Attachment_1_QASP_SAC.docx

RFP# N00421-15-R-0042

MOPAS Attachment (1) Enclosure (5)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan / Surveillance Activity Checklist for AIR-4.3 Air Vehicle Support

1. Purpose

This contract requirement consists of both Level of Effort (LOE) and non-LOE tasks; therefore, a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) / Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) are required. The LOE tasks described in SOW paragraphs 3.1 through 3.9 and 3.11 are non-performance-based, which requires a SAC. Whereas, the non-LOE tasks or performance-based tasks in SOW paragraph 3.10 utilize the QASP.

This QASP is a Government developed and applied document to ensure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the Statement of Work (SOW). 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 contract and subsequent task orders.

A Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance assessment 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 SOW.

The contract requirement is for specialized engineering and technical services for the development, operation and support of state-of-the-art air vehicle dynamic simulations and architecture, collision avoidance systems algorithm design, engineering analysis, and system acquisition. These services are required to support current and future piloted and desktop engineering simulation capabilities, aircraft trainer devices, and DOD manned aircraft and Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) in-service and acquisition programs. The resulting contract will be an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) single award contract. The performance based contract will contain Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) labor CLINs and cost-reimbursable CLINs for ODCs. The contract will be for a one-year base period and four one-year option periods. A properly executed QASP/SAC will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP/SAC is provided in the contract under Section E, Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in the 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 (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 and task orders. The QASP and/or SAC is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s efforts to ensure that they are timely, effective, and producing the results as specified in the contract/orders.

4. Government Resources

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

Contracting Officer – The 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. The PCO for this contract is Ms. Melinda K. Stann, AIR-2.5.1.5. 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) – The 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 written letter of appointment.

5. Responsibilities

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

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 (COR) – 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 Surveillance

a. 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 for this contract. Additionally, the CPARS ratings will be the determinant in exercising an option. For this procurement, the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout the Department of Defense (DoD) and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool along with the QASP/SAC.

Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor for the tasks while enclosure (4) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document on a quarterly basis the results of the surveillance of both LOE and non-LOE 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. 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 original copies of the SACs. All such records will be maintained for the life of the order. The COR shall forward these records to the officer at termination or completion of the contract and all task orders.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – Standards Enclosure (2) – Incentives Enclosure (3) – Definitions for Evaluation Areas/Ratings Enclosure (4) – Quarterly Surveillance Checklist Enclosure (5) – Annual Surveillance

RFP# N00421-15-R-0042

MOPAS Attachment (1)

For Official Use Only Source Selection Sensitive. See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

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

STANDARDS

Air Vehicle Engineering Support Services

Method / Measure Incentives

QASP, Performance-Based Tasks

Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), SOW para 3.10

SAC, Non-Performance Based Tasks

GPWS/TAWS/CAS/MCAC, SOW para 3.3

Lab Integration Support, SOW para 3.4

Simulation Execution, SOW para 3.5

Flight Test Data Analysis, SOW para 3.6

Flight Control System Support, SOW para 3.7

Incident Investigation, SOW para 3.8

Training Systems Development Support, SOW para 3.9

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract:

Contract Year 1

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

See Enclosure 3.

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

See Enclosure 3.

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-)Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Enclosure (1)

RFP# N00421-15-R-0042

Enclosure (2)

DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION AREAS/RATINGS

All SOW/CDRL tasks, including SOW/CDRL sub-tasks, 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 products/services provided meet the specifications of the contract; 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, task orders, 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 actuals); 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.

Business Relations – Assess the timelines, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

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.

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/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/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/sub-task contain 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/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.

RFP# N00421-15-R-0042

MOPAS Attachment (1) Enclosure (3) Unsatisfactory - Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the task/sub-task contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s actions appear or were ineffective.

SURVEILLANCE CHECKLIST

Quarterly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a quarterly assessment of Quality, Schedule, and Cost Control and any other necessary areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3). The assessments will be performed and reported for each active task order by the applicable Technical Points of Contact (TPOC) for that task order.

If a rating description or a rating category are not applicable during a given evaluation period, then a grade of “n/a” should be recorded.

Measure

QASP, Performance-Based Tasks

Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), SOW para 3.10

Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

SAC, Non-Performance Based Tasks Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

GPWS/TAWS/CAS/

MCAC, SOW para 3.3

Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

Lab Integration Support, SOW para 3.4

Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

Simulation Execution, SOW para 3.5

Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

Flight Test Data Analysis, SOW para 3.6

Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

Flight Control System Support, SOW para 3.7

Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

Incident Investigation, SOW para 3.8

Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

Training Systems Development Support, SOW para 3.9

Surveillance by COR and/or subject matter expert feedback.

Enclosure (4)

RFP# N00421-15-R-0042

MOPAS Attachment (1) Enclosure (4)

Quarterly Summary of Ratings

ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE (CPARS)

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3) and the quarterly QASP/SAC summary of ratings.

Measure