QASP.docx

Enclosure (4) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for Airborne Electronic Attack System Integration Laboratories (AEA SIL) Electronic Warfare System Integration Test Environment (EW SITE) Lifecycle Support and System Enhancements Performance

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure the systematic Quality Assurance (QA) methods are used in the administration surveillance of tasking under the Contract. The intent is to ensure the Contractor performs In Accordance With (IAW) the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the FFP contract.

The Contractor shall deliver fully operational, integrated, and sustained EW SITE systems and sub-system components for domestic and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. The required outcome is an EW SITE system capable of supporting a multitude of laboratory-specific System Configurations across multiple platforms (EA-18G, F/A-18, MH-60) while maintaining configuration consistency with the Advanced Weapons Laboratory (AWL) at NAWCWD China Lake, CA. Additionally, the Contractor shall ensure continuous operational readiness of current EW SITE systems through comprehensive lifecycle support, including on-call and on-site maintenance, system upgrades, replacement parts provisioning, and personnel training.

This Contract will have FFP CLINs. The Contract will have a five-year period of performance. 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 under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services, products, and documentation called for in the Contract executed by the Contracting Officer (KO) 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 (QCP) and the QASP. The Contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for the QCP, which defines the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in the Contract.

The QASP provides 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:

KO: A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into a contract (Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)), or a person with the authority to administer contracts (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)) and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The PCO for this Contract is D232000. KOs are designated via a written warrant that 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 the 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 limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Government Project Lead (GPL): The COR designates individual GPLs to assist in administering of specific efforts under the Contract.

5. Responsibilities

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

KO: The KO (PCO or ACO) 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. The KO assures that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the Contract. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

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 the Contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

ACOR: The ACOR assists the COR 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 the contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action.

GPL: The GPL is responsible for assisting in administering specific efforts under the Contract. A GPL cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the Contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS): The market place for Electronic Warfare (EW) systems integration, laboratory-specific system configuration, on-site technical support and simulated threat radar environments is very competitive. As such, the successful Offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this Contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each “Annual Option Periods (Years 1 through 5). This evaluation will be one determinant in the exercising of future Task Orders. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of Small Business (SB), and other important areas for this procurement. Some of the monitoring methods to be used will be Government observation, review of reports, customer feedback, and review of Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs). As this information may affect future source selections throughout the Department of Defense (DoD) and the continuation of this tasking, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the within the policies of this QASP.

b. QASP: This document will be used by the COR, ACRO, and GPLs in the technical administration of this Contract. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of QA surveillance is the Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC).

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1) and (2) set forth the performance standards and incentives for the Contractor, the COR/ACOR, and GPLs while Enclosure (3) and (4) provide the checklist and means for the COR to document the results of the surveillance and will be provided to the KO.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing quarterly reports to the KO, the COR will maintain a complete QA file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’s performance of the QA function, including the originals of the QA Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the Contract. The COR shall forward these records to the KO at termination or completion of the Contract.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1): Performance-Based Standards/Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Data Quality Standards Enclosure (2): Incentives Enclosure (3): Surveillance Activity Checklist (SAC) Enclosure (4): Annual Surveillance Summary

ENCLOSURE (1): PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS

(QA)

Incentives

ENCLOSURE (1): CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL) DATA QUALITY STANDARDS

Method/Measure Incentives

Enclosure (1) Enclosure (2)

Source Selection Information 7 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (2): INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this Contract.

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

Year 5 (FY 2031)

(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for further TO awards.*

* The Government reserves the right not to award Option CLINs/TOs if the Contractor does not meet the acceptable performance standards, and/or meet all regulatory requirements.

All PWS and CDRL tasks, including 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 affect 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 under-run? 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 will be assessed.

Business Relations: Assess the timeliness, 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. 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 the Contract; and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the Contractor’s risk mitigation plans.

Utilization of SB: The Request for Proposal (RFP) and FAR Subpart 19.7 and 15 U.S.C. 637 contains statutory requirements for complying with the SB Subcontracting Program. Assess whether the Contractor provided maximum practicable opportunity for SB (including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes) (including Small Disadvantaged Businesses (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women Owned SBs (WOSBs), HUBZone, Veteran Owned SBs (VOSBs), Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB (SDVOSB), and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) or SBs to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the Contract. Evaluation will focus on the metrics of actual SB utilization as compared to the Contract required targets and the Contractor’s submitted SB plan.

Other areas: Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the Contract or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Exceptional Performance: 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.

Very Good Performance: 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.

Satisfactory Performance: 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.

Marginal Performance: 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.

Unsatisfactory Performance: 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.

ENCLOSURE (3): SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST (SAC)

Quarterly COR Surveillance:

The COR will perform a quarterly assessment of quality, schedule, cost control, business relations, management and other areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (2).

PWS 3.1.9: Configuration Management & Baseline Traceability (A2PATS/A2DSG)

PWS 3.1.10: Proactive DMSMS Monitoring & Obsolescence Reporting (DIMGMT81948B)

100% inspection by COR

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

Enclosure (3) Enclosure (3)

Source Selection Information 10 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

Source Selection Information 9 See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFED INFORMATION

ENCLOSURE (4): ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE SUMMARY

The COR will perform an assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (2). This assessment will be completed annually covering the previous 12 months.