Attachment_1_CSP.pdf

N00421-18-R-0015

Attachment (1)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) for AIR-4.3 Air Vehicle Department Structures Division

1. Purpose

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 limitations of authority.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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 INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

7. Surveillance

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

Enclosure (1)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

DATA REPORTING STANDARDS

SOW/CDRL Task

Description

Standard and

Acceptable Quality

Level (AQL)

Surveillance

Method/Measure Incentives

SAFE Program support, SOW paragraph 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1

Requirements and objectives met on time, and within budget 95% of the time.

Surveillance by

COR,

TPOC/subject matter expert feedback

See Enclosure 2.

Strength Engineering support, SOW paragraph 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.4.2

Requirements and objectives met on time, and within budget 95% of the time.

Surveillance by

COR,

TPOC/subject matter expert

Loads and Dynamics support, SOW paragraph 3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.3

Requirements and objectives met on time, and within budget 95% of the time.

Surveillance by

COR,

TPOC/subject matter expert

Financial Reports /

Submission is in accordance with the

DID cited in the CDRLs

95% acceptable on first submission to

Government; 100% acceptable on 2nd submission to

Government

Surveillance by

COR,

TPOC/subject matter expert

CDRL DATA QUALITY STANDARDS

Description

Standard

AQL

Surveillance/

Method/Measure

Incentives

Technical

Report/

Studies, 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.

Surveillance by

COR, TPOC/subject matter expert feedback

See

Enclosure 2.

Technical

Report/

Studies, A003

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.

Surveillance by

COR, TPOC/subject matter expert feedback

Enclosure (1)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Technical

Report/

Studies, A004

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.

Surveillance by

COR, TPOC/

subject matter expert feedback

See

Enclosure 2.

Technical

Report/

Studies, A005

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.

Surveillance by

COR, TPOC/subject matter expert feedback

See

Enclosure 2.

Computer

Software

Product End

Items, A006

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.

Surveillance by

COR, TPOC/subject matter expert feedback

See

Enclosure 2.

Non-Disclosure

(Company), A007

N/A

Non-Disclosure

Agreement

(Individual), A008

N/A

Software

Product

Package (SPP), A009

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.

Surveillance by

COR, TPOC/subject matter expert feedback

See

Enclosure 2.

Individual

Aircraft

Tracking

System

Software, A010

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.

Surveillance by

COR, TPOC/subject matter expert feedback

See

Enclosure 2.

Software

Transition

Plan, A011

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.

Surveillance by

COR, TPPC/subject matter expert feedback

Enclosure (2)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract:

Assessment Period

Acceptable

Performance

Definition

How Measured

Incentives

Evaluation of

Ordering Period 1:

All measurement areas rated

“Satisfactory” or above. See Enclosure

(3).

Annual assessment period

(12th month) evaluation using the quarterly

Surveillance Checklists and the CPARs format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) 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.

Evaluation of

Ordering Period 2:

All measurement areas rated

“Satisfactory” or above. See Enclosure

(3).

Annual assessment period

(24th month) evaluation using the quarterly

Surveillance Checklists and the CPARs format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) 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.

Evaluation of

Ordering Period 3:

All measurement areas rated

“Satisfactory” or above. See Enclosure

(3).

Annual assessment period

(36th month) evaluation using the quarterly

Surveillance Checklists and the CPARs format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) 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.

Enclosure (2)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

* 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.

(-) 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.

Evaluation of

Ordering Period 4:

All measurement areas rated at least

“Satisfactory”. Three or more measurement areas rated either

“Very Good” or

“Exceptional”. See

Enclosure (3).

Annual assessment period

(48th month) evaluation using the quarterly

Surveillance Checklists and the CPARs format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) 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 (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Evaluation of

Ordering Period 5:

All measurement areas rated at least

“Satisfactory”. Three or more measurement areas rated either

“Very Good” or

“Exceptional”. See

Enclosure (3).

Annual assessment period

(60th month) evaluation using the quarterly

Surveillance Checklists and the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) 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 (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided

Enclosure (3)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DEFINITIONS

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.

Enclosure (3)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

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.

Enclosure (4)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

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.

QUARTERLY EVALUATION – BY SOW

Description Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Date

Planned

Date

Completed

Quality Schedule Cost

Control

Management

Responsiveness

SAFE Program support, SOW paragraph

3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1

100%

Inspection by

COR and customer feedback.

TBD

Strength

Engineering support, SOW paragraph

3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.4.2

100%

Inspection by

COR and customer feedback.

TBD

Loads and

Dynamics support, SOW paragraph

3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.3

100%

Inspection by

COR and customer feedback.

TBD

Financial

Reports /

Submission is in accordance with the DID cited in the

CDRLs

100%

Inspection by

COR.

Enclosure (4)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

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

Technical Report/

Studies, A001

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

subject matter expert.

Technical Report/

Studies, A003

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Studies, A004

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Studies, A005

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Computer Software

Product End Items, A006

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Non-Disclosure

(Company), A007

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Non-Disclosure

Agreement

(Individual), A008

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Software Product

Package (Spp), A009

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Enclosure (4)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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

Quarterly Summary of Ratings:

Quality Schedule

Number of Exceptional ____ Number of Exceptional ____

Number of Very Good ____ Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____ Number of Satisfactory ____

Number of Marginal ____ Number of Marginal ____

Number of Unsatisfactory ____ Number of Unsatisfactory ____

Cost Control

Number of Exceptional ____

Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____

Number of Marginal ____

Number of Unsatisfactory ____

Individual Aircraft

Tracking System

Software, A010

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Software Transition

Plan, A011

100%

Inspection by

COR/TPOC/

Enclosure (4)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – Refer to FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST - ANNUAL

Annual Surveillance:

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

Description Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Date Planned Date

Completed

Summary Rating/Results

Quality of

Product or

Service

Review of

Quarterly

Ratings.

TBD

Schedule Review of

Quarterly

Ratings.

TBD

Cost Control Review of

Quarterly

Ratings.

TBD

Management Review of

Quarterly

Ratings.

Annual Surveilance Completed By: _______________________

Date Completed: ________________