Attachment_0004_-_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Repair of the Improved Data Modem Model 304B MD-1383/A

Product Manager Aviation Mission Equipment (PM AME) Field Office 17 November 2015

PRBL1-17-R-0005 - ATTACHMENT 0004 - QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the Improved Data Modem Model 304B MD-1383/A Repair Contract. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the SOO and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project team (IPT), identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance).

This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by Product Manager, Aviation Mission Equipment (PM AME) Field Office, to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment.

The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate

PRBL1-17-R-0005 - ATTACHMENT 0002 - QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control program (QCP). QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QCP.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Quality Assurance Representative (QAR)

The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) is responsible for inspection and acceptance of hardware with site contractually specified “at Source”.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is a part of the LRC and will be responsible for implementing the assessment methods and approaches during contract execution. The COR will also capture the results of the assessments in a COR report that is delivered to the PCO every month. Finally, the COR will be responsible for documenting successful performance or recommending remedies for unacceptable performance to the PCO as soon as the COR becomes aware of such conditions.

2.3 The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will review and concur with the QASP. The PCO will review, collect and retain the COR reports of the ongoing performance assessments as part of the contract file. The COR reports will form the basis of Successful Performance and Remedies.

2.4 The Contractor

The contractor is responsible for managing performance and quality controls to ensure that products tendered to the Government meet the terms of the contract.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY

LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels, which must be met by the contractor, are specified within this QASP and the PWS. The contractor must meet a minimum Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) in the following areas:

• Technical Performance

• Schedule and Timeliness of Deliveries

• Contractor Resource Control

• Management

(a) Technical Performance: The contractor will be assessed at source by the QAR. Work performance with full technical compliance IAW all applicable contract requirements for repaired hardware will be individually assessed by unit as evidenced by DD250s (or their automated equivalents) signed by the QAR. The technical assessment will be in narrative form with ratings as shown below. As part of this acceptance procedure, the QAR will also assess the contractor’s performance by monitoring performance against the acceptance testing, repair criteria (Repair levels and Beyond Economical Repair = BER, re-work not feasible) and repair Turn-Around-Time (TAT) metrics as required by:

REQUIREMENT PWS PARAGRAPH.

(1) Acceptance testing 3.2

(2) TAT 3.2

(3) Beyond Economical Repair (BER) 3.2 (4)Status of Government Furnished Equipment Reports 3.2

Assessment will be in the following form:

There will be four ratings for technical performance: Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Very Good and Exceptional as defined below:

Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear ineffective or were not fully implemented.

Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

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

The Contractor performance assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor wereas effective.

Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

(b) Schedule and Timeliness of Deliveries: The contractor must comply with the TAT as stated in the PWS and shall be responsive to Government tasking. Contract deliverables (CDRLs) shall be submitted on a timely basis as required by the contract/task order.

The contractor’s delivery performance will be assessed at Source by the QAR by scoring based on the degree of acceleration or delay in delivery of the repaired units. Scoring will be as follows:

SCORE CRITERIA

0 – Delivery 30 days or more delayed 1 – Delivery from 1 to 29 days delayed 2 – Delivery exactly as required by turn-around time as specified in PWS paragraph 3.2 3 – Delivery from 1 to 15 days accelerated 4 – Delivery 16 days or more accelerated

(c) Contractor Resource Control: The contractor shall use the funding authorized to provide support throughout the Period of Performance (PoP). The contractor should not exceed the cost-reimbursable Contract Line Numbers (CLINs) without prior Contracting Officer approval. The contractor will be evaluated in the successful control of resources devoted to the task order. The COR will compare monthly the contractor’s rate of labor and funds usage to those allocated for the effort. Any discrepancies will be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer.

(d) Management: The contractor’s management should put adequate systems in place to most effectively perform the task order and protect the Governments interest. For example, the contractor should have approved property management, quality control, subcontracting and accounting systems in place.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary method of surveillance will be 100% Inspection. Additionally, the QAR will assess the technical performance of each unit repaired under the Task Order at source. The QAR shall randomly confirm the results of the test and inspect. The COR shall review and analyze the QAR’s documentation and contractor’s deliverables and enter a summary of the results into the COR monthly reports, which are uploaded to the COR Module of the Virtual Contracting Enterprise (VCE) on a monthly basis. In addition, the COR will complete an assessment and rate the contractor’s performance in the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System

(CPARS).

4.2 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative remedies for performance shortfalls. . In the event the contractor does not meet the established AQLs, the Contracting Officer has the right to exercise the remedies specified in Section 4.3 of this QASP.

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD

DEPOT LEVEL REPAIR

AQL SURVEILLANCE INCENTIVE REMEDY

Technical All units (100%) assessed with a Satisfactory rating

In-plant Government QAR and COR

See Para 3(a) and 4.3

See Para 4.3

Schedule All units (100%) assessed with a delivery score of 2 or greater

In-plant Government QAR

See Para 3(b) and 4.3

See Para 4.3

Resource Control Contractor successfully performed contract within cost 100% of the time.

Monitoring of monthly cost report/contractor’s actual costs by COR

See Paragraph 4.3

See Paragraph 4.3

Management Contractor has successfully implemented systems and all deliverables (100%) are submitted on time

Review of deliverables by

COR

See Paragraph 4.3

See Paragraph 4.3

4.3 Incentives and Remedies

Successful performance can be incentivized with favorable ratings in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and award of logical follow-on opportunities if applicable. Remedies for performance not meeting the AQL may include negative ratings in CPARS which may be used as part of the evaluation criteria on all future competitions, not awarding logical follow-on opportunities, notification to the contractor’s corporate headquarters of poor performance, and possibly non-payment for materiel not delivered, services not performed or milestones not met. In addition to the above, poor performance will be used by the PCO in making the determination whether or not to utilize further IDIQ ordering years.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and is assessed using the performance monitoring techniques discussed within this QASP.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each month, the QAR or LRC Engineer (as applicable) will review data submitted or made available by the contractor. In addition, the QAR will provide any relevant scoring or assessment data to the COR and the COR will submit their comments and/or recommendations to the PCO. The PCO will then review the comments/recommendations submitted by the COR, and any comments from the ACO or other Government personnel. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives. This QASP will be revised as circumstances warrant.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The QAR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the COR and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the QAR as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

Issues and concerns of both parties

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

6.3.2 The QAR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The COR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the PCO/ACO.