Attachment_1_LSE_CSP.pdf

N00421-18-R-0017

Attachment 1

Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) for

Lifetime Support Engineering (LSE)

1. Purpose

This CSP document is developed and applied by the Government to ensure systematic

Quality Assurance (QA) methods are used in the administration and surveillance of tasking under the contract. The intent is to ensure the Contractor performs In Accordance

With (IAW) the Statement of Work (SOW), and the Government receives the quality of services called for in each Task Order (TO) SOW.

This contract will support the Ship & Air Integrated Warfare (SAIW) Division (AD-

4.11.3) in the execution of its mission both within the Continental United States (CONUS and outside the Continental United States (OCONUS). The scope includes efforts to maintain combat readiness through engineering and management of design changes, installations, upgrades, Ship Alterations (SHIPALTs) and related efforts to the Radio

Communication System (RCS)/Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) systems throughout the life cycle of Coast Guard (CG) 47 and Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG)

51 Class AEGIS ships. The scope is not limited to AEGIS combatants, and the Contractor must be knowledgeable of RCS/C5ISR systems installed on other U.S. Navy surface ships and submarines as well as those under development or planned for installation aboard new platforms.

This contract will have Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) labor Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINS) and cost reimbursable CLINs for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) for Materiel and

Travel. The contract will have a five-year ordering period. A properly executed CSP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this 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 executed by the

Contracting Officer (KO) 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 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 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 TO.

4. Government Resources

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

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 Lead (GPL): The COR designates individual 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 CSP:

KO: The KO (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.

COR: 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.

ACOR: 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.

GPL: 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): The marketplace for this type of effort 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 at the end of each ordering year. This evaluation will be one determinant in the award of future contracts or TOs. 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 CSP.

b. 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 QA surveillance is the checklist provided herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosure (2) sets forth the performance standards, incentives and surveillance methods for the Contractor, the COR and GPLs while enclosures (1) and (3) 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 QA file.

The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations and any actions related to the Contractor’s performance of the QA function, including the originals of the

QA Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR will forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Surveillance Activity Checklist

Enclosure (2): Quarterly Evaluation By Contract Data Requirements Lists

Enclosure (3): Annual Surveillance Summary

N00421-18-R-0018

Enclosure (1)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

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 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

Engineering

Support IAW

SOW

requirements.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or

Government Project

Leads.

3.3.2 Technical

Support IAW

SOW

requirements.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or

Leads

3.3.3 Logistics

Support IAW

SOW

requirements.

100% Inspection by

COR/ACOR and/or

Leads

Enclosure (2)

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 - Study/Services:

COTS - Feasibility Studies of

Emerging Technologies A001

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

Installation Control Drawings

A002

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Product Drawings/Models and

Associated Lists: Procurement

Drawings A003

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Technical Information Report:

Hardware Technical

Documentation A004

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Shipbuilder CDRL Item Review

Comments & Technical Inputs

A005

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Failure Summary and Analysis

Report A006

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

Maintenance Facilities

Efficiency/Productivity Analysis

Report A007

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Report, Record of

Meeting/Minutes: Trip

Reports/Meeting Minutes A008

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Readiness Deficiencies

Resolution/Response Report A009

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Readiness Test Report A010

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Enclosure (2)

Description Surveillance Method / Measure Dates

Due

Dates

Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of

Req’d

Rework

Percentage

On Time Comments

Training Program Structure

Document: OJT Plan A011

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Survivability and Shock Trial

Documentation A012

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Inspection and Test Plan:

Inspection System Plan A013

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Technical Report - Study/Services:

Material Status Report A014

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Long Lead Item Status Report

A015

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Product Drawings and Associated

Lists: Space Arrangement

Drawings/Equipment Elevation

Drawings A016

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Product Drawings and Associated

Lists: Space Arrangement

Drawings/Equipment Elevation

Drawings A017

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Drawings and Associated Lists:

Cable Run Sheets A018

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Review of LSE/ISE

Documentation A019

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Configuration Audit Summary

Report and Certification A020

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Enclosure (2)

Description Surveillance Method / Measure Dates

Due

Dates

Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of

Req’d

Rework

Percentage

On Time Comments

Management Plan: Program

Management Plan A021

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Design Deficiency Report A022

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Acquisition Logistics Support Plan:

ALSP Deficiency and Resolution

Report A023

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

User Logistics Support Summary:

ULSS Deficiency and Resolution

Report A024

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Ships Maintenance and Material

Management (3-M) Manual: PMS

Documentation A025

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Equipment Installation

Instructions: Work Instructions

A026

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Project/TDL Close-Out A027

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Progress and Status Report:

Technical Progress Report A028

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Progress and Status Report:

Financial Progress Report A029

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Test/Procedure: Test Plans and/or

Test Procedures A030

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Logistics Management Information

(LMI) Data Products A031

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Enclosure (2)

Description Surveillance Method / Measure Dates

Due

Dates

Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of

Req’d

Rework

Percentage

On Time Comments

Technical Information Report:

PTD and ICAPs A032

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

TOCs/TOCRs A033

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Technical Report - Study Services:

Cost Feasibility Report A034

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

NAVAIR Operations Security

(OPSEC) Plan A035

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Period Close-Out Report A036

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Contract Master Staffing/Resource

Plan A037

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Technical and Management Work

Plan: Program Plans for

Implementation of SOW and TDLs

A038

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Contractor's Risk Management

Plan A039

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Quality System Plan: Quality

Management/Assurance Plan A040

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Integrated Program Management

Report (IPMR) A041

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Change Control Strategy A042

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Enclosure (2)

Description Surveillance Method / Measure Dates

Due

Dates

Completed

No.

Submittals

No. of

Req’d

Rework

Percentage

On Time Comments

Detailed Project Schedule A043

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Detailed Task/Activity Estimate

Report A044

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Systems Engineering Management

Plan (SEMP) A045

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Enterprise-Wide Contractor

Manpower Reporting (ECMRA)

A046

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Segregation of Costs and Invoice

Requirements Reporting A047

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Integrated Program Management

Report (IPMR) A048

100% Inspection by COR/ACOR

Status Report: Information

Technology Personnel Security

Report for NAVAIR Security

A049

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:

Enclosure (3)

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 Review of Quarterly Ratings

Cost Control Review of Quarterly Ratings

Business Relations Review of Quarterly Ratings

Management Review of Quarterly Ratings

Utilization of Small Business Review of Quarterly Ratings

Other Areas Review of Quarterly Ratings

Annual Surveillance Completed By: _______________________

Date Completed: ________________

All SOW 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 Request for Proposal (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, have been noted and the Contractor has taken effective 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.