Quality Assurane Sureveillance Plan.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR

Multi-Discipline Intelligence Operator Course (MDIOC) Manpower Augmentation

1 December 2021

1. Objective. The objective of this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is to provide

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and any COR appointed Technical Representatives

(TRs) with a formal, effective, and systematic surveillance method for monitoring, reporting, and evaluating the services being delivered via the contract. An additional objective is to provide the

Contractor with the methodology the Government team will employ to evaluate Contractor performance, determine contract compliance, and provide feedback to the Contractor regarding the quality of the services being delivered. This feedback will enable the Contractor to partner with MARSOC to continuously improve both the quality of its services and its contribution toward meeting the customer’s mission.

This QASP is designed to monitor and evaluate Contractor performance by providing an effective surveillance method against the Service Delivery Summary (SDS). This QASP provides a systematic and consistent method to evaluate the services and products the Contractor is required to deliver and is based on the premise that the Contractor, not the Government is responsible for the management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract.

The role of the Government in following the procedures outlined within this QASP is to ensure contract thresholds are achieved by conducting the proper level of oversight required for the services being acquired. The Contractor is required to 1) utilize its internal quality control processes and procedures to ensure quality services are provided and 2) ensure those processes and procedures align with the Government processes outlined in this QASP.

1.1 Quality Assurance Process. The process for evaluating and reporting Contractor performance is as follows:

Performance Assessment Processing

Responsible Party Task Timeframe

Contractor Submits to the COR a Monthly Report NLT

10 working days after the end of each month

NLT the 10th working day* each month

Multi-Functional Team (MFT)

Contracting Officer’s Representative Contracting Officer

COR

Reviews the Monthly Report with the

Contractor and files with COR’s file NLT 5 work days after receipt

COR

Submits Report of Contractor performance via PIEE SPM module

NLT the 10th working day* after event

KO

Reviews COR Monthly Report submission in

PIEE SPM Module and approves submission.

NLT 5 workdays after receipt

* If the due date is a holiday or weekend, the due date is the next business day.

1.2 Quality Assurance Process Drivers:

Monthly Report

The Contractor shall submit a monthly report in a format agreed upon by the COR and Contractor. The monthly report must be submitted to the COR by the 10th of the following month. At a minimum, each monthly report shall include:

• The Contractor Name, Contract Number, Project Name, and the applicable month and year of the report

• An overall summary identifying the current state of the requirement and support

• Manpower Status which includes:

o Total number of contract personnel required o Total number of personnel on contract o Total number of CAC’s returned

• Major actions/events conducted during the month

• Projected major actions/event for the up-coming month

• Current or projected difficulties/concerns

• Recommendations for improvement

• Chart depicting contract funding which includes, by CLIN:

o Contract Total o Amount Obligated o Amount Expended o CLIN Balance

• Chart depicting anticipated expenditures for the following month

Quarterly Report

The Contractor shall submit a quarterly report that summarizes and consolidates the information listed in the three-prior monthly report. The quarters shall be: 1st) Oct-Nov-Dec; 2nd) Jan-Feb-Mar; 3rd) Apr-

May-Jun; and 4th) Jul-Aug-Sep, and the quarterly reports will be submitted to the COR no later than the

10 day of the following start of new quarter. The format will be agreed upon by the COR and Contractor.

2.0 Service Delivery Summary (SDS).

The SDS for this Contract represents the standards that the Contractor shall meet in the performance of MARSOC requirements. Overall performance assessments shall be provided to the Contracting Officer by the COR each month. Any issue not resolved at the COR(s) level that necessitates elevation to the Contracting Officer level or above for resolution shall constitute a formal customer complaint and will be counted against the Performance Metrics described in the

SDS Quality of Service Category and/or Business Relations Category. Meeting or not meeting the thresholds shown in the areas below shall be the basis of performance evaluation.

Service Delivery Summary

Category SDS – Objective Metric – Performance

Threshold

Method of

Evaluation

Quality of

Service

• Does the Contractor’s performance conform to contract requirements, specifications, and thresholds of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health thresholds)?

• For example:

• Does the product or service provided meet the thresholds outlined within the SOW/SDS?

• Does the Contractor’s work measure up to commonly accepted technical or professional thresholds?

• What degree of Government technical direction was required to solve problems that arise during performance?

• Were there any security or OCI violations?

Does the contractor consistently deliver the commitments made within the contract?

• Contractor receives no more than 1 formal customer complaints per year.

• Contractor successfully resolves any customer complaint within 5 working days of receipt or less time as specified in the contract.

• No security or OCI violations acceptable.

100% Compliance.

• All proposed commitments were implemented without

Government intervention and any associated benefits were realized.

• Inspections by

COR(s)

• Hand reviews of products/deliverables

• Formal Customer

Complaints

• COR solicits feedback from TRs, leadership/ SMEs/ interested parties on accuracy and quality of deliverables and quality of performance

Schedule • Are requirements/deliverables completed in an accurate, timely manner in compliance with contract SOW requirements?

• Were all AARs submitted accurate and timely?

• No more than one set of corrections/ edits and all corrections were accomplished within 3 working days

• COR solicits feedback from TRs, leadership/ SMEs/ interested parties on accuracy and quality of deliverables and quality of performance

• Review of monthly reports

Business

Relations

• Is the Contractor oriented toward the customer?

• Is interaction between the Contractor and the Government satisfactory or does it need improvement?

• Was the quality of problem identification and corrective action plans, if applicable, focused on customer satisfaction?

• Did the Contractor personnel exhibit reasonable and cooperative behavior?

• Contractor receives no more than 1 formal customer complaint.

• Contractor successfully resolves any customer complaint within 5 working days of receipt.

• Formal Customer

Complaints

• COR solicits feedback from TRs, leadership/ SMEs/ interested parties on accuracy and quality of deliverables and quality of performance

• Review of Monthly reports

Management of Personnel

• Did the contractor successfully manage to the requirements with a focus on performance/deliverables, i.e. managed internal resources to ensure overall

• Contractor receives no more than 1 formal customer complaint.

• Formal Customer

Complaints

Service Delivery Summary

Category SDS – Objective Metric – Performance

Threshold

Method of

Evaluation contract requirements/deliverables were met at a quality level rather than a focus towards executed hours per direct support employee?

• Did the contractor manage all personnel to ensure all requirements were met; i.e.

redirecting resources across tasks; cross training when applicable; ensuring no loss to requirements during absences or vacancies with coordination only with the Requiring Activities for awareness and successful management of related contract performance?

• Were off-site personnel effectively utilized?

• How well did the Contractor select, retain, manage, and ensure continuous training of employees, and replace, when necessary, personnel throughout the contract period of performance as required?

• For example:

• Was the contractor aware of any performance related issues and were the appropriate actions taken to ensure quick resolution?

• Were the contractors' internal business practices/processes /plans successful in hiring and then retaining all qualified support personnel?

• Contractor successfully resolves any customer complaint within 5 working days of receipt or less time as specified in the task order.

• No more than 1 personnel related changes due to ineffective performance or inappropriate qualifications.

• Contractor successfully manages personnel to meet all requirements defined in the PWS, regardless of absences or vacancies, 100% of the time.

• COR solicits feedback from TRs, leadership/ SMEs/ interested parties on accuracy and quality of deliverables and quality of performance

• COR solicits feedback with regards to the level of

Government involvement in identified internal company personnel related issues.

3.0 Methods of Surveillance/Metrics of Measurement Definitions and Descriptions. The

SDS objectives and metrics will be utilized to measure the Contractor’s performance. Some of the methods of evaluation that may be utilized by the CORs to determine whether the thresholds have been met are as follows:

a. Customer Complaints.

1. “Informal Customer Complaint” means any dissatisfaction expressed by a complainant to the COR, either orally or in writing, regarding any aspect of the contractor’s performance. The COR investigates whether the complaint is valid or has merit. If the complaint is not valid or has no merit, the COR will document their determination and notify the complainant. If the COR determines the complaint is valid, the Contract Task Lead must be notified of the complaint and given a reasonable timeframe to render the necessary corrections to resolve the complaint. The COR must also advise the complainant of this timeframe. Any informal compliant not resolved between the COR and the Contract Task Lead shall be elevated to the Contracting

Officer. Complaints elevated to the Contracting Officer shall be considered a

Formal Customer Complaint.

