ATT_3_CONTRACT_SURVEILLANCE_PLAN.doc

N0042117R0066

Contract Surveillance Plan

NAVAL TEST WING ATLANTIC (NTWL)

AIRCREW SUPPORT SERVICES

1.

Purpose The purpose of this Government developed and applied Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) is to ensure that systematic methods are used in the administration of the contract. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the checklist and services called for in the contract.

The contract requirement is to provide aircrew support services which includes, but not limited to, scheduling, administrative assistance, report facilitating. Services shall include the application of knowledge and expertise in the fields of scheduling events and logging or recording aviation data, weapon systems, subsystems and components, maintaining and tracking flight crew qualifications, and other concurrent tasks such as area frequency management. Support shall be provided to the NAVAIRSYSCOM’s Test Wing, Test Squadrons, and to the Test Pilot School and AIR-5.1.6.

2.

Authority Authority for issuance of this CSP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections, 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 This CSP provides Government surveillance oversight 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 - 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 PCO for this contract is AIR 2.5.1.12. The ACO will be designated in the resulting order. 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 for 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 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 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. In addition to the continuous monitoring of performance, the COR will also submit an annual assessment in the Navy’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). For CPARS, the COR assesses general quality of the product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, small business compliance, and other important areas. 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.

Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) – The TPOC is responsible for technical administration of the contract and the tasks addressed throughout the PWS and CSP. The TPOC is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf 6.

Methods of QA Surveillance a.

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for research, development test and evaluation (RDT&E) flight services is very competitive. As such, the Contractor has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS rating under this contract. The Government for this procurement will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management responsiveness, and other areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the CSP.

b.

The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the TPOC and/or COR in the technical administration of this CSP. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of quality assurance surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC)(enclosure 4) provided herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1) thru (3) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor, TPOC, and COR while enclosure (4) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document on a quarterly basis.

8. Documentation

The COR will provide monthly reports to the Contracting Officer, as well as maintaining all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the quality assurance function, including the originals of the Surveillance Activity 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.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) –Support Performance Standards

Enclosure (2) - Incentives

Enclosure (3) – Surveillance Method and Rating Definitions

Enclosure (4) – Surveillance Activity Checklist SUPPORT Performance STANDARDS (Enclosure 1)

Method/

Measure Incentives

INCENTIVES (Enclosure 2) The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract.

Incentives

All Years:

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option.*

Surveillance Method and Rating Definitions (Enclosure 3) The Government may not choose to exercise an option 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 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 timelines, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals (especially responses to change orders, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) or other Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs), the contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Management Responsiveness – Assess the contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts. 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. Consider the contractor’s responsiveness to the program as it relates to meeting contract requirements during the period covered by the report. If applicable, identify any other management areas that are unique to the contract.

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

The evaluation ratings 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 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.

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST (Enclosure 4)

Quarterly Surveillance:

The COR/TPOC will perform a Quarterly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure 3.

Measure

Other

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

Quality

Schedule

Number of Exceptional

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Number of Marginal

Number of Unsatisfactory

Cost Control

Business Relations

Management Responsiveness Other Areas

Number of Unsatisfactory

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 summary of ratings. This annual assessment will occur at the midpoint of each period and cover the previous 12 months, except for the base period which will cover only the previous 6 months.

Measure