Attachment_2_ACETEF_QASP.docx

Solicitation # N00421-15-R-0016 Enclosure (2) Solicitation # N00421-15-R-0016 Enclosure (2) Quality Surveillance Activity Plan (QASP) for the Air Combat Environment Test & Evaluation Facility (ACETEF)

1. Purpose This Quality Surveillance Activity Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic surveillance methods are used in the administration of the Statement of Work (SOW). The intent is to ensure that the Government receives the quality of services and products for tasks identified in the contract. The contract requirement is for managerial, technical, administrative, and engineering services to support the Air Combat Environment Test and Evaluation Facility (ACETEF) capability. The tasking includes the management, design, fabrication, development, installation, integration, upgrade, analysis, documentation, operation, and maintenance of all associated ACETEF laboratories, facilities and projects.

2. Authority Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Section E, Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in the contract, 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 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 contract. The QASP is executed to provide Government surveillance and oversight of the contractor’s efforts to assure that the efforts are timely, effective and producing 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 determination and findings on behalf of the Government. 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 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.

6. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) The marketplace for contractor support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS ratings. Additionally, the CPARS ratings will be the determinant in exercising an option. For this procurement the Government will address the quality of products and services, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment of this contract will be documented in CPARS.

7. Surveillance The CPARS will be provided to the contractor on a yearly basis, as feedback on the performance of their management and quality control actions for services and products provided under the contract.

8. Documentation In addition to providing an annual report 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 assessment function. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR will forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

9. Enclosures Enclosure (1) - Data Reporting Standards Enclosure (2) – Definitions for Evaluation Areas/Ratings

RFP# N00421-13-R-0113

Attachment #2

Source Selection Information 4 For Official Use Only See FAR 3.104 and 2.101 Source Selection Information 1 For Official Use Only See FAR 3.104 and 2.101

Program & Administrative, PWS para 4.1

Research & Development, PWS para 4.2

Ready to Test, PWS para 4.3

Repair & Investments, PWS para 4.4

Engineering/Technical, PWS para 4.5

Integration & Other Operations, PWS para 4.6

Information Technology and Assurance, PWS para 4.7

Data/CDRL Deliverables

DATA REPORTING STANDARDS

Enclosure (1)

DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION AREAS/RATINGS

All PWS tasks, including any sub-tasks if applicable, will be assessed focusing on the following.

Quality of Product or Service – Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). Include, as applicable, a discussion of the accuracy of reports/data; the extent to which the contractor’s work measures up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards; and the degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems that arise during performance.

Schedule – Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements. This assessment of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. This element applies to contract closeout activities as well as contract performance.

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Include, as applicable, a discussion of the contractor’s ability to perform within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to accruals); innovative approaches implemented by the contractor that resulted in cost savings; the timeliness; accuracy, and completeness of invoices; and the adequacy of the contractor’s budgetary internal controls.

The evaluation ratings for all areas 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 being assessed was accomplished with 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 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.