QASP.doc

N68936-14-R-0122 Attachment 2 N68936-14-R-0122

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Electronic Warfare Systems Integration Test Environment (EW SITE) System Upgrade for the Electronic Combat Simulation and Evaluation Laboratory (ECSEL)

1. Purpose This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the 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.

The Electronic Combat Simulation and Evaluation Laboratory (ECSEL), code 45P300E, at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), Point Mugu, California has a requirement for Electronic Warfare Systems Integration Test Environment (EW SITE) radar environment simulator to support system performance evaluation and integration of various Electronic Warfare (EW) systems.

The ECSEL utilizes an existing EW SITE radar environment simulator to support system performance evaluation and integration of various Electronic Warfare (EW) systems. The EW SITE system is used to test Electronic Warfare systems of the EA-6B, EA-18G, F/A-18, MH-60, E-2C, P-8A and F-35 (JSF) platforms, their systems and subsystems. The EW SITE provides digitally controlled RF frequency, phase, amplitude, and time based modulations that represent threat radars. Adding additional test assets to the ECSEL provides a more robust threat environment in the form of a high pulse density, dynamic, simulated flight environment. Testing in a lab environment allows for the generation of more scenarios and denser scenarios. These scenarios represent real threats the various platforms will face in hostile circumstances and cannot be generated during flight test. A laboratory test environment that emulates the pulse density and characteristics of EW Flight Test Threat Ranges allows testing of systems for extended periods of time with visibility into system performance which is not available on an aircraft during flight. This procurement will result in expanded capabilities and allow the ECSEL to continue to efficiently develop and test current and future EW systems and capabilities in support of aircraft platform integration and test.

The proposed contract will provide for the production of EW SITE systems comprised of the following components: Stimulus Cabinet, Synthetic Source Instruments, and Maintenance/Alignment Cabinet. The contract will also provide sub-system components for domestic and FMS customers. This procurement will result in expanded capabilities and allow the ECSEL to continue to efficiently develop and test current and future EW systems and capabilities in support of aircraft platform integration and test. EW SITE system supports System Configuration Sets (SCS)’s from multiple platforms and provides consistency with the Advanced Weapons Laboratory at China Lake, CA.

This contract will also provide incidental services for on-call maintenance, repair and system upgrades, including replacement parts for existing systems as well as the newly acquired systems. Incidental services provided under this contract include: maintenance, training, and repairs. The total estimated value of this procurement is $49,940,221 of which approximately $2,264,221 is estimated for incidental services.

This requirement will be met by issuing an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract award. The contract will contain four Firm Fixed Price (FFP) hardware CLINS, one Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) maintenance/repairs/modifications CLIN, one CPFF Training CLIN, one cost CLIN for travel, and one cost CLIN for materials. This contract will be for a five-year period. A properly executed Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC), Enclosure 3, will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2.

Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in this 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 Control Plan and the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. In the Quality Control Plan, the contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in 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 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/task orders and make related determination and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this contract is Kelly Reason-Williams, code 254300E. 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.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR) - An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the contract. The ACOR may be appointed in the resulting contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Government Project Leads - The COR designates an individual Government Project Lead to assist in administering specific efforts under the contract.

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/task order price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

Alternate Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR) – The ACOR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The ACOR 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/task order price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

Government Project Leads – The Government Project Lead is responsible for assisting in administering specific efforts under the contract/task order. A Government Project lead cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the contract/task order, make commitments, or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

6.

Methods of QA Surveillance a.

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) – The Government will perform an evaluation using the CPARS format 1 month prior to the end of each period 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. This evaluation will be one determinant in performance of each sequential period. The marketplace for integration, design and technical support services is very competitive; as such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this contract. 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.

b.

QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the technical administration of this QASP. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of quality assurance surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist provided herein.

c.

Observation, Feedback, and Review – Unscheduled observation of products and services provided by the contractor on site and recurring review of contractor submitted reports and documentation identified in the CDRLs will be performed by the COR and ACOR. Feedback from ATR and ATMO customers will be collected and used by the COR to document surveillance of technical performance.

7.

Surveillance

Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards, incentives, and surveillance methods for the contractor and COR while enclosure (3) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document on a semi-annual basis the results of the surveillance and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a semi-annual basis.

8.

Documentation

In addition to providing a biannual report to the Contracting Officer, 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 Surveillance Activity Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

9.

Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – Performance Standards

Enclosure (2) – Incentives

Enclosure (3) – Surveillance Activity Checklist

PERFORMANCE-BASED QUALITY STANDARDS

Required Service (Performance Requirements)

(Quality Assurance) Incentives

Provide System Upgrades IAW SOW Para 3.6.3

Provide Modification Services IAW SOW Para 3.6.4

Provide Configuration and Data Management IAW SOW Para 3.6.5

Provide Program Management IAW SOW Para 3.6.6

Provide System Training IAW SOW Para 3.7

Provide System Testing IAW SOW Para 3.24

All tasks will be assessed focusing on the following.

Schedule – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the contractor’s progress in relation to meeting scheduled milestone events during the assessment period that contribute to or affect the program’s schedule. Assess all schedule delays, causes for the delays and Contractor’s corrective action plan. Determine if schedule impact is Government or contractor caused delay. If the delay is caused by the Government, contractor’s evaluation rating will not be reflected negatively.

Quality – Assess the contractor’s product quality and incidental services are accurate, complete, and meet or exceed contract requirements, specifications, and standards. Assess the contractor’s Quality Assurance Plan documents were followed. Assess the contractor’s methodologies and technical performance/ products are in accordance with commonly accepted technical or professional standards, and reflect complete understanding of the SOW and program objectives.

Management – Assess the contractor's reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction. Assess the contractor’s effectiveness and efficiency of managing personnel in response to changing priorities, as well as matching personnel qualifications to requirement tasking. Assess the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, resolution, and corrective action plans.

Cost – Assess the contractor’s incurred cost and hours are consistent with the value of services and products received by the Government. Assess value received is commensurate with, or exceeds the costs and hours expended. For Task Orders where level of effort and cost was based on a contractor’s proposal, the relationship of these estimates to actual cost will be assessed. Assess the funding and cost status reports are accurate and complete and submitted in accordance with contract requirements. Assess contractor innovative cost saving solutions. Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. If the contractor is experiencing cost growths, assess the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns.

DATA DELIVERABLES

INCENTIVES

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 Task Order’s semi-annual Performance Evaluation will be reported to CPARS.

(+) Meets the Performance Standard and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) as a condition for a positive CPARS input for each Task Order.

(-) 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:

Exceptional – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the tasks 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 tasks 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 tasks contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal – Performance does not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the tasks being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were 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 tasks contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s actions were ineffect

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

Semi-annual Summary of Ratings:

Quality

Schedule

Number of Exceptional

Number of Very Good

Number of Satisfactory

Number of Marginal

Number of Unsatisfactory

Cost Control

Business Relations

Management

Other Areas

Number of Unsatisfactory

Checklist Completed By: ____________________________

Date Completed: ____________________________ Contract Requirements in accordance with Contract Data Requirements List’s (CDRL’s) Form DD-1423

Measure

Technical Report – Study/Services – List of Repairable Items (A004) 100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or Government Project Leads.

Trip/Travel Report – Trip Report (A007) 100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or Government Project Leads.

Technical Report – Study/Services – Configuration and Data Management (A008) 100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or Government Project Leads.

Technical Report – Study/Services – Training Materials (A009) 100% Inspection by COR, ACOR, and/or Government Project Leads.

Measure

Semi-Annual Summary of Ratings For:

Contract requirements in accordance with the Statement of Work.

Quality of Product or Service Schedule

Cost Control

Business Relations

Management

Utilization of Small Business

Number of Unsatisfactory ____

Other Areas

Checklist Completed By: ____________________________

Date Completed: ____________________________ Semi-Annual Surveillance:

The COR will perform a semi-annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure 3

Measure

Semi-Annual Surveillance Completed By: ____________________________

Date Completed:

Data Standards

Task Description Surveillance Method/Measure Date Planned Date Completed Cost Quality Schedule Management

Technical Report Study/Services- System Documentation, A001 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Computer Software Product End Items - Source Code and Support Tools, A002 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Acceptance Test Plan - Factory Acceptance Test Procedures/Site Acceptance Test Procedures, A003 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Technical Report - Study/Services - List of Repairable Items, A004 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Technical Report - Study/Services - Trouble Report, A005 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Technical Report - Study/Services - Repair Procedures, A006 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Trip/Travel Report - Trip Report, A007 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Technical Report - Study/Services - Configuration and Data Management ,A008 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Technical Report - Study/Services - Training Materials, A009 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Contractor's Progress, Status and Management Report, A00A 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Operations Security (OPSEC) Plan, A00B

Incurred Cost and Progress Reporting for Services - Invoice Support Report, A00C 100% Insprection by COR or as designated by COR

Incentives

Assessment Period Acceptable Performance Definition How Measured Incentives

All Orders Measurement areas rated at or above AQL. Semiannual evaluation covering the previous 6 months utilizing the evaluation rating definitions listed herein. (+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further orders. (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further orders.

Sheet3