Enclosure_1_-_IDF_QASP-Scanned_-_final.pdf

RFP 80GSFC17R0009, ENCLOSURE 1

GOVERNMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

PLAN

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT FACILITY (IDF)

CONTRACT NO. TBD

Instrument Development Facility (IDF)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is to define the overall approach the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) intends to use to monitor and survey Contractor performance under the Instrument Development

Facility (IDF) Contract No. TBD. This Firm-Fixed-Price contract provides for construction services require to build the IDF at GSFC. This includes the site improvements, building erection, and interior work necessary for occupants to move into the facility once completed.

The QASP is a Government-developed surveillance tool prepared in accordance with

FAR 46.601 and NFS 1846.401. It is not part of the contract, per NFS 1846.401(a)(iii), but provided to the Contractor for informational purposes only.

1.2 Scope

This QASP has been developed to evaluate Contractor actions while implementing the services to construct the IDF in accordance with Attachments 1 and 2. It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring Contractor performance, services, processes, and products provided under this IDF contract. This QASP defines the process the Government expects to follow to obtain data, evaluate the Contractor, and determine if contract performance conforms to contract requirements. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract.

The role of the Government is quality assurance to ensure contract standards are achieved. In this contract the quality control program is the driver for product quality.

The Contractor is required to develop a comprehensive program of inspections and monitoring actions. The first major step to ensuring a “self-correcting” contract is to ensure that the quality control program approved at the beginning of the contract provides the measures needed to lead the Contractor to success. Once the quality control program is approved, careful application of the process and standards presented in the remainder of this document will ensure a robust quality assurance program.

This plan is applicable to all services performed or products provided by the IDF

Contractor(s). Throughout this QASP, the term “Contractor” is used. In terms of this plan, it should be known that unless explicitly stated, the term “Contractor” is applicable to both the IDF Contractor and any and all of its subcontractors.

2.0 FORMS OF SURVEILLANCE

There exists a wide-ranging spectrum associated with surveillance, ranging from oversight to insight. The strategy and approach to surveillance by GSFC for the IDF contract, as detailed in this plan, is one that concentrates primarily on insight as opposed to oversight. However, NASA reserves the right to initiate additional surveillance activities (insight or oversight) on an ‘as-needed’ basis, based upon circumstances and data collected (adverse trends, negative data points, lack of corrective action, etc.) via the surveillance activities defined in this plan.

2.1 Surveillance Strategies

Insight

Insight is an assurance process that uses performance requirements and if definable, performance metrics to ensure process capability, product quality and end-item effectiveness. Insight relies on gathering a minimum set of product or process data that provides adequate visibility into the integrity of the product or process. The data may be acquired from Contractor records, usually in a non-intrusive parallel method.

Insight as applied to this contract will result in lower levels of Government surveillance and allow the Contractor to assume increased responsibility and accountability for the integrity of processes. Insight will rely heavily on evaluating planned contract deliverables, performance standards, and existing Contractor procedures and working documents, if available.

Oversight

Oversight as applied to this contract will result in higher levels of Government surveillance. The Government will gather information pertaining to the Contractor's process through involvement and/or inspection in the process and will monitor the process itself. The Government's involvement in the Contractor's performance, through oversight, will be determined necessary by the Contracting Officer's Representative

(COR).

The Government may use a variety of surveillance methods to evaluate the Contractor's performance. Government surveillance will be conducted on a non-interference basis and in a manner that will not unduly delay work being performed by the Contractor.

2.2 Surveillance Team

All surveillance activities will be implemented using NASA and NASA support-contractor personnel, a delegated agency (e.g., Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA)), and/or a surveillance support). The surveillance team may be composed of:

GSFC Procurement Personnel (i.e., Contracting Officer (CO), Contract Specialist)

GSFC’s Program Personnel (i.e., COR and Technical Monitor(s), Quality

Assurance Representatives, and Commissioning Agent GSFC)

Safety, Health and Security Personnel (both physical and Information Technology

(IT) Security)

The IDF CO is responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships. The CO will also assure that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The

CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

The IDF COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as his/her authorized technical representative to assist in administering the contract. The COR monitors the technical work performed under the contract, evaluates Contractor performance, serves as the primary interface for the Contractor and the CO for all technical matters, reports on contract status to Program/Project Management, and recommends corrective action when necessary. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments, authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf, or in any way direct the Contractor to operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions. Any changes that the

Contractor deems may affect the contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the CO for action. The COR’s limitations of authority are contained in the NASA Form

1634, COR Delegation.

2.3 Communications

Monthly Performance reviews

Electronic mail

Informal Discussions

Other communication methods, as required

2.4 Evaluation and Reporting

Monthly Reports

Monthly Contractor performance metrics

Inspection of deliverable items

2.5 Work Review and Performance Monitoring

The Government will evaluate the Contractor's accomplishment of the technical objectives through the following:

Weekly meetings with the Contractor to review progress and identify problems.

Preparation and submission of Contractor Performance Annual Reporting System (CPARS) reports.

Conduct inspection and acceptance of the Contractor's deliverable items.

Review Contractor's safety procedures and performance.

Validate that Contractor is performing according to the required contractual plans

(e.g. testing, integration, quality assurance, etc.) by physical inspection, review of submitted reports, and meetings with the contract manager.

The surveillance team will make a physical inspection of the Contractor's onsite work area daily. In addition, the COR may make informal inspections, as required. These inspections are made to assure compliance with NASA and

GSFC onsite regulations and procedures.

All onsite Contractor employees have a GSFC Personal Identity Verification

(PIV) card (badge).

The names and locations (buildings/room numbers) of the Contractor employees match their monthly onsite Personnel Identity Verification (PIV) Report.

The Contractor employees are aware that the use of Government telephones is for official business only.

The Contractor employees are following the proper Checkout Procedures when leaving GSFC (e.g., returning PIV card (badges)). The PIV data forms will be checked against the monthly Onsite Reports to identify exiting employees.

The Contractor employees are aware of the NASA and GSFC IT Security compliance requirements.

2.6 Record Keeping and Documentation

The COR is responsible for maintaining accurate and complete records of the

Contractor’s performance. The COR is responsible for collecting the performance evaluation documentation and maintaining any other material that reflects the quality of the Contractor performance. Even though the Contractor is responsible for ensuring performance compliance under their quality control requirements, the Government will give the Contractor prompt notice of defects observed by the COR, Technical Monitor(s), Quality Assurance Representatives, and Commissioning Agent. This does not imply that the Government is obligated to carry out quality control inspections for the Contractor, but that on discovering a problem, the Government will inform the Contractor in detail of the incident. COR will keep CO informed of any issues brought to the attention of the

Contractor by the COR.

If performance issues arise, they will be discussed immediately between the CO, COR, and Contractor. Action plans will be developed and resolutions tracked for closure by the

Contractor and Government.

During the course of the contract, the COR shall retain a copy of all surveillance documentation. At the end of the surveillance period, these records shall be forwarded to the Contracting Officer for inclusion in the contract file. However, when a specific service or deliverable item becomes unsatisfactory during a surveillance period, a copy of the documentation supporting the unsatisfactory performance shall be forwarded to the

Contracting Officer for action between the Government (CO and COR) and Contractor.

2.7 Contract Administration

Contractor maintains effective communication within its own organization, including subcontractors. Problems, technical issues, and programmatic changes are promptly communicated to all concerned. Prime Contractor communication with subcontractors is seamless and transparent to the customer.

3.0 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE

The Contractor's performance in all of the areas listed above will be monitored to assure that ineffective or wasteful methods are not being used. As required by FAR 42.1502 and

GPR 5100.2, Supplier Performance Evaluations, the CO, in collaboration with the COR, will annually complete a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS) evaluation, which will also be reviewed by the Contractor, and become a part of the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). In the event of a finding that will require immediate attention, the COR will notify the CO of the situation for necessary action. The Contractor will be required to submit a written response and any corrective action steps needed.

Performance attributes will be rated in accordance with the performance metrics of this surveillance plan.

1. Schedule Adherence – the project will include a duration and completion date.

This duration will be used by the Contractor to create a project progress schedule.

The Contractor’s actual progress against the planned progress will be monitored on an ongoing basis and at the end of the project an adjectival rating will be established based on substantial completion and closeout duration. The

Contractor’s ability to deliver timely proposals will also be considered. A numerical rating will be determined at the end of the year and at the project final assessment.

2. Construction Quality – the project includes a drawing set which together with the specifications establishes the expected quality of work. Workmanship and conformance to the drawings and specifications will be monitored continually and a numerical rating determined annually and at the end of the project. The attribute will consider the effectiveness of the Quality Control (QC) program, the amount of rework, and resolution of punchlists. This attribute will also consider how well the Contractor follows Construction Specification Division 1 coordination processes such as Utility Outage procedures, hot work permits, NASA mission work freezes, and other. A numerical rating will be determined annually and in the project final assessment.

3. Price – The Contractor will be evaluated on non-competitive pricing reasonableness as it pertains to project modifications (aka Change Orders). A numerical rating will be determined at the end the year and in the project final assessment.

4. Safety – the Contractor will be monitored on an ongoing basis with regard to compliance with Safety requirements (OSHA, NASA, Safety Plan). Recordable incidents and lost work time will also be considered. A numerical rating will be determined at the end of each year and in the project final assessment.

Performance Metrics for Construction Services

1. Adherence to Schedule (5)Exceptional – project completed ahead of schedule. Proposals including those associated with Field Directives submitted timely.

(4)Very Good – project completed no more than 5 days late. All proposals submitted timely.

(3)Satisfactory – project completed no more than 20 days late, and not adversely affecting a mission. No more than 25% of proposals submitted not more than 5 days late.

(2)Marginal – project completed 20-30 days late, and not adversely affecting a mission. No more than 50% of Proposals submitted not more than 10 days late.

(1)Unsatisfactory – project completed more than 30 days late, or late by any number of days such that it affected mission critical operations. More than 50% of Proposals submitted more than 10 days late.

2. Construction Quality (5)Exceptional – no notable quality issues during construction.

(4)Very Good – only minor quality issues which were all resolved in a timely manner (3)Satisfactory – few quality issues, most detected by QC staff and all addressed by final inspection.

(2)Marginal – some quality problems, having an identifiable effect on contractor performance.

(1)Unsatisfactory – many quality problems and poor CQC to the extent of having a substantial effect on contractor performance.

3. Price (5)Exceptional – Change price proposals are reasonable on the first submission.

(4)Very Good – Change price proposals are settled easily.

(3)Satisfactory – Change Price proposals are mostly reasonable.

(2)Marginal – Some aspects of pricing are unreasonable but are usually settled.

(1)Unsatisfactory – Change prices are frequently high and agreement is not always reached.

4. Safety (5)Exceptional – proactive safety program with no violations, mishaps, or write- ups on this project, and No Lost Work Time.

(4)Very Good – not more than minor safety infractions on this project and minimal Lost Work Time.

(3)Satisfactory – not more than minor safety infractions on this project.

(2)Marginal – more than 2 documented safety infractions on this project with disciplinary action.

(1)Unsatisfactory – several documented significant violations contributing to an unsafe project

4.0 SUMMARY

This Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan describes the approach GSFC intends to use to monitor the IDF contract and assure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. GSFC anticipates using an insight surveillance approach. The goal is to balance the level of Government surveillance with the perceived impacts and risks of mission failure.

Contracting Officer’s Representative Signature

Contracting Officer Signature