Attachment_1_-_QASP_Final.docx

QASP-PMA290F

16 NOV 2015

QASP-PMA290F

16 NOV 2015

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) Taiwan P-3C

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALITY LEVELS

Enclosure (3) – Incentives 13

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This QASP is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Based Statement of Work (PBSOW) entitled “Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) Taiwan P-3C” in support of the P-3C Engine / Propeller, Avionic Acoustic, Avionic Non-Acoustic, Electrical, Airframes / Hydraulic / Survival / Environmental and Logistics Supply.” This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that the NAVAIR PMA290F Taiwan P-3C Program, Code 6.6.1.9, will use in ensuring the required performance standards or service levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project team, identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PBSOW structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the NAVIAR PMA 290F 6.6.1.9 to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PBSOW are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own Quality Control Plan (QCP). 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’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and performance requirements in the PBSOW. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QCP.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) 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: http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsfiles/pdfs/DoD-CPARS-Guide.pdf 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. CPARS performance expectations will be addressed in the Government and contractor’s initial post-award meeting. 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:

· Measures of progress and status of critical resources

· Measures of product size and stability

· Measures of product quality and process performance

· Customer feedback/comments and satisfaction ratings

· Systems engineering and other technical progress reviews

· Technical interchange meetings

· Physical and functional configuration audits

· Quality reviews and quality assurance evaluations

· Functional performance evaluations

· Subcontract Reports

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and the contractor. The PCO will designate one full-time COR as the government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the PCO.

2.2 Focal Point (FP):

The FP is responsible for:

2.3 Assessing Official (AO)

The COR is designated in writing by the PCO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. The COR will act as the AO and will have the responsibility for preparing and processing the CPAR. CORs are encouraged to discuss contract performance with the contractor during the performance period and CPAR process.

Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract. The AO’s responsibilities include:

1) Overall responsibility for execution and achievement of program goals

2.4 CPAR Reviewing Official

The RO is the Division Manager of the Requiring Technical Activity and is responsible for:

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and quality levels are included in enclosure 1, “Performance Standards”. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, the contractor will receive positive CPARS ratings. If the contractor fails to meet the required performance level, the result will be negative CPARS ratings.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

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

· Random monitoring

· 100% Inspection

· Periodic Inspection

· Customer Survey

· User/Customer Complaints

4.2 Customer Feedback

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the PCO, as opposed to the contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth 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 PCO and 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.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs)

The AQLs included in enclosure 1 for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards and performance monitoring techniques are expressed in enclosure 1.

5.2 Monitoring System

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the AO, will be reported using CPARS. CPARS evaluations shall be conducted on an annual basis. Additionally, the COR will document contractor performance and any issues in the Wide Area Work Flow COR Tracking Tool on a monthly basis.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards and AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, the contractor will receive a negative CPARS review.

6.2 Reviews and Resolution

6.2.1 Upon review and signature of the CPAR by the AO 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 RO shall resolve significant discrepancies between the AO’s evaluation and the contractor’s comments.

7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Enclosures 1 and 2 below provides standards that will be used to measure contractor performance. Enclosure 3 lists incentives that shall apply to performance under this contract. The contractor performance will be measured on an annual basis by the AO and depending upon performance, the contractor will receive either a positive or negative CPARS rating. CPARS ratings are used for future source selection evaluations.

(ENCLOSURE 1)

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Enclosure (2)

DATA STANDARDS

Enclosure (3)

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of Option 1.*

Option 1:

All measurement areas rated “Satisfactory”. See below.

Midpoint of the assessment period (18 month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option. 2.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option. 2.*

Option 2:

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory”. Three or more measurements rated either “Very Good” or “Exceptional”. See below.

Midpoint of the assessment period (30 month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of option 3*.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option 3.*

Option 3:

All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory”. Three or more measurements rated either “Very Good” or “Exceptional”. See below.

Midpoint of the assessment period (42 month) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option 4.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option 4.*

*The Government will not exercise options unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

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 for the Cost type Contract Line Items. 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.

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

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

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.

9 | Page