Att_2_QASP.doc

Attachment 2 Attachment 2

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for Air Traffic Control and Landing Systems Operations Aboard USN Ships & Shore Based Sites 1.

Purpose This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for technical and engineering services to support the Air Traffic Control (ATC) Division. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services for tasks ordered under the contract.

This acquisition is for technical products and services for the Air Traffic Control (ATC) Systems Division, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), AD-4.11.7.2. The Contractor shall provide technical and engineering services, with qualified personnel, to perform the tasks listed below for the ATC Systems Division’s cognizant systems, including, but not limited to: AN/URN-25 Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN), AN/URN-32 (TACAN), AN/SPN-35 Aircraft Control Approach Center, AN/SPN-41 Aircraft Approach Control Transmitting Set, AN/TRN-28 Aircraft Approach Control Transmitting Set, AN/SPN-43 Radar Set, AN/SPN-42-T4 Precision approach Landing System (PALS), AN/TPX-42, TS-4176/UPM Radar Test Set, TS-3098/SPN Radar Test set, Instrument Landing System (ILS), Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS), Joint Precision Approach Landing System (JPALS), FPN-63 Precision Approach Radar and Air Traffic Control and Landing Systems (ATC&LS). These systems are installed and used for ATC&LS operations aboard U.S. Navy CV, CVN, LHA, LHD, future platform class ships and at various Naval Air Stations/shore-based sites and QE Class Vessels of the British Navy.

This Single Award (SA) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract will have Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs for Labor and Cost CLINs for Travel and Material. The contract will be for a five (5) year ordering period. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2.

Authority Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation called in service contracts, 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 Plan and the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in the contract. The QASP on the other hand, is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective, and are delivering the results specified in the contract.

4.

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

Contracting Officer - A person 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 AIR-2.5.1.4. The ACO will be designated in the resulting contract. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer’s 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 service contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s 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 (GPL) – The COR designates an individual Government Project Lead to assist in administering a specific project under the contract.

5.

Responsibilities The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this QASP:

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 (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 Contracting Officer for action.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR) – The ACOR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and ensures 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 price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

6.

Methods of QA Surveillance a.

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The marketplace for support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS for the Task Orders (TOs) under this contract. An evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year of performance for each TO. This evaluation will be one determinant in the exercising of options in each TO and in issuing additional TOs. For this procurement, the Government will address the quality, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DOD, and future orders, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

b.

QASP – The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR, ACOR, or Government Project Leads (GPLs) in the technical administration of this QASP. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of quality assurance surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) provided herein.

7.

Surveillance

Enclosures (1) and (2) sets forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor and COR while Enclosure (3) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document on a quarterly basis the results of the surveillance and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

8.

Documentation

In addition to providing quarterly reports to the Contracting Officer, 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 shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

9.

Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – Performance Based Standards/Data Standards Enclosure (2) – Incentives

Enclosure (3) – Surveillance Activity Checklist

PERFORMANCE BASED STANDARDS

Required Service

(Performance Requirements)

(Quality Assurance) Incentives

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

Provide Operational Software Development and Maintenance Service IAW PWS Para 3.3.7 and 3.3.8

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

See Enclosure 2.

Provide Repair, Fabrication, and Restoration Services IAW PWS Para 3.3.13 and 3.3.14

See Enclosure 2.

Provide ATC&LS Training Services IAW PWS Para 3.3.15 and 3.3.16

See Enclosure 2.

DATA STANDARDS

Enclosure 2.

Coordinated Test Plan (Test Plan and Procedures) A002

Completed Certification Manual A003

Recommendations Report A004

Engineering Report A005

Shipboard Industrial Test Procedures (Test Procedures) A006

Configuration Sheet A007

Enclosure 2.

Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) A009

Field Change Bulletin (FCB) A010

Supplementary Provisioning Technical Documentation A011

Supplemental Data for Provisioning A012

Enclosure 2.

Documentation, Management/Technical Support (Technical Manual Modifications/

Upgrades) A013

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Inventory Status Upgrade Report A017

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Test Bed Log Book A022

Enclosure 2.

Repair/Modification/

Overhaul Status Report

A023

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Trouble Report

A034

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Software Certification Form A038

Enclosure 2.

Software Product Specification (SPS) (Program Package Document) A040

Enclosure 2.

Computer Program Support Library Inventory Report A042

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

Enclosure 2.

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance on the Task Order(s) under the IDIQ contract.

Incentives

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition for exercising Option I.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition for exercising Option II.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition for exercising Option III.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition for exercising Option IV.*

*The Government reserves the right to not exercise a Task Order Option unless all regulatory requirements are met and the conditions meet the acceptable performance definition.

All PWS/CDRL efforts will be assessed focusing on the following:

Quality– Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract/order requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). Include, as applicable, information on the following:

Are reports/data accurate?

Does the product or service provided meet the specifications of the contract/order?

Does the contractor’s work measure up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards?

What degree of Government technical direction was required to solve problems that arise during performance?

Schedule – Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

This evaluation of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the evaluation period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also, address significance of scheduled events (e.g., design reviews), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

This element applies to contract/order closeout activities as well as contract/order performance. Instances of adverse actions such as the evaluation of liquidated damages or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract/order schedule and should, therefore, be noted in the evaluation.

Questions to consider include the following:

Is the contractor completing the design/engineering services activities in a timely manner? This includes administrative activities, as well as meeting all scheduled milestones in the design process.

Did the contractor adequately schedule the work?

Has the contractor met administrative milestone dates?

Has the contractor met physical milestone dates specified by contract or agreed to in the project schedule?

If the schedule has slipped through the contractor’s fault or negligence, has he taken appropriate corrective action of his own volition?

Has the contractor furnished all required deliverables on or ahead of schedule?

Is the contractor completing the construction activities in a timely manner? This includes administrative activities, as well as physical construction activities such as submittal of a management response to Request for Proposal (RFPs), etc.

Has the contract furnished updated project schedules on a timely basis?

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract/order cost. If the contractor is experiencing cost growth or underrun, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns or underruns. For contracts/orders where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor-provided person hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate task 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. Include, as applicable, the following information:

Does the contractor keep within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals)?

Did the contractor do anything innovative that resulted in cost savings?

Were billings current, accurate and complete?

Are the contractor’s budgetary internal controls adequate?

Has the contractor provided a design that can be constructed with the available funds?

Has the contractor notified the Government and taken necessary corrective actions when the cost estimate exceeds available funds?

Evaluation information regarding performance under an Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA), including letter contracts and actions where price has not yet been negotiated, shall be included in the annual evaluation. If the final negotiated contract/order type is not a cost-type, cost information for the period the UCA was in effect shall be included under the Cost Control element. If the final negotiated contract/order type is a cost-type, cost information for the entire period of performance shall be included under the Cost Control rating element. The narrative shall fully explain the contractor’s performance during the UCA, including definitization of the contract/order. The contractor’s performance under the UCA shall be separately identified but considered in the overall annual ratings.

Management – Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract/order, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts. Include, as applicable, information on the following:

Is the contractor oriented toward the customer?

Is interaction between the contractor and the government satisfactory or does it need improvement?

Include the adequacy of the contractor’s accounting, billing, and estimating systems and the contractor’s management of Government Furnished Property (GFP) if a substantial amount of GFP has been provided to the contractor under the contract/order.

Address the timeliness of awards to subcontractors and management of subcontractors, including subcontract costs. Consider efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance.

Assess the prime contractor’s effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether subcontractors were an integral part of the contractor’s team. Are the contractor’s management, on-site, and home office personnel exhibiting the capacity to adequately plan, schedule, resource, organize and otherwise manage the work? If not, describe and relate to other rated elements.

Regulatory Compliance –

Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract/order relating to applicable regulations and codes. Consider aspects of performance such as compliance with financial, environmental (example: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), safety, and labor regulations as well as any other reporting requirements in the contract. Consider questions such as the following:

Has the contractor complied with all contract clauses and reporting requirements (e.g., FAPIIS, FAR Subsection 9.104-6, FAR Clause 52.209-9)?

Has the contractor complied with Cost Accounting Standards and disclosure statements (FAR Subpart 30.2, FAR Clauses 52.230-2, 52.230-3, 52.230-4, 52.230-5, 52.230-6)?

Has the contractor complied with the reporting requirements relating to recovered material content utilized in contract performance (see FAR Subpart 23.4)?

Has the contractor complied with contractual safety requirements and labor laws (see FAR Subsection 22.407, FAR Clauses 52.222-4, 52.222-34, 52.222-20)?

Perform engineering surveillance to assess compliance with contractual terms for schedule, cost, and technical performance in the areas of design, development, and production (FAR Subpart 42.302).

Has the contractor complied with Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data (see FAR Subpart 23.3, FAR Clauses 52.223-3)?

Has the contractor complied with specifications or other contractual requirements requiring the delivery or use of environmentally preferable products, energy-efficient products, products containing recovered materials, and biobased products (FAR Subparts 23.2, 23.4, 23.7)? Monitor the contractor's environmental practices for adverse impact on contract performance or contract cost, and for compliance with environmental requirements specified in the contract.

Has the contractor implemented an effective safety program; one which minimizes/mitigates potential accidents (FAR Subsection 36.513, FAR Clause 52.236-13)?

Is the contractor complying with affirmative action and EEO compliance requirements (see FAR Subpart 22.8, FAR Clauses 52.222-26, 52.222-27)?

Has the contractor complied with combating trafficking in persons (see FAR Subpart 22.17, FAR Clause 52.222-50)

Other areas – Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the contract or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Performance Based Evaluation: The Government will evaluate contractor performance based on their ability to complete work specified in the scope and PWS paragraphs 3.1 through 3.8. The contractor shall be evaluated using the following ratings:

Exceptional Performance: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

Satisfactory Performance: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects 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: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Quarterly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a quarterly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Regulatory Compliance, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (2).

Provide Operational Software Development and Maintenance Service IAW PWS Para 3.3.7 and 3.3.8

Provide Repair, Fabrication, and Restoration Services IAW PWS Para 3.3.13 and 3.3.14

Provide ATC&LS Training Services IAW PWS Para 3.3.15 and 3.3.16

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

Quality

Schedule

Number of Exceptional

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Number of Marginal

Number of Unsatisfactory

Cost Control

Management

Regulatory Compliance

Other Areas

Number of Unsatisfactory

Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure 2. This annual assessment will occur at the midpoint of each period and cover the previous 12 months, except for the first year of the contract, which will cover only the previous 6 months.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION-SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY