Exhibit_1-Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan-W5J9CQ-16-R-0008.pdf

EXHIBIT 1

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Geospatial, Research, Integration, Development and Support

(GRIDS III)

Solicitation No.

W5J9CQ-16-R-0008

Prepared By

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Army Geospatial Center

Contracting 7701 Telegraph Road Bldg 2592

Alexandria, VA 22315-3864

1.0 Overview.

1.1 Introduction. This performance-based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth the procedures and guidance that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will use in evaluating the technical and quality performance of the Contractor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A copy of the signed final plan will be furnished to the Contractor to be aware of the methods that the COR will use in evaluating performance of this contract.

1.2 Purpose. The purpose of the QASP is to assure that the performance of specific activities and the completion of project milestones are accomplished in accordance with all requirements set forth in the PWS and outlined in the Project Management Plan (PMP). This QASP describes the mechanism for documenting noteworthy accomplishments or discrepancies for work performed by the Contractor. Information generated from COR’s surveillance activities will directly feed into performance discussions with the Contractor and will keep the Contracting Officer informed through memorandum for records. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with performance metrics set forth in the contract documents, the Army receives the quality of services called for in the contract, and the Army only pays for acceptable services received.

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

• Define the role and responsibilities of participating Army officials.

• Define the key milestones, deliverables, and standards that will be assessed.

• Describe the surveillance methodology that will be employed by the Army in assessing the

Contractor’s performance.

• Describe the surveillance documentation process and provide copies of the forms that the

Army will use in evaluating the Contractor’s performance.

• Outline quality assurance procedures to be employed by the Government during performance of this task order to confirm that the site characterization is conducted utilizing proper procedures and in accordance with the approved work and safety plans.

• Define Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory performance standards for key milestones, deliverables, and standards.

• Outline corrective action procedures.

• Describe payment procedures.

2.0 Roles and Responsibilities of Quality Assurance Army Officials.

2.1 Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer (KO) has overall responsibility for overseeing the Contractor’s performance. The KO is responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the Contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, and contract administration; reviewing the COR’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance; and resolving all differences between the COR’s assessment and the Contractor’s assessment of performance. It is the KO who assures 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. The KO for this contract is Ms. Yolanda Harlan at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Army Geospatial Center Contracting,

(703) 428-3603, Yolanda.C.Harlan2@usace.army.mil. Questions for the KO should be directed to the assigned USACE Contracting Specialist, Mr. Zachary Garst at (703) 428-6632, Zachary.Garst@usace.army.mil.

2.2 Contracting Officer Representative (COR). The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is responsible for technical administration of the project and assures proper Army surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR is responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the Contractor on a day-to-day basis.

2.3 Technical Expertise and Subject Matter Experts. The KO and COR may call upon the technical expertise of other Army Officials and subject matter experts (SME) as required. These Army Officials and SMEs may be called upon to review technical documents and products generated by the Contractor.

If additional Army Officials and SMEs are identified as work progresses, the QASP will be modified to capture this information.

3.0 Methods for Performance Assessment.

3.1 Key Milestones/Deliverables to be assessed. The following milestones and associated deliverables will be evaluated in accordance with this QASP:

3.1.1 Key Milestones.

• TBD

3.1.2 Key Deliverables.

Contract Data Requirements to Include:

• Progress, Status and Management Reports (CDRL A003)

• Presentation Material (CDRL A001)

• Report, Record of Meeting Minutes (CDRL A002)

• Contractor’s Risk Management Plan (CDRL A004)

• Risk Management Status Report (CDRL A005)

• Contract Performance Report (CDRL A006)

• Integrated Master Schedule (CDRL A007)

• Software Development Plan (CDRL A008)

• Software Requirements Specifications (CDRL A009)

• Software Design Description (CDRL A010)

• Software Version Description (CDRL A011)

• Software Product Specification (CDRL A012)

• Software Documentation (CDRL A013)

• Computer Software Product End Items (CDRL A014)

• DoD Architecture Framework Documentation (CDRL A015)

• Software User’s Manual (CDRL A016)

• Training Materials (CDRL A017)

• COTS Manuals and Associated Supplemental Data (CDRL A018)

• Scientific and Technical Reports (CDRL A019)

• Final Report

• OPSEC SOP (CDRL A021)

3.2 Additional Surveillance Activities. Additional Government surveillance activities may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Review of geospatial data to ensure it meets DoD and Army Standards

• Review and approval of meeting minutes

• Review and approval of Monthly Status Report

• Review and approval of Management Plan

• Review and approval of Project Plan

• Review of Weekly Teleconference Minutes

• Review of Contractor’s quality control documentation

• Review of data deliverables process

• Review of the Contractor’s quality control and chain of custody documentation

• Review of the contractor’s security records

• Review of the final report

3.3 Performance Standards. Since this contract will contain both cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) and firm fixed price (FFP) Task/Delivery Orders, the Contractor’s performance will be evaluated by assessing the key milestones and deliverables above according to the standards of Quality, Schedule, Management of Key Personnel and Resources, and Stakeholder Concurrence for both contract types. For any TO/DO of a CPFF nature, the additional performance standard of Cost control will be added. For each of these performance standards, the COR will assign one of five ratings of the Contractor’s performance:

exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory, as shown in Table 1. The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated for the attribute of Security during all tasks.

TABLE 1 EVALUATON STANDARDS

Performance Standard

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Basic Definition

Contractor exceeds the performance requirements for the milestone, deliverable, or standard, with no substantive input from the government.

Contractor exceeds the performance requirements for the milestone, deliverable, or standard, with minimal input from the government.

Contractor meets the performance requirements for the milestone, deliverable, or standard, with moderate input from the government.

Contractor meets the performance requirements for the milestone, deliverable, or standard, with significant input from the government.

Contractor does not meet the performance requirements for the milestone, deliverable, or standard, after significant input from the government.

Performance Category: Quality of Product or Service Quality Final deliverables are of excellent quality, approved as submitted, or with no substantive comments limited to grammar, spelling, or terminology.

Army audit finds that the data collect and/or the work performed exceeds the requirement of the PWS. No deficiencies noted.

Final deliverables are of high quality and comments are mostly minor. Final deliverables are approved after one (1) round of Army comments. No further revisions are required.

Army audit of work does not identify any deficiencies that compromise the quality of the data collected or work performed.

Final deliverables are of acceptable quality with only a few number of comments identifying major weaknesses.

Final deliverables are approved after two (2) rounds of Army comments on Draft Final. No further revisions are required.

Army audit of work identifies deficiencies that do not compromise the quality of the data collected or work performed, and can be corrected.

Final deliverables are of poor quality with a significant number of comments identifying major weaknesses or deficiencies.

Final deliverables require more than two (2) rounds of Army comments on Draft Final before being approved. (e.g., changes are required to the Final document due to inadequate incorporation of comments).

Army audit of work identifies deficiencies that compromise the quality of the data collected or work performed, but were corrected.

Final deliverables are of very poor quality and are rejected for resubmittal without comment.

Final deliverables did not comply with contract requirements, or one or more document versions required more than three (3) rounds of Army comments before being approved.

Army audit of work identifies deficiencies that compromise the quality of the data collected or work performed, and cannot be corrected.

Performance Category: Schedule

Schedule Contractor Achieves milestone more than 45 days ahead of schedule (unless the COR waives this requirement), per criteria established in the PWS and this

QASP.

For PMP, excellent rating is achievement of milestone 10 days ahead of schedule.

Contractor Achieves milestone less than 30 days but more than 30 days ahead of schedule (unless the COR waives this requirement),per criteria established in the PWS and this QASP.

For PMP very good rating is achievement of milestone 5 days ahead of achieves milestone according to the schedule (unless the COR waives this requirement), per criteria established in the PWS and this QASP.

For PMP satisfactory rating is achievement of milestone on achieves milestone more than 30 days but less than 45 days behind schedule (unless the COR waives this requirement), per criteria established in the PWS and this

QASP.

For PMP marginal rating is achievement of milestone 10 days behind achieves milestone more than 90 days behind schedule (unless the COR waives this requirement), per criteria established in the PWS and this QASP.

For PMP unsatisfactory rating is achievement of milestone 15 days behind schedule.

Performance Category: Management of Key Personnel and Resources Management of Key Personnel and Resources

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. No substitutions were necessary

Zero (0) instances of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by higher qualified individuals.

No more than one (1) instance of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by equally qualified individuals.

Informal poor performance feedback on conduct of personnel is provided by the COR but are corrected.

No more than two (2) instances of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by equally qualified individuals.

Formal letter of poor performance feedback on conduct of personnel is provided by the COR but are corrected.

No more than three (3) instances of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by lesser qualified individuals.

Written request from AGC requesting removal of assigned personnel for poor performance or notification of poor performance is provided by the COR and is not corrected.

More than three

(3) instances of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

Performance Category: Stakeholder Concurrence Stakeholder Concurrence obtains concurrence on deliverables from Project PM.

This concurrence is obtained independently with little to no involvement and coordination required by the Government.

concurrence on deliverables from Project PM

This concurrence is obtained independently with limited involvement and coordination concurrence on deliverables from Project PM

This concurrence is obtained with a moderate level of involvement and coordination concurrence on deliverables from Project PM.

This concurrence is obtained with a significant level of involvement and coordination required by the Government.

Contractor does not obtain concurrence on deliverables from Project PM.

No concurrence obtained

Performance Category: Security Security No significant deficiencies are reported during QA inspection.

No more than one (1) serious.

No more than two (2) serious.

No more than three (3) serious.

More than three

(3) serious.

Performance Category: Cost Control (only to be evaluated on CPFF TO/DO) Cost Control Costs are held to strict adherence to the proposed plan. No cost overruns and/or unforeseen cost increases for duration of

TO/DO

Costs are adhered to per the proposed plan. No cost overruns are incurred and minor adjustments are managed with KO and COR proactively.

Costs are adhered to per the proposed plan. No cost overruns are incurred and adjustment in costs per CLIN are discussed and managed with the KO and

COR

proactively.

Costs are not adhered to per the proposed plan.

Cost overruns and/or additional costs are incurred and adjustments are managed with the KO and COR proactively.

Costs are not adhered to per the proposed plan.

Cost overruns and/or additional costs are incurred and adjustments are not managed with the KO and

COR.

The following guidelines are provided for issuing ratings that are subjective in nature, these ratings will be supported by the weight of evidence documented during the government's surveillance efforts:

Exceptional: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

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.

Marginal: Performance does not meet all contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-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.

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 serious problems for which the Contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

3.4 Performance Assessment Process. If a deliverable is rated as being unsatisfactory for quality or stakeholder concurrence at the time that the approved PWS deadline for the milestone expires, the Contractor will automatically receive an unsatisfactory rating for Schedule, unless there is an Army approved delay that extends the PWS performance objective.

3.4.1 Army Approved Delays. At the discretion of the COR, the performance standard of Schedule may be waived in accordance with the criteria outlined in Table 2. Army-Approved Delays will be tracked by the contractor and reported to the COR monthly.

3.4.2 Stakeholder Concurrence Waiver. At the discretion of the COR, the performance standard of Stakeholder Concurrence may be waived in accordance with the criteria outlined in Table 2.

3.4.3 Overall Rating

- An Exceptional rating will be achieved only if more than 80% of the 5 milestone ratings (as shown on Table 2) for the task order are Excellent, with no Unsatisfactory ratings allowed.

- A Very Good rating will be achieved only if more than 70% of the 5 milestone ratings (as shown on Table 2) for the task order are Very Good or Exceptional, with no Unsatisfactory ratings allowed.

- An Satisfactory rating will be achieved only if more than 50% of the 5 milestone ratings (as shown on Table 2) for the task order are Satisfactory or better, with no more than 1 of the 5 milestone ratings rated as Unsatisfactory.

- A Marginal rating will be achieved if the criteria for an overall Satisfactory rating is not fully met and there are no more than 2 of the 5 milestones rated as Unsatisfactory.

- An Unsatisfactory rating will be achieved if there are more than 2 of the 6 milestone rated as

Unsatisfactory.

Table 2 – EVALUATION STANDARDS TABLE (KEY DELIVERABLES)

Milestone/Deliverable Quality Schedule Resource Management

Stakeholder Concurrence

5.18 Contract Data Requirements X X X X

1.7.6.10 OPSEC SOP X X X X

Total Number of Ratings 2 2 2 2

*Includes Key Milestones and Key Deliverables from PWS and Payment Milestones from Project Management Plan.

4.0 Surveillance Methodology. Table 3 summarizes the surveillance activities planned for the QASP. The surveillance methods listed below will be used in the administration of this QASP.

4.1 100% Inspection. All project milestones and deliverables will be evaluated through 100% inspection by onsite inspection or document review. The PM will document performance for each completed milestone or deliverable prior to payment, as described in Section 5.0.

4.2 Periodic Inspection. At the PM’s discretion, periodic inspections will be conducted to evaluate progress toward key milestones and deliverables. This will include QA Safety Inspections by a government representative during any fieldwork. The PM may also complete a periodic progress inspection if he/she believes that deficiencies exist that must be addressed prior to milestone or deliverable completion.

Corrective action or re-performance will be required if necessary.

4.3 Customer Feedback. Contractor performance feedback will be obtained through periodic inquiries by the JBLM PM with project stakeholders. The purpose of these inquiries would be to supplement the other forms of evaluation and to also provide the Contractor with constructive criticism and/or recognition for the project deliverables or milestones completed. Customer feedback received will be thoroughly validated to ensure it relates to the requirements of the PWS and will be used in a prudent manner by the COR.

Customer feedback will also be solicited in the form of a concurrence letter by the Contractor from appropriate stakeholders (see Table 2 stakeholder footnotes) for key deliverables.

Milestone/ Deliverable

Quality Schedule Cost Control Org. Relations Man. Of Key Personnel

Security

Presentation Material

Clear, concise format, follows agreed upon formats.

Adequate number produced

Material production and distro.

meet the needs of the customer

Reasonable cost to produce docs and media

Comments solicited from customer and

COR

Input from proper key personnel

All presentation media properly marked and controlled

Reports, Records of meetings and minutes

Clear, concise format, follows agreed upon formats.

Adequate number produced

Material production and distro.

meet the needs of the customer

Reasonable cost to produce docs and media

Comments solicited from customer and

COR

Input from proper key personnel

All presentation media properly marked and controlled

Periodic Inspections

Status Reports Clear, concise format, follows agreed upon formats.

Adequate number produced

Delivered on the agreed upon schedule.

Report is complete

Reasonable cost to produce docs and media Cost data included in Status Report

Comments solicited from customer and

COR

Input from proper key personnel

Material is properly marked and controlled.

Periodic inspection.

Training Clear, concise format, follows agreed upon formats.

Adequate number produced

As Required Research, production of training material, etc will be discussed with the customer and COR

Comments solicited from customer and

COR

Input from proper key personnel

Material is properly marked and controlled.

Periodic inspection.

Scientific & Technical Reports

Clear, concise format, follows agreed upon formats.

Adequate number produced

As required. Research, production of training material, etc will be discussed with the customer and COR

Comments solicited from Customers and COR. Supporting data provided, as needed.

Insure key personnel can devote adequate time to the production of these reports.

Material is properly marked and controlled.

Periodic inspection

Table 3 – SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES TABLE

Training Documentation

Clear, concise format, follows agreed upon formats.

Adequate number produced.

Technical and training detail is researched and verifiable

As required. Reasonable cost to produce docs and media

Comments solicited from customer and COR.

Draft versions will be available for review 30 days prior to scheduled use for customer input.

Input from proper key personnel

Material is properly marked and controlled.

Contract Data Requirements

Clear, concise format, follows agreed upon formats.

Adequate number produced

Delivered on the agreed upon schedule.

Agreed upon management of resources adhered to within context of deliverable.

Comments solicited from customer and COR. Draft versions will be available (if appropriate) for review 30 days prior to scheduled use for customer input.

Input from key personnel

Material is properly marked and controlled.

5.0 Surveillance Documentation.

5.1 Quality Assurance Monitoring Form. The COR or designee will use the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form (QAMF) (Attachment A) to record evaluation of the Contractor’s performance for each payment milestone or final deliverable in accordance with the methodology described in Section 3.0 and Section 4.0. The Program Manager must substantiate, through narratives on the form, all superior and unacceptable ratings. Performance at the acceptable level is expected from the Contractor. At a minimum, the evaluation form will indicate actual and scheduled delivery times and number of reviews required to achieve the final product. The Program Manager will forward copies of all completed QAMFs to the COR within 7 days of performing the inspection. The Program Manager will forward all completed quality assurance monitoring forms to the Contractor within 14 days.

5.2 Corrective Action Process. When a key milestone/deliverable receives a marginal or unacceptable rating, the Contractor will explain, within 15 days, in writing to both the Program Manager and COR why performance was marginal or unacceptable, how performance will be returned to acceptable levels, and how recurrence of the problem will be prevented in the future. The Contractor shall use the corrective action form as part of this process (Attachment B). The Program Manager will review the proposed corrective action with the COR and KO as necessary, to determine if it will be accepted.

5.3 KO and COR Roles in Surveillance Process. The Program Manager will provide the COR and KO with copies of all completed QAMFs. When appropriate, the COR and/or KO may investigate further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were considered in the Program Manager opinions outlined on the form. The COR and/or KO will immediately discuss any unacceptable rating with the Contractor’s Program Manager to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated. At the end of the contract performance period, the Program Manager will prepare a written report for the COR and KO summarizing the overall results of the surveillance of the Contractor’s performance during the contract.

This report will become part of the formal QA documentation. The Program Manager will maintain a complete QA file. This file will contain copies of all performance evaluation forms and any other related documentation. The Program Manager will forward these records through the COR and to the KO at termination or completion of the contract.

5.4 Technical Quality Assurance Monitoring. In general, all work will be evaluated in terms of how well the requirements of the task order are satisfied, the extent to which the work performed follows the approach found in the contractor’s technical proposal and/or implements the decision of Technical Project Planning, and clarity of documentation. At the discretion of the COR or the Contracting Officer or Specialist, other government officials approved by the Contracting Officer or Specialist may be asked to evaluate a particular deliverable or set of deliverables. The results of all Technical Quality Assurance Monitoring will be documented using a Technical Review Form. Technical Quality Assurance Monitoring Documentation will document technical criteria evaluated.

5.5 Other Documentation. Other surveillance input may include document reviews recorded on a comment matrix by appropriate technical reviewers and Quality Assurance Records (QARs) generated at various phases of the project. A generic QAR that may be used is included in Attachment B. QARs should be completed by individuals completing review of project deliverables or oversight of field work events.

6.0 Payment.

6.1 Acceptable Performance. The Contractor may be required to perform a milestone presentation per task order PWS. At the discretion of the COR, these milestone presentations may be conducted as part of the next regularly scheduled Project Meeting. Full payment for a milestone will be provided upon verification of overall acceptable performance as indicated on the QAMF. The contractor should provide an invoice to the COR after receipt of the QAMF from AGC indicating acceptable performance. If a QAMF is not provided to the Contractor within 14 days of completion of the milestone the Contractor will submit an invoice.

6.2 Unsatisfactory Performance. If a milestone or deliverable receives an unsatisfactory rating for either the quality or stakeholder concurrence performance standard, re-performance is required until the deliverable receives an acceptable rating. This re-performance is required regardless of cost or schedule constraints that may result from the unsatisfactory performance, unless the Program Manager waives the timeliness or stakeholder concurrence requirement for that specific deliverable or the KO has opted to terminate the contract.

Approval:

ATTACHMENT A

QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

Date:

Milestone/Deliverable/Standard:

Survey Period:

Method of Surveillance:

Author’s Name and Phone Number:

Evaluation of Contractor’s Performance:

Corrective Action Required: Yes _____ No _____

Narrative Discussion of Contractor’s Performance During Survey Period:

I certify that I have checked the quantities covered by this bill or estimate: that the work was actually performed; that the quantities are correct and consistent with all previous computations as actually chacked; that the quantities and amounts are wholly consistent with the requirements of the contract or other instrument involved.

Signed by the Preparer

Note: PDF this document, sign and send to the COR with backup documentation

ATTACHMENT B

CORRECTIVE ACTION FORM

1) Date:

2) Installation:

3) Milestone/Deliverable/Standard:

4) Survey Period:

5) Author’s Name and Phone Number:

6) Description of the Failure/Deficiency that Precipitated the Corrective Action:

7) Description of the Criterion that the Failure/Deficiency was Evaluated Against:

8) Personnel Involved in Identification of the Failure/Deficiency, Determination of the Appropriate Corrective Action, Approval of the Corrective Action, and Implementation of the Corrective Action:

9) Description of the Corrective Action that was Required:

10) Date/Time of Implementation of the Corrective Action:

11) Follow Up Information to Prevent Recurrence of Failure/ Deficiency (i.e., Need For Revision of Procedures or Specifications):

12) Personnel Responsible for Follow-Up Work:

13) Planned Date for Follow Up Surveillance:

14) Other Notes:

QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORD

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

DATE OF EVALUATION: PROGRAM MANAGER:

PROJECT NAME:

CONTRACTOR:

PROJECT

PRODUCT:

ATTRIBUTES RATINGS

Exceptional Very

Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Quality of product or service

Schedule

Cost Control (Cost reimbursable contract)

Business relations

Management of key personnel

Utilization of small business

REMARKS:

Number of Final Submittals that were required due to poor performance:

Recommend Contractor for future projects: (Yes, No, Conditional)