2. “Formal Customer Complaint” means any dissatisfaction expressed by a complainant via the COR to the KO, either orally or in writing, regarding any aspect of the contractor’s performance, including but not limited to deficiencies related to the quality, reliability, or effectiveness, of the contractor‘s product deliverables or service performance; a violation of policy, law, or regulation; or failure to meet requirements of the Performance Work

Statement. A formal customer complaint must be justified, verified as accurate, and documented as valid and which, directly or implicitly, requests that the KO take specific action(s) to obtain relief or redress on behalf of the complainant. A formal customer complaint is resolved when the KO has closed the complaint upon exhausting all appropriate actions to resolve the complaint and has responded to the complainant in writing explaining the final disposition of the complaint.

b. Other Methods. The COR may utilize several methods to document and assess the

Contractor’s performance that may include, but are not limited to review of monthly reports, reviews of products/deliverables, notifications of security violations, reported

OCI violations, interactions with Contractor employees, feedback from appointed

TRs/Leadership/SMEs, etc. Negative performance issues will require documentation and must be adequately justified to assign unfavorable performance ratings.

4.0 Performance Assessment Process.

4.0.1 Assessments will be based upon the specific objectives and thresholds contained in the

SDS. When assessing the Contractor’s overall performance ratings, the COR may utilize the various methods outlined within the SDS and this QASP. Additionally, communication between the COR and Contractor should be on-going and feedback regarding performance should be performed at the lowest levels. The basic premise is that continuous communication and on-going performance feedback between the COR and the Contractor are essential to providing improved, quality performance and eliminate surprises.

4.0.2 The COR should not wait to address concerns with performance.

4.0.4 Assessment Rating Definitions.

Definitions that apply to Monthly Assessment performance ratings and utilized by the contractor, CORs, TRs, and KO are as follows:

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective. To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the

Government. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory

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. To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DoD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractor will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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. To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the Contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory

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. To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the

Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the Contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental).

5. Disputes. Attempts will be made to resolve all disputes arising under this QASP using the

Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) as outlined in FAR 33.214. The objective is to reach mutually agreeable resolutions to disputes that are relatively inexpensive and expeditious. If no resolution can be made under ADR, the KO shall be notified for a final decision. For disputes regarding a CPAR, the final dispute authority will be the RO.

6. COR and TR training and appointments. All CORs and TRs will be properly trained prior to being formally appointed in accordance with DFARS, DOD policy, and SOCOM policy.

7. Revisions to this QASP. This is a living document that can be revised at any time.

Revisions to this QASP are the joint responsibility of the COR and KO. The KO and COR may obtain and will consider feedback and recommendations for enhancements from the Contractor.

Attachment 1

COR Assessment Multi-Discipline Intelligence Operator Course (MDIOC) Manpower Augmentation

Upload completed report to COR-T NLT 10th day after each month

Date:

Site:

Contractor Site Lead:

Activity: MARSOC

Contractor: TBD

Assessment Conducted By: TBD

Y = is performing task N = is not performing task Rating: * 1 = Exceptional *2 = Very Good 3 = Satisfactory *4 = Marginal *5

= Unsatisfactory

* below and above standard ratings must be supported with comments below

Y N

QUALITY

*1 *2 3 *4 *5

Quality of Service

1. Does the contractor’s performance conform to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards)?

Schedule

2. Are requirements/deliverables completed in an accurate, timely manner in compliance with SOW requirements?

3. Were all monthly and quarterly report submitted accurate and timely?

Business Relations

4. Is the contractor oriented toward the customer?

5. Is interaction between the contractor and the Government satisfactory or does it need improvement?

6. Was the quality of problem identification and corrective action plans, if applicable, focused on customer satisfaction?

7. Did the contractor personnel exhibit reasonable and cooperative behavior?

Management of Personnel

8. Did the Contractor successfully manage to the requirements with a focus on performance/deliverables?

9. Did the Contractor manage all personnel to ensure all requirements were met?

10. Were off-site personnel effectively utilized?

11. How well did the Contractor select, retain, manage, and ensure continuous training of employee(s), and replace, when necessary, SME personnel throughout the period of performance as required?

12. Was the Contractor aware of any performance-related issues and were the appropriate actions taken to resolve quickly?

13. Were the Contractor’s internal business practices/processes/plans successful in hiring and retaining qualified SME personnel?

14. STATE ANY OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES, WHICH SHOULD BE

BROUGHT TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER’S ATTENTION.

Additional Comments:

I have discussed my assessment with the Contractor Site Lead.

Signature: Date: