Attachment_11_QASP_CSP.docx

N00421-18-R-0013 Enclosure (6) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and Contract Surveillance Plan for AEGIS Radio Communication System (RCS)

1. Purpose

This requirement consists of both performance-based and non-performance-based CLINs; therefore, a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and a Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) are both required. The 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 ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration and surveillance of 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 the Government receives the quality of services called for in each CLIN.

This contract will provide support for the Ship & Air Integrated Warfare (SAIW) Division (Code 4.11.3) of NAWCAD, in the following areas:

· Engineering, production, integration, testing, installation, training, and certification of shipboard Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) electronic communication systems.

· Engineering, production, integration, testing, installation, training, and certification of like systems at shore sites associated with the deployment of fleet support to surface ships.

· Engineering, production, integration, testing, installation, training, and certification of mobile and airborne C4I electronic communication systems designed to interface with the C4I electronic architecture of surface ships.

Depending on the shipboard C4I electronic communication systems requirements, the Contractor will produce, test, evaluate, and prepare the fully integrated C4I electronic Radio Communication System (RCS) for shipment to a designated shipbuilder and support the subsequent installation and testing on board the ship. The Contractor shall provide support to the ship throughout the new construction phase of shipbuilding. Familiarization training for the ship’s crew is provided under the terms of this contract. Initial work will support the RCS for one Base Year, consisting of three AEGIS destroyers or comparable ships. Options are included for services to support an additional 12 AEGIS destroyers or comparable ships. These services can be applied to any U.S. Navy surface combatant or comparable ships and associated shipboard communication system.

A properly executed QASP/CSP will assist the Government in achieving the objective 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 inspection 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 CLINs.

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 CLIN.

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 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: 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: 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: 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 each year beginning one year after award. This evaluation will be one determinant in the exercising of future CLINs. 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 determining the appropriateness of exercising the available CLIN option periods, 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 and cost 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 Government Project Leads 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 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 annually.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Quality Standards - Engineering by Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Statement of Work (SOW) Enclosure (2): CDRL Data Quality Standards Enclosure (3): Incentives Enclosure (4): Contract Surveillance Plan Enclosure (5): Contract Surveillance by CDRL Enclosure (6): Annual Surveillance Summary

N00421-16-R-0059 N00421-18-R-0013 Attachment 11

QUALITY STANDARDS - ENGINEERING BY PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) AND STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

N00421-18-R-0013 Enclosure (1)

CDRL DATA QUALITY STANDARDS

Description

Standard

AQL

Surveillance/ Method/Measure

Incentives

Training Materials A014

RESERVED A025

N00421-18-R-0013 Enclosure (2)

INCENTIVES

The following incentives will apply to performance under this contract.

Base 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final CPAR Review

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

* The Government reserves the right not to award Option CLINs if the Contractor does not meet the acceptable performance standards, and/or meet all regulatory requirements.

The PWS/SOW and corresponding tasks and subtasks (to include CDRL submissions) 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 will 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. 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 Businesses to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract, to include:

· Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs)

· Indian Tribes

· Small Disadvantaged Businesses (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes)

· Women Owned Small Businesses

· HUBZone

· Veteran Owned

· Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

Evaluation will focus on the metrics of actual small business utilization compared to the contract required targets and the offer’s Small Business Plan, included as part of their proposal response.

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: Contractor’s performance does not meet the full intent of the contract requirements. The contractual performance of the CLIN, 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 CLINs, hours delivered compared to the required hours will be evaluated and will influence the ratings awarded above. Negative cost and/or labor hour variances greater than 10% cannot earn an Exceptional or Very Good for Cost Control evaluation criteria.

N00421-18-R-0013 Enclosure (3) N00421-18-R-0013 Enclosure (3)

Contract Surveillance Plan

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 evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure 3.

QUARTERLY EVALUATION – BY PWS/SOW

Measure

N00421-18-R-0013 Enclosure (4) N00421-18-R-0013 Enclosure (5)

Contract Surveillance by CDRL

Training Materials A014

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR and/or Government Project Leads.

RESERVED A025

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:

N00421-18-R-0013Enclosure (5)

Annual Surveillance Summary

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

Measure

Annual Surveillance Completed By: _______________________

Date Completed: ________________