QASP_SPRBL119R0062.pdf

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 1 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

For

Servo Drive, Brushless, MILSLIM 1500 Software Integrated Assembly NSN: 4810-01-605-5866 with Associated P/N: SRC6797-2 Final Configuration

Control Panel, Operator, Vehicle Mount Software Integrated Assembly NSN: 2510-01-618-5699 with Associated P/N: SRC6797-3 Final Configuration

Servo Drive, Brushless, MILSLIM 600 Firmware Integrated Assembly NSN: 3010-01-618-2120 with Associated P/N: SRC6797-4 Final Configuration

P/O: AN/TPQ-50 (V)/Q50 CTARS

(Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar Systems)

For Official Use Only - Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 2 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is placed on contract to determine and assess compliance with metrics established for all Delivery Orders (DOs) and/or Task Orders (TOs) against technical and contract requirements for the following Actuators Configuration Items (CIs) and/or future Government approved configurations by the Procuring Contracting Officer in writing only:

Servo Drive, Brushless, MILSLIM 1500 Software Integrated Assembly

NSN: 4810-01-605-5866

Final Integrated P/N: SRC6797-2

Control Panel, Operator, Vehicle Mount Software Integrated Assembly

NSN: 2510-01-618-5699

Final Integrated P/N: SRC6797-3

Servo Drive, Brushless, MILSLIM 600 Software Integrated Assembly

NSN: 3010-01-618-2120

Final Integrated P/N: SRC6797-4

The QASP directly correlates to the contract Technical Requirements Document (TRD) and the Contractor shall apply both documents in concert during performance on each DO or TO efforts as applicable to the contract scope in effect for its CIs Vendor P/Ns: Requirements for Spare Parts Acquisition and Hardware Repairs Services for the three (3) items described above (P/N’s SRC679-2, SRC679-3, and SRC679-4). Also included on a contingency basis is a Contract Line Item (CLIN) for Engineering Services to be used only should the need for such services surface during the contract ordering years. Both Actuators (Upper and Lower P/Ns) are part of the AN/TPQ-50(V)/Q50 (V) Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar Systems (CTARS) and are required for long term maintainability and operational readiness of these radars.

The QASP also establishes processes and procedures by which quality, inspection and performance assessment will be conducted for all orders placed on contract and continuous oversight. In this context, process is defined as a set of interrelated or interacting activities which will transform the U.S Government (USG) goals and inputs into the Contractor’s performance outputs while procedure is herein defined as manner through which activities or processes will be carried out by both parties, the USG and the Exlar. The key driving elements of this QASP process for each Delivery Order (DO) and/or Task Order (TO) to be placed on contract during the overall ordering and performance periods are:

a. What will be monitored?

b. How will monitoring occur?

c. Who will conduct the monitoring?

d. How monitoring efforts and results will be documented?

e. What is the resulting output vs contract performance metrics as inputs?

Established factors for key driving elements of this QASP include but not limited to:

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 3 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

1. Quality

2. Completeness

3. Timeliness

4. Cost Savings

5. Accuracy

6. Efficiency

7. Effectiveness

1.1.

The Contractor shall implement and deliver performance that meets at a minimum or exceeds contract standards using its Quality Control Plan in accordance with (IAW) a Quality Assurance System that meet an American National Standard Quality Management Systems, (Ref TRD Para. 3.5), to ensure integrity of products that meets or exceeds the contract requirements.

The QASP establishes the structure for the USG’s surveillance of the Contractor’s performance for all DOs and TOs efforts to assure that they meet contract requirements and standards. The USG’s goal and intent is to be objective, fair, and reasonable in evaluating the Contractor’s performance and collaborate with the company to mitigate and resolve all surfaced matters inhibiting successful DOs and/or TOs contract completion.

1.2.

This QASP is a living document, subject to update for currency over the life of the contract ordering and performance period. Update or revisions to QASP over the course of the contract will incorporate necessary changes or improvements to achieve optimum performance and to facilitate subject matter experts judgement in conducting evaluation to determine necessary adjustments, whether an increase or decrease as applicable, to the level of program surveillance based on the Contractor’s performance on each DO and/or TO. The QASP is designed to bring full transparency, foster early and open communication for team collaboration to mitigate schedule and cost risk with the Contractor’s performance that may adversely impact the USG’s mission to achieve performance success. In addition, the QASP is designed to assist the Contractor with advanced planning and considerations to recognize and address potential foreseen and unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances that may occur outside of the company’s or the USG’s control for advanced mitigation to develop and implement alternate solutions.

1.3.

The Contractor shall use this QASP in implementing the applicable TRD requirements for each executed contract DO and TO performance efforts for transparency and early identification of performance issues for discussions and resolution to prevent or at least minimize risk on program cost, schedule, final outputs and the USG’s mission. The Contractor’s contract representative(s) shall immediately report and address all matters inhibiting performance to the PCO in writing via Email to include the Contract Specialist (CS) and the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and identified Program Lead as applicable under distribution/copy furnished.

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 4 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

2. Authority

This QASP is issued for implementation IAW the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subparts 37-6, Performance-Based Acquisition, and Part 46, Inspection of Services clauses, which provide for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

Upon contract award, assigned company Contract Manager/Representative shall identify to the PCO, CS, COR and Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) its Project Manager/Lead, Quality Assurance Manager/Lead, and respective Lead Engineer for each DO and/or TO effort in writing. The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

3.1. COR

The COR has been nominated by the Requiring Activity, CECOM ILSC IEWS, and trained to perform associated duties in support of the Contracting Authority in monitoring contract activities and the Contractor’s performance for all orders placed on contract. Nominating Requiring Activity Representative:

3.2. Contracting Officer

The Contracting Officer/PCO is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control as well as for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the initially assigned Communications-Electronics Command Integrated Logistics Support Center (CECOM ILSC) COR: Theresa Baugh, theresa.a.baugh.civ@mail.mil; CS and the Contractor. The PCO will designate one full-time COR: Theresa Baugh, theresa.a.baugh.civ@mail.mil, as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the Contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the PCO. The Government reserves the right to assign multiple CORs if deemed necessary during the course of the period of performance based on the total number of active DOs and/or TOs and the Contractor will be advised accordingly.

3.3. Contracting Officer’s Representative

The COR is designated in writing by the PCO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for administration of the project and ensures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR will be supported by a team of Government personnel in carrying contract surveillance and assessment responsibilities. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf as this function lies strictly with the PCO and accordingly any changes that the company deems may affect contract price, terms or conditions shall be addressed to the PCO in writing followed by confirmation of receipt for immediate attention and action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA

For Official Use Only - Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

For Official Use Only - Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 & 3.104 mailto:theresa.a.baugh.civ@mail.mil

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 5 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019 monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any hardware and/or service relating to the contract.

4.0. Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance

4.1 Contract Surveillance

The COR will use the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the Contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the Contractor’s hardware acquisition performance meeting design specification Form, Fit, Function and Interface (F3I) requirements in addition to agree upon service TOs goals and objectives with their associated contract performance schedule. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the Contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and satisfactory resolution of all quality control and quality assurance failures/deficiencies and satisfactory corrective actions to successfully meet the terms of each DO and/or TO contract requirements.

4.2. Methods of Surveillance and Surveillance Matrix

The Government will use the surveillance methods described below to evaluate the Contractor.

4.2.1 DIRECT OBSERVATION. Government personnel will rely on first hand observations of the Contractor’s performance during test events, conference calls and/or meetings if held to address contractual issues, or through review of contract deliverables to assess compliance with contract requirements. This method may include Government DCMA Representative witnessing test, configuration audit, teleconference, transparency in communicating and timely reporting of issues, responsiveness in addressing USG raised issues and/or concerns, etc.

4.2.2 PERFORMANCE REVIEWS/PROGRESS REPORTING. The COR will review all submitted reports or Emails upon receipt and for assessment of data from various delivered technical, management and cost reports to verify accuracy of claimed progress against demonstrated performance and compliance with contract requirements. Progress reports and status reported during program reviews, if conducted, will be verified in conjunction with other surveillance methods such as direct observation and random sampling if and when deemed necessary.

4.2.3 PERIODIC AND RANDOM SAMPLING. The Government may choose to evaluate the Contractor’s process on a random basis if and when a deficiency is suspected or reported and this may be scheduled either through DCMA, the COR or other designated Government Representative(s).

4.2.4 INSPECTION. During each DO and/or TO contractual performance, the Government may choose to conduct periodic inspection of parts and deliverables for conformance to requirements to include audit of completed TO services.

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 6 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

4.2.5 TESTING. First Article Test is NOT applicable as the Contractor has been continuously producing these CIs supplied under part description indicated above. The Contractor’s Test & Inspect data and Final Inspection/Verification and Acceptance Tests shall be used as additional methods of surveillance to verify and confirm compliance of deliverable units IAW both Actuators CIs (Upper and Lower) F3I design performance specifications acceptance criterion as approved by the Government to meet operational requirements in the Q50(V) CTARS.

4.3 Customer Feedback

The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers with primary focus on meeting the Government’s DO and/or TO contract requirements. The primary objective of this communication is collaboration to mitigate measurable customer complaints and achieve utmost customer satisfaction which is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all hardware performance and services provided.

Performance management shall drive the Contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems.

However, the Customer/Requiring Activity always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR: Theresa Baugh, theresa.a.baugh.civ@mail.mil, as opposed to the company.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing to detail nature of the complaint, which must be signed and forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate using the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form – Customer Complaint Investigation, identified in Attachment 2.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

4.4 Acceptable Quality Levels

The Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for company’s performance are structured to allow and manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. For certain critical activities such as those involving repair of inoperable units, final acceptance test and repair Turn-around-Time (TAT), the desired performance level is established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the DO and/or TO efforts in respect to the overall mission performance at Communications-Electronics Command Integrated Logistics Support Center (CECOM ILSC).

4.5 Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS)

The market place for information technology, engineering, and management support services is very competitive. As such, to be successful the Contractor has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under the basic contract and resulting DOs and/or TOs.

Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year

For Official Use Only - Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 7 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019 of performance. The Government will address the quality of hardware products or services delivered, associated schedule, cost control, business relations, and management for all DO and/or TO procurement contractual actions as this information may affect the continuation of the contract, and future contract awards throughout DoD. The annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool along with the QASP.

Surveillance results must be able to support action taken by the COR, CS/PCO whenever non-performance or unacceptable performance occurs.

Acceptable Performance: The Government shall document positive performance. The COR shall document positive performance in the company’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) at http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsmain.htm.

Unacceptable Performance: The Contractor’s performance shall be considered unacceptable when the company receives a justifiable rating of unsatisfactory from the COR’s evaluation of the DO and/or TO deliverables or when a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) is submitted.

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the company within reasonable timeframe which will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In such case the COR shall document the discussions and place the record in the COR file then notify the PCO for awareness and confirmation on such matters.

When an assigned COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a CDR, and present it to the Contractor's DO and/or TO Task Manager or appropriate on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP as Attachment 3.

The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing to the COR, CS and PCO. The CDR will specify if the company is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document its corrective actions pertaining to the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the company has to present this corrective action plan to the COR, CS and KO. The Government’s team shall review the company's corrective action plan to determine acceptability or non-satisfactory with follow-up notification to the Contractor’s Contracting Authority.

Unacceptable performance shall be documented in CPARS and any CDRs may become a part of the performance reports entered in CPARS.

5.0 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 contract TRD and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 8 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the DCMA will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachments 2. The forms, when completed, will document the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required hardware results of 100% inspection and zero defects and/or TO service satisfaction are being achieved.

The COR, QAR. CS and PCO will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms

6.0 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the company has not met the minimum requirements, the Government reserves the right to request company develop a corrective action plan to demonstrate by a specified date efforts to be implemented to bring its performance up to the required levels.

6.1.1 Cost. The COR will closely monitor all CDRLs deliverables and inform the PCO of all cost concerns. Additionally, FAR clause 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds, will be included in the contract and the company shall be required to notify the KO in accordance with the clause.

6.1.2 Technical. The COR, in collaboration with a Government Integrated Process Team, will review all deliverables submitted by The Contractor to ensure compliance with the stated requirements and to evaluate the company’s performance on a monthly basis. The COR will document the results within monthly reports, which will be submitted to the PCO in accordance with the QASP. The COR will monitor the contract for obsolescence issues IAW the QASP.

Additionally, the Government will complete evaluations within CPARS of the Contractor’s technical competence. The evaluations will record the Contractor’s performance under the proposed contract.

6.1.3 Schedule. The COR will monitor all delivery schedules to ensure compliance with the requirements within each DO/TO and TRD. Additionally, the COR will notify the PCO of any potential delays. The PCO will contact the company and request submission of a Corrective Action Plan detailing the actions necessary to remedy schedule delay or address foreseen risk to schedule.

6.1.4 Performance. The COR will monitor performance risk through proper Government oversight of the Contractor’s performance as detailed in the QASP and TRD with Government review of the Contractor Vendor P/Ns deliverables. Additionally, the COR will promptly inform the PCO of any performance issues, for collaborative discussions and timely satisfactory resolutions. Furthermore, the Government shall evaluate the Contractor’s performance within CPARS for each appropriate performance periods. Monthly, the COR shall document/report any potential performance issues per the QASP. Early intervention by the COR, Contract Specialist and PCO will mitigate hardware and service performance and associated quality concerns.

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 9 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

6.2 Reporting

At the end of each month, the QAR will prepare a written report for the Communications-Electronics Command Integrated Logistics Support Center (CECOM ILSC): The COR: Theresa Baugh, theresa.a.baugh.civ@mail.mil; summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the Contractor’s performance.

This written report, form (Attachment 2), will be uploaded in the Wide Are Work Flow Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool and will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting contract DOs and/or TOs stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling and quality level of service.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

The COR may require the Contractor’s Project Manager/Lead, or a designated alternate, to meet with the QAR and/or PCO and other Government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The QAR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the Contractor, including appropriate self-assessments however, if the need arises, the Contractor shall meet with the COR, CS, PCO and/or QAR as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include but not limited to:

a. Monthly performance data assessment and trend analysis

b. Issues and concerns of both parties

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

d. Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

e. Issues and/or concerns regarding obsolescence

The QAR/COR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The QAR, COR, CS, PCO and the Contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action for optimum contract DO and/or TO performance. 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.

6.3.4 Unsatisfactory contract performance will be reported on DA Form 5479-R, Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR). This form is used to notify the Contractor of discrepancies found by the COR. The Contractor may use this form to address how the discrepancy will be corrected and plan to mitigate or avoid reoccurrence. If unsatisfactory performance occurs in an area based on the COR’s surveillance and concurrence by Government technical personnel, the Contractor will be issued a CDR. This completed and signed CDR along with the supporting documentation will be forwarded to the PCO for disposition with a copy recorded in the COR file.

For Official Use Only - Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 10 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

Attachment 1: Performance Requirements Summary AN/TPQ-50 (V)/Q50 (V) CTARS’ Servos and Control Panel Program Surveillance Matrix

REQUIREMENT PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVES

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD

SURVEILLANCE

METHODS

PERFORMANCE

& FREQUENCY

INSPECTED

Configuration Management

The Contractor shall maintain a Configuration Management (CM) process delineated in its internal CM Plan that should be made available for

Government review if and when requested during the contract performance period as specified in TRD Para 3.1

Changes to Configuration Baseline shall be submitted

IAW CDRL DI-SESS-

80640D, RFV per TRD Para.

3.1.5

The USG shall be notified of departures from The

Contractor’s CB CIPN IAW CDRL for DI-MISC-80711A per TRD Paras. & 3.1.8

100% Compliance to

USG

Configuration

Control Requirements

Random, Periodic and/or

100% Inspection

As required by contract to prevent and/or eliminate CM discrepancies or defects

TDP Delivery upon Triggering

Event

The Contractor shall implement execution of USG TDP Delivery IAW 3 CDRLs for DID DI-SESS-81000E:

Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists, Special Inspection Equipment (SIE)

Drawings/Models and Associated Lists, and Special

Tooling (ST) Drawings/Models and

Associated Lists as well as the CDRLs for DIDs: DI-

IPSC-81441, DI-IPSC-

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 11 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

80590B, DI-MISC-80508B

per TRD Para. 3.1.1.1

Maintenance of Quality

Management System (QMS)

The Contractor shall implement and maintain a Quality Assurance System that meets an American National Standard Quality

Management Systems, such as ISO 9001:2015 or equivalent IAW TRD Para.

3.5.

100% Compliance to QMS Standard

Direct Observation, Performance

Reviews/ Progress

Reporting, Periodic & Inspection

As required by contract to prevent and/or eliminate discrepancies or defects

Final Inspection & Acceptance Test of New &/or Repaired Upper and Lower Mechanical Actuator CIs

The Contractor shall perform final inspection and test of

Actuators’ CIs produced per TRD Para. 3.3 and/or repaired per TRD Para. 3.4 as applicable IAW current tech data and F3I Specifications to verify all units meet technical requirements as specified in

TRD Para. 3.6.

100% Compliance with Government approved CB and Technical Requirements

Direct Observation, Periodic/Rando m Sampling, 100% Inspection and Test, System Test, Periodic

Inspection

As required by contract to prevent and/or eliminate hardware configurations discrepancies, Task Order (TO) Engineering Services if exercised

The Contractor shall perform services to meet requirements to be specified in each TO for Engineering

Services and ensure all services delivered meet and confirm with respective TO requirements - Ref this TRD Para. 3.12 and

Supplemental Requirement Document to be placed on contract when need arises

100% Compliance with Government

Technical Requirements

Direct Observation, Periodic/Rando m Sampling, 100% Inspection, Final Test Results as applicable, Periodic Inspection

As required by contract to prevent and/or eliminate discrepancies and mitigate unsatisfactory performance

Status Reporting

The Contractor shall submit a Monthly Contract Status Report per identified CDRL (DI-MGMT-81238 Para. 3.8

100% Compliance with reporting requirements cited in Box 16

Direct Observation, Performance

Reviews/Progr ess Reporting, As required by contract/ monthly/ Vendor

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 12 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

CDRL for DID, DI-MGMT-

81238

100% Inspection, Discrepancy Report

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 13 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

Attachment 2: Sample Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

Monthly Quarterly As needed

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: ______ %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______% Service Provider’s Performance (Check): Meets Standards

Does Not Meet Standards Narrative of Performance during Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ______________________________ DATE: _________________

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 14 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

Attachment 3: Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)

1. Contract Number to include Specific Delivery/Task Order #:

2. To: (Exlar’s Task Manager or on-site representative)

3. From: (Name of Contracting Officer Representative - COR)

4. Date(s) and Time of Surveillance:

5. Contract Requirements: (Technical Requirement Document (TRD) Paragraph numbers and titles or Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) numbers and titles)

6. Discrepancies Identified: (state surveillance method and why the evaluation concluded unacceptable performance by Exlar)

7. Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Required? (Yes, No).

No – Provide supporting rationale:

Yes - Exlar shall provide a written CAP to the PCO and COR on (dd-mmm-yyyy). The company, at a minimum, shall include the following types of information in the CAP e.g.:

- Contract Deficiency Identified vs Contract Requirements

- Date of Discovery

- Corrective Actions Required to Resolve Stated Deficiencies

- Lead Time to Implement Corrective Action

- Identify Impact to Contract Schedule

- Indicate impact on Contract Cost

- Indicate if Considerations is warranted

- Indicate if Contract Modification is required

8. Signatures:

Contracting Officer’s Representative Date

Program Manager Date

Attachment 0002 RFP#SPRBL119R0062 Page 15 of 15 Issue 23 JUNE 2019

Attachment 4: Exlar Performance Report

1. Contract Number to include Specific Delivery/Task Order Number:

2. Date(s) of Surveillance:

3. Specific Action(s) Taken:

4. Surveillance Results:

a. Contract Requirements (for which Exlar’s performance was evaluated (Technical Requirements Document (TRD) Paragraph #s and Title(s) or Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) #(s) with Title(s) vs Exlar’s Performance Output(s):

b. Methods of Surveillance:

c. Surveillance Personnel:

d. Performance Evaluation Rating (Acceptable, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory):

e. Supporting Rationale:

f. Impact on Contract and Program:

5. Signature:

Contracting Officer’s Representative Date

Attachment 2: Sample Quality Assurance Monitoring Form