RFP Attachment 2 ACE LMR QASP.pdf

CUI

Controlled By: Product Lead Base Emergency Communications System (PL BECS)

CUI Category: PROCURE AND ACQUISITION

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 1 of 10 Pages

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract or Task Order Title (Tracking Number 842468948): Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Fort Novosel, AL, and Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HAAP), TN Modernization Effort

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- This may include performance monitors, inspectors, technical experts, workforce service division and center directorate level security personnel, requirements office, or others (i.e., users) who provide information that helps the COR monitor contractor performance.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance: Customer complaints and PL BECS quarterly visits and bi-weekly Integrated

Project Reviews (IPR).

CUI Category: PROCURE AND ACQUISITION

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 2 of 10 Pages

CUI

✓ Random Sampling. This is usually the most appropriate method for recurring tasks. With random sampling, services are sampled to determine if the level of performance is acceptable. Random sampling works best when the number of instances of the services being performed is very large and a statistically valid sample can be obtained. Computer programs may be available to assist in establishing sampling procedures.

✓ Customer Input. Although usually not a primary method, this is a valuable supplement to more systematic methods. For example, in a case where random sampling indicates unsatisfactory service, customer complaints can be used as substantiating evidence. In certain situations where customers can be relied upon to complain consistently when the quality of performance is poor, e.g., dining facilities, building services, customer surveys and customer complaints may be a primary surveillance method, and customer satisfaction an appropriate performance standard. In all cases, complaints should be documented, preferably on a standard form.

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.

5. Performance Standards: Perform all tasks stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) starting from Paragraphs 6 through 11.5 to include all applicable tasks listed in:

a. PWS Appendix A – Fort Novosel & HAAP System and General Requirements

b. PWS Appendix B1 – Fort Novosel Site Specific Info Tables

c. PWS Appendix B2 – HAAP Site Specific Info Tables

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

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 3 of 10 Pages

CUI

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 or regulatory compliance items:

The Contractor will provide initial proof of compliance with regulatory and compliance items contained in the contract. The COR and the 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, all Training mentioned in the PWS and report any issues to the KO.

8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

The AQL for this project is 100% due to the critical support for US Army’s First Responders and Emergency

Services.

9. Evaluation Method:

The COR will document the time of verbal notification to the contractor. The COR will document the official time and date of notification on the Maintenance Call Record. The COR will review self-diagnostic systems logs, conduct a comparison with actual maintenance performance and otherwise verify and validate contractor performance. The contractor shall enter in the record the official time the project issue is restored. The COR will confirm the date and time of problem resolution in the record.

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.

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 4 of 10 Pages

CUI

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).

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 5 of 10 Pages

Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix

Performance

Standards

Acceptable

Quality

Levels

Methods of

Calculation Surveillance Results/Ratings

Information

Technology

(IT) Service

Integration and Delivery

Performance

Management

High level of satisfaction with

Contractor delivery management of LMR project services

Target Criteria:

90% of all survey respondents are

Satisfied, More

Than Satisfied, or very Satisfied

Minimum

Acceptable:

> 85% of all survey respondents are

Satisfied, More

Than Satisfied, or Very Satisfied with Contractor delivery management of all LMR Services

Calculation:

The number of users who were

Satisfied, More

Than Satisfied, or

Very Satisfied divided by the total number of completed surveys returned.

At least 5

Government personnel must complete and return surveys for the results to have at least a 90% confidence factor with a 5% error rate.

Measurement Interval:

The Measurement Interval is three (3) months for the first year and then every six (6) months thereafter.

Measurement Period:

The Measurement Period begins at 00:01 on the first day of the month and ends at 24:00 on the last day of the month.

Source of Measurement

Data: Data will be collected from management surveys containing satisfaction criteria specified by PL

BECS and the Installation

NEC or LMR Management team.

Method of Surveillance:

Customer feedback. The

Government will issue customer satisfaction surveys to designated

Government Installation

NEC or LMR Manager

Services using a five (5) category scale. The scale is: Dissatisfied, Less than

Satisfied, Satisfied, More than Satisfied, Very

Satisfied.

Timing of Measurement:

Measurements are taken within five (5) days of the end of the Measurement

Period.

Reporting Frequency:

Reporting to commence upon Contract Award and

(Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory)

(A rollup of assessment of the

Surveillance Inspection

Results to develop an overall rating for this objective)

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 6 of 10 Pages

CUI

continue throughout the

Period of Performance.

Monthly reporting of

QASP attainment to periods survey. Quarterly survey reporting from

(xyz) during the first year, semi-annual thereafter.

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 7 of 10 Pages

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

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 8 of 10 Pages

CUI

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

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 9 of 10 Pages

Distribution/Dissemination Control: Acquisition Sensitive

POC: Clive Flores, 703-806-8488 and Robert Good, 571-355-0643

Page 10 of 10 Pages

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