Attachment_1_-QASP.docx

RFP # N00421-15-R-0009

RFP # N00421-15-R-0009

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for Air Traffic Control and Landing Systems Engineering Products and Technical Services

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the performance based 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 statement of work (SOW).

The contract requirement is for a single award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. This effort is composed of engineering design and development and test and evaluation of Air Traffic Control and Landing Systems (ATC&LS) products and technical services. The products are produced to support the Navy’s ATC&LS equipment under the responsibility of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), 4.11.7. These requirements are continuous and ongoing and encompass the many Air Traffic Control (ATC) Systems installed on the Navy’s Air Capable Ships. These systems require design, development of modifications, testing, and certification; therefore, a contiguous workforce is mandatory to ensure safety of flight. NAWCAD 4.11.7 establishes the requirements for system modifications, testing, and certification. Schedules are established by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and Type Commanders (TYCOMs) annually and updated on a quarterly basis. 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 under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in the contract that will 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 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract.

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 contract.

4. Government Resources

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

Contracting Officer - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into (Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)) or administer (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)) contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. 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 contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

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

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.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative – The ACOR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance in the absence of the COR. The ACOR 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.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) – The marketplace for support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government-generated CPARS ratings under this contract. For this procurement the Government will address quality, schedule, cost control, management, regulatory compliance, utilization of small business, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, 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 will 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.

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 checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance. Enclosure (4) will be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing quarterly 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 contract. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – Performance-Based Standards Enclosure (2) – Data Performance Standards Enclosure (3) – Incentives Enclosure (4) – Surveillance Activity Checklist

RFP # N00421-15-R-0009

RFP # N00421-15-R-0009

Source Selection Information 1 For Official Use Only See FAR 3.104 and 2.101

Source Selection Information 17 For Official Use Only See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

ENCLOSURE 1- PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS

Required Service (Performance Requirements)

(Quality Assurance) Incentives

See Enclosure 3

ENCLOSURE 1 – DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Description

Standard

AQL

Surveillance/ Method/Measure Incentives

AQL

Surveillance/ Method/Measure Incentives

AQL

Surveillance/ Method/Measure Incentives

AQL

Surveillance/ Method/Measure Incentives

ENCLOSURE 2 - INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this order.

Incentives

Ordering Period: 01 Apr 2016 – 31 Mar 2021

All measurement areas rated “Satisfactory” or above. See below.

Annually using the CPARS system covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition

The following incentives shall apply to performance of the task orders under this order.

See below

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of option 1.*

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of option. 2.*

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of option. 3.*

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of option. 4.*

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition which will result in a marginal or unsatisfactory final CPARS rating.*

* The government reserves the right to not exercise options unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

All PBSOW/CDRL efforts will be assessed focusing on the following:

All SOW/CDRL efforts will be assessed focusing on the following:

Quality– Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract/order requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). Include, as applicable, information on the following:

Are reports/data accurate?

Does the product or service provided meet the specifications of the contract/order?

Does the contractor’s work measure up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards?

What degree of Government technical direction was required to solve problems that arise during performance?

Schedule – Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

This evaluation of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the evaluation period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also, address significance of scheduled events (e.g., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

This element applies to contract/order closeout activities as well as contract/order performance. Instances of adverse actions such as the evaluation of liquidated damages or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract/order schedule and should, therefore, be noted in the evaluation.

Questions to consider include the following:

Is the contractor completing the design/engineering services activities in a timely manner? This includes administrative activities, as well as meeting all scheduled milestones in the design process.

Did the contractor adequately schedule the work?

Has the contractor met administrative milestone dates?

Has the contractor met physical milestone dates specified by contract or agreed to in the project schedule?

If the schedule has slipped through the contractor’s fault or negligence, has he taken appropriate corrective action of his own volition?

Has the contractor furnished all required deliverables on or ahead of schedule?

Is the contractor completing the construction activities in a timely manner? This includes administrative activities, as well as physical construction activities such as submittal of a management response to Request for Proposal (RFPs), etc.

Has the contract furnished updated project schedules on a timely basis?

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/order cost. If the contractor is experiencing cost growth or underrun, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns or underruns. For contracts/orders where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate task 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. Include, as applicable, the following information:

Does the contractor keep within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals)?

Did the contractor do anything innovative that resulted in cost savings?

Were billings current, accurate and complete?

Are the contractor’s budgetary internal controls adequate?

Has the contractor provided a design that can be constructed with the available funds?

Has the contractor notified the Government and taken necessary corrective actions when the cost estimate exceeds available funds?

Evaluation information regarding performance under an Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA), including letter contracts and actions where price has not yet been negotiated, shall be included in the annual evaluation. If the final negotiated contract/order type is not a cost-type, cost information for the period the UCA was in effect shall be included under the Cost Control element. If the final negotiated contract/order type is a cost-type, cost information for the entire period of performance shall be included under the Cost Control rating element. The narrative shall fully explain the contractor’s performance during the UCA, including definitization of the contract/order. The contractor’s performance under the UCA shall be separately identified but considered in the overall annual ratings.

Management – Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract/order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts. Include, as applicable, information on the following:

Is the contractor oriented toward the customer?

Is interaction between the contractor and the government satisfactory or does it need improvement?

Include the adequacy of the contractor’s accounting, billing, and estimating systems and the contractor’s management of Government Furnished Property (GFP) if a substantial amount of GFP has been provided to the contractor under the contract/order.

Address the timeliness of awards to subcontractors and management of subcontractors, including subcontract costs. Consider efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance.

Assess the prime contractor’s effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether subcontractors were an integral part of the contractor’s team. Are the contractor’s management, on-site, and home office personnel exhibiting the capacity to adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize and otherwise manage the work? If not, describe and relate to other rated elements.

Regulatory Compliance – Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract/order relating to applicable regulations and codes. Consider aspects of performance such as compliance with financial, environmental (example: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), safety, and labor regulations as well as any other reporting requirements in the contract. Consider questions such as the following:

Has the contractor complied with all contract clauses and reporting requirements (e.g., FAPIIS, FAR Subsection 9.104-6, FAR Clause 52.209-9)?

Has the contractor complied with Cost Accounting Standards and disclosure statements (FAR Subpart 30.2, FAR Clauses 52.230-2, 52.230-3, 52.230-4, 52.230-5, 52.230-6)?

Has the contractor complied with the reporting requirements relating to recovered material content utilized in contract performance (see FAR Subpart 23.4)?

Has the contractor complied with contractual safety requirements and labor laws (see FAR Subsection 22.407, FAR Clauses 52.222-4, 52.222-34, 52.222-20)?

Perform engineering surveillance to assess compliance with contractual terms for schedule, cost, and technical performance in the areas of design, development, and production (FAR Subpart 42.302).

Has the contractor complied with Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data (see FAR Subpart 23.3, FAR Clauses 52.223-3)?

Has the contractor complied with specifications or other contractual requirements requiring the delivery or use of environmentally preferable products, energy-efficient products, products containing recovered materials, and biobased products (FAR Subparts 23.2, 23.4, 23.7)? Monitor the contractor's environmental practices for adverse impact on contract performance or contract cost, and for compliance with environmental requirements specified in the contract.

Has the contractor implemented an effective safety program; one which minimizes/mitigates potential accidents (FAR Subsection 36.513, FAR Clause 52.236-13)?

Is the contractor complying with affirmative action and EEO compliance requirements (see FAR Subpart 22.8, FAR Clauses 52.222-26, 52.222-27)?

Has the contractor complied with combating trafficking in persons (see FAR Subpart 22.17, FAR Clause 52.222-50)

Utilization of Small Business – Assess the contractor’s success in utilizing and meeting small business goals/concerns.

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

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Performance Based Evaluation: The Government will evaluate contractor performance based on their ability to complete work specified in the scope and PBSOW paragraphs 3.1 through 3.7. The contractor shall be evaluated using the following ratings:

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

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

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

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects 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: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

RFP # N00421-15-R-0009

RFP # N00421-15-R-0009

ENCLOSURE 3 - SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST -

Quarterly COR Surveillance: The COR will perform a quarterly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Regulatory Compliance, Utilization of Small Business, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure 3.

Measure

TBD

Measure

Test Report, CDRL A002

100% inspection by COR or Gov Project Lead Input

Test Plans/Test Procedures, CDRL A003

100% inspection by COR or Gov Project Lead Input

Certification/Verification Report, CDRL A004

100% inspection by COR or Gov Project Lead Input

Certification/Verification Manual, CDRL A005

100% inspection by COR or Gov Project Lead Input

Maintenance Action Form (MAF) Status Report, CDRL A006

100% inspection by COR or Gov Project Lead Input

Recommendation Report, CDRL A007

Data Information Form, CDRL A008

Status Report, CDRL A009

Field Change Installation Program (FCIP) Form, CDRL A010

Landing Data Summary Report, CDRL A014

Measure

Measure

Software Certification Form, CDRL A029

100% inspection by COR or Gov Project Lead Input

Technical Repair Standards, CDRL A039

100% inspection by COR or Gov Project Lead Input

Measure

Time Expenditure Report, CDRL A043

100% inspection by COR or Gov Project Lead Input

Quarterly Summary of Ratings: