Attachment_(7)_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan_(QASP).docx

5.4.3 Operations and Maintenance QASP 2016-06-30

N00421-15-R-0012

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) For the Simulation Division (5.4.3) Operations and Maintenance Support Contract

1. Purpose This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the Performance Based Statement of Work under the planned contract. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics identified herein and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the order.

This requirement is for operations and maintenance support for the Simulation Division’s (NAWCAD 5.4.3) facilities, infrastructure, and supported projects. Operation and maintenance services include administration, facilities support, engineering technician support, and information technology (IT) support.

The resulting vehicle will be single award IDIQ Contract. The performance based task order will have Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) CLINs for labor, cost-reimbursable CLINs for travel and material, and a not separately priced CLIN for data. The task order will consist of a one year base and three one year options. 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 Section E – Inspection and Acceptance of the task order, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in a Seaport task order, 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 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 order. The QASP 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 - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into contracts (Procuring Contracting Officer -PCO) or administer contracts (Administrative Contracting Officer - ACO) and make related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this contract is:

Daniel Chambers, AIR-2.5.1.6 The ACO will be designated in the resulting Task Order (TO). 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 by written letter of appointment which will set forth limitations of authority.

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.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for engineering and management 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. This evaluation will be one determinant in exercising an option. For this procurement the Government 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 TO, 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

a. Monthly QA Surveillance Activities The COR will provide monthly quality assurance surveillance of the contract activities culminating with the submission of the Monthly COR Report and Surveillance Activity Checklist within 15 days of the reporting month. Monthly quality assurance surveillance will include the following activities:

1) Financial Review

a. Review of the Contractor’s Monthly Financial Summary (CDRL A001) and Project Financial Summaries (CDRL A002)

i. Compare funding listed with BFM funding report.

ii. Check for and investigate potential out-of-place or unexpected charges.

iii. Review the funding, expenditures, and burn-rate of each CLIN. Investigate unexpected burn rate values. Identify potential funding shortfalls.

iv. Review funding, expenditures and burn-rates for each project/activity supported by the contract. Communicate future funding requirements to project leaders.

v. Investigate any concerns identified by project leaders after they have reviewed their Project Financial Summaries for accuracy.

b. Investigate over-time charges. Ensure all over-time is allowable and reasonable (see contract clause 52.222-2).

c. Download Invoice documents and compare with Monthly Financial Report (CDRL A001). Note: contractor’s invoice period will not coincide exactly with monthly reporting periods, and sub-contractor charges are often delayed.

d. Record and plot historical monthly burn rates for all CLIN’s and for significant projects. Identify and rectify deviations with current spend plans.

2) Review Monthly Progress Report (CDRL A002)

a. Identify and investigate identified program and project concerns and risk areas.

b. Review for work that may be outside the scope of the contract SOW.

c. Review for unexpected and/or unauthorized work.

3) Performance Review

a. Discuss with Project Leaders the perceived quality, schedule and cost of services provided to their projects thru this contract.

b. Discuss with Simulation Division Management the perceived quality, schedule and cost of services provided to the organization thru this contract.

c. Review perceived overall performance with contractor. Discuss performance risks and potential paths for improving performance by the contractor and/or government.

4) Evaluation

a. Complete monthly Surveillance Activity Checklist (see Enclosure 4)

b. Complete and submit Monthly COR Report

b. Yearly Surveillance Activities Yearly Surveillance Activities will include completion of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS).

Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) sets 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 on a monthly basis.

8. Documentation The COR shall submit the Surveillance Activity Checklist, Enclosure 4, with the Monthly COR report electronically by posting them to the CORT Tool within Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) (https://wawf.eb.mil/), where they will be reviewed and approved by the Contracting Officer. Copies of the COR Monthly Reports, Surveillance Activity Checklists, and CPARS evaluations will be maintained by the COR in a Quality Assurance File. All such records will be maintained for the life of the TO. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the TO.

9. Enclosures Enclosure (1) – Performance Standards Enclosure (2) – Data Performance Standards Enclosure (3) – Incentives Enclosure (4) – Surveillance Activity Checklist

Enclosure 1

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUPPORT SERVICES PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

1) Compliance with all applicable Simulation Division (5.4.3) Quality Management System (QMS) standards and Procedures 100% of the time.

2) Compliance with all applicable security standards and procedures 100% of the time.

Program and Project Management Support SOW Section 4.2 Program management acceptable quality level is:

1) Program requirements met 95% of the time.

2) CDRL reports complete and on time in accordance with enclosure 2.

Administrative Support SOW Section 4.3.1 Administrative support acceptable quality level is requirements met 95% of the time.

Visitor Control Support SOW Section 4.3.2 Visitor control support acceptable quality level is:

1) Adherence to all applicable security standards and procedures 100% of the time.

2) Support provided 0700-1700 Monday thru Friday 99% of the time.

3) Support functions performed successfully 95% of the time.

Janitorial Support SOW Section 4.3.3 Janitorial support acceptable quality level is:

1) Successful performance of reoccurring tasks outlined in the SOW 95% of the time.

2) Successful support of accident cleanup within 3 hours.

3) Successful support of accident cleanup effecting critical operations or safety within 30 minutes.

Facilities Operations Support SOW Section 4.3.4 Facilities maintenance and operations acceptable quality level is:

1) Successful performance of support requirements 95% of the time.

2) Support of critical facility and laboratory repair 99% of the time, to include escorting.

3) Performance of minor repair requirements initiated within 1 week and completed within 3 weeks.

4) Performance of minor facility maintenance tasks to result in successful and safe operations and stable facility conditions 95% of the time.

Laboratory Technical Support SOW Section 4.3.5 Facilities technical support acceptable quality level is:

1) Successful completion of support requirements 95% of the time.

2) Trouble-shooting and repair support of laboratory infrastructure effecting critical test and training operations initiated within 1 hour.

3) Successful completion of support requirements effecting critical test and training activities 99% of the time.

Inspected by COR, with input from 5.4.3 management and/or team leaders.

Laboratory Operations and Maintenance Support SOW Section 4.3.6 Laboratory operations and maintenance support acceptable quality level is:

1) Laboratory assets prepared for scheduled testing and training events 95% of the time.

2) Test and training event support requirements performed successfully 95% of the time.

3) Preventative maintenance measures performed to result in lab asset availability 95% of the time.

4) Troubleshooting and repairs to meet 95% lab asset availability.

Flight Test Data Handling and Preparation SOW Section 4.3.7 Flight test data handling and preparation acceptable quality level is:

1) Successful completion of support requirements 95% of the time.

2) On-time successful support of activities effecting flight test activities 99% of the time.

System Administration / Network Architecture / IT Helpdesk SOW Section 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 4.4.4 System administration standards are defined in Simulation Division and higher level standards. Acceptable quality level is:

1) 100% adherence to current security policy and procedures.

2) Information system and networks available for 98% of scheduled/planned use.

3) Meeting requirements for system upgrades 95% of the time.

Performing administration functions successfully 95% of the time.

Inspected by COR, with input from 5.4.3 management and/or team leaders.

Information Assurance SOW Section 4.4.2 Information assurance standards are defined in Simulation Division and higher level standards. Acceptable quality level is:

1) 100% adherence to current security policy and procedures.

2) Maintaining accreditation of networks and systems 100% of the time.

4) Successful completion of program IA requirements 95% of the time.

Inspected by COR, with input from 5.4.3 management and/or team leaders.

Enclosure 2

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

CDRL A001:

Monthly Financial Summary

1) Accurate and complete 98% of the time.

2) On time delivery 90% of the time.

3) Delivery is never more than 7 days late.

100% Inspection by COR

Project Financial Reports 100% Inspected by Government Lead and Reported to COR See Enclosure 3

CDRL A002:

Monthly Project Financial Summary

1) Accurate and complete 98% of the time.

2) On time delivery 90% of the time.

3) Delivery is never more than 7 days late.

100% Inspection by COR

Project Financial Reports 100% Inspected by Government Lead and Reported to COR

CDRL A003:

Monthly Progress Report

1) Accurate and complete, providing an overview of the work accomplished during the reporting period.

2) On time delivery 90% of the time.

3) Delivery is never more than 7 days late.

100% Inspection by COR

CDRL A004:

OPSEC Plan

CDRL A005:

Additional Reporting

Enclosure 3

INCENTIVES

All incentives are based on CPARS evaluations of the contracted effort. CPARS evaluations are performed at the mid-point of each year of performance – six months after contract initiation and every 12 months thereafter. CPARS evaluations will be based on the monthly and annual surveillance checklists (see Enclosure 4) and contract performance information collected by the COR.

CPARS evaluations asses the performance of a contract using six performance measurement areas:

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 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.

Business Relations - Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, 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.

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.

Each CPARS performance measurement area is given one of five standard ratings:

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.

Numeric values have been assigned to the five standard ratings to assist in calculating weighted average ratings of each of the six performance measurement areas based on ratings of several contract requirements.

Contract performance incentives are outlined in the following table:

Reporting meets acceptable quality levels (Enclosure 2).

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for the exercise of Task Order(s) in the next year.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise Task Order(s) in the next year.

Two or more measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional”.

Reporting meets acceptable quality levels (Enclosure 2).

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for the exercise of Task Order(s) in the next year.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise Task Order(s) in the next year.

Two or more measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional”.

Reporting meets acceptable quality levels (Enclosure 2).

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for the exercise of Task Order(s) in the next year.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise Task Order(s) in the next year.

Enclosure (4)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Monthly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a monthly assessment of the contract performance no later than the 15th day of the following month. The monthly assessment consists evaluating the principal contract support requirements by assigning numeric performance ratings for each of the six CPARS performance measurement areas. A weighted average is then calculated for each of the six performance measurements that will be used in determining the CPARS ratings.

Program and Project Management Support SOW Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 n/a

Administrative and Visitor Control Support SOW Section 4.3.1, 4.3.2

Facilities Support – Janitorial and Facility Operations SOW Sections 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.8

Technical Support – Laboratory Technical Support, Lab O&M, Flight Test Data Handling SOW Sections 4.3.5- 4.3.7

Information Technology Support – System Admin, IA, Network Arch.

SOW Sections 4.4.1-3.4.4

Reporting SOW Section 5.0 n/a

Summary of Ratings

Weighted Average† n/a

Equivalent CPARS Rating n/a

Weighted average values are rounded up or down to determine the CPARS standard rating.

Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure 3, and the monthly weighted average ratings.

Base Year:

Year 1 – Month 1

Year 1 – Month 2

Year 1 – Month 3

Year 1 – Month 4

Year 1 – Month 5

Year 1 – Month 6

Average

CPARS Rating

Option Year 1:

Year 1 – Month 7

Year 1 – Month 8

Year 1 – Month 9

Year 1 – Month 10

Year 1 – Month 11

Year 1 – Month 12

Year 2 – Month 1

Year 2 – Month 2

Year 2 – Month 3

Year 2 – Month 4

Year 2 – Month 5

Year 2 – Month 6

Average

CPARS Rating

Option Year 2:

Year 2 – Month 7

Year 2 – Month 8

Year 2 – Month 9

Year 2 – Month 10

Year 2 – Month 11

Year 2 – Month 12

Year 3 – Month 1

Year 4 – Month 2

Year 3 – Month 3

Year 3 – Month 4

Year 3 – Month 5

Year 3– Month 6

Average

CPARS Rating

Option Year 3:

Year 3 – Month 7

Year 3 – Month 8

Year 3 – Month 9

Year 3 – Month 10

Year 3 – Month 11

Year 3 – Month 12

Year 4 – Month 1

Year 4 – Month 2

Year 4 – Month 3

Year 4 – Month 4

Year 4 – Month 5

Year 4– Month 6

Average

CPARS Rating

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY