Attachment_02_-_CSP_QASP.docx

Solicitation #N00421-19-R-0003

QASP/CSP

Enclosure (6)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and Contract Surveillance Plan for Irregular Air Platform Engineering

1. Purpose This requirement consists of both performance based and non-performance based orders; therefore, a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and a Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) are both required. The QASP/CSP is used to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance standards and definitions/metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

This hybrid QASP/CSP is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration and surveillance of performance based and non-performance based tasking under the contract. The intent is to ensure the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance based standards and definitions and non-performance based required Level of Effort (LOE), and the Government receives the quality of services called for in each Task Order (TO) Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Statement of Work (SOW).

The contract requirement is to procure services in support of the integration of airborne capabilities to include, but not limited to, sensors, communications systems, weapons systems and control technologies for a variety of manned and unmanned airborne platforms. Specifically, requirements will include, but not limited to, project management, research, analysis, design, parts and materials procurement, installation/integration, test and evaluation, user/maintainer training, and on-demand operational support of urgent limited objective experiments. The resultant contract is anticipated to be Single Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract that will include Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) tasking. The contract ordering period will consist of four (4) years 364 days.

A properly executed QASP/CSP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Authority Authority for issuance of this hybrid surveillance document is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in the contract, which will be 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 QASP/CSP. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for the Quality Control Plan, which defines the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in the contract and all resultant orders.

The hybrid QASP/CSP provides Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure they are timely, effective and delivering the results specified in the contract and each 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. KOs are designated via a written warrant that 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 contract. The limitations of authority are contained in the 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 Lead (GPL): The COR designates an individual GPL to assist in administering of specific efforts under the contract.

5. Responsibilities The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this hybrid QASP/CSP surveillance plan:

KO: The KO (either the PCO or ACO) ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguards the interests of the U.S. in the contractual relationship. The KO 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.

Enclosures (1) through (3) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor, the COR/ACOR, and the GPL while enclosures (4) through (6) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance and will be provided to the KO.

8. Documentation In addition to providing reports to the KO, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the quality assurance function, including the originals of the Surveillance Activity Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR shall forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the contract.

9. Enclosures Enclosure (1) Quality Standards by PWS (Performance Based) / SOW (Non-Performance Based) Enclosure (2) CDRL Data Quality Standards (Performance Based) Enclosure (3) Incentives Enclosure (4) Surveillance Activity Checklist (Level of Effort and Performance Based) Enclosure (5) Contract Surveillance by CDRLs (Level of Effort and Performance Based) Solicitation #N00421-19-R-0003

QASP/CSP

Solicitation #N00421-19-R-0003

QASP/CSP

Enclosure (6) Annual Surveillance Summary

ENCLOSURE (1)

QUALITY STANDARDS BY PWS – PERFORMANCE BASED

See Enclosure (3)

See Enclosure (3)

See Enclosure (3)

QUALITY STANDARDS BY SOW – NON-PERFORMANCE BASED

See Enclosure (3)

See Enclosure (3)

See Enclosure (3)

See Enclosure (3)

Solicitation #N00421-19-R-0003

Enclosure (1)

ENCLOSURE (2)

CDRL DATA QUALITY STANDARDS (PERFORMANCE BASED AND LEVEL OF EFFORT)

Method/ Measure Incentives

System/ Equipment Specifications A007

Report, Record of Meeting/ Minutes A017

Technical Manual Verification Discrepancy/ Disposition Record A028

Scientific & Technical Reports Summary, Computer-Aided Design/ Manufacturing (CAD/CAM Data) A033

Enclosure (2)

ENCLOSURE (3)

INCENTIVES

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

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

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

End of the fourth assessment period evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

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

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

Final CPAR Review

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

*The Government may not award additional tasking (orders) unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

All PWS/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 efforts, 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. If applicable, identify any other management areas that are unique to the contract.

Utilization of Small Business – Assess the contractor’s success in utilizing and meeting small business goals/concerns.

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

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Exceptional (5). Contractor’s performance meets contract requirements and significantly exceeds contract requirements to the Government's benefit. For example, the contractor implemented innovative business process reengineering techniques, which resulted in added value to the Government. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good (4). Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory (3). Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements meets the acceptable standards with some tangible or intangible benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, 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 unsatisfactory performance in other areas.

Marginal (2). Contractor’s performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has submitted minimal corrective actions, if any. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory (1). Contractor’s performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely or cost effective manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Solicitation #N00421-19-R-0003

QASP/CSP

Enclosure (3) For Level of Effort TOs, hours delivered by each order as compared to the order required hours will be evaluated and will influence the ratings awarded above. Cost variances greater than 10% cannot earn an Exceptional or Very Good for Cost Control evaluation criteria.

ENCLOSURE (4)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST – LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERFORMANCE BASED

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 PWS/SOW

Control Business Relations

of Small Business Other

PMT # N00421-18-RFPREQ-4K0000T-0004

Attachment 02 - CSP QASP Enclosure (4) Solicitation #N00421-19-R-0003

Enclosure (4)

ENCLOSURE (5)

QUARTERLY EVALUATION BY CDRLS, FORM DD 1423

System/ Equipment Specifications A007 100% inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPL

Report, Record of Meeting/ Minutes A017 100% inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPL

Technical Manual Verification Discrepancy/ Disposition Record A028 100% inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPL

Scientific & Technical Reports Summary, Computer-Aided Design/ Manufacturing (CAD/CAM Data) A033 100% inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or GPL

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 (5)

ENCLOSURE (6)

ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE SUMMARY:

The COR will perform an annual 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.

Measure

Annual Surveillance Completed By:

Date Completed: