Attachment_1_CSP.pdf

1. Purpose

Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP)

N00421-18-R-OO 15

Attachment ( 1) for AIR-4.3 Air Vehicle Department Structures Division

This CSP is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the Statement of Work (SOW). The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract and Task Orders.

The Air Vehicle Department, Structures Division (AIR 4.3), has a requirement for engineering and technical support services. Specifically, the AIR 4.3 Division has a need for systems engineering and technical efforts to be performed in the following functional areas: Structural Appraisal of Fatigue Effects (SAFE) program, . Strength Engineering, and Loads and Dynamics Engineering. The resultant contract will be a non-performance based Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Contract Line Items (CLINs) and Cost-Reimbursable CLINs for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) with a five (5) year ordering period. A properly executed CSP will assist the Government in achieving the objective of this procurement and provide the contract with clearly defined performance expectations.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this CSP is provided in the contract under Section E, Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation required to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3.Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between quality control and the CSP. The contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract and Task Orders. The CSP is executed to provide Government surveillance and oversight of the contractor's efforts to ensure that the efforts are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the contract and Task Orders.

4. Government Resources

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

Contracting Officer - The individual 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 Lynn Kaniss, AIR-

2.5.1.5.0. The ACO will be designated in the resulting contract award. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant which sets forth limitatio s of authority.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

N00421-18-R-OO 15

Attachment (1)

Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) - The individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as the authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. The COR will be designated in the resulting contract and individual Task Orders. 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 - The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract including individual Task Orders and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor's performance.

The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government's behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

Technical Point of Contact (TPOC)/Subject Matter Expert is responsible for assisting in administering of specific efforts under the Task Orders. A TPOC cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract, make

· commitments or authorize any changes on the Government's behalf.

6. Methods of Quality Assurance Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) - The marketplace for engineering and technical support is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government-generated CPARS rating under this contract and Task Orders as a substandard rating could have an adverse impact on future proposal evaluations. Additionally, the CPARs ratings will be a determinant in exercising each option period within a Task Order and/or awarding follow-on Task Orders.

For this procurement, the Government shall address the quality of the service, schedule, cost control, and management responsiveness. 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 DoD, as well as the continuation of this contract tasking, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool.

b. CSP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR and TPOC/Subject Matter Experts 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 provided as Enclosure (4) herein.

SOURCE SELECTION D\JFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101AND3.104

7. Surveillance

Attachment (1)

Enclosures (1) through (3) set forth the standards, surveillance methods, incentives, and definitions for the contractor, the COR and TPOC and Enclosure (4) provides the annual and quarterly checklists which provide a means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance to the Contracting Officer.

The CSP will be provided to the Contracting Officer on an annual basis.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing annual reports to the Contracting Officer, the COR shall maintain a complete quality assurance file . The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations and any actions related to the Government' s performance of the quality assurance function, including the original copies of the CSPs.

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 Task Order.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1 ) - Data Reporting Standards and CDRL Data Quality Standards Enclosure (2) - Incentives Enclosure (3) - Definitions Enclosure ( 4) - Surveillance Checklist - Quarterly/ Annual

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

DATA REPORTING STANDARDS

SOW /CDRL Task Standard and Surveillance Acceptable Quality

Description Level (AQL) Method/Measure

SAFE Program support, Requirements and Surveillance by SOW paragraph 3.1.1 , objectives met on COR,

3.2.1 , 3.3 .1 , 3.4.1 time, and within TPOC/subject budget 95% of the matter expert time. feedback

Strength Engineering Requirements and Surveillance by support, SOW objectives met on COR, paragraph 3.1.2, 3.2.2, time, and within TPOC/subject 3.3.2, 3.4.2 budget 95% of the matter expert time. feedback Loads and Dynamics Requirements and Surveillance by support, SOW objectives met on COR, paragraph 3.1.3 , 3.2.3 , time, and within TPOC/subject 3.3.3, 3.4.3 budget 95% of the matter expert time. feedback Financial Reports I 95% acceptable on Surveillance by Submission is in first submission to COR, accordance with the Government; 100% TPOC/subject DID cited in the CDRLs acceptable on 2nd matter expert submission to feedback Government

CDRL DATA QUALITY STANDARDS

Surveillance/

Description Standard AQL l\1ethod/l\1easure

Technical Submission is in 95% ofrequired Surveillance by

N00421-18-R-0015 Attachment (1) Enclosure (1)

Incentives

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

Incentives

See Report/ accordance with deliverable provided COR, TPOC/subject Enclosure 2.

Studies, AOO 1 the Data Item on time. No more matter expert

Description (DID) than 1 report per year feedback cited in the may be inaccurate or CDRL. require a rewrite.

Technical Submission is in 95% ofrequired Surveillance by See Report/ accordance with deliverable provided COR, TPOC/subject Enclosure 2.

Studies, A003 the Data Item on time. No more matter expert

Description (DID) than 1 report per year feedback cited in the may be inaccurate or CDRL. require a rewrite.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101AND3.104

Technical Submission is in Report/ accordance with Studies, A004 the Data Item

Description (DID) cited in the

CORL.

Technical Submission is in Report/ accordance with Studies, A005 the Data Item

Description (DID) cited in the

CORL.

Computer Submission is in Software accordance with Product End the Data Item Items, A006 Description (DID) cited in the

CORL.

Non-Disclosure NIA (Company), A007

Non-Disclosure NIA Agreement (Individual), A008

Software Submission is in Product accordance with Package (SPP), the Data Item A009 Description (DID) cited in the

CORL.

Individual Submission is in Aircraft accordance with Tracking the Data Item System Description (DID) Software, AOlO cited in the

CORL.

Software Submission is in Development accordance with Plan (SOP), the Data Item AOl l Description (DID) cited in the

CORL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

N00421-18-R-OO 15

Attachment (1) Enclosure (1)

Surveillance by See · COR, TPOCI Enclosure 2.

subject matter expert feedback

Surveillance by See COR, TPOClsubject Enclosure 2.

matter expert feedback

Surveillance by See COR, TPOClsubject Enclosure 2.

matter expert feedback

Surveillance by See COR, TPOClsubject Enclosure 2.

matter expert feedback

Surveillance by See COR, TPOClsubject Enclosure 2.

matter expert feedback

Surveillance by See COR, TPOClsubject · Enclosure 2.

matter expert feedback

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101AND3.104

Software Transition Plan, A014

Submission is in 95% of required accordance with deliverable provided the Data Item on time. No more Description (DID) than 1 report per year cited in the may be inaccurate or CDRL. require a rewrite.

Surveillance by

N00421-18-R-0015 Attachment (1) Enclosure (1)

See COR, TPPC/subject Enclosure 2.

matter expert feedback

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract:

Acceptable How Measured Assessment Period Performance

Definition Evaluation of All measurement Annual assessment period Ordering Period 1: areas rated (12th month) evaluation

"Satisfactory" or using the quarterly above. See Enclosure Surveillance Checklists and

(3) . the CP ARs format covering the previous 12 months.

Evaluation of All measurement Annual assessment period Ordering Period 2: areas rated (24th month) evaluation

"Satisfactory" or using the quarterly above. See Enclosure Surveillance Checklists and (3). the CP ARs format covering the previous 12 months .

Evaluation of All measurement Annual assessment period Ordering Period 3: areas rated (36th month) evaluation

"Satisfactory" or using the quarterly above. See Enclosure Surveillance Checklists and (3). the CP ARs format covering the previous 12 months.

N0042 l - l 8-R-0015 Attachment (1) Enclosure (2)

Incentives

( +) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders. 1. * Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders . * Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

( +) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders. *Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future of Task Orders.* Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(+)Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders .* Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Does not meet the

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101AND3.104

Evaluation of All measurement Annual assessment period Ordering Period 4: areas rated at least ( 4gth month) evaluation

"Satisfactory". Three using the quarterly or more measurement Surveillance Checklists and areas rated either the CP ARs format covering "Very Good" or the previous 12 months.

"Exceptional". See Enclosure (3).

Evaluation of All measurement Annual assessment period Ordering Period 5: areas rated at least (60th month) evaluation

" Satisfactory" . Three using the quarterly or more measurement Surveillance Checklists and areas rated either the CP ARS format covering "Very Good" or the previous 12 months.

"Exceptional" . See Enclosure (3).

N00421-18-R-0015 Attachment (1) Enclosure (2) acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders. * Receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

( +) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders. * Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders. * Receives a negative assessment (CP AR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

( +) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders. *Receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for award of future Task Orders. * Receives a negative assessment (CP AR), appropriate for the quality of service provided

*The Government may not exercise option within a Task Order or award future Task Orders unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101AND3 .104

DEFINITIONS

N00421-18-R-0015 Attachment (1) Enclosure (3)

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.

Management Responsiveness -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. 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. Discuss the extent to which the Contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract and task orders, identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements, assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required the by the task orders, and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner.

Assess the Contractor's risk mitigation plans. If applicable, identify any other management areas that are . unique to the contract.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

The COR will perform a monthly assessment of Quality, Schedule and Cost Control utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions are listed as follows :

Exceptional: 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.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Attachment ( 1) Enclosure (3)

Very Good: 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 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 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.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101AND3.104

Attachment ( 1) Enclosure ( 4)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST - QUARTERLY

Quarterly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a quarterly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management Responsiveness as applicable using utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3).

The assessments will be performed and report for each Task Order by the applicable Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) for each individual Task Order.

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

Description

SAFE Program support, SOW paragraph 3.1.1, 3.2.1,

3.3.1 , 3.4.1 Strength Engineering support, SOW paragraph 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.4.2 Loads and Dynamics support, SOW paragraph

3.1.3 , 3.2.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.3 Financial Reports I Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the CDRLs

QUARTERLY EVALUATION - BY SOW

Surveillance Date Date Quality Schedule Cost Method/ Planned Completed Control Measure

100% TBD

Inspection by CORand customer feedback.

100% TBD

Inspection by CORand customer feedback.

100% TBD

Inspection by CORand customer feedback.

100% TBD

Inspection by

COR.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -Refer to FAR 2.101AND3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Management Responsiveness

Attachment (1 ) Enclosure ( 4)

QUARTERLY EVALUATION BY CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LISTS

(CDRLs) Form DD 1423

Description

Technical Report/ Studies, AOO 1

Technical Report/ Studies, A003

Technical Report/ Studies, A004

Technical Report/ Studies, AOOS

Computer Software Product End Items, A006

Non-Disclosure (Company), A007

Non-Disclosure Agreement (Individual), A008

Software Product Package (Spp ), A009

Surveillance Dates Dates No.

No. of Percentage

Method I Req'd Measure

Due Completed Submittals Rework

On Time

100% Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

100% Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

100% Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

100% Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

100% Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

100% Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

100% Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

100% Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-Referto FAR2.101AND3 .104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Comments

Individual Aircraft 100% Tracking System Inspection by Software, AO 10 COR/TPOC/ subject matter expert.

Software 100% Development Plan Inspection by (Sdp), AOJ 1 COR/TPOC/ subject matter expert.

Software Transition 100% Plan, A014 Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

Metnc Summary: Current Period 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

Quarterly Summary of Ratings:

Quality Number of Exceptional Number of Very Good Number of Satisfactory Number of Marginal Number of Unsatisfactory __

Cost Control Number of Exceptional Number of Very Good Number of Satisfactory Number of Marginal Number of Unsatisfactory __

Schedule Number of Exceptional Number of Very Good Number of Satisfactory Number of Marginal Number of Unsatisfactory

N00421 -18-R-0015 Attachment ( 1) Enclosure ( 4)

Cumulative

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-Referto FAR2.101 AND3.104

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST-ANNUAL

Annual Surveillance:

N00421-18-R-0015 Attachment (1) Enclosure ( 4)

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CP ARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3).

Description Surveillance Date Planned Date Summary Rating/Results Method/ Completed Measure

Quality of Review of "TBD Product or Quarterly Service Ratings.

Schedule Review of TBD

Quarterly Ratings.

Cost Control Review of TBD Quarterly Ratings.

Management Review of Quarterly TBD Ratings.

Annual Surveilance Completed By:

Date Completed:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3 .104