N68335-19-R-0015_Attachment_1_QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed document used to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the Commander Fleet Readiness Center (COMFRC) MAC Delivery Orders (DOs) / Task Orders (TOs). The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. The intent is to ensure the contractor performs in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) and meets acceptable quality level (AQL) performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of supplies/services called for in the contract.

Since no specific tasks are accomplished at the contract level, but rather are done so at the DO/TO level, this QASP provides overall guidance and recommended enclosures for executing the DO/TO specific QASP. Guidance includes how the Government will observe, evaluate and document the contractor’s performance in meeting the critical performance standards identified in the specific DO/TO SOW or Performance Work Statement (PWS) and QASP. The QASP will identify the Government personnel responsible for monitoring performance and surveillance methods that will be utilized in determining the quality level of supplies/services delivered under the contract.

Specific DO/TO QASPs should not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP should be created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. This document may be changed at any time upon review and approval by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), and supported by the SOW. The COR will review the QASP and coordinate changes with the contractor, when necessary. Updates shall ensure the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the PCO / Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

2. AUTHORITY

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 46 of the Inspection of Services clauses provides authority for issuing this and DO/TO with QASPs. QASPs will include inspection, acceptance, and documentation of the service required under the DO/TO. Acceptance will be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized representative.

3. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) – Individuals appointed to enter into procurement (PCO) or administration (ACO) of contracts make related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO and ACO ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract and safe-guards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. They are responsible for the final determination and documentation of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance. The PCO will issue a delegation letter detailing all responsibilities of the ACO. The ACO will communicate on a regular basis decisions made and provide copies of all administrative modifications on to the PCO.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as the authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment. The COR will be appointed in the resulting DO/TOs. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government's behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems as affecting contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor's performance and reporting early identification of performance problems to the PCO/ACO. The COR will track and provide data with respect to performance against the Performance Measurement Framework. This data will be provided to the ACO on a monthly basis.

Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) – When assigned in writing, a QAR conducts Government quality assurance surveillance oversight, ensures the contractor is in compliance with contractual requirements, evaluates and documents contractor performance, follows up with the contractor on documented deficiencies, and provides input to the COR.

Other Personnel Task order specific QASPs will assign other personnel to oversee and coordinate surveillance activities. This may include performance monitors, inspectors, technical experts, or others who provide information that helps the COR monitor contractor performance.

4. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES

DO/TO specific QASPs will list employees of the contractor who are formally identified as the contractor’s direct representatives.

5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance standards define desired supplies and services. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards. The Government will use these standards to determine contractor performance and compare contractor performance to the acceptable quality level (AQL). Enclosure (1) is a sample performance standards matrix that can be used in a DO/TO specific QASP.

6. METHODS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

Various methods exist to monitor performance. The method for any given task will depend on the performance standard and AQL. The COR shall use the surveillance methods delineated in the task order specific QASP. The task order specific QASP will include a performance standards matrix that lists the performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor in accordance with the individual task order PWS, a sample performance standards matrix is provide at Enclosure 1.

The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements and documented. Enclosures (3) through (5) are the forms used to capture and report corrective actions, performance assessments, and contractor complaints. Enclosure (6) provides definitions for evaluation areas/ratings. Overall, the COR and ACO will use enclosures (1) through (8) to administer this contract.

Regardless of the surveillance method, the COR shall always contact the contractor's task manager or on-site representative when a defect is identified and inform the manager of the specifics of the problem. The COR shall be responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in meeting a specific performance standard/AQL.

7. RATINGS

Metrics and methods used are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and AQL. In evaluating the quality of the contractor’s performance, the tasks order specific QASP will define the rating to be used during evaluations. Enclosure (6), Definitions for Evaluation Areas and Ratings (Sample), is provided as a sample that can be used to annotate evaluation ratings.

8. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE

8.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS)

The market place is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) rating under this contract. The COR is required to provide annual performance assessments in the Navy’s CPARS, which will be used in documenting past performance. This evaluation will be one determinant in issuance of additional DO/TOs. The Government assessment for this procurement will address the quality of product or service, 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 with the QASP.

8.2 Government Inspections. The Government QAR will perform inspections to ensure contractor compliance with the appropriate paragraphs of the SOW, other Government requirements, and the contractor’s own procedures, and will record the results of the inspections.

All SOW tasks may be inspected on any appropriate basis, at a frequency determined primarily by the COR/program manager and/or at the direction of the PCO.

8.2.1 Acceptable Performance

The Government shall document positive performance. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for fixed fee payments, or other actions.

8.2.2 Unacceptable Performance

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case, the COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file. When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Contract Action Requests (CAR) and present it to the contractor's task manager or on-site representative. The CAR form is at enclosure (3) of this QASP.

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing. The contractor shall be given a reasonable time after notification to correct the unacceptable performance. The contractor shall notify the COR if the time allowed for correction is not adequate.

The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. The COR will not consider the corrective action(s) complete until all deficiencies have been corrected and determined by the quality assurance representative (QAR) to be adequate (government follow up).

Contractor non-responsiveness, deficiencies not adequately addressed or corrected, or estimated dates of completion that are not acceptable to the Government QAR will be forwarded to the COR and PCO/ACO for action.

8.3 Corrective Action Requests (CAR)

The COR will maintain overall visibility of all CARs and will follow up to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the contractor’s actions before CAR close out. The level of CAR issued depends on the nonconformance in terms of severity, frequency, and previous corrective actions. If the contractor is not responsive to lower-level CARs, the COR will escalate the matter. CARs may become part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, incentive fee nonpayment, or other actions deemed necessary by the PCO/ACO.

When written, CARs must be specific in identifying the exact deficiency and the contractor personnel with whom the deficiency was discussed. All written CARs will require the contractor to identify the root cause of the deficiency, action taken to correct the specific deficiency, action taken to prevent recurrence, action taken to determine if other products/aircraft are affected by same/similar deficiencies, and the date when the corrective action will be implemented. The Government QAR will perform a follow-up audit to assure that the corrective action has effectively resolved the deficiency.

A Corrective Action Log shall be established by the COR to maintain and track CARs issued to the contractor. CARs shall be recorded and tracked by a control number.

XXXXXX - Contract Number TBA CY - Calendar Year (i.e., 2019, 2020, etc.)

XXXX – Site CAR issued to 01 – First CAR for the calendar year

9. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT

9.1. Frequency of Measurement. All inspection records, observations, monthly reports, CARs, and other pertinent data will be reviewed monthly by the COR to analyze whether the negotiated frequency of measurement is appropriate for the work being performed. This does not preclude the necessity of adjusting surveillance due to specific incidents or deficiencies noted. The review should include at a minimum a description of the data analyzed, a description of the conclusions/results, and actions planned/taken. These reviews will be documented and records maintained by the COR.

If one or more standards are unsatisfactory, further evaluation is required to determine if the contractor's overall performance is unsatisfactory. The COR will assess the results of each performance standard, taking into consideration the importance and criticality of each in relation to the total service being evaluated. The COR will document the overall evaluation.

The COR will immediately notify the contractor as to whether work performance has been satisfactory or not. If the contractor's performance is unsatisfactory, a CAR should be issued and other actions, such as increasing the level of surveillance, may be considered.

9.2. Frequency of Performance Assessment Meetings. The COR shall meet with the contractor quarterly to assess performance and shall provide a written assessment.

10. RECORD RETENTION

In addition to providing quarterly reports to the PCO and ACO, the COR will maintain a complete quality assurance file. The file will contain all copies of reports, evaluations, recommendations and actions related to the Government’s performance of the quality assurance function. Particular emphasis should be placed on deficiencies and corrective actions, procedural disapprovals, and rejection of product.

Surveillance records must be retained for a minimum of one year after completion of the end item. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR will forward these records to the PCO and ACO at termination or completion of the contract.

ENCLOSURE 1 – PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (SAMPLE)

Description Surveillance Method/ Measure

Date Planned Date Completed Summary Rating/Results

Quality of Product or Service Review of Monthly Ratings. TBD

Schedule Review of Monthly Ratings. TBD

Cost Control Review of Monthly Ratings TBD

Business Relations Review of Monthly Ratings TBD

Management Review of Monthly Ratings TBD

Other Areas Review of Monthly Ratings TBD

ENCLOSURE 2 – PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES (SAMPLE)

Assessment Period

Acceptable Performance

Definition

How Measured

Incentives

Year 1 All measurement areas rated “Satisfactory” or above. See enclosure (6).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Contractor receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 2 All measurement areas rated “Satisfactory” or above. See enclosure (6).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Contractor receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 3 All measurement areas rated “Satisfactory” or above. See enclosure (6).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Contractor receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 4 All measurement areas rated “Satisfactory” or above. See enclosure (6).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Contractor receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 5 All measurement areas rated “Satisfactory” or above. See enclosure (6).

Annually (+) Contractor receives a positive assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Contractor receives a negative assessment (CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

ENCLOSURE 3 - CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY MAJOR MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

ACCEPTED REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

ENCLOSURE 4 - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER NUMBER 2. CONTRACTOR 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE

5. COR PHONE 6. SUSPENSE DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. DEFICIENCY

(CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

NEW

REPEAT

NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY OR PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM

REVIEWED

9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY

(IF DEFICIENCY BOX WAS CHECKED)

10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE

CONCUR NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION

DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON

FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. CONCUR NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

16. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

ENCLOSURE 5 - CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

ENCLOSURE (6) - DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION AREAS AND RATINGS

(SAMPLE)

1. EVALUATION AREAS. All tasks (which include sub-task and specific emphasis) will be assessed focusing on the following:

Quality of Product or Service

Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). Include, as applicable, a discussion of the accuracy of reports/data; the extent to which the products/services provided meet the specifications of the contract; the extent to which the contractor’s work measures up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards; and the degree of Government technical direction 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. This assessment of the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule should include the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. This element applies to contract closeout activities as well as contract performance

Cost Control Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost.

Include, as applicable, a discussion of the contractor’s ability to perform within the total estimated cost (what is the relationship of the negotiated costs and budgeted costs to actuals);

innovative approaches implemented by the contractor that resulted in cost savings; the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of invoices; and the adequacy of the contractor’s budgetary internal controls.

Business Relations

Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts. Include, as applicable, a discussion of customer orientation displayed by the contractor; degree of satisfaction with amount of interaction between the contractor and the government; 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; timeliness of awards to subcontractors and management of subcontractors, including subcontractor costs; 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; and the amount of prime contractor effort devoted to managing subcontracts and whether the subcontractors were an integral part of the contractor’s team.

Management of Key Personnel

Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel. Include, as appropriate, a discussion of how well the contractor matched the qualifications of key positions, as described in the contract, with the personnel who filled the positions; whether the contractor supported key personnel so they were able to work effectively; corrective actions taken by the contractor in the event key personnel did not perform well; and extent to which replacements for key personnel met or exceeded the qualifications of the position as described in the contract.

Utilization of Small Business

Assess whether the contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for Small Business to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract. Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to Small Business participation, including FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Businesses, FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), and DFARS 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Assess any small business participation goals which are stated separately in the contract. Assess achievement on each individual goal stated within the contract or subcontracting plan, including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved.

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

EVALUATION RATINGS.

2.1 Evaluation Ratings (excluding Utilization of Small Business)

Rating Definition Note Exceptional 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.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, how- ever, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good 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 were effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government.

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory 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.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

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.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government.

A Marginal rating should be sup- ported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory 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.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).