ATTACHMENT_0003_-_QASP.docx

Section J, Attachment 0003

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

For

NAVAIR IT Logistics Systems Lifecycle Support Services

Reviewed By:

________//SIGNED//_________

Michelle Briscoe Program Manager

6.8 Corporate Business Office

Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD)

Mark Zator Contracting Officer Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled NAVAIR IT Logistics Systems Lifecycle Support Services. This NAVAIR IT Logistics Systems Lifecycle Support Services QASP is a plan which provides the areas, roles, responsibilities, surveillance methods, documentation, etc. that are required under this contract. The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the order.

Purpose 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 PWS and the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP), and to ensure that the Government pays only for the level of services received.

The QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated product 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.

1.1.3 The QASP provides the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) with a guide to provide Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the order.

Authority Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Inspection of Services clauses, which provide for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the task order.

Performance Management Approach

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, non-compliance). The QASP will define the performance management approach taken by NAVAIR 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.

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 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.

Performance Management Strategy

The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own Quality Control (QC) program. 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. The QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The COR will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the Contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The Government will make determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the Contractor of those decisions. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Contracting Officer The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the COR and the Contractor. The PCO will designate in writing a COR as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors, if required, depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the Contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the PCO at the time of task-order issuance.

At the time of task-order award, the PCO will inform the contractor of the names, duties and limitations of authority for all quality assurance personnel assigned to the contract.

The 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 technical administration of the project and ensures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the PCO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA 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 service relating to the contract. A COR will be appointed for each individual Task Order.

IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are identified in the PWS and Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) Table. The PRS is included as Attachment 1. This QASP and PRS will identify the Tasks (CDRL, etc.), weights assigned, and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) that apply to this contract.

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

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 methods of surveillance that may be used for these requirements are:

· Random Sampling, which shall be performed by the COR. This is a method whereby some part, but not all of Contractor performance in an area is evaluated.

· 100% Inspection – Each month, the COR, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into a Surveillance Activity Checklist Attachment 5.

· Periodic Inspection – COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a (to be determined periodicity) basis.

Customer Feedback The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Performance management drives the Contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the PCO and/or COR, as opposed to the Contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate.

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

Acceptable Quality Levels The AQLs are included in a PRS Table (Attachment 1) for this contract. AQLs for Contractor performance are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls.

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

The Performance Management Feedback Loop The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in NAVAIR IT Logistics Systems Lifecycle Support Services PWS and will be assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in the PRS Table.

Monitoring Forms The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the attached forms Attachment 2, Attachment 3 and Attachment 4. The forms, when completed, will document the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results [or service or quality levels] are being achieved.

The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

Determining Performance Government shall use the monitoring methods cited in this QASP 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. Failure to meet the AQL may result in an Unsatisfactory CPARS or reduction in fee. Likewise, if the Contractor exceeds the performance standards, an Excellent CPARS rating can be awarded.

Reporting At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the Contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms, will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

Reviews and Resolution The COR may require the Contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the PCO, Program Manager (PM), and other Government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The PCO 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 PCO, COR or PM as often as required or per the Contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

· 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

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

The PCO, COR and PM and the 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 issued by PCO as soon as practicable.

INCENTIVES

The following incentives shall apply to performance under this order.

Incentives

Base and Option 1:

Not more than 2 of the measurement areas rated below “Satisfactory”. None of the measurement areas are rated below” Marginal”.

See below.

CPARS annual evaluations

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option.* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option.*

Option 2:

Not more than 2 of the measurement areas rated below “Satisfactory”. ”. None of the measurement areas are rated below” Marginal”.

See below.

CPARS annual evaluations

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option* (-) Does not meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for exercise of an option*

* The Government will not exercise option 1 or option 2 unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets the acceptable performance definition.

All PWS/CDRL tasks, including PWS/CDRL sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following:

Quality of Product or Service – Assess the contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces, and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the contractor meets program quality.

Schedule – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or effect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Is the contractor experiencing cost growth or underrun? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For contracts where task or contract sizing is based upon contractor provided person-hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources in each work effort should be assessed.

Business Relations – Assess the timelines, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Other areas – Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the contract, or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings 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 evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element and sub-element being evaluated with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element and sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal - Performance does not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element and sub-elemeent 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.

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 actions appear or were ineffective.

Attachments:

Attachment 1: PRS Table Attachment 2: Quality Assurance Monitoring Form Attachment 3: Customer Complaint Record Attachment 4: Corrective Action Report Attachment 5: Surveillance Activity Checklist

NAVAIR IT Logistics Systems Lifecycle Support Services

PRS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

CONTRACTOR: TBD

ACCEPTABLE QUALTY LEVEL (AQL)

PERFORMANCE DETERMINATION

(Corrective Action Plan)

Quality of Product #1 CDRL Documents A001 A003 A004 A005 A006 A007 A008 A009 A010 A011 A012 A013 A014 A015 A016 A017 A018 A019

Consistent delivery of high quality CDRLdeliverables

Any errors/omissions identified by the Government are corrected within ten (10) business days.

100% Review COR will review within 15 working days of receipt and log results of all reviews (i.e. CDRLs accepted and if rejected, reason for rejection)

Customer Feedback

less than 85% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with Method of Surveillance is

85-88% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with Method of Surveillance is

89- 92% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with Method of Surveillance is

93-96% rounded to closest % All CDRLs are 100% compliance with Method of Surveillance

100% rounded to closest %

TASK ORDER NUMBER (if applicable): TBD

CONTRACTOR: TBD

ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL (AQL)

PERFORMANCE DETERMINATION

(Corrective Action Plans)

Schedule #1 CDRL Documents

A004 A005 A006 A007 A008 A009 A010 A011 A012 A013 A014 A015 A016 A017 A018 A019

Services were provided on schedule

100% inspection of CDRLs (Monthly Status Report) by COR/ACOR with TPOC input).

CDRLs are delivered "on time" in accordance with the CDRL description

Customer Feedback

less than 85% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with AQL is

85-88% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with AQL is

89- 92% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with AQL is

93-96% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with AQL is

100% rounded to closest %

CDRL:

A002 A003

COR review of monthly status reports

Cost, schedule, performance variations to not exceed 10% of baseline established.

5-10% greater than projections

0 - 9% better than projections Actual Cost is greater than 10% better than projections

TASK ORDER NUMBER (if applicable): TBD

CONTRACTOR: TBD

ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL (AQL)

PERFORMANCE DETERMINATION

(Corrective Action Plans)

Positive Business Relations, customer satisfaction, Timely and Open Communication and effective Task Order performance

The contractor provided timely notification of issues and/or items requiring Government actions.

The contractor coordinated all applicable tasking across supporting vendors

COR will review on a monthly basis.

Based on the number of positive or negative responses the COR receives from customers.

Negative responses will be documented on the Customer Complaint Record

Customer Feedback

CONTRACTOR: TBD

/ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL (AQL)

PERFORMANCE DETERMINATION

(Correction Action Plans

Other Areas

Staffing Stability and Resource Planning CDRL Documents A001

Excellent staffing stability and resource planning

CDRLs are delivered "on time" in accordance with the CDRL description

Customer Feedback

less than 85% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with AQL is

85-88% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with AQL is

89- 92% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with AQL is

93-96% rounded to closest % Total weight of CDRLs that comply with AQL is

100% rounded to closest %

ATTACHMENT 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________

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

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

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Monthly Surveillance:

The TOM will perform a monthly assessment of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions.

Measure

Other

CDRL Documents A001 A003 A004 A005 A006 A007 A008 A009 A010 A011 A012 A013 A014 A015 A016 A017 A018 A019

100% Inspection by TOM and customer feedback.

TBD

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

image1.emf