Attachment_4_CSP.pdf

Solicitation: N00421-19-R-0018

Attachment 4

Contract: TBD at Award

Date: TBD at Award

Source Selection Information 1 For Official Use Only

See FAR 3.104 and 2.101

Contract Surveillance Plan Checklist for NAWC-AD 6.8.4 “Enterprise Information

Technology (IT) Portfolio, Program Management and Lifecycle Support Services”

1. Purpose

This Contract Surveillance Plan (CSP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure systematic quality assurance (QA) assessment methods are used in the administration of the Statement of Work (SOW). The intent is to ensure that the

Government receives the quality of services and products for tasks identified in the SOW.

The Naval Air Warfare Center - Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), Readiness & Resource

Analysis Department (AIR-6.8.4) has a requirement for fleet readiness support services.

This requirement will support the functional management of NAVAIR IT Initiatives and focus on enterprise level program management for the NAVAIR Sustainment Vision

(SV2020) Initiatives and the Aviation Logistics Enterprise (ALE) inclusive of the following commodity lines; Product Data Management (PDM) and Product Lifecycle

Management (PLM), Tactical Maintenance and Operations (TMO), Data Warehouse and

Decision Support, and Enterprise Services and Infrastructure. Additional management governance support will include the Marine Aviation Logistics – Enterprise IT (MAL-

EIT) Family of Systems (FoS) and the Naval Operational Business Logistics Enterprise

(NOBLE) Family of Programs including the Naval Aviation Maintenance System

(NAMS).

This contract will be a Single Award IDIQ contract. The Government cannot predetermine, above the specified minimum and below specified ceiling, the precise quantities of services that the Government will require during the contract period, and thus it is inadvisable for the Government to commit itself for more than a minimum quantity. Task orders issued under this IDIQ are anticipated to utilize a combination of

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) for labor, Cost for ODCs, and Not Separately Priced (NSP) contract line items (CLINs) for data.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this CSP 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, to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative, in this case the Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COR).

Source Selection Information 2 For Official Use Only

3. Scope

The CSP is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the quality 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 Lynn Kaniss. 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, at the basic contract level, in the resulting contract. 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 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.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

Source Selection Information 3 For Official Use Only

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) - The market place for range operation and technical service is very competitive. As such, the successful Offeror has a vested interest in the Government-generated

CPARS ratings under this contract. For this procurement the Government will address the quality of products and services, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool.

b. CSP Checklist - The form below lists the methods of surveillance that will be used by the COR in the technical administration of the SOW tasks performed by the contractor.

c. Observation, Feedback, and Review - Unscheduled observation of products and services provided by the contractor on site and recurring review of contractor submitted reports and documentation identified in the CDRL will be performed by the COR. Feedback from activity personnel will be collected and used by the

COR to document surveillance of technical performance.

7. Surveillance

The CPS Checklist, Enclosure (1), will be provided to the contractor on a monthly basis, as feedback on the performance of their management and quality control actions for the services and products provided under the contract.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing an annual report 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 SAC. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR will forward these records to the

Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) - CSP Checklist

Enclosure (2) - Annual Surveillance Checklist

Source Selection Information 4 For Official Use Only

Enclosure (1)

CONTRACT SUREVEILLANCE PLAN (CSP) CHECKLIST

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 (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 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.

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.

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

For Official Use Only

Source Selection Sensitive – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Monthly Surveillance:

The COR will perform a monthly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed below:

Exceptional - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

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 Sensitive – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Description Surveillance Method/

Measure

Date

Planned

Date

Completed Quality Schedule

Cost

Control

Business

Relations Mgmt. Other

Program Management Support

(SOW section 3.3.1) Surveillance by COR and feedback 60 DAC

Lifecycle Logistics (SOW section 3.3.2) Surveillance by COR and feedback 60 DAC

Business Process Improvement

(SOW section 3.3.3) Surveillance by COR and feedback 60 DAC

Functional Assessment/Data/Gap Analysis (SOW section 3.3.4) Surveillance by COR and feedback 60 DAC

Requirements Engineering

(SOW section 3.3.5) Surveillance by COR and feedback 60 DAC

Test and Evaluation (SOW section 3.3.6) Surveillance by COR and feedback 60 DAC

Cybersecurity and Informational Assurance

(SOW section 3.3.7) Surveillance by COR and feedback 60 DAC

Technology Support (SOW section 3.3.8) Surveillance by COR and feedback 60 DAC

Basic Contract Data Deliverables

(SOW 3.1.3) 100% Inspection by COR

IAW

DD1423

Task Order Data Deliverables (SOW 3.1.4) 100% Inspection by COR

IAW

DD1423

Monthly 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 Business Relations

Number of Very Good ____ Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____ Number of Satisfactory ____

Management Other Areas

Number of Very Good ____ Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____ Number of Satisfactory ____

Utilization of Small Business

Number of Exceptional ____

Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____

Number of Marginal ____

Number of Unsatisfactory ____

Enclosure (2)

Annual Surveillance Checklist

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the

CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (1) and the monthly summary of ratings.

Description Surveillance Method / Measure Date Planned Date Completed Summary Results

Quality of Product or Service Review of Quarterly Ratings. 365 DAC

Schedule Review of Quarterly Ratings. 365 DAC

Cost Control Review of Quarterly Ratings 365 DAC

Business Relations Review of Quarterly Ratings 365 DAC

Management Review of Quarterly Ratings 365 DAC

Other Areas Review of Quarterly Ratings 365 DAC