13-R-0011 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.doc

N68936-13-R-0011 Attachment (2)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Aircraft Electronic Warfare Weapons Systems Modification 1.

Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the performance based services under the planned contract. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

This contract requirement, as defined in the performance work statement (PWS) is to identify and understand emerging Electro-Magnetic threats and to outpace those threats by delivering advanced fully integrated Electronic Warfare capabilities to the fleet. This will be completed by establishing the requirements to conduct Electronic Warfare (EW) weapons systems modifications to include weapon system software, on-call field engineering analysis, test and evaluation, studies and analysis, threat analysis and sensor intelligence mission data files, jammer techniques development and logistics for distribution of Operational Flight Programs (OFPs) to the Fleet. EW programs to be modified under this contract include: EA-6B, EA-18G, E-2C, MH-60R, BAMS, P-8A, Unmanned Air Systems, flight simulators, training systems, other advanced electronic attack derivatives and initiatives, including Foreign Military Sales (FMS). These requirements will be provided within the AEA IPT located at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division (NAWCWD), Point Mugu, California.

It is anticipated that this performance based requirement will be met by issuing a contract with a PWS. The contract will be for a total of five years. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2.

Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided by Contract Section E Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in the contract, to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3.

Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between Quality Assurance Plan and the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The Contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract.

The QASP on the other hand, is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight 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 AIR 2.5.4.3. 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 in the resulting contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Technical Assistant (TA) – A Subject Matter Expert identified by the COR to provide technical assistance in technical evaluations of proposals and in monitoring progress and quality of contractor performance and associated work products.

5.

Responsibilities

The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this QASP:

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 (COR) – 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 a.

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) –An evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed annually for the contract. The Government 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, the annual Government assessment will be performed appropriately following the surveillance methods and measurements stated in this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

b.

QASP - The methods of surveillance, stated in enclosure (1) shall be used by the COR in the technical administration of this QASP. In addition, the form to be used for documenting the contract’s quality assurance surveillance for the semiannual reviews is the Surveillance Activity Checklist provided as Enclosure (3) herein.

7.

Surveillance

Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor. The Contract Performance Evaluation Survey (enclosure 4) provides a means for the COR to document on a semiannual basis the results of the surveillance for the contract. The COR’s semiannual assessment for the contract will be documented in enclosure (3), Surveillance Activity Checklist, and provided to the Contracting Officer on a semiannual basis.

8.

Documentation

In addition to providing semiannual reports to the Contracting Officer and annual performance assessments in CPARS, 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 Quality Assurance Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer semi-annually to ensure there is communication with the contractor in regards to their performance. The Contracting Officer will retain the records in the contract file to document contractor performance history.

9.

Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – Performance Based Quality Standards Enclosure (2) – Data Performance Standards

Enclosure (3) – Incentives

Enclosure (4) – Surveillance Activity Checklist

PERFORMANCE-BASED QUALITY STANDARDS

AIRCRAFT ELECTRONIC WARFARE WEAPONS SYSTEMS MODIFICATIONS

Provide Weapons System Software, which includes systems engineering, tactical data links, software development, software process improvement, software requirements, and software life cycle maintenance.

PWS Paragraph 3.1

Contractor delivers products and/or services on or before agreed-to schedules in accordance with the PWS, the Naval Systems Engineering Guide and individual Task Orders (TOs).

Satisfactory weapons systems software systems engineering is defined as all analysis, design development, fabrication of the new and existing EW laboratories, prototyping, integration, test, evaluation, repair, maintenance, and documentation of hardware development and installation of physical laboratory assets, software and firmware is completed as required in individual TOs 95% of the time.

Satisfactory design and development of software and engineering tools is defined as enabling the integration and maintenance of data, voice, and image communication systems and tactical data broadcasts as required 95% of the time.

Satisfactory software development IAW the PWS is defined as ensuring EW and mission support systems and equipment is updated on all EW platforms 95% of the time.

Satisfactory process improvement is defined as optimizing software development IAW the PWS and individual TOs to improve AEA IPT software processes where applicable.

Satisfactory software requirements analyses is defined as a complete set of functional, performance, interface, operators, and qualification requirements for each Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI) 95% of the time.

Satisfactory life cycle maintenance is defined as providing approved enhancements and corrections to developed software through standard processes and practices 98% of the time.

100% Inspection by the COR and/or TAs and customer feedback.

See Enclosure 2.

Provide on-Call Field Technical Services.

PWS Paragraph 3.2

Contractor provides personnel to ensure fleet system installation, maintenance, troubleshooting, repair, training and test event, and technical systems and subsystems testing are provided on an “on call” basis to ensure mission readiness.

Satisfactory on-call technical services is defined as fleet installation, maintenance, troubleshooting and repair, training and test event and technical systems and subsystems testing as required in the PWS and individual TOs 100% of the time.

Satisfactory military theatre specific briefings are defined as briefings that include intelligence updates provided by the Navy Information Operations Command and/or Radio Battalion that summarize the analysis of optimized for a specific geo-political area, tailored to target categories that include Radar, Communication, Force Protection and Advisory Jammers as required in the PWS and individual TOs 100% of the time.

100% Inspection by the COR and/or TAs and customer feedback.

See Enclosure 2.

Provide Test and Evaluation to conduct tests, experiments, systems simulations and demonstrations.

PWS Paragraph 3.3

Testing, experiments, systems simulations and demonstrations are provided on schedule to ensure there are no mission delays.

Contractor provides appropriate and experienced personnel for aircraft systems under test at Development Test and Operational Test environments to verify and validate compliance with system specifications.

AQL - 98%

100% Inspection by the COR and/or TAs and customer feedback.

See Enclosure 2.

Studies and Analysis is provided for design trade-off and risk assessment studies.

PWS Paragraph 3.4

Satisfactory studies and analysis is defined as review, analyses, and recommendations to ensure equipment and subsystems are electromagnetically compatible with the external environment, as identified in individual TOs and IAW MIL-STE-464C and NTIA RSEC 98% of the time.

100% Inspection by the COR and/or TAs and customer feedback.

See Enclosure 2.

Documentation PWS Paragraph 3.5

All systems software documentation is developed and maintained as required.

AQL= 98%

100% Inspection by the COR and/or TAs and customer feedback.

See Enclosure 2.

Provide Threat Analysis and Sensor Data Modifications.

PWS Paragraph 3.6

Satisfactory Performance is defined as products and/or services delivered on or before agreed-to schedules IAW the PWS and individual TOs.

Satisfactory threat analysis and sensor data modification is defined as conducting threat analysis to identify potential vulnerabilities of coherent and no coherent standoff jamming techniques as identified in the PWS and individual TOs 100% of the time.

Satisfaction for coordination with Government activities is defined as develop and deliver weekly Transaction File Updates and periodic Rapid Reaction Data Updates to Integrated Test and Evaluation activities in addition to the fleet squadrons IAW the PWS and individual TOs 98% of the time.

100% Inspection by the COR and/or TAs and customer feedback.

Provide Jammer Techniques Development PWS Paragraph 3.7

Satisfactory Performance is defined as products and/or services delivered on or before agreed-to schedules IAW the PWS and individual TOs.

Satisfactory for Jammer Techniques Development is defined as the collection of radar waveform signature measurements, conducting advanced signal processing and performing analysis by exporting unintentional frequency modulation, amplitude modulation, and/or phase modulation for waveform identification IAW the PWS 100% of the time.

100% Inspection by the COR and/or TAs and customer feedback.

See Enclosure 2.

Provide Logistics to include technical publications, review of logistics data and risk analysis PWS Paragraph 3.8

Satisfactory Performance is defined as products and/or services delivered on or before agreed-to schedules IAW the PWS and individual TOs.

Satisfactory for logistics is defined as technical publication revisions, new technical publications and review and comment on logistics documents IAW PWS and individual TOs 100% of the time.

Satisfactory risk analysis is defined as establish procedures as identified in the PWS and individual TOs 100% of the time.

100% Inspection by the COR and/or TAs and customer feedback.

See Enclosure 2.

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Method/

Measure Incentives

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

See enclosure 3.

INCENTIVES

Enclosure (3) The following incentives shall apply to performance under this contract.

Incentive or Remedy

Semi-Annually

No measurement areas rated below “Satisfactory.”

The average of each semi-annual Performance Evaluation will be reported to CPARS.

(+) Meets the Performance Standard and Acceptable Quality Levels as a condition for a positive CPARS input for the contract.

(-) Does not meet the Performance Standards and AQLs resulting in a negative CPARS input.

The contractor will be required to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date they intend to bring performance up to the Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels.

If any of the services performed do not conform to contract requirements, the Government may require the Contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, for no additional fee in accordance with FAR 52.246-5 Inspection of Services.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

All PWS/CDRL tasks, including PWS/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.

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. Raw Score = 4

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. Raw Score = 3

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. Raw Score = 2

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. Raw Score = 1

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. Raw Score = 0

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Semi-Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform a semi-annual assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in enclosure 3.

Measure

Other

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Measure

Other

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Source Selection Information For Official Use Only

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Source Selection Information For Official Use Only

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Source Selection Information For Official Use Only

See FAR 2.101 and 3.104