Attachment 2 QASP.pdf

Controlled Document – When printed, this document is not controlled.

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1. Introduction

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the statement of work (SOW) entitled Alteration Installation Team (AIT) Support Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division (NSWC PHD), Ship Defense and Expeditionary Warfare Department will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

2. Purpose

This QASP is a Government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the Contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

What will be monitored How monitoring will take place Who will conduct the monitoring How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan. The QASP provides the structure for the Government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s Quality Control Plan. This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance.

The Government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances might occur that are outside the control of the contractor.

Bottom line, the QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance.

3. Performance Management Approach

This QASP will define the management approach taken by the Ship Defense Expeditionary Warfare Department to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or objectives communicated in the SOW are achieved.

3.1 Performance Management Strategy

The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. Quality control is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated Government representative.

The Government’s evaluation of contractor performance will be covered in a yearly CPARs report completed by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) no later than 120 days following the conclusion of each 12-month period of performance for the contract base/option year being exercised. The evaluation will encompass all work performed by the contractor within the duration of the 12-month period of performance. This evaluation will not include any cumulative information from prior reports. At the end of each period of performance, the Government will utilize data from regular surveillance conducted by the COR through guidance from the CPARs program, Technical Program evaluation, CDRLs, and contractor self-assessments in order to determine performance ratings/standards for the CPARs report. The contractor self-assessments will be required as part of the performance evaluations discussed with the COR during regular Quarterly Performance Review (QPR) meetings.

4. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Inspection of Services clauses, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract or order. This acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized representative.

5. Roles & Responsibilities

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides primary program oversight, nominates the COR, ensures the COR is trained before performing any COR duties and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. While the PM may serve as a direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the contractor on technical matters, they are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or any contract changes on the Government’s behalf.

Assigned PM: Bridget Grajeda

Organization or Agency: NSWC PHD, Code S31 Telephone: (805) 228-5249 Email: bridget.grajeda@navy.mil

Contracting Officer (KO) – The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Assigned KO: Joel Walor Organization or Agency: NSWC PHD, Code 024 Telephone: (805) 330-0393 Email: joel.walor@navy.mil

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

Assigned COR: Jaqueline Medina Organization or Agency: NSWC PHD, Code S032 Telephone: 805-228-5947 Email: jaqueline.medina@navy.mil

6. Performance Requirements & Method of Surveillance

6.1 Contract Surveillance

The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance.

Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control (QC) to successfully meet the terms of the contract. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors.

The Government will assess performance using Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS) to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. CPARS assesses a contractor’s performance, both positive and negative, and provides a record on a given contract during a specified period of time. More information pertaining to CPARS can be found at: https://www.cpars.gov/. Each assessment will be based on objective data (or measurable, subjective data when objective data is not available) supportable by program and contract management data. Potential sources of data may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Contractor operations reviews Status and progress reviews Production and management reviews Management and engineering process reviews (e.g. risk management, requirements management, etc.)

Cost performance reports and other cost and schedule metrics Other program measures and metrics such as:

o Measures of progress and status of critical resources o Measures of product quality and process performance o Customer feedback/comments and satisfaction ratings

Systems engineering and other technical progress reviews Physical and functional configuration audits Quality reviews and quality assurance evaluations Functional performance evaluations Subcontract Reports

6.2 Contractor Surveillance

The Performance Ratings and Standards (Table (1)) and Monthly Surveillance Matrix (Table (2)) list the performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. Table

(2) details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect performance.

Inspection of each performance standard will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance standards.

6.3 Methodologies to Monitor Performance

6.3.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate the contractor performance when appropriate. The COR may use the following methods of surveillance:

Periodic Inspection

100% Inspection User/Customer Complaints

6.3.2 Customer Feedback

Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints. Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must state clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints, investigate and work with the KO and the contractor to resolve the issue.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

7. Documenting Performance

7.1 Performance Management

The COR shall maintain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to contract performance in the COR file for the life of this contract.

7.2 Monitoring System

The Government’s QA surveillance will be reported in CPARS annually, at a minimum.

7.2.1 Surveillance of Performance Standards/Quality Level

Table (1) provides the overall performance ratings and standards used in rating the contractor’s CPARS. Table (2) provides the monthly surveillance matrix containing four (4) major rating criteria that the Government will use to measure monthly contractor’s performance. The average of these four (4) ratings will be used to assign the contractor’s performance rating for the reporting period CPARS. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level at the end of the reporting period, the contractor will receive positive preliminary QASP and CPARS ratings. If the contractor fails to meet the required performance level at the end of the reporting period, the result will be negative QASP and CPARS ratings. If the contractor fails to meet the required performance level based on the preliminary review, the Government may not exercise the next Option period under the contract. “Meeting the required performance level” means that the contractor must receive at least an average Satisfactory rating (see Table (1)) for each of the four (4) major rating criteria in Table (2) for the performance period being evaluated.

The contractor performance will be measured on an annual basis, at a minimum, by the Government and depending upon performance, the contractor will receive either a positive or negative CPARS rating. CPARS ratings are used for future source selection evaluations.

Table (1): Performance Ratings and Standards

PERFORMANCE RATINGS STANDARD

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The criteria being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet implemented satisfactory corrective measures.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Contractor’s corrective actions to date are ineffective.

8. Analysis of Quality Assurance Assessment

8.1 Determining Performance

The COR will be assigned as the CPARS Assessing Official Representative (AOR) to assess contractor performance and draft the evaluation in CPARS to include assignment of ratings and timely, accurate, quality, and complete narratives to support each criteria assessed.

The required performance objectives and standards, as well as, the acceptable quality levels are included in Table (2) of the QASP. Meeting or exceeding the required performance will earn the contractor a Satisfactory or higher CPARS rating; failing to meet the required performance will earn the contractor a less than Satisfactory CPARS rating. Evaluation areas include timeliness and quality of services and deliverables, cost control and reporting, management, and communiction.

8.2 Reviews and Resolution

The Contracting Officer will be assigned as the Assessing Official (AO) to review the AOR’s evaluation for concurrence before signing and submitting to the contractor via CPARS. Upon review and signature of the CPARS the contractor will be notified and given the opportunity to review and comment to indicate concurrence/non-concurrence. If the contractor does not concur, the Reviewing Official (RO) shall review all relevant documentation and will work to resolve disagreements between the COR’s recommendations and the contractor’s comments/report regarding the evaluation. The NSWC PHD Chief of the Contracting Office will be assigned as the RO. The RO’s performance determination is unilateral and final. The RO will document the determination and provide a copy to the contractor via CPARS.

Table (2): Monthly Surveillance Matrix

Criteria Performance

Objective Performance

Standard

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Method of Evaluation

Frequency of Evaluation

-Technical Quality

-Submission of deliverables is timely.

-Documents are in the specified format.

-Documents are readable, clear, and accurate.

-Timeliness, accuracy, and quality.

-At least 95% of the time deliverables are submitted on time and in the format required with only minor corrections to documents required 10% of the time or less.

-Government evaluation of deliverables received in accordance with each

CDRL

submission date.

-Assessed with each deliverable and documented quarterly.

-Cost Reporting -All deliverables and invoices regarding incurred costs are accurate and timely.

-All deliverables meet contract requirements as to content and submission schedule.

-Detailed variance reports are provided.

-Progress and expenditure reports are timely and accurate.

-Reported and invoiced costs are accurate and timely.

-Government review of Monthly Progress reports.

-Monthly.

Criteria Performance

Objective Performance

Standard

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Method of Evaluation

Frequency of Evaluation

-Contract Management

-Contractor implements management approach described in their proposal.

-Contract management is proactive and effective.

-At least 20% of the work (measured in funded dollars) is performed by Small Business.

- Contractor management is responsive to Government input and/or concerns.

- Effective communication processes are in place.

- Contractor is proactive in addressing performance issues.

- Meets or exceeds Small Business participation goals provided in subcontracting plan.

-Government intervention is rarely, if ever, necessary to address performance issues.

-Small Business participation goal (including sub-categories) is met 100% of the time during contract performance.

-Continuous review by Government personnel based on Monthly Progress report data.

-Monthly.

-Customer Responsiveness

-Timely addressal of customer inquiries and discrepancy notifications.

-Quality (timely, professional, accurate, etc.).

-90% of the customer feedback received or obtained is positive.

-COR will solicit or receive feedback from customers regarding contractor’s quality of support.

-Randomly and documented semi-annually.