Att_2_QASP.docx

RFP #N00421-15-R-0010

Services Acquisition Strategy (MOPAS) Attachment (1)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and Contract Surveillance Plan Multi-Mission Data Link Systems Engineering and Logistics Support

1. Purpose This contract requirement consists of both Level of Effort (LOE) and completion tasks; therefore, both a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and a Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) are required. LOE tasking is non-performance based and requires a QASP, whereas, completion tasking is performance based and requires a QASP.

A QASP is a Government developed document used to ensure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of performance-based service contracts. The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and that the Government receives the quality of service called for in the contract.

A Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance assessment methods are used in the administration of the Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Statement of Work (SOW). The intent is to ensure that the Government receives the quality of services and products for tasks identified in the PWS/SOW.

This contract requirement is for technical support for modifications, systems engineering, technical support, quality management, technical management, logistics management, and incidental materials associated with the Light Airborne Multipurpose System (LAMPS) MK III Weapon System, RD-681B Recorders-Reproducers, Digital Voice Logging Recorder System (DVLRS), and related systems. A properly executed QASP/CSP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this combined QASP/CSP is provided under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 46.4 – Government Contract Quality Assurance, which requires quality assurance, inspection and acceptance of the services, and the associated documentation called for in service contracts to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized Government 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/Contract Surveillance Plan. The contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for the Quality Control Plan, which defines the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract. The QASP and/or CSP, on the other hand, is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the quality 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 (CO) - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into contracts (Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)) or administer (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)) contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this contract is AIR-2.5.1.4. The ACO will be designated in the resulting contract. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant that 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 the letter of appointment.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR) - An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, 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.

Government Project Leads - The COR designates an individual Government Project Lead to assist in administering of specific efforts under the contract.

5. Responsibilities

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

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 who ensures that 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 (COR) – The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and ensures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make contractual commitments or authorize changes to the contract 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.

Government Project Leads – The Government Project Lead is responsible for assisting in administering of specific efforts under the contract. A Government Project lead cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for Multi-Mission Data Link Systems Engineering and Logistics Support 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. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of small business, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of additional orders placed against the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP/CSP.

QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance (Enclosures 1 and 2) shall be used by the COR and the Government Project Leads 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 CSP (Enclosure 3) provided herein.

CSP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the technical administration of the PWS/SOW tasks performed by the contractor.

Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor and Government Project Leads for the completion tasks while enclosure (3) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document on a quarterly basis the results of the surveillance of both the LOE engineering and training tasks and completion tasks and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

7. Documentation

In addition to providing quarterly reports to the Contracting Officer, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file within the Contracting Officer’s Representative Tool (CORT). 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.

8. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – Performance-Based Quality Standards and Data Performance Standards (For completion tasks only).

Enclosure (2) – Incentives (For completion tasks only).

Enclosure (3) – Contract Surveillance Plan (For both the LOE and completion tasks).

RFP #N00421-17-R-0019

PERFORMANCE-BASED QUALITY STANDARDS

Provide hardware location and status information via reports and ad hoc government inquires within 5 working days.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or other Government Project Leads

* See enclosure 2.

Configuration Documentation updates performed to support scheduled deliveries IAW the IMS.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or other Government Project Leads

* See enclosure 2.

* See enclosure 2.

Enclosure (1)

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

RFP#N00421-15-R-0010

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract:

Assessment Period Acceptable Performance Definition

How Measured

Incentives

Year I:

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

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for awarding additional task orders.*

Year II:

2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional.” None of the measurement areas are rated “Marginal” or below.

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for awarding additional task orders.*

Year III:

2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional.” None of the measurement areas are rated “Marginal” or below.

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for awarding additional task orders.*

Year IV:

2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional.” None of the measurement areas are rated “Marginal” or below.

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for awarding additional task orders.*

Year V:

2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional.” None of the measurement areas are rated “Marginal” or below.

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for awarding additional task orders.*

Option Period 1:

2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional.” None of the measurement areas are rated “Marginal” or below.

See below.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for awarding additional task orders.*

Option Period 2:

2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional.” None of the measurement areas are rated “Marginal” or below.

See below.

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

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 award additional task orders unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

All PWS/CDRL efforts 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 quality.

Schedule – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contributed to or affected the schedule variance. Also address the significance of scheduled events (i.e., design reviews), 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 under-run? 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. Also assess the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility through the efficient use of resources in each work effort.

Management – Assess the contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts, including whether the contractor met small/small disadvantage and women-owned business participation goals. Discuss the extent to which the contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements, assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required the by contract, and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the contractor’s risk mitigation plans. If applicable, identify any other management areas that are unique to the contract and issued task orders.

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

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

Other Areas – Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the contract and issued task orders, 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 PWS paragraphs 4.9 through 4.11. The contractor shall be evaluated using the following ratings:

Exceptional Performance: Contractor’s performance of virtually all contract requirements consistently exceeds the acceptable standards and in addition provides numerous significant, tangible or intangible, benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). The few areas for improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Contractor’s management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.

Very Good Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements is consistently above acceptable standards and provides significant tangible and intangible benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). Although some areas require improvement, these areas are minor and are offset by better performance in other areas. Few, if any, recurring problems have been noted, and the contractor takes satisfactory corrective action.

Satisfactory Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements meets the acceptable standards with some tangible or intangible benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). Although there are some areas of very good or excellent performance, these are more or less offset by unsatisfactory performance in other areas.

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: Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements is inconsistent and frequently does not always meet acceptable standards. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action. Corrective actions have not been taken or are ineffective.

RFP #N00421-15-R-0010

Enclosure (2)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Quarterly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a quarterly assessment of Quality of Product or Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, Utilization of Small Business, and Other Areas utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (2).

Measure

TBD

Technical Documentation/ Configuration Mgmt Support IAW PWS Para 3.5-3.5.6

Measure

Measure

Measure

Segregation of Costs and Invoice Requirements Reporting A032

Operations Security (OPSEC) Plan A033

Quarterly Summary of Ratings:

Other Areas

Checklist Completed By: ____________________________

Date Completed: ____________________________

Enclosure (3)

ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (2). This annual assessment will occur at the midpoint of each year following the award of the contract and cover the previous 12 months, except for the first year of the contract, which cover only the previous 6 months.

Measure

Annual Surveillance Completed By: ____________________________

Date Completed: ____________________________