Attachment_2_SAC.pdf

JAPAN TSST SAC

17 April 2019

Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) for

JAPAN F-35 TECHNOLOGY SECURITY SUPPORT TEAM (TSST) SERVICES

IN SUPPORT OF

F-35 JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE (JPO)

The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) requires comprehensive National Industrial Security Operating Manual (NISPOM) multi-discipline security guidance and mentorship to the Japanese Ministry of Defense (JMoD), Acquisition Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA), Air Staff Office (ASO), and Japanese Industry Contractors, including prescribing security measures that deny unauthorized access to F-35 facilities, equipment, and resources, and protect personnel, information, and property from damage and/or loss of technology.

8 April 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Procuring Contracting Officer

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

ATTACHMENT 3: QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM – CUSTOMER COMPLAINT

INVESTIGATION

Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Statement of Work (SOW) entitled Japan F-35 Technology Security Support Team (TSST) Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines F-35 JPO will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the SAC is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The SAC provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the tasks delineated in the SOW.

1.1.2 This SAC defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project team (IPT), 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.

1.1.3 This contract requirement is for Japan TSST Services in direct support of the F-35 JPO.

Specifically, the contractor shall provide National Industrial Security Operating Manual (NISPOM) multi-discipline security guidance and mentorship to the Japanese Ministry of Defense (JMoD), Acquisition Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA), Air Staff Office (ASO), and Japanese Industry Contractors, TSST efforts shall include prescribing security measures that deny unauthorized access to F-35 facilities, equipment, and resources, and protect personnel, information, and property from damage and/or loss of technology. This level of effort based term contract will consist of Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) CLINs for Labor and Cost Reimbursable CLINs for travel. The anticipated period of performance includes a two year base period with three, one year option periods. The period of performance commences upon contract award. A properly executed SAC will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 This SAC will define the performance management approach taken by the F-35 JPO to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the SOW 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 (QC) program. 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 contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the SOW. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. The contractor’s QC program will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the SOW. This SAC enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Procuring 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's Representative (COR), Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR), Technical Point of Contact (TPOC), or Program Manager (PM) and the contractor. The PCO will designate one full-time COR and ACOR 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 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the PCO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a 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 have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

2.3 Alternate COR (ACOR) - An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative 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.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the SOW and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.”

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 primary methods of surveillance are:

Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR/ACOR.

100% Inspection – Each month, the COR/ACOR, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the Surveillance Activity Checklist.

Periodic Inspection – The COR/ACOR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

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, COR, ACOR], 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/ACOR. The COR/ACOR will accept those customer complaints and investigate using the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form – Customer Complaint Investigation, identified in Attachment 3.

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

4.3 Performance Thresholds

The performance thresholds included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance.

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 are expressed in the SOW and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachments 2 and 3. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results [or service or quality levels] are being achieved.

5.2.1 The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

The Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/performance thresholds have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels. Failure to meet the performance thresholds may result in a negative Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) assessment and/or the contractor ineligible for payment until satisfactory acceptance and inspection by the government.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each month, the COR/ACOR will prepare a written report for the PCO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (Attachment 2), will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR/ACOR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation.

The COR/ACOR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR/ACOR as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

Issues and concerns of both parties

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

6.3.2 The COR/ACOR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The COR/ACOR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action.

Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented.

Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the PCO.

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – An evaluation using the latest DoD CPARS guidance will be performed at the end of each year of performance. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of small business, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and future orders, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the SAC.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services (Tasks)

Performance Standards

Performance Threshold

Methods of

Surveillance

Incentive (Positive and/or

Negative) (Impact on Contractor Payments)

Provide qualified personnel for contract performance

SOW paragraph

5.0 and subparagraphs

Qualified personnel are in place for performance with minimal to no delays in performance start, unless previously negotiated by the

PCO

Performance is acceptable when:

Qualified personnel are in place within calendar 60 days of contract award

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR

and/or Government Project Leads

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a positive CPARS assessment

Retain key personnel with specified/ awarded qualifications

SOW paragraph

5.0 and subparagraphs

Effectively replaces/ substitutes key personnel

Performance is acceptable when:

Vacancies do not exceed 60 calendar days after date vacancy occurs to submission of replacement candidate to PM/COR for CO acceptance

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR

and/or Government Project Leads

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a

All secured facilities will meet the specific requirements as outlined in the Japan PSI, Japan AMCP, and ICD

705JAFAN 6/0

Avoids security violations

Performance is acceptable when:

A facility that the TSST has been tasked with assisting in preparation for an annual inspection receives a “satisfactory”

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR

and/or Government Project Leads

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a and DoD 5200.01 volumes 1-4

SOW paragraph

4.0 and subparagraphs ratings on items the TSST provided input to, unless the facility fails to implement the TSST’s suggestions positive CPARS assessment

Work with each security manager to ensure proper submission of required annual inventories, self-inspections and refresher training records subparagraphs

Timely submission of required documentation

Performance is acceptable when:

Annual inventories, self-inspections, and refresher training records are submitted in full within 30 calendar days of events

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR

and/or Government Project Leads

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a

Assist securing managers by reviewing and updating SOPs subparagraphs

Timely updates to SOPs

Performance is acceptable when:

SOP updates are approved by Government security personnel within 30 calendar days of request

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR

and/or Government Project Leads

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a

Annually visit facilities to assist in preparing for Security Compliance Inspections

Pre-inspection assistance

Performance is acceptable when:

The contractor performs an annual Special Assist Visit (SAV) to each Japanese Industry F-35 Program participant as

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR

and/or Government Project Leads

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a

4.0 and subparagraphs tasked, in preparation for a USG Security Compliance Inspection

Complete security-related taskings from Government F-

35 JPO

subparagraphs

Timely execution of taskings

Performance is acceptable when:

Contractor contacts facility to establish deployment date within 24 hours of receiving tasking, as long as that facility is available, to respond to the tasking

Correspondence with Japanese Government and industry partners / surveys

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a

Deliverables Management

SOW paragraph

4.0 and subparagraphs

Develop and submit all required deliverables

Performance is acceptable when:

100% of deliverable requirements are met and received on time

100% Inspection by

COR, ACOR

and/or Government Project Leads

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Contractor ineligible for payment until satisfactory acceptance and inspection by the government for Monthly Expenditure Report (MER).

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a

Customer Satisfaction

Overall SOW

Provides security input to Japanese Government and industry that demonstrably assists the Japanese in protection of F- 35 assets

Performance is acceptable when:

Japanese Government and industry indicate that TSST support is at a satisfactory level. This includes a) receipt of no complaints within a calendar year (excludes feedback adjudicated by USG personnel to be a misunderstanding)

b) results of surveys (telephone, email, written) indicate a “satisfactory” level of performance

Correspondence with Japanese Government and industry partners / surveys

Failure to meet the performance threshold may result in a negative CPARS assessment.

Exceeding the performance threshold may result in a assessment.

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

Monthly Quarterly As needed

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: ______ %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______% Service Provider’s Performance (Check): Meets Standards

Does Not Meet Standards Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________

ATTACHMENT 3: QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM – CUSTOMER

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

DATE/TIME COMPLAINT RECEIVED: __________________ ________ AM / PM

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT: (Name) (Organization)

(Phone Number) (E-Mail Address)

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

RESULTS OF COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION:

DATE/TIME SERVICE PROVIDER INFORMED OF COMPLAINT: _____________ _________

AM / PM

CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN BY SERVICE PROVIDER:

RECEIVED AND VALIDATED BY:

PREPARED BY: _________ DATE: ______________________

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – An evaluation using the latest DoD CPARS guidance will be performed at the end of each year of performance. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost contro...