Attachment_8_MSE_QASP_CSP.pdf

N00421-18-R-0003

Attachment 08

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) for

Mission System Engineering (MSE)

1. Purpose

This 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. The QASP/CSP ensures the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance standards and definitions and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

This hybrid QASP/CSP document is developed and applied by the Government to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration and surveillance of performance and non-performance-based tasking under the contract. The intent is to ensure the

Contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the required Level of Effort

(LOE) established, and to ensure the Government receives the quality of services called for in each Task Order (TO) Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Statement of Work (SOW).

This contract will leverage the Ship & Air Integration Warfare (SAIW) Division’s core capabilities involving Research and Development (R&D) for operational systems, systems engineering support, integration and production support, system based Test and Evaluation

(T&E) support, and In-Service Engineering Agent (ISEA) activities support for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and

Reconnaissance (C5ISR) mission based products and systems. This includes, but is not limited to, requirements definition, emerging technologies identification, rapid design engineering, drawing package support, development, customization, manufacturing, fabrication, integration, T&E, installation, certification, maintenance and upgrade, logistics, software development, and

ISEA activities support for new and/or existing shipboard, ground-based, and airborne systems.

The following are representative of the programs, systems, and technological areas to which the required services may be applied:

Military and commercial radio communication systems (i.e. VXX Helo)

Weapon Systems (i.e. MK 38)

Information and computer network systems (i.e. Unmanned Air Vehicle Video Uplinks)

Command and control systems (i.e. DHS SBInet)

Logistics & Automatic Identification Technology systems

Integrated document management and multimedia systems

Antenna and tower based systems

Embedded and stand-alone sensors systems (i.e. DHS Border Patrol Systems)

Unmanned Aerial Systems (i.e. Ground Control Stations, Payload Systems, etc.)

A properly executed QASP/CSP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

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

This procurement is for advanced research and development, systems engineering, life-cycle support of electronics, communications, and information systems services. 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 each TO.

4. Government Resources

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

Contracting Officer (CO): 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 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

(GPLs) 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: The CO (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 CO that assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract. The

CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer 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 CO for action.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative: 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 CO for action.

Government Project Leads: The GPL is responsible for assisting in administering of specific efforts under the contract. A GPL 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: 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 basic

IDIQ for each year of performance. 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

Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs). As this information may affect future source selections throughout the Department of Defense (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 GPLs 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 (3) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the Contractor, the COR and GPLs while enclosures (4) through (6) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance and will be provided to the CO.

8. Documentation

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

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Quality Standards: Mission System Engineering by PWS

Enclosure (2): CDRL Data Quality Standards

Enclosure (3): Incentives

Enclosure (4): Surveillance Activity Checklist - Level Of Effort & Performance Based

Enclosure (5): Quarterly Evaluation By Contract Data Requirements Lists

Enclosure (6): Annual Surveillance Summary

Enclosure (1)

QUALITY STANDARDS: MISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING BY PWS

(PERFORMANCE BASED)

Required

Service

(Performance

Requirements)

Standard (Performance

Standards) / Maximum Allowable

Degree of Deviation Requirement

(AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

(Quality

Assurance)

Incentives

C5ISR

Integration

Support IAW

PWS Para 3.3.2

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 TO PWS and will be used as a Baseline in the evaluation.

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or GPLs.

See

Enclosure

3.

In-Service

Engineering

Agent (ISEA)

Activities IAW

PWS Para 3.3.3

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 TO PWS and will be used as a Baseline in the evaluation.

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or GPLs.

See

Enclosure

3.

QUALITY STANDARDS: MISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING BY SOW

(LEVEL OF EFFORT)

Required

Service

(Performance

Requirements)

Standard (Performance

Standards) / Maximum Allowable

Degree of Deviation Requirement

(AQL)

Method of

Surveillance

(Quality

Assurance)

C5ISR

Engineering and IT Support

IAW SOW Para

3.3.1

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 TO

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

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or GPLs.

See

Enclosure

3.

C5ISR

Integration

Support IAW

SOW Para 3.3.2

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 TO

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

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or GPLs.

See

Enclosure (1)

In-Service

Engineering

Agent (ISEA)

Activities IAW

SOW Para 3.3.3

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 TO

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

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or GPLs.

