.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

Information Technology Personnel Security Reports (NAVAIR Security)

CDRL A00P

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this order.

Incentives

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an Option YR 1.

Year 1:

None of the measurement areas are rated “Marginal” or below.

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an Option YR 2.

Year 1:

None of the measurement areas are rated “Marginal” or below.

See below.

(-) Negative performance marks which will be reflected in CPARS

* The Government will not exercise an option unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor is rated Satisfactory or better.

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

Quality of Product or Service – Assess the contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces, and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the contractor meets program requirements.

Schedule – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or effect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events, discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Is the contractor experiencing cost growth or underrun? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For contracts where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor provided person-hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility through the efficient use of resources in each work effort should be assessed.

Management Responsiveness – Assess the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals (especially responses to change orders, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), or other UCAs), the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction. Consider the contractor’s responsiveness to the program as it relates to meeting contract requirements during the period covered by the report.

Utilization of Small Business – FAR Subpart 19.7 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contains statutory requirements for complying with the Small Business Subcontracting Program. Assess whether the contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for Small Business (including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes) (including Small Disadvantaged Businesses (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone, Veteran Owned, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, Historically Black Colleges and Minority Institutions and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not Small Disadvantaged Businesses or Small Businesses) to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract.

Other areas – Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the contract or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Exceptional – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal - Performance does not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed reflect a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the task or sub-task contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s actions appear or were ineffective.

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance, for each performance objective listed in Enclosure (1), and each CDRL objective in Enclosure (2) utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3). This annual assessment will occur near the midpoint of each period and cover the previous 12 months, except for the first rating period which will cover only the previous 6 months, or sooner, in each case, should the expensed contract period ceiling value reach 50%.

Measure

Management Responsiveness

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY