Attachment 0002-QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

For the

AN/VSQ-6B Vehicle Optics Sensor System (VOSS) Camera and Lens Assembly

NSN: 6720-01-618-6246

Part Number: 330-0143-000

Issued 26 September 2019

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is developed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (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) entitled AN/VSQ-6B Vehicle Optics Sensor System (VOSS) for the Camera and Lens Assembly. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Logistics Support Center (ILSC) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor. The Government reserves the right to make changes to this QASP during the contract performance period.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 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.

1.1.2 The QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project 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

1.2.1 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 Army Contracting Command and 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.

1.2.2 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.

1.2.3 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. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.2.4 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.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBLITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer (KO)

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 Communications-Electronics Command Integrated Logistics Support Center (CECOM ILSC) Contracting officer's representative (COR), the KO, 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 (COR)

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.

2.3 DCMA Quality Assurance Representative (QAR)

Maintain liaison with contractors via the COR, cognizant field activities (CFAs), and other available field technical services. Establish and maintain liaison with other maintenance and rework activities to obtain information for improving maintenance techniques, quality of workmanship, and QA procedures.

3. IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.” If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be paid the monthly amount agreed on in the contract.

4. 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 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.

4.3 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. For certain critical activities such as those involving repair of inoperable assemblies, final acceptance test and repair turnaround time (RTAT), 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 CECOM ILSC and PM Ground Sensors

5. 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 are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the DCMA Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) and 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 results of 100% inspection and zero defects are being achieved.

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

6. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 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.

6.1.2 Cost. The COR will review cost history on similar contracts. The COR will closely monitor the CDRLs and inform the KO of all cost concerns. Additionally, FAR clause 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds, will be included in the contract and the contractor shall be required to notify the Contracting Officer in accordance with the clause.

6.1.3 Technical. The COR will review all deliverables submitted by the contractor to ensure compliance with the requirements and to evaluate the contractor’s performance on a monthly basis. The COR will document the results within monthly reports, which will be submitted to the KO in accordance with the QASP. The COR will monitor the contract for obsolescence issues IAW the QASP. Additionally, the Government will complete evaluations within the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) of the contractor’s technical competence. The evaluations will record the contractor’s performance under the proposed contract.

6.1.4 Schedule. The COR will monitor the delivery schedule to ensure it meets the requirements within each Task Order and PWS. Additionally, the COR will notify the KO of any potential delays. The KO will contact the contractor and request submission of a Correct Action Plan detailing the actions necessary to get back on schedule.

6.1.5 Performance. The COR will monitor performance risk through proper Government oversight of the contractors performance as detailed in the QASP and with Government review of the deliverables submitted by the contractor. Additionally, the COR will promptly inform the KO of any performance issues, for timely collaborative 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 and KO will mitigate performance and quality concerns.

6.2 Reporting

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.

6.2.1 At the end of each month, the QAR will prepare a written report for the CECOM ILSC COR 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 (Attachment 2), as well as the Contract Discrepancy Reports (CDR - DA Form 5479-R); 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.

6.2.2 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 - DA Form 5479-R) 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.

6.3 Reviews and Resolutions

The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the ILSC or KO 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 by the contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR, KO or QAR 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

· Issues and/or concerns regarding obsolescence

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

6.3.2 The QAR, COR, PCO 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 Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) / Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

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

Repair Surveillance Plan and Rating

The Contractor will be rated on their workmanship and timeliness. The Ratings are as follows:

Ratings:

Unsatisfactory – Performance does not meet all contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a major problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor’s proposed actions does not appear effective and were not fully implemented, and a Repair Turn Around Time (RTAT) of TBD.

Marginal - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed 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, and a RTAT of TBD.

Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory, and a RTAT of TBD.

Exceptional - Performance meets and exceeds the contractual requirements or the contractual performance of the element assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective and a RTAT of TBD.

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):

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

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 rating periods or if an unsatisfactory rating is received for more than one task during a single 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:

Received by:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY