025__Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan_(QASP).doc
DOC document 103 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Army Watercraft Systems (AWS) Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W56JSR-17-R-0021
About this file
025 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 35
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Army Watercraft Systems C4ISR Sustainment Branch
(AWS-CSB)
05 January 2017 Quality Assurance/Surveillance Plan
1. Purpose.
This surveillance plan is developed in accordance with FAR 46.103 to establish the procedures for monitoring, reporting and evaluating the performance of the Contractor under the one-year bridge contract, W56JSR-16-C-0027. Contractor requirements, level of performance, frequency and method of inspection, review responsibilities and reporting requirements follow.
2. Government Roles and Responsibilities.
The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.
a. Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) – The PCO 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 PCO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The PCO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.
Assigned PCO: Laura Hild Organization: CECOM Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground
Telephone: (443) 861-4890 Email: laura.l.hild.civ@mail.mil
b. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR shall keep a quality assurance file. At the conclusion of the contract or when requested by the PCO, the COR shall provide documentation to the PCO. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. The contractor shall refer any changes they deem may affect contract price, terms, or conditions to the PCO for action.
Assigned COR: Michael J. Murphy Organization: LRC AWS-CSB Telephone: (443) 861-6249 DSN: 648-6249 Email: michael.j.murphy82.civ@mail.mil
3. Contract Requirements. The Contractor is required to fulfill contractual obligations in support of AWS-CSB requirements to include monthly reports which provide progress of contracted effort. The monthly report shall contain information identified in the template provided as an attachment to the contract Performance Work Statement (PWS) including the following; expenditures, schedule updates, issues, risks, materials usage and status of Government-Furnished-Property (GFP). GFP will be issued to the contractor at time of award in accordance with (IAW) the list provided as Attachment 003 to the contract. Additional GFP may be issued during the contract. All GFP will be monitored by the COR against the contractor monthly report.
4. Surveillance Folder. The COR(s) assigned to perform surveillance of the contract has prepared a digital Surveillance Folder for the assigned contract requirements. The folder has the following divisions:
a. COR appointment letter, contracting officer letter of designation, and Training Record.
b. PWS, CDRL, and other pertinent parts of the contract.
c. Surveillance Plan.
d. Performance Requirements Summary (PRS)
e. Surveillance Reports.
f. Other applicable documentation, such as:
(1) Customer and user comments
(2) Data and technical reports
5. Performance Standards. Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards.
The Performance Requirements Summary matrix is located in attachment A of this document. The Government shall use these standards to determine contractor performance and shall compare contractor performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).
6. Level of Performance Evaluation. The contractor will be evaluated by the Government team in the following areas:
a) Quality or technical performance;
b) Schedule;
c) Cost or Contractor Resource Control;
d) Management including program and material management; and
e) Regulatory Compliance. Any discrepancies with contract requirements will be brought to the attention of the PCO in a timely manner.
a. Quality or technical performance: The contractor will be evaluated monthly as to the quality of the output of their work and results will be documented in the COR’s file and monthly report. The contractor's personnel should be technically competent in the tasks identified in the PWS or other ordering document under the contract. Surveillance includes inspection of GFE at all contractor facilities. Included in the technical performance is the contractor’s contribution in meetings and reviews, the quality of the contractor's technical reports and the overall quality of the technical support provided. The COR will also conduct surveillance of technicians while in the execution of repairs at any location at any time. The COR will also review service reports provided to the customer.
b. Schedule: The contractor’s response times will be reviewed and evaluated by the COR in accordance with the Incident Prioritization Table and the AWS Asset Impact Guide as discussed in PWS Paragraph 3.
c. Cost or Contractor Resource Control for cost reimbursable (CR) work: The contractor shall use the funding authorized to provide support throughout the period of performance. The contractor should not exceed the cost-reimbursable materials and travel limits, nor the ceilings established for CR efforts without prior written contracting officer approval. The contractor will be evaluated in the successful control of resources devoted to the task or order. The COR shall compare monthly the contractor's rate of labor and funds usage with those allocated for the effort. Any discrepancies will be brought to the attention of the contracting officer. The COR will also review CDRL C001, DI-FNCL-80331A, Funds and Man-Hours Expenditure Report, and will notify the PCO of any cost concerns identified upon reviewing the deliverable in order to promptly address any potential issues. In addition, the contractor shall provide notification to the PCO in accordance with FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds. Through coordination between the COR, PCO, and contractor, any cost concerns will be addressed and resolved.
d. Management:
i. Program Management: The contractor's management will be monitored to confirm that adequate systems are implemented to efficiently perform the contract and protect the Government's interests. For example, the contractor shall have approved government property management, quality control, subcontracting, and accounting systems in place. The Government also anticipates the equal distribution of tasks between Prime and Sub-Contractor Technicians in the order of deployments, ticket coverage, and training. It is the Prime’s responsibility not to show favoritism to their own employees and to work with its Sub-Contractors as part of the integrated team concept.
ii. Material Management: In support of mission readiness, the contractor shall be required to acquire, store, package, ship and manage parts and other materiel required for the repair and maintenance of AWS C4ISR systems.
7. 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 shall be used to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. The following ratings shall be used:
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| (a) 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. |
| (b) 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. |
| (c) 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. |
| (d) 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). |
| (e) 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). |
8. Documenting Performance.
a. Acceptable Performance. The Government shall document positive performance which will include, contract number, date and time of observation and specifics of the observation. Acceptable performance shall be documented by the COR in the COR Monthly Reports and the evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) at http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsmain.htm.
b. Unacceptable Performance. The contractor’s negative performance shall be documented by the COR within the monthly COR report and the evaluation in CPARS. The COR will utilize his or her own knowledge of the task order and the contract deliverables as part of the documentation of unacceptable performance. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor in a timely manner. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file.
When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall identify all pertinent information either through e-mail correspondence directly to the contractor project manager, copied to the PCO, or by formal letter recommended to the PCO for communication directly with Contractor management. The Government correspondence 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 correspondence will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COR.
The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the COR e-mail or PCO letter in writing. The Government shall review the contractor’s corrective action plan to determine acceptability.
Any formal Government correspondence may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, or other actions determined necessary by the PCO.
9. Documents/Reporting: A copy of the Contractor monthly status report shall be made available to the PCO. Issues and concerns that cannot be resolved at the working level or which impact on contractual requirements shall be reported to the PCO for resolution and contractual action.
10. Contract Manpower Reporting Application: The COR is responsible for validating the contractor’s input into the Contract Manpower Reporting Application (CMRA) website at https://cmra.army.mil. The COR is to obtain a user name and password, and validate that the contractor has completely filled in required contractor information at the CMRA web site by November 30 of the following year of the contract.
Attachment A to QASP
VISION: Provide Sustainment of Army Watercraft Systems C4ISR Equipment
PROJECT NAME: Army Watercraft Systems C4ISR Sustainment
| PERFORMANCE |
| INSPECTION |
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE
What results are required?
PERFORMANCE STANDARD
What level of performance is required to meet the Performance Objective or Task?
AQL
What is your tolerance for less than 100% performance?
WHAT/DATA SOURCE
What are you going to inspect?
HOW/METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
How are you going to inspect? see drop down list
CALCULATION
How will you determine if the AQL and Standard are being achieved?
On-Site Incident Resolution (Incident Reports Abbreviated as "IRs", "Field Maintenance Process Timeline Requirement" abbreviated as "FMPTR")
| Required services are provided within "Field Maintenance Process" timelines. |
| Contractor shall meet the Field Maintenance Process repair time requirements |
| (On-time IR's / Total IR's)>90% |
Applies when: No parts needed, Lead Time less than 75% of Field Maintenance Process timeline requirement, or part is available in Critical Spare Parts.
| SIF record |
| Periodic Inspection |
| ((IRs resolved within the FMPTR) /(Total IR quantity))>90% |
| Required services are provided within "Field Maintenance Process" timelines. |
| Contractor completes repairs within the Field Maintenance Process repair time requirements of the time the part is available. |
| 95% of IR's resolved within FMP timeline starting after parts available |
Applies when: Parts are required, Lead Time >75% of Field Maintenance Process timelines , and no Critical Spare Parts
| SIF record |
| Periodic Inspection |
| ((IRs resolved within the FMPTR after contractor receipt of part) /(Total IR quantity))>95% |
| Required services are provided within "Field Maintenance Process" timelines. |
| Contractor completes repairs within the Field Maintenance Process repair time requirements of the time the part is available. |
| 90% of IR's resolved within FMP timeline after parts available |
Applies when: Parts are required, Lead Time longer than Field Maintenance Process timelines, and part not in Critical Spare Parts
| SIF record |
| Periodic Inspection |
| ((IRs resolved within the FMPTR after contractor receipt of part) /(Total IR quantity))>90% |
| In the event there are an overwhelming number of concurrent Incident Reports the contractor employs all available resources including non-core CFSR support in accordance with US Army AWS priorities. |
| No reports of unsafe work practices. |
| 100% |
| SIF record and Field feedback |
| Customer Feedback |
| Single instance of unsafe practices is unsatisfactory. |
| Required services are provided Safely |
| No reports of unsafe work practices. |
| 100% |
| SIF record and Field feedback |
| Customer Feedback |
| Single instance of unsafe practices is unsatisfactory. |
| Required services are provided Safely |
| Safety: No injuries |
| 100% |
| SIF record and Field feedback |
| Customer Feedback |
| Single instance of injury is unsatisfactory. |
| Quality/Reliability of Provided services |
| No Requirement for repeat visits to resolve workmanship failures. |
| During each 12 month interval <10% IRs require a revisit for same or derivative issue within 2 months |
| SIF record |
| Periodic Inspection |
| (# of Incidents Resolved that required revisit within 2 months after contractor claimed resolution success)/(Total IR quantity) |
| Preparedness to handle special cases and larger numbers of near simultaneous Incidents. |
| Prime Contractor maintains current information of available non-core CFSR capabilities at each of the AWS vessel homeports. When non-core CFSR is required and approved a qualified non-core CFSR is contracted expeditiously. |
| Non-Core CFSR with required certifications is contracted for services within 7 days 90% of instances when non-core CFSR is required. |
| Contractor's IR plan, and SIF worklog and financial records |
| Periodic Inspection |
| (# of IRs using non-core CFSRs incurring more than 7 days delay to complete using non-core CFSR support) /(Total IRs using non-core CFSRs)>90% in this category |
Maintenance of staff and staff qualifications
| Contractor maintains an adequate staff of qualified personnel to control the risk that CFSRs will not be available when needed. |
| The contractor team shall maintain qualified Core CFSRs to respond to a minimum of 5 IR's at the same time at multiple locations without reliance on service providers who are not part of this contract. |
| Contractor team must have a minimum of 5 qualified Core CFSRs for the 52 week period. |
| SIF records, and weekly contractor teleconferences will be used to identify periods of noncompliance. |
| Periodic Inspection |
| ((# weeks Contractor has 5 Core CFSRs on staff) is a 52 week period. Contractor shall forfeit the cost of each Core CFSR less than 5 for the duration that number is not met. (exceptions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis) |
| Contractor maintains staff in Kuwait/SWA that continuously satisfies all requirements posed by Kuwait (and other SWA marine facilities) to be able to access US Army AWS vessels and resolve reported incidents that may at be located there. |
| Contractor maintains one CFSR in South West Asia. |
| 90% of each year. |
| Evidence in travel reimbursement requests, SIF records, and weekly contractor teleconferences will be used to identify and count weeks of noncompliance. |
| Periodic Inspection |
| Unsatisfactory if CFSR is available less than 328 days in SWA. |
| " |
| " |
| No gaps of support longer than 1 week. |
| Evidence in travel reimbursement requests, SIF records, and weekly contractor teleconferences will be used to identify and count weeks of noncompliance. |
| Periodic Inspection |
| Unsatisfactory if no core CFSR is available in SWA for 7 consecutive calendar days. |
| " |
| " |
| During rotation of personnel the incoming CFSR has a 1-3 day overlap with outgoing CFSR 90% of personnel changes. |
| Evidence in travel reimbursement requests, SIF records, and weekly contractor teleconferences will be used to identify and count weeks of noncompliance. |
| Periodic Inspection |
| (# of SWA personnel rotation exchanges where departing CFSR has less than 1 or 0 days to brief incoming CFSR on the current repairs/# of SWA CFSR exchanges) |
| Contractor maintains adequately trained CFSR staff to minimize risk of delays due to inadequate certifications/skills/staffing |
| Maintains a staff of core CFSRs fully qualified to repair each C4ISR item. |
| 80% of each 52 week period. |
| CFSR training/certification status is required at each Quarterly Review and Contractor's training plan |
| Periodic Inspection |
| Unsatisfactory if 20% of IRs are non-core repaired. |
Update SIF database
| Data entry by CFSRs IAW timeline guidance in the Field Maintenance Process PWS attachment. |
| 90% |
| SIF record |
| Random Sampling |
| Ease of reading and ease of automated extraction of metrics from the SIF records (database) |
| Worklog descriptions of progress of Incident Responses includes all records of all communications with customer, supplier, team members, management, and COR or designated COR representatives. Also includes updated status of parts orders and delivery -- and updated Estimated Completion Dates (ECDs). |
| 90% of the time |
| SIF record |
| Random Sampling |
| Unsatisfactory if lack of required/updated data not present. |
| Full accounting of costs of Incident Responses entered in SIF. |
| 98% |
| SIF record |
| Random Sampling |
| Consistent Usage and spelling of part and asset names (content evaluated after contractor QA review.) |
| 90% of SIF worklog entries & 95% of Resolution Field entries are free of inconsistent spelling and naming. |
| SIF record |
| Random Sampling |
| Consistent repair step terminology and spelling, (content evaluated after contractor QA review.) |
| 90% of SIF worklog entries & 95% of Resolution Field entries are free of inconsistent spelling and naming. |
| SIF record |
| Random Sampling |
| Adherence to specified tagging format in SIF Resolution Field. |
| 100% of Resolution Field entries make proper use of the provided content tags. |
| SIF record analysis report |
| 100% Inspection |
| Proper English usage (reviewed after contractor QA) |
| 90% of SIF worklog entries & 95% of Resolution Field entries are: clear and unambiguous, free of editing errors, and included narrative is in proper sentences. |
| SIF record & other submissions |
| Random Sampling |
Parts: Requirements Modelling, Spares Recommendations, Purchasing, Tracking, Handling, and Shipping
| Contractor reports and updates recommendations for Critical Spare Parts |
| Long lead time items (in excess of Field Maintenance Process timelines) which have been required during the contract are reflected in updates to the contractors’ ROP. |
| 100% |
| Weekly teleconference & review of SIF entries showing evidence of parts delays and the contractors’ ROP. |
| Periodic Inspection |
| # of incidents in which late delivery of a part caused the repair timeline to be missed and that part is not identified in the contractor's ROP, excluding first time purchases. |
| Contractor works to accurately determine parts needed for repairs as soon as possible to avoid part delivery related delays. |
| Part requirements are determined promptly and thoroughly. Delays for multiple Part deliveries run concurrently, not sequentially. |
| less than 20 days annual total of all instances of repair delays beyond Field Maintenance Process timelines attributable to contractor delays ordering parts or inadequate troubleshooting (when identification of additional parts requirement was not dependent on prior parts replacement) |
| SIF record |
| Periodic Inspection |
| ( number of days order was delayed that led to delays beyond Field maintenance Process timelines) per year |
| Contractor processes and handles parts promptly |
| Parts are ordered, delivered, recorded, distributed/shipped to meet Field Maintenance Process requirements. |
| less than 20 days annual total of all instances of repair delays beyond Field Maintenance Process timelines due to late ordering of parts (including effects of inadequate troubleshooting) |
| SIF record |
| Periodic Inspection |
| (Total Days Incident Resolution is delayed due to delays shipping parts)<20 in any 52 week internal. |
| Contractor reviews requirements for Critical Spare Parts. |
| Long lead time items (in excess of Field Maintenance Process timelines) are reflected in updates to the contractors’ ROP. |
| 100% of newly identified long-lead items are included in modeling inputs, the model is re-run, and the contractor's ROP is updated within 2 months of first identification of the long-lead time. |
| Review of Contractor's recommendations for Critical Spare Parts. |
| Periodic Inspection |
| Unsatisfactory if newly revealed long-lead items are not included in the Contractor's ROP within 2 months of first identification that it is a long-lead time item. |
| Contractor execution of orders for repair parts needed to complete current repairs with appropriate expediency |
| Parts required for immediate repairs are ordered expeditiously minimizing lead-time to best meet MAM timelines. After receipt of COR purchase approval Contractor executes purchase order within time limit determined by "Asset Impact" (note 1). |
| 90% of parts required to complete HIGH priority tickets are ordered within 1 day of COR approval |
90% of parts required to complete MEDIUM priority tickets are ordered within 3 days of COR approval 90% of parts required to complete LOW priority tickets are ordered within 8 days of COR approval
| weekly teleconference & review of SIF entries showing evidence of parts delays |
| 100% Inspection |
| Comparison of approval notification and SIF record that part has been ordered. |
| Approved replenishment or additions to Critical Spare Parts are ordered promptly |
| Parts approved as replenishment of, or additions to, Critical Spare Parts are ordered promptly. After receipt of COR purchase approval Contractor executes purchase order within time limit determined by "Asset Impact" (ref "AWS Asset Impact Guide" in SIF Guidelines document). |
| 90% of IMPACT 1 Assets are ordered within 4 business days of COR approval, 90% of IMPACT 2 to 4 Assets are ordered within 10 business days of COR approval |
| review of monthly GFE/Critical Spares status report |
| 100% Inspection |
| Comparison of approval notification and SIF record that part has been ordered. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .