QASP Template_GeminiDefender_Jan2024.docx
DOCX document 45 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N0017424R0080
About this file
This document is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for a federal contract opportunity related to maintenance support services and consumables for the FirstDefender RMX, TruDefender FT, TruDefender FTX, and Gemini systems for the Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD).
The QASP details the performance requirements, quality standards, and surveillance methods the government will use to evaluate the contractor's performance under this cost-plus-fixed-fee task order/contract. It covers a base period and four option periods for a total of five years. The contractor must meet "Satisfactory" ratings in all performance areas to have each option exercised. Key requirements include providing timely consumables and repair services, managing costs, and submitting accurate and complete reports. The government will use Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations as an additional performance oversight tool.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment 2.pdf | ||
| N0017424R0080 05212024.pdf | ||
| CDRL A003 DMSMS Management v2.pdf | ||
| CDRL A001 Meeting Minutes v2.pdf | ||
| CDRL A002 Contractor Status Report v2.pdf | ||
| N0017424R0080.pdf | ||
| Att 1 Contract-Administration-Plan chem detector.docx | DOCX document | |
| CDRL A004 Quality Assurance v2.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) GeminiDefender Maintenance Support Services and Consumables FirstDefender RMX, TruDefender FT, TruDefender FTX, and Gemini
1. PURPOSE
This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are used in this performance based service task order/contract. The Contractor shall perform in accordance with the QASP performance metrics, and the Government shall receive the quality of services identified in the task order/contract. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this acquisition.
This task order/contract provides maintenance support services for the FirstDefender RMX, TruDefender FT, TruDefender FTX, and Gemini for Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD). The resulting performance based task order/contract will have cost plus fixed fee Labor CLINs, and cost only Other Direct Cost (ODC) CLINs. The period of performance for this task order/contract will cover a base and four (4) options for a total of five (5) years. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the overall objectives of this procurement.
2. AUTHORITY
Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in service contracts, to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.
3. SCOPE
The QASP is put in place to provide Government surveillance and oversight of the Contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the task order/contract.
The Contractor’s performance on this task order/contract will be evaluated by the Government as described below and summarized in the Contractor Self-Assessment Milestone Chart. The first evaluation will cover the period ending six months after date of task order/contract award, with successive evaluations being performed in accordance with the Contractor Self-Assessment Milestone Chart, until the Contractor completes performance under this task order/contract. The evaluation will encompass all work performed by the Contractor during the assessment period, but will not include cumulative information from prior assessments. The Contractor will complete a self-assessment of the work performed, to be delivered to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Contract Administrator, as identified in the task order/contract, No Later Than (NLT) 60 days after the end of the assessment period. The self-assessment shall cover all areas of the Government QASP. Based on the evaluation results, provided by the COR and the Contract Administrator, the Contracting Officer will assign an overall performance rating. If the Contracting Officer assigns an “Unsatisfactory” performance rating for the period evaluated, the next option period will not be exercised. A final assessment shall be completed by the Government within four months of the completion date of the task order/contract (inclusive of all exercised options).
CONTRACTOR SELF-ASSESSMENT MILESTONE CHART
BASE
OPTION I
OPTION II
OPTION III
OPTION IV
CLOSE
| Month 1 |
| PD 1 |
| Month 1 |
| PD 2 |
| Month 1 |
| PD 3 |
| Month 1 |
| PD 4 |
| Month 1 |
| PD 5 |
| Month 1 |
Month 2
Month 2
Month 2
Month 2
Month 2
Month 2
Month 3
Month 3
Month 3
Month 3
Month 3
Month 4
Month 4
Month 4
Month 4
Month 4
Month 5
Month 5
Month 5
Month 5
Month 5
Month 6
Month 6
Month 6
Month 6
Month 6
| Month 7 |
| PD 2 |
| Month 7 |
| PD 3 |
| Month 7 |
| PD 4 |
| Month 7 |
| PD 5 |
| Month 7 |
Month 8
Month 8
Month 8
Month 8
Month 8
Month 9
Month 9
Month 9
Month 9
Month 9
Month 10
Month 10
Month 10
Month 10
Month 10
Month 11
Month 11
Month 11
Month 11
Month 11
Month 12
Month 12
Month 12
Month 12
Month 12
Contractor Self- Assessment Reporting Due Date
4. GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this QASP:
Procurement Contracting Officer – The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interest of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the PCO that assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair and equitable treatment under the task order/contract. The PCO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance. The PCO for this task order/contract is identified in Section G.
Contract Administrator – An individual assigned by the PCO to assist in the daily administration of the task order/contract. The Contract Administrator also provides input to the PCO and the COR as to the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP. The Contract Administrator for this task order/contract is identified in Section G.
Contracting Officer’s Representative – The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is responsible for technical administration of the task order/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 task order/contract price, terms or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action.
Government Technical Point of Contact – The COR designates an individual Government Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to assist in administering specific projects under the task order/contract. The Government TPOC is responsible for assisting in administering a specific project under the task order/contract. A Government TPOC cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the task order/contract, make commitments or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.
5. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE
a. QASP – The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the technical administration and the PCO/Contract Administrator in non-technical administration of this QASP. The QASP will be the prime determinant in exercising the option.
b. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for information technology, engineering, and management support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this task order/contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year of performance. This evaluation will be one determinant in exercising an option. For this procurement, 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, and the continuation of the task order/contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.
6. DOCUMENTATION
In addition to providing annual reports 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. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the task order/contract.
7. SURVEILLANCE
The tables below set forth the performance ratings, standards, outcome and surveillance methods to document the results of the surveillance on an annual basis, as well as interim and informal reviews (i.e., In-Process Reviews (IPRs)) on a more frequent basis.
(a) Performance Ratings: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s performance of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the Contracting Officer will assign one of the following ratings:
(1) Excellent
(2) Satisfactory
(3) Unsatisfactory
The standards associated with these ratings are given in the following Table 1:
Table 1: Overall Performance Ratings
| Overall Performance Rating |
| Standard |
| Excellent |
| “Excellent” ratings for all performance evaluation criteria. |
| Satisfactory |
| A minimum of “Satisfactory” ratings for all performance evaluation criteria. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| A rating of “Unsatisfactory” for one or more performance evaluation criteria. |
(b) Objectives/Determination
1. Interim/Informal
Interim/Informal performance evaluations will be provided to assess performance at each IPR.
2. Annual
The PCO will make a performance determination at the end of each evaluation period. The determination will be based upon the COR’s recommendations, the Contractor’s comments, including any Self-Evaluation Report, and any other information deemed relevant by the PCO. The PCO shall resolve disagreements between the COR’s recommendations and the Contractor’s comments/report regarding the evaluation. The PCO’s performance determination is unilateral and final. The PCO will document the determination and provide a copy to the Contractor within 30 days of receipt of the Contractor’s self-assessment.
Table 2: Objectives
| Assessment Period |
| Acceptable Performance Definition |
| Assessment Method |
| Outcome |
| First 6 Months of the Base Period of the Task Order (Period 1) |
| All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory” |
| Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task Order. |
| (+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as condition for exercise of Option I.* |
(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of Option I.*
| Last 6 months of Base Year and the first 6 months of Option I (Period 2) |
| All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory” |
| Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task Order. |
| (+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as condition for exercise of Option II.* |
(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of Option II.*
| Last 6 months of Option I and the first 6 months of Option II (Period 3) |
| All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory” |
| Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task Order. |
| (+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as condition for exercise of Option III.* |
(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of Option III.*
| Last 6 months of Option II and the first 6 months of Option III (Period 4) |
| All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory” |
| Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task Order. |
| (+) Meets the acceptable performance definition as condition for exercise of Option IV.* |
(-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of Option IV.*
| Last 6 months of Option III and all of Option IV (Period 5) |
| All measurement areas rated at least “Satisfactory” |
| Using the QASP evaluation criteria set forth in the Task Order. |
Final QASP Rating
*The Government will not exercise the next option year term unless the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.
(c) Performance Evaluation Criteria. The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated using the criteria and standards provided for each objective and identified in Tables 3 through 5 of this task order/contract QASP.
(d) Organization. The performance evaluation organization consists of the PCO, who will serve as the Determining Official, and the COR. In some instances, a TPOC will be assigned to the task order/contract in addition to the COR.
(e) This performance evaluation does not replace any other requirement for evaluating Contractor performance that may be required by this task order/contract such as a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report or other required reports.
Table 3: Task Performance Evaluation Criteria and Standards
| Criterion |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Satisfactory |
| Excellent |
| Task Performance |
| Work product fails to meet Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in Performance Requirements Summary Table (4). |
| Work product routinely meets Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in Performance Requirements Summary Table 4. |
| Work product frequently exceeds Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in Performance Requirements Summary Table 4. |
| Staffing |
| Contractor provides marginally qualified or unqualified personnel. Lapses in coverage occur regularly. |
| Contractor provides qualified personnel. Lapses in coverage may occasionally occur and are managed per individual task order/contract policy. |
| Contractor provides highly qualified personnel. Contractor reassigns personnel to ensure proper coverage. Actual lapses in coverage occur very rarely, if ever, and are managed per task order/contract policy. Contractor ensures staff training remains current. |
| Cost Management |
| Contractor routinely fails to complete tasks within agreed upon cost, i.e., cost over runs frequently occur |
Contractor routinely completes task within the originally agreed upon cost.
Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effect manner. No major resource management problems are apparent
Reductions in direct and indirect costs to the Government below contract estimated costs are noteworthy.
Contractor provides detailed cost analysis and recommendations to government for resolution of problems identified.
Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available.
Documented savings are apparent.
| Cost Reporting |
| Reports are generally late, inaccurate, incomplete, or unclear |
Reports do not accurately track and clearly identify ODC items
| Reports are timely, accurate, complete, and clearly written. Problems and/or trends are addressed and analysis submitted. |
| Reports are clear, accurate, and proactive. Problems and/or trends are addressed thoroughly, and the contractor’s recommendations and/or corrective plans are implemented and effective. |
| Timeliness |
| Contractor frequently misses deadlines, schedules, or is slow to respond to government requests or is non-responsive to government requests. |
| Contractor routinely meets deadlines, schedules, and responds quickly to government requests. |
| Contractor always meets deadlines, schedules, and responds immediately to government requests. |
| Customer Satisfaction |
| Fails to meet customer expectations. |
| Meets customer expectations. |
| Exceeds customer expectations to the benefit of the overall tasking. |
Combating Trafficking in Persons IAW with FAR 52.222-50
| Contractor has not briefed contractor employees on Combating Trafficking in Persons and is not in compliance with FAR clause 52.222-50 |
| Contractor has briefed contractor employees on subject guideline and is working to develop an Awareness Program. |
| Contractor has Trafficking in Persons Awareness Program in place which includes appropriate reporting procedures, applicable remedies, and disciplinary actions and appears to be performing vigilant monitoring. |
Table 4: Performance Requirements Summary Table
SOW Task Area
Performance Objective
Performance Standard
Acceptable Quality Level
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Typical Monitoring Methods
| 2.1 Kickoff Meeting |
| Host a joint Government/Contractor Kickoff Meeting via teleconference. |
| Host meeting within thirty (30) calendar days of contract award. |
| Meeting held within 30 calendar days of contract award, Government schedule permitting. |
| Government oversight. |
| 2.2 Consumables and Accessories |
| Items are provided upon request and shipped within five (5) business days. |
| Contractor ships items within five (5) days of receiving payment and provides Government with tracking information. Contractor notifies Government immediately if items are out of stock or have long lead times that prevent them from meeting the required shipping timeframe. |
| 90% of requests fulfilled within required timeframe. |
| Government oversight. |
| 2.3.3 Depot Level Repair Services: Repair |
| Contractor diagnoses and repairs DLRP (Depot Level Repair Parts) provided to them by the Government. |
| Diagnosis process/repair quotes include adequate depth and breadth to clearly identify and qualify issues. Repairs are not initiated until quotes are approved by the Government. Repairs are executed in a timely manner. Regular status updates are provided to the Government. |
| Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% of requests completed within agreed upon schedules. |
| Government oversight of timeliness and review of methods and procedures. |
| 2.3.3 Depot Level Repair Services: Tier Pricing |
| If the Contractor uses a tiered pricing list, they shall provide detailed definitions of what repair actions are included or not included in each repair tier. |
| Documents are technically accurate and grammatically correct. The tiers shall also be specific to the systems covered by this contract and specify if options for new or refurbished parts are available in each tier. The contractor shall provide separate estimates on a case-by-case basis for parts and materials not listed on the master price list. |
| Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date. |
| Government oversight of review/ comment/approval cycle. |
| 2.3.5 Depot Level Repair Services: Software Upgrades |
| Contractor shall notify the Government of all upcoming software upgrades planned to be implemented for any of the systems covered by this PWS. |
| Software upgrade information is included in the Contractors Progress Report (CDRL A002). Documents are technically accurate and grammatically correct. Documents and are delivered IAW agreed upon schedules. |
| Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date. |
| Government oversight of review/ comment/approval cycle. |
| 2.3.8 Depot Level Repair Services: Shipping |
| Repaired DLRP are shipped back to the Government within five (5) days of completion |
| Contractor ships DLRP within five (5) days of repair completion and provides Government with tracking information. |
| 90% of requests fulfilled within required timeframe. |
| Government oversight. |
| 2.4 Parts Obsolescence and Configuration Management |
| Contractor shall inform the Government of any Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) issues and make recommendations for resolution to minimize the impact of the issues. |
| Notice is provided in writing within three (3) business days of issue being identified, per CDRL A003. Documents are technically accurate and grammatically correct. |
| Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/ approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date. |
| Government oversight of review/ comment/approval cycle. |
| 2.5 Quality Control Plan |
| Prepare and submit a Quality Control Plan to ensure delivery of quality repairs and services under the referenced PWS. |
| Submit plan within fifteen (15) business days after contract award (CDRL A004). Document is technically accurate and grammatically correct. |
| Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/ approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date. |
| Government oversight of review/ comment/approval cycle. |
| 2.6.1 Quarterly Status Report |
| Contractor shall prepare and electronically submit a quarterly status report |
| Reporting period will begin thirty (30) calendar days after contract award. (CDRL A002, see PWS for content required) After the first report, the status report shall be due by the fifth of each quarter for the previous quarter. The Government will have ten (10) business days to approve or disapprove or comment on format and /or content. The contractor shall have five business days to re-submit if the Government has disapproved the format / content. |
| Documentation requires no more than two (2) review/comment/ approval cycles, to meet acceptance. 90% completed by due date. |
| Government oversight of review/ comment/approval cycle. |
TABLE 5: COST EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
| CRITERION |
| UNSATISFACTORY |
| SATISFACTORY |
| EXCELLENT |
| Cost Management |
| Contractor routinely fails to complete the effort within the originally agreed to estimated cost, i.e. cost overruns frequently occur. |
Contractor routinely completes the effort within the originally agreed to estimated cost. Contractor provides measures for controlling all costs at estimated costs. Funds and resources are generally used in a cost-effective manner. No major resource management problems are apparent.
Reductions in direct costs to the Government below task order/contract estimated costs are noteworthy. Contractor provides detailed cost analysis and recommendations to Government for resolution of problems identified. Funds and resources are optimally used to provide the maximum benefit for the funds and resources available. Documented savings are apparent.
| Cost Reporting |
| Reports are generally late, inaccurate, incomplete or unclear. |
| Reports are timely, accurate, complete and clearly written. Problems and/or trends are addressed, and an analysis is also submitted. |
| Reports are clear, accurate, and pro-active. Problems and/or trends are addressed thoroughly, and the Contractor’s recommendations and/or corrective plans are implemented and effective. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .