PSS-T_TO-0002_QASP.docx

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan 23 March 2018

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for

Product Director (PD) Aerostats Persistent Surveillance Systems – Tethered (PSS-T) Task Order 0002 Version 1.0

23 March 2018

PD Aerostats 6580 Surveillance Loop, Bldg 6006 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Table of Contents

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan 23 March 2018 v

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

INTRODUCTION

This QASP is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) titled “Persistent Surveillance Systems - Tethered (PSS-T) Engineering/Technical, Logistics, and Flight Operations Support.” This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that PD Aerostats will use in ensuring performance standards or service levels are achieved by the Contractor.

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.

This 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 (QA) documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of QA monitoring results.

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 defines the performance management approach taken by PD Aerostats 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 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.

The Government reserves the right to survey all services called for in the contract to determine if the performance objectives and goals were met. The Contractor will be evaluated as to the quality and timeliness of the output of their work and results will be documented in the COR file. The Performance Requirements Summary can be found within the Attachment 1.

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. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor’s QC 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 Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

Performance will be evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the performance requirements as defined in the PWS. Performance will be evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the performance standards. The Contractor shall provide the Government with a written response explaining why performance standards were not met, how performance will be returned to acceptable levels, and how a reoccurrence will be prevented.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) The PCO is responsible for safeguarding the interest of the United States within contractual relationships. Only a PCO is authorized to bind the Government, and only to the extent of the authority delegated to them through the issuance of a warrant. The PCO shall assure the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The PCO will designate a COR as the Government authority for performance management. The PCO shall monitor contract compliance, contract administration, cost control, and resolve any difference between the observations documented by the COR and the Contractor. The PCO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance. The PCO delegates authority for inspection and/or acceptance in accordance with (IAW) the terms of the contract, and informs the Contractor of the name, duties, and limitations of authority for all QA personnel for this contract.

Contract Specialist (KS) The KS acts as a liaison between the Contractor and PD Aerostats, as well as a liaison between the Contractor and Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) & Administrative Contracting Officer Contract administrative responsibilities shall be assigned IAW the PCO’s delegation letter.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) The COR is designated in writing by the PCO to act as an authorized representative to assist in administering the 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.

At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report for the PCO summarizing the overall results of the QA surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the Contractor’s submitted monthly report, 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 technical, schedule, and cost objectives. The following information should be contained in a surveillance folder:

QASP

Contractor’s Quality Plan The task order and PWS, modifications, and contract data requirement lists (CDRLs) COR appointment letter and training certificates Certification of services documentation Corrective action requested Monthly surveillance status reports Minutes / memorandums / miscellaneous correspondence

IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS / QUALITY LEVELS

The Contractor will be evaluated on the quality and timeliness of their work and deliverables, with the results documented in the COR’s file, against the performance standards and/or quality levels included in the PWS and in Attachment 1 to this document, “Performance Requirements Summary.” It is the Government’s expectation that the Contractor meet the acceptable quality level for all items cited in Attachment 1. Specifically, the performance based logistics (PBL) metrics monitoring and reporting requirements listed as “level 1” in the PSS-T PWS are critical. This level of performance are key to the overall mission performance.

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

The Government will utilize the following mechanisms to monitoring contract performance:

· Formal Reviews: PD Aerostats will conduct regular reviews with the Contractor, including program management review, business management review, technical interchange meetings, integrated Product Support Manager IPT meetings, and integrated baselines reviews.

· Audit/Witness: DCMA will also support monitoring the earned value management system, property inventories, hardware and software deliverables, and invoices. The COR and other Government representatives will have the opportunity to audit and witness property inventories, quality programs, training certifications, testing and configuration audits.

· CDRLs: The COR will gather input from PD Aerostats on CDRL submissions. The CDRLs are reviewed for accuracy and completeness IAW with CDRL narrative and data item description requirements, technical adequacy, format, and consistency with other technical/cost data. The Government will also conduct in-process reviews and demonstrations for larger CDRLs.

· Inspections of Government furnished databases: The Government randomly inspects the data in Government furnished management systems. The databases are inspected for accuracy/completeness of data and frequency of updates.

· Feedback: United States Army and/or Department of Homeland Security customers may provide direct feedback regarding the Contractor. The Government will review the feedback in conjunction with PWS requirements and performance standards.

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the Performance Assessment Report in Attachment 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 for quality levels are being achieved. The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

The Product Lead plans on holding weekly IPT meetings with the PCO, CORs, DCMA, and product team functional leads to discuss contractor performance. The PCO will have regular teleconferences with the Contractor to discuss performance concerns and will provide performance assessment reports to the Contractor as required.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

Determining Performance The Government shall use the monitoring methods cited in Attachment 1 to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/ acceptable quality levels 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.

Reporting At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report for the PCO summarizing the overall results of the QA surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the Contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed Performance Assessment Reports (Attachment 2), 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, PD Aerostats, 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:

a) Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

b) Issues and concerns of both parties

c) Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

d) 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 PCO.

If the COR determines a formal written corrective action report (CAR) (Attachment 3) is required, the COR shall prepare and present it to the Contractor’s representative. The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing. The CAR 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 CAR 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. CARs may become supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, or other actions deemed necessary by the PCO.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (QAP) SIGNATURE AND DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. |_| DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

|_| NEW

|_| REPEAT

|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or SOW PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF QAP CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR QAP SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. QAP REMARKS (REQUIRED)

16. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

ATTACHMENT 3: CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT

(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

image1.jpeg