Attachment_2_QASP_CSP.pdf

N00421-16-R-0023

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and Contract Surveillance Plan for

C4 Operational Maintenance and Engineering Training (COMET)

1. Purpose

This COMET IDIQ contract requirement consists of both performance-based and non-performance-based orders; therefore, a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and a

Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) are both required. This QASP/CSP is used 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.

This hybrid QASP/CSP is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration and surveillance of performance based tasking under the contract. The intent is to ensure the contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the required LOE established, and the Government receives the quality of services called for in each Task Order Statement of Work (SOW).

This contract will leverage NAWCAD 4.11.3’s core capabilities involving C4 engineering and information systems to provide innovative information management architectures relating to interactive information and learning products to support our warfighters. With the constant advancement of C4 warfighting technologies and the constant pressure placed not only on the reliability of the equipment, but also on the effectiveness of the warfighter in utilizing and maintaining this equipment, this contract will bring to bear the engineering products, tools and support needed in responding to this environment. This SOW defines specific requirements relating to the in-service engineering and interactive products envisioned under this effort. As a general scope, the following statements encompass the Government’s intentions of this contract:

Analysis of Navy and DoD engineering data processes, policy implementation, and standards compliance requirements, including Maintenance Material Management (3M) processes.

In-service engineering on C4 equipment suites that are found on board U.S. Navy’s surface and subsurface warships involving various communication, weapon and operational mission systems throughout product design, development, and deployment cycles.

Design and development of standards based operations and maintenance data architectures for DoD based C4 equipment.

Design and development of safety improvement product tools using key concept and scenario based approaches.

Design and development of decision support product tools for installation, operation, maintenance, and safety of technical systems.

Design and development of performance aids and product tools using interactive multimedia.

Development of technical content, including methods and tools for markup, delivery, transformation, and management.

Project estimation, planning, scheduling, and reporting.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this hybrid surveillance document is provided under Contract Section E

– Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services, products, and documentation called for in the contract, which 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 QASP/CSP. 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 in the contract and all resultant orders.

The hybrid QASP/CSP provides Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s efforts to assure they are timely, effective, and delivering the results specified in the contract and each

Task Order.

4. Government Resources

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

Contracting Officer (KO): A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into a contract

(Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)), or a person with the authority to administer contracts

(Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)), and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this contract is Mr. Thomas E. Stann, AIR-2.5.1.3. 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 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 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 ACOR 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 individual Government Project Leads to assist in administering of specific efforts under the contract.

5. Responsibilities

The following Government resources will have responsibility for the implementation of this hybrid QASP/CSP Surveillance Plan:

Contracting Officer (KO): The KO (either the PCO or ACO) 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 KO that assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair and equitable treatment under the contract. The

KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer 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 KO for action.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR): The ACOR assists the COR for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. 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 KO 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

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): The marketplace for advanced research and development, systems engineering, and life-cycle support of electronics, communications, and information systems services 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 ordering year. This evaluation will be one determinant in the award of future contracts or task orders. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of small business, and other important areas for this procurement. Some of the monitoring methods to be used will be Government observation, review of reports, customer feedback, and review of CDRLs.

As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, as well as the continuation of this tasking, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool within the policies of this hybrid QASP/CSP.

b. QASP/CSP: This document will be used by the COR, ACOR, and Government project leads in the technical administration of this contract. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of quality assurance surveillance is the hybrid checklist provided herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1) through (4) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor, the COR and Government Project Leads while enclosures (5) through

(7) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance and will be provided to the KO.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing reports to the KO, 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 will forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Quality Standards – Level of Effort by SOW

Enclosure (2): Performance Based Quality Standards – In-Service Engineering by SOW

Enclosure (3): CDRL Data Performance Standards

Enclosure (4): Incentives

Enclosure (5): Surveillance Activity Checklist – Level Of Effort & Performance Based

Enclosure (6): Contract Surveillance by Contract Data Requirements Lists

Enclosure (7): Annual Surveillance Summary

Enclosure (1)

QUALITY STANDARDS – LEVEL OF EFFORT BY SOW

Required

Service

Standard (Performance

Standards) / Maximum Allowable

Degree of Deviation Requirement

(AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

Incentives

Maintenance and Material

Management

(3-M)

Development support IAW

SOW Para 4.1.

Based upon feedback from the

Government Project Leads, 95% of the services/deliverables provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely and technically acceptable.

Hours delivered at 3% variance.

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

Software

Engineering, Development and Integration support IAW

SOW Para 4.2.

Based upon feedback from the

Government Project Leads, 95% of the services/deliverables provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely and technically acceptable.

Hours delivered at 3% variance.

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

Engineering

Support IAW

SOW Para 4.3.

Based upon feedback from the

Government Project Leads, 95% of the services/deliverables provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely and technically acceptable.

Hours delivered at 3% variance.

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

Technical

Support IAW

SOW Para 4.4.

Based upon feedback from the

Government Project Leads, 95% of the services/deliverables provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely and technically acceptable.

Hours delivered at 3% variance.

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

Enclosure (2)

PERFORMANCE BASED QUALITY STANDARDS – IN-SERVICE

ENGINEERING BY SOW

Required

Service

(Performance

Requirements)

Standard (Performance

Standards) / Maximum Allowable

Degree of Deviation Requirement

(AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

(Quality

Assurance)

Incentives

Develop 3-M and Navy

Logistics IAW

SOW Para 4.5.

Based upon feedback from the

Government Project Leads, 95% of the services and products provided must be deemed comprehensive, timely and technically acceptable.

Metrics are provided in the SOW and will be used as a Baseline in the evaluation.

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure (3)

CDRL DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Description

Standard

AQL

Surveillance/

Method/Measure

Incentives

Technical

Report – Study

/ Services

A001

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Software

Requirements

Specification

A002

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Software

Design

Description

A003

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Database

Design

Description

(SRS) A004

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Software Test

Plan (STP)

A005

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Software Test

Report (STR)

A006

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

4.

Software User

Manual (SUM)

A007

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Computer

Software

Product End

Items A008

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Presentation

Materials A009

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Information

Assurance

Documentation

A010

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Contractor’s

Progress, Status and

Management

Report A011

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Report, Record of

Meeting/Minut es A012

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Integrated

Program

Management

Report A013

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Detailed

Project

Schedule A014

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Technical

Information

Report A015

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Contractor’s

Risk

Management

Plan A016

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Quality System

Plan A017

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Inspection and

Test Plan A018

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

95% of required deliverable provided on time. No more than 1 report per year may be inaccurate or require a rewrite.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enterprise-

Wide

Contractor

Manpower

Reporting

A019

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

A one-time deliverable. Must be on time, with no more than one revision.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Operational

Security

(OPSEC) Plan

A020

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

A one-time deliverable. Must be on time, with no more than one revision.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Status Report -

Information

Technology

Personnel

Security

Report for

Contracting

Officer

Representative

A021

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

A one-time deliverable. Must be on time, with no more than one revision.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Status Report -

Information

Technology

Personnel

Security

Report for

NAVAIR

Security A022

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

A once-annual deliverable. Must be on time, with no more than one revision.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Segregation of

Costs and

Invoice

Requirements

Reporting

A023

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

A one-time deliverable. Must be on time, with no more than one revision.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure

4.

Contract Funds

Status Report

A024

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRL.

A one-time deliverable. Must be on time, with no more than one revision.

100% Inspection by COR, ACOR and/or

Government

Project Leads.

See

Enclosure (4)

INCENTIVES

The following incentives will apply to performance under this contract.

Assessment Period Acceptable

Performance

Definition

How Measured Incentives

Ordering Year 1:

Not more than 1 of the measurement areas rated below

“Satisfactory”.

None of the measurement areas are rated below

“Marginal”.

End of the first assessment period using the CPARS format.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for additional tasking.*

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

Ordering Year 2: Not more than 1 of the measurement areas rated below

“Satisfactory”.

None of the measurement areas are rated below

“Marginal”.

End of the second assessment period using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for additional tasking.*

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

Ordering Year 3: 2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or above. None rated below

“Satisfactory”.

End of the third assessment period using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for additional tasking.*

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

Ordering Year 4: 2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or above. None of

End of the fourth assessment period evaluation using the

CPARS format

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a the measurement areas are below

“Satisfactory”.

covering the previous 12 months.

condition for additional tasking.*

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

Ordering Year 5: 2 or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good” or “Exceptional”.

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

End of the fifth assessment period using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for satisfactory or better

Final CPARS rating.

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

Final CPAR Review After completion of all Task Orders.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for satisfactory or better

Final CPARS rating.

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

Final CPARS rating.

* The Government may not award additional tasking (orders) unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

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 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 (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. 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 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 by contract; communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the contractor’s risk mitigation plans.

Utilization of Small Business: The RFP and FAR Subpart 19.7 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contains statutory requirements for complying with the Small Business Subcontracting

Program. Assess whether the contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for

Small Business (including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes)

(including Small Disadvantaged Businesses (which also includes ANCs and Indian

Tribes), Women Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone, Veteran Owned, Service Disabled

Veteran Owned Small Business, and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not Small

Disadvantaged Businesses or Small Businesses) to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract. Evaluation will focus on the metrics of actual small business utilization as compared to the contract required targets.

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

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

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, reduced costs (>5%) below initial estimates, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). Although a few areas require minor improvement, these areas are offset by superior performance in other areas.

The few problems that do exist are insignificant in nature and have been noted, and the contractor has taken effective and quick corrective action.

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, reduced costs (1-5%) below the initial estimates, 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 has taken 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, costs are consistent with expectations, 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 marginal performance in other areas.

Marginal: Performance does not meet the full intent of the contract requirements. The contractual performance of the task and subtask being assessed reflect a problem for which the contractor has not yet identified marginally corrective actions. Costs have exceeded estimates without reasonable justification. 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 meet acceptable standards. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action. Cost control efforts are nearly nonexistent. Corrective actions were not taken or were ineffective.

For Level of Effort Task Orders, hours delivered by each order as compared to the order required hours will be evaluated and will influence the ratings awarded above. Cost variances greater than 10% cannot earn an Exceptional or Very Good for Cost Control evaluation criteria.

Enclosure (5)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST – LEVEL OF EFFORT & PERFORMANCE BASED

Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, Utilization of

Small Business, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure 4.

ANNUAL EVALUATION PERIOD – BY SOW

Description

Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Dates Quality

Assessment

Schedule

Assessment

Cost

Control

Assessment

Management

Assessment

Regulatory

Assessment

Other

Assessment

4.1 Provide

Maintenance Management

Development support

IAW SOW

requirements.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or Government Project

Leads.

4.2 Provide Software

Engineering, Development and Integration support IAW

SOW requirements.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or

Leads

4.3 Provide Engineering

Support IAW SOW requirements.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or

4.4 Provide Technical

Support IAW SOW requirements.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or

4.5 3-M and Navy

Logistics Packages IAW

SOW requirements.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or

Enclosure (6)

CONTRACT SURVEILLANCE BY CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LISTS

(CDRLs) Form DD 1423- By Task Order

Description Surveillance Method /

Measure

Dates

Due

Dates

Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of

Req’d

Rework

Percentage

On Time Comments

Technical Report – Study /

Services A001

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or

Government Project Leads.

Software Requirements

Specification A002

100% Inspection by

Software Design Description

A003

100% Inspection by

Database Design Description

(SRS) A004

100% Inspection by

Software Test Plan (STP) A005 100% Inspection by

Software Test Report (STR)

A006

100% Inspection by

Government Project Leads

Software User Manual (SUM)

A007

100% Inspection by

Computer Software Product End

Items A008

100% Inspection by

Presentation Materials A009 100% Inspection by

Information Assurance

DocumentationA010

100% Inspection by

Contractor’s Progress, Status and

Management Report A011

100% Inspection by

Report, Record of

Meeting/Minutes A012

100% Inspection by

Integrated Program Management

Report A013

100% Inspection by

Detailed Project Schedule A014 100% Inspection by

Technical Information Report

A015

100% Inspection by

Contractor’s Risk Management

Plan A016

100% Inspection by

Quality System Plan A017 100% Inspection by

Metric Summary: Current Period Cumulative

Total Number of Deliverables Submitted:

Total Number of Deliverables Submitted Late:

Total Number of Deliverables Requiring Revision:

Percentage of Deliverables Submitted Late:

Percentage of Deliverables Requiring Revision:

Inspection and Test Plan A018 100% Inspection by

Enterprise-Wide Contractor

Manpower Reporting A019

100% Inspection by

Operational Security (OPSEC)

Plan A020

100% Inspection by

Status Report - Information

Technology Personnel Security

Report for Contracting Officer

Representative A021

100% Inspection by

Status Report - Information

Technology Personnel Security

Report for NAVAIR Security

A022

100% Inspection by

Segregation of Costs and Invoice

Requirements Reporting A023

100% Inspection by

Contract Funds Status Report

A024

100% Inspection by

Enclosure (7)

Annual Surveillance Summary

The COR/ACOR will perform an assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions. This assessment frequency will be conducted per this agreement.

Description Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Date

Planned

Date

Completed

Summary

Rating/Results

Quality of

Product or Service Review of Ratings.

Schedule Review of Ratings.

Cost Control Review of Ratings.

Management Review of Ratings.

Regulatory Review of Ratings.

Other Areas Review of Ratings.