A01-Attachment 0003 STARLite QASP 20190124.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR

Total System Support of the

AN/ZPY-1A

Small Tactical Radar – Lightweight Extended Range (STARLite ER)

Synthetic Aperture Radar / Ground & Dismount Moving Target Indicator

09 July 2018

Prepared by:

Aerial Sensor Branch Counterfire & Sensors Division

Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sensors (IEW&S) Directorate Integrated Logistics Support Center (ILSC)

6006 Combat Drive Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2.0 Roles and Responsibilities

2.1 The Contracting Officer

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

3.0 Identification of Requirement Performance Standards/Quality Levels

4.0 Methodologies to Monitor Performance

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

4.4 Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS)

5.0 Quality Assurance Documentation

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms

6.0 Analysis of Quality Assurance Assessment

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

Attachment 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Attachment 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM Attachment 3: CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan For

Small Tactical Radar - Lightweight Extended Range Synthetic Aperture Radar / Ground Moving Target Indicator

1.0 Introduction

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is developed in accordance with FAR 46.401 and FAR 46.103 to establish the procedures for monitoring, reporting and evaluating Contractor performance pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the Sustainment of the Small Tactical Radar - Lightweight Extended Range (STARLite ER)

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) / Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) / Dismount Moving

Target Indicator (DMTI). The Government reserves the right to make changes to this QASP during the contract performance period.

1.1 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 Assurance Program

Plan (QAPP), and to ensure that the Government pays only for the level of services received.

This 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.

1.2 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, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the Integrated Logistics Support Center (ILSC) 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.

1.3 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 Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). QA is concerned with 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 QAPP 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 QAPP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor’s QA program.

The Government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The 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.

2.0 Roles and Responsibilities

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The Contracting Officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the contractor. The KO will designate one full-time COR 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 KO.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The COR is designated in writing by the KO 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 KO 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.

3.0 Identification of Requirement Performance Standards/Quality Levels

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.”

4.0 Methodologies to Monitor Performance

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate Contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are:

Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR designated inspector.

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

Periodic Inspection – COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

Periodic inspection is a QA method based on a predetermined plan to evaluate part of the contract outputs using subjective judgment and analysis of agency resources to decide what work to inspect and how frequently to inspects it (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.) as determined by the COR.

4.2 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 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.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for Contractor performance are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. For certain critical activities, the desired performance level is established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance at the ILSC.

4.4 Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS)

The market place for information technology, engineering, and management support services is very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this contract and resulting orders. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year of performance. The Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, and management for this procurement. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the

QASP.

Surveillance results must be able to support action taken by the COR/Contracting Officer when nonperformance or unacceptable performance occurs.

Acceptable Performance: The Government shall document positive performance. The COR shall document positive performance in the Contractor 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 contractor receives a rating of unsatisfactory from the COR’s evaluation of the deliverables or when a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) is submitted. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case 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 prepare a CDR, and present it to the contractor's task manager or on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP as Attachment 3.

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 shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.

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 PWS and will be assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the Virtual Contracting Enterprise Database. The report utilized is web generated. This will document the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

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

6.0 Analysis of Quality Assurance Assessment

6.1 Determining Performance

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

6.2 Reporting

The COR will prepare a report summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the Contractor’s performance on a monthly basis. This report will become part of the QA documentation (sample Attachment 2). It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

The COR may require the Contractor’s management, or a designated alternate, to meet with the ILSC and other Government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the Contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the Contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR 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 COR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The COR and Contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action.

Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the Procuring Contracting Officer / Administrative Contracting Officer.

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.

This is where the contractor is allowed to answer how the discrepancy will be corrected and how reoccurrence will be avoided. If unsatisfactory performance occurs in an area based on the COR’s surveillance and concurrence by government technical personnel, the contractor will be given a CDR. This completed and signed CDR along with the supporting documentation will be forwarded to the Procuring Contracting Officer for disposition. A copy will be maintained in the COR file.

Attachment 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services (Tasks)

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Cost Control on all Cost Plus tasks – Contractor executes per negotiated TO price with no cost overruns reported that would increase negotiated TO price and require additional funding (excludes Government directed TO requirement changes)

100% compliance with negotiated TO price

Satisfactory or above, as defined in this attachment.

100% Inspection, Review of submitted CDRLs

Integrated Product Team (IPT) Meetings

100% compliance required in accordance with TO PWS

Satisfactory or above, as defined in this attachment.

Attendance and support review

Contracting Manpower Reporting 100% compliance required in accordance with TO PWS

Satisfactory or above, as defined in this attachment.

Random Monitoring, Review of submitted data, COR surveillance

Systems Testing 100% compliance required in accordance with TO PWS

Satisfactory or above, as defined in this attachment.

100% Inspection, Review of submitted CDRLs

Repairs and notifications 100% compliance required in accordance with TO PWS

Satisfactory or above, as defined in this attachment.

100% Inspection, Review of submitted CDRLs

Obsolescence and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS)

100% compliance required in accordance with TO PWS

Satisfactory or above, as defined in this attachment.

Review of submitted CDRLs and notifications

Trend Analysis Reporting 100% compliance required in accordance with TO PWS

Satisfactory or above, as defined in this attachment.

100% Inspection, Review of submitted CDRLs, COR surveillance

Repair Turn Around Time (RTAT) 100% compliance required in accordance with TO PWS

Satisfactory or above as defined in this attachment

Review of submitted reports, COR surveillance

Inventory Management 100% compliance required in accordance with TO PWS

Satisfactory or above as defined in this attachment

Repair execution success rate

Acceptable Quality Levels for RTAT

Rating Contract Requirements

Exceptional Repair less than 60 calendar days (90 calendar days for the Antenna Assembly)

Good Repair between 60 to 90 calendar days (90 to 120 calendar days for the Antenna Assembly)

Satisfactory Repair between 91 to 120 calendar days (121 to 150 calendar days for the Antenna Assembly)

Unsatisfactory Repair greater than 120 calendar days (greater than 150 calendar days for the Antenna Assembly)

Contractor Rating

Rating Contract Requirements Problems Corrective

Actions

Exceptional

Exceeds many to the government’s benefit.

In addition, “Exceptional” for Quality of Product or Service means: Final work products have no to few errors, including spelling or grammatical errors (e.g., in the text of briefings and reports, details, or other entry fields).

Few Minor Highly Effective

Very Good

Exceeds some to the government’s benefit.

In addition, “Very Good” for Quality of Product of Service means: Final work product have few to some errors, including spelling or grammatical errors (e.g., in the text of briefings and reports, details, or other entry fields).

Some Minor Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Meets all.

In addition, “Satisfactory” for Quality of Product of Service means: Final work product have some spelling or grammatical errors (e.g., in the text of briefings and reports, details, or other entry fields).

Some Minor Satisfactory

Marginal

Does not meet some.

In addition, “Marginal” for Quality of Product of Service means: Final work product have many spelling or grammatical errors (e.g., in the text of briefings and reports, details, or other entry fields), and/or technical errors, (e.g., entry of, for example unit costs, fielding plans, contracting lead times etc.)

Serious:

recovery still possible

Marginally effective; not fully implemented

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 3: CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)

A contract discrepancy report shall be submitted by the COR when the contractor receives a performance rating of unsatisfactory in a particular task (see Attachment 1) for consecutive quarterly rating periods or if an unsatisfactory rating is received for more than one task during a single quarterly rating period. The COR may initiate a CDR anytime unacceptable performance is determined critical in nature and requires formal corrective action; and whenever an unfavorable trend is detected in contractor performance.

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: < NAME OF COR >

Signature – Contracting Officer’s Representative Date

Received by:

Signature - Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative Date