See

Enclosure (2)

CDRL DATA QUALITY STANDARDS

Description

Standard

AQL

Surveillance/

Method/Measure

Report, Record of

Meeting/Minutes A001

Submission is in accordance with the

Data Item Description

(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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Technical Report -

Study Service 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Status Report -

Security A003

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

NAVAIR Operations

Security (OPSEC) Plan

A004

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Contractor's Risk

Management Plan

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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Reserved For Future

Use A006

Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved

Integrated Program

Management Report

(IPMR) - Integrated

Master Schedule A007

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Detailed Project

Schedule 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Technical and

Management Work

Plan 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Status Report - Change

Control Report A010

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Scientific and

Technical Reports -

Elements, Organization, and

Design 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Technical Information

Report - Project

Closeout Report 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Period Close-Out A013

Submission is in accordance with the

Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Contracting Officer's

Management Report -

Segregation of Costs and Invoice

Requirements

Reporting 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Financial Progress

Reports A015

Submission is in accordance with the

Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Reserved For Future

Use A016

Reserved Reserved Reserved Reserved

Configuration

Management 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Engineering Change

Proposal A018

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Inspection and Test

Plan A019

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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Test Procedure A020 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Test/Inspection Report

A021

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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Product

Drawings/Models and

Associated Lists A022

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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3

Training Materials

A023

Submission is in accordance with the format detailed in BLK

16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Integrated Logistics

Support Plan A024

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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Manuals, Technical

A025

Submission is in accordance with the format detailed in BLK

16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Computer Software

Product A026

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, Systems Engineering

Management Plan

(SEMP) A027

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Software Development

Plan A028

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Transition Out Plan

A029

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Quality

Management/Assuranc e Plan A030

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Inspection and Test

Plan A031

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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 GPLs.

See Enclosure 3.

Scientific and

Technical Reports

Summary A032

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRL, and Block 16 of 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, Enclosure (3)

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 one 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 one 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: Two 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: Two or more of the measurement areas rated “Very Good”

End of the fourth assessment period evaluation using the

(+) Meet the acceptable performance or above. None of the measurement areas are below

“Satisfactory”.

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months definition as a condition for additional tasking.*

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

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

None of the measurement areas are rated below

“Satisfactory”.

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 TOs.

(+) 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 elect to not issue additional task orders unless all regulatory requirements are met and the Contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

All PWS and CDRL tasks, including 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 and the Contractor’s submitted small business plan.

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 LOE TOs, hours delivered by each order as compared to the order required hours will be evaluated and will influence the ratings awarded above. Cost and hour variances greater than 10% over the agreed contractual amounts cannot earn an Exceptional or

Very Good for Cost Control evaluation criteria. Furthermore, cost evaluation ratings of

Satisfactory will require justification if actual performance exceeds contractual targets for hours and/or dollars.

Enclosure (4)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST – LEVEL OF EFFORT & PERFORMANCE BASED

Quarterly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a quarterly 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 3.

QUARTERLY EVALUATION – BY SOW/PWS Paragraph

Description

Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Dates Quality

Assessment

Schedule

Assessment

Cost Control

Assessment

Business Relations

Assessment Management

Assessment

Utilization of

Small Business

Assessment

Other Areas

Assessment

3.3.1 C5ISR

Systems

Engineering support

IAWSOW/ PWS

requirements.

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or GPLs.

3.3.2 C5ISR

Integration support

IAWSOW/ PWS

requirements.

100% Inspection

3.3.3 In-Service

Engineering Agent

(ISEA) Activity support

IAWSOW/ PWS

requirements.

100% Inspection

Enclosure (5)

QUARTERLY EVALUATION BY CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LISTS

(CDRLs) Form DD 1423

Description Surveillance Method / Measure Dates

Due

Dates

Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of

Req’d

Rework

Percentage

On Time Comments

Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes A001

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Technical Report - Study Service

A002

Status Report - Security A003 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

NAVAIR Operations Security

(OPSEC) Plan A004

Contractor's Risk Management

Plan A005

Quality System Plan A006 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Integrated Program Management

Report (IPMR) - Integrated Master

Schedule A007

Detailed Project Schedule A008 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Technical and Management Work

Plan A009

Status Report - Change Control

Report A010 and/orGPLs.

Scientific and Technical Reports -

Elements, Organization, and

Design A011

Technical Information Report -

Project Closeout Report A012

Period Close-Out A013

Contracting Officer's Management

Report -Segregation of Costs and

Invoice Requirements Reporting

A014

Financial Progress Reports A015 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Reserved For Future Use A016 Reserved

Configuration Management Plan

A017

Engineering Change Proposal

A018

Inspection and Test Plan A019 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Test Procedure A020 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Test/Inspection Report A021 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Product Drawings/Models and

Associated Lists A022

Training Materials A023 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Integrated Logistics Support Plan

A024

Manuals, Technical A025 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Computer Software Product A026 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Systems Engineering Management

Plan (SEMP) A027

Software Development Plan A028 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Transition Out Plan A029 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

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

Quality Management/Assurance

Plan A030

Inspection and Test Plan A031 100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Scientific and Technical Reports

Summary A032

Enclosure (6)

Annual Surveillance Summary

The COR will perform an assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure (3). This assessment will be completed annually covering the previous 12 months.

Description Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Date

Planned

Date

Completed

Summary

Rating/Results

Quality of

Product or Service

Review of Quarterly

Ratings.

Schedule

Cost Control Review Quarterly of

Business Relations

Management

Utilization of

Small Business

Other Areas

Annual Surveillance Completed By: _______________________

Date Completed: ________________