RFP Attachment 1 QASP.docx
DOCX document 52 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HC1019-22-R-0002
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This document includes a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and supporting appendices for the Commander, Naval Forces Japan (CNFJ) / Commander, Navy Region Japan (CNRJ) Information Technology and Communications Support Services Contract. The QASP outlines performance monitoring methods and acceptance criteria for various IT and communications support tasks such as SharePoint administration, cybersecurity compliance, and help desk services. Performance will be evaluated on metrics including response times, system availability, and customer complaint levels. Contractors must meet standards for 90% of tasks by the assigned due dates and address any deficiencies within response timelines. The federal government aims to ensure contractors meet all requirements through surveillance of monthly reports, content reviews, and regular meetings.
This related solicitation is seeking proposals for the Commander, Naval Forces Japan (CNFJ) / Commander, Navy Region Japan (CNRJ) Information Technology (IT) and Communications Services Contract to support IT and communications services. The requirements include a small business 8(a) set-aside, firm fixed price contract type, with a one year base period and four one-year options. Proposals are due by April 4, 2022. The incumbent contractor is Premier Solutions HI, LLC. The Defense Information Systems Agency is the contracting agency.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet AMD0001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC1019-22-R-0002 AMD0001.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment 7 Question and Answers 28 MAR 2022.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP Attachment 3 CLIN Pricing Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP Attachment 2 DD Form 254 April 2018.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment 4 BVTO Eval Table w No PP.docx | DOCX document | |
| HC1019-22-R-0002.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment 5 Questions Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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)
1. Contract or Task Order Title Commander, Naval Forces Japan (CNFJ) / Commander, Navy Region Japan (CNRJ) Information Technology and Communications Support Services Contract.
2. Purpose:
This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:
· What will be monitored?
· How monitoring will take place.
· Who will conduct the monitoring?
· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.
This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.
This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.
3. Roles and Responsibilities:
The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.
Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides program oversight and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities.
Contracting Officer (KO) – The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.
Other Key Government Personnel – CNFJ/CNRJ Regional leadership, Branch Heads and Installation N6 department personnel. Hereafter these personnel will be referred to as Government Representatives (GR).
4. Primary Method of Surveillance:
As outlined in Appendix A, a combination of surveillance methods will be used. These methods are monthly inspections of Monthly Status Reports (MSR), regular meetings with the contractor, random sampling/surveys, periodic inspections, monthly content reviews and random observations.
5. Surveillance Matrix:
The Surveillance Matrix (Appendix 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.
Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performance surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The AQL performance Standard Table should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.
6. Documenting Performance:
Acceptable Performance.
The Government shall document positive performance. A Performance Assessment Report (PAR) template is attached (Appendix 2). Any report may become part of the supporting documentation for fixed price payments, award/incentive fee payments, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) entries, or other actions. Government acceptance of services permits the contractor to invoice for the service fee.
Unacceptable performance.
Unacceptable contractor performance can be identified by customer complaints (Appendix 3) or upon schedule surveillance evaluations. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file and provide a copy to the KO.
When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Corrective Action Report (CAR). The CAR is forwarded to the KO for dissemination to the contractor. A CAR template is attached to this QASP (Appendix 4).
The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing. The CAR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CAR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the KO and COR. The Government may withhold payment for services until corrective action is taken. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. Upon Government acceptance of the corrected services the contractor will be permitted to invoice for the service fee.
Any CAR may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, CPARS or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.
7. Mandatory/Regulatory Compliance Items:
The contractor will provide initial proof of compliance with regulatory and compliance items contained in the contract. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (KO) will evaluate the initial submission and will conduct ad hoc reviews of the contractor's compliance throughout the remainder of the contract. The contractor will monitor compliance as required by FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and report any issues to the KO.
8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):
AQLs vary depending on the tasks in the contract. Detailed AQLs shown in Appendix 1 – Surveillance Matrix.
9. Evaluation Method:
Evaluation methods vary depending on the tasks in the contract. Detailed evaluation methods shown in Appendix 1 – Surveillance Matrix. For all tasks, the COR will collect input gathered from the Contractor-provided MSR and compare it to data collected from Government Representatives (GRs) during the monthly COR checklist compilation.
10. Performance Rating
In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used (same as CPAR ratings).
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| 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. |
| 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 evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were 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/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
| Marginal |
| 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. |
| 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 deficiency reports, or letters). |
Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix
| Performance Standards |
| Acceptable Quality |
Levels Methods of Calculation
| Surveillance |
| Results/Ratings |
| Task 6.1 – Provide oversight on performance of contract-related tasks. Comply with contract requirements and manage issues, concerns and conflicts. Required documents are provided by the established due date and contain all required information. |
| Target Criteria: Performance occurs by the established due date with no required re-performance or re-work at least 90% of the time. |
Minimum Acceptable: Performance occurs within one day of established due date with no issues 85% of the time.
| Calculation: The number of issues identified and compliance with established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs and regular meetings with contractor. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.2 – Provide service and support for required C3P systems. |
| Target Criteria: Requests for service responded to within four business hours of receipt. |
| Calculation: No more than three valid customer complaints per quarter. |
| Method: Random sampling/surveys. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.3 – Provide ITR services for CNFJ/CNRJ and Installation sites on enterprise and infrastructure services. |
| Target Criteria: User requests responded to within four business hours of receipt. |
| Calculation: No more than three valid customer complaints per quarter. |
| Method: Periodic inspections, regular meetings. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.3.1 – Provide SharePoint support and administrative services on CNIC G2 portal and/or SharePoint portals. |
| Target Criteria: Maintain 90% accuracy; validate content monthly, provide automated solutions. |
| Calculation: Meet compliance with established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly content review. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.3.2 – Provide support and security administration of CNFJ/CNRJ systems/networks. |
| Target Criteria: Requests completed within five business days. |
| Calculation: Compliance with DoD/DoN/Cyber IA standards; established due dates. |
| Method: Weekly inspection and monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.3.3 – Provide support and maintain operational applications. |
| Target Criteria: Requests completed within five business days. |
| Calculation: Performance occurs as new project requirements are received. |
| Method: Periodic inspections. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.4 – Provide services for CNRJ/CNFJ and installation sites on Enterprise Architecture services. |
| Target Criteria: User requests responded to within four business hours of receipt. |
| Calculation: No more than three valid customer complaints per quarter. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.1 – The Contractor shall be responsible for the command-wide coordination of all aspects of CS pursuant to applicable international, federal and state laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and instructions, by implementing all elements of CS program. |
| Target Criteria: Policies, procedures, and guidance are developed and maintained IAW enterprise, regional, and installation timelines. |
| Calculation: Meet compliance with established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs and regular meetings with contractor. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.2 – Provide System/Access Control Management. |
| Target Criteria: System and Access control requests are processed within eight business hours of receipt. |
| Calculation: Meet compliance with established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs and regular meetings with contractor. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.3 – The Contractor will support the A&A process for all systems supported by CNFJ/CNRJ. |
| Target Criteria: A&A tasks are completed IAW RMF/CNIC prescribed timelines. |
| Calculation: Compliance with DoD/DoN/Cyber IA standards; established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly content review. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.4 – The Contractor will manage the regional audit and compliance tasks to include ACAS, VRAM, IAVM, and other required process as defined by the regional ISSM. |
| Target Criteria: IAVMs management is conducted with eight business hours of receipt. |
| Calculation: Compliance with DoD/DoN/Cyber IA standards; established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly content review. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.5 – The Contractor will provide incident response for CNFJ/CNRJ customers and systems. |
| Target Criteria: All Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) incident timelines are met. |
| Calculation: Incidents are processed within CJCSI incident timelines. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs and regular meetings with contractor. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.6 – The Contractor will serve as member of the command’s CS self-assessment and Facility Related Control System/Industrial Control System (FRCS/ICS) assessment team. |
| Target Criteria: Contractors are part of the assessment teams and provide guidance to tenant commands. Teams based off the FRCS tasking and cyber hygiene requirements. |
| Calculation: Meet compliance with established inspection and assessment timelines. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
Task 6.5.7 – Act as command appointed STAs, and support the tasks and activities as prescribed by DoD, DoN, and command instructions, policies, and procedures: maintaining token logs, alternate token processes, local procedures, activation and deactivation records, and approved transfer agent files and reports. Develop and maintain a PKI status portal for real-time status tracking and inventory.
| Target Criteria: Tokens are managed and provided to customers within the token guidelines. |
| Calculation: Compliance with DoD/DoN/Cyber IA standards; established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.8 – The contractor will support the regional CS/IA Awareness and Training program. |
| Target Criteria: Contractors develop and provide timely and useful training inputs to the program and meet the prescribed training timelines. |
| Calculation: Training is provided and reported IAW command and ISSM guidelines. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.9 – The Contractor will perform duties for the command’s Cyber Security Workforce (CSWF) Manager as a regional TWMS Training Officer. |
| Target Criteria: Reports are provided on a weekly basis. |
| Calculation: Compliance with DoD/DoN/Cyber IA standards; established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs and regular meetings with contractor. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.5.10 – The Contractor will perform CS duties as a limited duty ISSO at the CNFJ/CNRJ installations at the direction of the CNFJ/CNRJ Regional ISSM. |
| Target Criteria: Performance occurs by the established due date. |
| Calculation: Compliance with DoD/DoN/Cyber IA standards; established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs and regular meetings with contractor. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.6 – Provide Information Technology support to CNFJ/CNRJ and installation sites. |
| Target Criteria: User requests responded to within four business hours of receipt. |
| Calculation: No more than three valid customer complaints per quarter. |
| Method: Periodic inspections and random observations. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.6.2 – Provide compliance with systems and network support requirements. |
| Target Criteria: Average eight business hour response time to support requests. |
| Calculation: In compliance 90% of the time. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.6.3 – Provide VTC facilitator support/maintenance for CNFJ/CNRJ and installation sites. |
| Target Criteria: Maintain VTC availability. |
| Calculation: Performance occurs as new project requirements are received. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.6.4 – Provide oversite and management of CNFJ/CNRJ ONE-Net and GFE assets, maintain accurate inventory of all Command IT assets. |
| Target Criteria: Maintain accurate records of assets (location and user to machine name). |
| Calculation: Meet compliance with established due dates. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.6.5 – Provide TCO support: process TSRs/technical support. |
| Target Criteria: User requests responded to within four business hours of receipt. |
| Calculation: Performance occurs as new project requirements are received. |
| Method: Random sampling/surveys. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.6.6 – Provide support for IT lifecycle management: research / obtain cost quotes for materials or parts required. |
| Target Criteria: Performance occurs by the established due date. |
| Calculation: Performance occurs as new project requirements are received. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSRs. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.7 – Provide business management including assisting in the requirements development, implementation, operation and maintenance. |
| Target Criteria: Performance occurs by the established due date. |
| Calculation: No more than three valid customer complaints per quarter. |
| Method: Random sampling/surveys. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 6.7.3 – Provide bilateral system (CENTRIXS, ADSI, GCCS and RADMERC) support. |
| Target Criteria: Ensure system hardware is operational within 24 hours of trouble reporting. If unable to remedy issue in 24 hours, provide resolution plan to the COR. |
| Calculation: No more than three valid customer complaints per quarter. |
| Method: Random sampling/surveys. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 7.1 – Comply with service call response and completion times. |
| Target Criteria: Performance occurs within response time expectations in 7.1 of the PWS. |
Minimum Acceptable: N/A. Must comply with timelines specified in the PWS.
| Calculation: Contractor will report times in MSR, which will be compared with GR. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSR and data collection from GRs during the monthly COR checklist compilation. |
| Exceptional |
Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
| Task 12 – Comply with contract security requirements. |
| Target Criteria: No more than one security violation per year. |
| Calculation: Contractor will report any non-compliance in MSR, which will be compared with non-compliance reported by GRs. |
| Method: Monthly inspection of MSR and data collection from GRs during the monthly COR checklist compilation. |
| Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory
Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)
(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)
| 1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER NUMBER |
| 2. CONTRACTOR |
| 3. TYPE OF SERVICES |
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE
| 5. COR PHONE |
| 6. SUSPENSE DATE |
I. PERFORMANCE
7. |_| DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)
|_| NEW
|_| REPEAT
|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED
8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED
| 9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF DEFICIENCY BOX WAS CHECKED) |
| 10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT |
II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION
11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR
12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE
13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY
III. ACTION CORRECTED
14. |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE
15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)
6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS
Appendix 3 – Customer Complaint Record
CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD
DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT
SOURCE OF COMPLAINT
ORGANIZATION
BUILDING NUMBER
INDIVIDUAL
PHONE NUMBER
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
CONTRACT REFERENCE
VALIDATION
DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT
ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR
RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY
Appendix 4 – Corrective Action Report
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)
(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)
1. CONTRACTOR
2. CONTRACT NUMBER
3. TYPE OF SERVICES
4. FUNCTIONAL AREA
5. SUSPENSE DATE
6. CONTROL NUMBER
7. DEFICIENCY |_| MAJOR |_| MINOR
FINDING:
FINDING IMPACT:
Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.
8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)
TYPED NAME AND GRADE
SIGNATURE AND DATE
9. ISSUING AUTHORITY
TYPED NAME AND GRADE
SIGNATURE AND DATE
10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE
11. COR DETERMINATION
|_| ACCEPTED |_| REJECTED
12. CLOSE DATE
Enclosure 6, Page 1 of 2 Pages 17Jul2013/Version 2
Encl 4, QASP 25Feb2022/v6
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .