QASP_Common_Enclave_Support_Services__document.pdf

Acquisition Sensitive

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

Common Enclave Support Services effort

Project Manager

Army Enterprise Systems Integration Program

(AESIP)

28 September 2016

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

1.2 OBJECTIVE

2.0 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

3.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

4.0 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 PURPOSE

4.2 SURVEILLANE METHODS

4.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

4.4 SURVEILLANCE TEAM

5.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

6.0 PERFORMANCE RATINGS

7.0 DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE

8.0. FAILURE TO PERFORM

ATTACHMENT I: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS)

ATTACHMENT II: PERFORMANCE MONITORING FORM

ATTACHMENT III: CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

Acquisition Sensitive

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) for the Common Enclave support services are being executed to support the Army ERP programs AESIP, GCSS-Army, GFEBS and

LMP the common enclave infrastructure equipment are residing at the Network

Enterprise Center (NEC-R) Redstone Arsenal, AL. PM AESIP is operating its Production

(PROD), Development (DEV) and Quality Assurance (QAS) environments.PM GFEBS is currently operating its PROD environments on a separate infrastructure co-located in this data center. This QASP sets forth the procedures and guidelines that PM AESIP will use in evaluating the performance of the Contractor.

1.1 PURPOSE

The QASP has been developed to identify and evaluate Contractor actions while implementing the SOO. It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring the Contractor’s performance for each listed performance objective on the

Performance Requirement Summary (PRS).

1.1.1. The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to measure performance and to identify the reports required and the resources to be employed. The

QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the SOO.

1.1.2 This QASP is designed to define roles and responsibilities, identify the performance objectives, define the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the

Contractor’s performance, describe quality assurance reporting, and describe the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.1.3 The Contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. The role of the Government is quality assurance to ensure contract standards are achieved.

1.1.4 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.

1.1.5 This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review it on a regular basis. However, the Government will coordinate changes with the Contractor.

Updates will ensure that the QASP remains valid, useful, and an enforceable document.

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

Acquisition Sensitive

Copies of the original QASP and any revisions will be provided to the Contractor and the

Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

1.2 OBJECTIVE

This QASP is to be used at the contract level by the Contracting Officer (KO) issuing the contract. The contract will include a unique PRS that details the specific Standards, Performance Requirement, Surveillance Method, and Acceptable Quality Level for each service / item that will be measured.

2.0 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

2.1 The performance-based SOO structures the acquisition around “what” outcome is required as opposed to “how” the Contractor should perform the work. This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the AESIP to monitor, manage, and take appropriate action on the Contractor’s performance against expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the SOO. Performance management rests upon developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance metrics. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management. The data generated in a performance management approach provides information that indicates whether or not expected outcomes for required services are being achieved adequately by the Contractor.

2.2 Performance management also represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether or not outcomes are being achieved and migrates away from scrutiny on compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. An outcome 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 at the desired levels of performance.

3.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Contracting Officer (KO) - The Contracting Officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control; and resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COR) and the Contractor’s performance. The KO will also assure that the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract. The

KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the

Contractor’s performance.

Assigned KO: Ryan Larrison

Army Contracting Command - Rock Island (ACC-RI)

Telephone 309-782-6214

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

Acquisition Sensitive

3.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - The KO will designate a COR as the Government authority for performance management. The COR will be responsible for technical administration of the contract, and will assure proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR will keep a quality assurance file. At the conclusion of the contract, or when requested by the KO, the COR will provide documentation to the KO. A COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. The

Contractor will refer any changes they deem may affect the contract price, terms, or conditions to the KO for action. The Government COR will evaluate the services provided to ensure compliance.

Assigned COR: Earle Mundell

PM AESIP

Telephone 703-545-6677

4.0 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 PURPOSE

The key elements of the performance monitoring methodologies are the Contractor’s quality control program; Government identified critical performance requirement area, and the corresponding performance metrics.

4.2 SURVEILLANCE METHODS

In an effort to minimize the contract administration burden, simplified methods of surveillance techniques shall be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance. The Government will use appointed representatives as Performance

Monitors, as well as reports and input from users / customers as sources of comments on the Contractor’s performance.

The acceptable quality levels (AQL) located in Attachment 1, Performance Requirement

Summary, for Contractor performance, are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls.

The primary methods of surveillance are:

4.2.1 Performance Metrics: The COR may develop detailed metrics for various PRS items to serve as the evaluation criteria. The Contractor would be made aware of the existence and the content of the metrics.

4.2.2 Periodic Surveillance: The COR may conduct periodic survey of government technical team to measure storage space as needed if certain area(s) of performance deficiency is suspected. With the direct communications with the users of the services, the Government will have better knowledge of specific performance problems in certain

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

Acquisition Sensitive task areas. This method will also complement performance metrics that are quantitative measures of performance.

4.2.3 100% Inspection: For tasks with stringent performance requirements, the COR or designated representative may evaluate performance at each occurrence of that task.

Contractor tasks, such as responding/repairing to hardware failures within the required 24 hour, seven (7) days per week, with a four (4) hour response time may be fully examined and monitored for compliance.

4.3 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance standards define desired services expected from the Contractor. The

Government performs surveillance to determine if the Contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards. Contractor performance will be assessed monthly by a process that measures success toward the achievement of:

a. Technical Performance – Contractor meets contract requirements with little rework / re-performance required and with few minor and no significant problems encountered. Performance meets all technical and functional requirements, and is highly responsive to changes in technical direction and / or the technical support environment.

b. Adherence to Schedule – Contractor performs tasks within their schedule 95% of the time. Contractor provides to the Government the greatest possible advance notification of schedule delay.

c. Cost Control – Contractor performs tasks within their contract price 100% of the time.

The PRS is developed from the SOW and includes performance standards. The

Government will use these standards to determine Contractor performance and will compare Contractor performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

4.4 SURVEILLANCE TEAM

The surveillance team consists of the following key players:

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

Contracting Officer (KO)

5.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The PRS matrix (Attachment I) identifies both the performance objectives for those factors and the performance threshold or AQL required for each performance objective of the contract. The Government reserves the right to monitor all services called for in the contract to determine whether or not the performance objectives and goals were met.

Performance of a service will be evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the performance threshold. Re-performance is the preferred method of correcting any unacceptable performance. The Contractor shall provide the Government a written

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

Acquisition Sensitive response why the performance threshold was not met, how performance will be returned to acceptable levels, and how recurrence of the cause will be prevented in the future.

5.1 The Government shall use the surveillance methods cited to determine whether the AQLs have been met. The COR must coordinate and communicate with the

Contractor to resolve issues and concerns of marginal or unacceptable performance. The

Contractor will discuss with the KO / COR satisfaction ratings receiving an

“Unsatisfactory” rating as described in Section 6.0 below. For such cases, the Contractor should highlight its perspective on factors driving the performance rating and present plans to adjust service levels accordingly to bring the satisfaction rating up to an acceptable level.

5.2 The KO may require the Contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the KO and other Government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss the performance evaluation.

6.0 PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and acceptable quality level. A rating scale will be used to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. The following ratings will be used:

Exceptional - Performance and deliverables meet all and exceed many contract requirements. Performance delivered with no required re-performance/rework at least

95% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a highly effective manner.

Very Good - Performance and deliverables meet all and exceed some contract requirements. Performance delivered with no required re-performance/rework at least

90% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in an effective manner.

Satisfactory - Performance and deliverables meet all contract requirements. Performance delivered with no re-performance/rework at least 80% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Marginal - Some contract requirements not met and/or performance delivered with re-performance/rework required more than 20% of time. Problems encountered were resolved in a less than satisfactory manner.

Unsatisfactory - More than 30% of contract requirements not met. Frequent rework required. Substantial problems were encountered threatening success of the effort and inadequate corrective actions employed.

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

7.0 DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE

a. Acceptable Performance: The Government will document positive performance. A

Performance Report will be produced using a Performance Monitoring Form (see

Attachment II). Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract administration purposes.

b. Unacceptable Performance: When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR will communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns of marginal or unacceptable performance. The COR and contractor will also discuss with the KO any satisfaction ratings receiving an “Unsatisfactory.” The COR will document any discussions that take place pertaining to unsatisfactory performance and place it in the

COR file. When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the

COR will prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the

Contractor's task manager or on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP as Attachment III.

The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR 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 CDR will also state how long after receipt the Contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COR. The Government will review the

Contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.

The COR may initiate a CDR anytime unacceptable performance is determined critical in nature and requires formal corrective action, and / or whenever an unfavorable trend is detected in Contractor performance. Any CDR may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

8.0. FAILURE TO PERFORM

8.1 The Contractor will receive performance disincentives (negative incentives) stated in the PRS (Attachment I) or may even be terminated based on failure to perform. The following criteria apply for determining appropriate action:

1. Notifications. Consistent with FAR Part 49, the KO shall notify the Contractor of failure to meet standards through QA monitoring forms, cure notices, or show cause notices and shall inform the Contractor project manager or designated alternate of such notices.

2. Performance Disincentives (negative incentives). The Government may initiate a CDR as described in Section 7.0 above.

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

Acquisition Sensitive

3. Termination. If the KO determines that the Contractor has failed to perform to the extent that a termination for default is justified, the KO shall issue a notice of termination, consistent with FAR Part 49.

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

Acquisition Sensitive

ATTACHMENT I: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

(PRS)

The COR will use the PRS below as the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) when determining conformance to the contract. The PRS may be modified over the life of the contract if the COR and Contractor mutually agree. Other reports may be required.

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD

ACCEPTABLE

QUALITY LEVEL

(AQL)

METHOD OF

SURVEILLANCE

PERFORMANCE

DISINCENTIVE

(NEGATIVE

INCENTIVE)

Quality of

Technical

Performance

Contract requirements met with little rework/re-performance required and with few minor and no significant problems encountered

Performance meets all technical and functional requirements, and is highly responsive to changes in technical direction and/or the technical support environment

Contractor delivery of products and/or services meets all contractual requirements.

Performance occurs with no required re-performance/ rework at least 95% of time. Problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Routine Inspection of Deliverable

Products/Services

Performance Rating:

Unsatisfactory

CDR

Adherence to

Schedule

Contractor performs tasks within their schedule 95% of the time.

Contractor provides to the

Government the greatest possible advance notification of schedule delay.

Contractor meets contract delivery requirements at least

90% of the time

Routine Inspection of Deliverable

Products/Services

Performance Rating:

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

Acquisition Sensitive

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

PERFORMANCE

STANDARD

ACCEPTABLE

QUALITY LEVEL

(AQL)

METHOD OF

SURVEILLANCE

PERFORMANCE

DISINCENTIVE

(NEGATIVE

INCENTIVE)

Cost Control Contractor performs tasks within their

Contract price

100% of the time

Actual CONTRACT price is maintained within 95% of originally awarded contract price

Routine Inspection of contract

Performance, Performance/Cost

Reports, Payment

Invoices

Performance Rating:

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

ATTACHMENT II: PERFORMANCE MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD: ___________________

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check): _____ Performance Metrics

_____ 100% Inspection

_____ Periodic Surveillance

_____ Customer Input/Feedback

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE SELECTED (Check):

_____ Monthly

_____ Quarterly

_____ As needed

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

OBSERVED SERVICE PROVIDER PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT RATE = ______%

SERVICE PROVIDER’S PERFORMANCE (Check): ____ Meets Standards

____ Does Not Meet Standards

NARRATIVE OF PERFORMANCE DURING THE PERFORMANCE PERIOD:

PREPARED BY: __Earle D Mundell__________________ DATE: September 8, 2016__________

SIGNED BY: DATE:

(Earle Mundell, COR)

QASP Contract No. TBD , ERP Common Enclave Support Services

ATTACHMENT III: CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)

1. Contract Number: <insert number>

2. To: (Contractor Task Manager or On-site Representative) <insert name>

3. From: (Name of COR) <insert name>

4. Date and time observed discrepancy:

5. Discrepancy or Problem: <Describe in detail. Identify any attachments.>

6. Corrective action plan: A written corrective action plan < is / is not > required.

{If a written corrective action plan is required include the following. > The written

Corrective Action Plan will be provided to the undersigned not later than < # days after receipt of this CDR>.}

Prepared by: <Enter COR’s name>

Signature – Contracting Officer’s Representative Date

Received by:

Signature - Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative Date