Attachment_6_QASP.docx

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP)

For

STRYKER MTS PHASE V

10 April 2017

Table of Contents

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is to ensure the contractor satisfactorily performs the contract requirements, that the government receives quality services and products as defined in the Statement of Work (SOW) and to provide a planned process for assessing the contractor performance in a systematic manner. Performance assessment will be accomplished in accordance with this document and the terms of the contract.

This QASP is a “living” document that can be revised or modified by the Government as circumstances warrant. It is based on the premise that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for managing and ensuring that contract requirements are met and that quality controls meet the terms of the contract. It is not intended to provide details of how the contractor accomplishes the work.

The surveillance/evaluation methods identified in the QASP, in concert with the contractor’s quality management and quality improvement procedures, provide a comprehensive approach to contract performance assessment. In areas where gaps or increased surveillance is warranted, adjustments may be made to the QASP.

In the event of a conflict between this QASP and contractually stated inspection requirements, the Order of Precedence (contract) shall prevail.

Items that are observed IAW this QASP may be used as input for documenting contractor past performance.

2. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following individuals direct roles for monitoring contract performance:

a. Contracting Officer (KO) – The KO is the individual with a prescribed authority to enter into, administer and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. He/she shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting while ensuring compliance with the contract terms. The KO also ensures appropriate contractual remedies and solutions are applied when contractors fail to meet contract requirements and ultimately responsible for final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

b. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR will be the Assistant Program Manager (APM) for the Stryker MTS Phase V and is assigned to perform the overarching cost/schedule/performance and program management duties. The COR is designated and authorized in writing by the KO to perform specific technical or administrative functions, and is the senior organization contract administrator responsible for adequate surveillance of contractor performance. The COR oversees the contract surveillance activities to ensure satisfactory contractor performance of contract requirements and elevates any contractual issues requiring KO direction/guidance to the KO for resolution. The COR does not have the authority to change the contract terms, as this can only be accomplished by the KO. The contractor shall refer any changes they deem that may affect contract price, terms, or conditions to the KO for action.

c. Other Key Government Personnel – The individuals listed below shall be monitoring the contract and do not have the authority to change the contract terms, as this can only be accomplished by the KO.

1) Mr. Patrick Hart – Assistant Program Manager (APM)

2) Mrs. Angela Chang – Lead Engineer

3) Mr. Dennis Rushing – Systems Engineer

4) Mr. Terry Pertab – Systems Engineer

5) Mr. Abraham Horne – Logistics Manager

6) Mr. Gilberto Ramos – Project Coordinator (SETA)

7) Mr. Thomas Mazza – Systems Engineer (SETA)

3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance Standards define desired product quality. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards. The Performance Standard Ratings are outlined in Table 1. A variety of tasks, as listed in Table 2, shall be evaluated to determine the Contractor's performance. The Government shall use these standards to determine contractor performance and shall compare contractor performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

Table 1. Performance Standard Ratings

Exceptional

Performance substantially exceeds expected levels of performance. Numerous significant achievements exist. No deficiencies.

Very Good

Performance exceeds expected levels and some significant achievements exist. Although some deficiencies may exist, they are only minor and correctable.

Satisfactory

Performance meets expected levels and good practices are evident in contract operations. Achievements or deficiencies may exist but none are consider significant.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet expected levels in most areas. No significant achievements exists. However, multiple significant deficiencies exist.

Table 2. Performance Standards for Stryker MTS Phase V

2. The contractor prepares and submits clear, relevant, correct and timely documentations and data e.g., Engineering Change Proposals (ECP), cost estimates and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) data items.

3. The contractor communicates, coordinates and cooperates with the Government Team to resolve problems that may arise in communication and planning or other related areas.

4. The contractor prepares timely and accurate documentation of invoices and tracking of payments against each CLIN.

5. The contractor effectively satisfies entry and exit criteria for technical reviews and audits as defined in the Appendix A in the SOW.

2. The contractor provides early identification of schedule problems and is effective in overcoming challenges to maintain progress.

3. The contractor consistently submits deliverables in accordance with established schedules.

2. The contractor successfully demonstrates that the CIs support the technical data package during formal configuration audits and formal Government testing.

2. No priority 1 or priority 2 discrepancies identified during any formal Government testing.

4. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE

The following surveillance methods listed below may be used by the COR in the administration of this QASP. Regardless of the surveillance method, the APM shall contact the contractor’s program manager when a defect is identified and inform the manager of the specifics of the problem. The COR is responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in correcting the problem.

a. Direct Observation

1. Reviews will be conducted as applicable and in accordance with the requirements in the SOW.

2. Continuous review of requirements analysis and functional allocation with the contractor.

3. COR visits to the contractor's facility and interaction with the contractor's engineers.

4. Interaction with the contractor's team during the entire period of performance for the contract.

5. Minimum of one physical GFP inspection a calendar year by a Government Representative as directed by either the Contracting Officer or the COR with or without notice.

b. Management Information Systems (MIS) Reports will be provided in accordance with the requirements in SOW.

c. Analysis Review of applicable documentation or test results. Verification shall be by established through observation and inspection that stated requirements were met.

d. Demonstration Actual operation, adjustment, or re-configuration of items to provide evidence that the designed functions were accomplished.

e. Certification

1. A document asserting that the item complies with the applicable requirements.

Certifications must include documented test results, performance data, analytical data or vendor documentation. The certifications must be made available to the Government representatives immediately upon request for review during inspections.

2. Surveillance results may be used as the basis for actions (to include payment deductions) against the contractor. In such cases, the Inspection of Services clause in the contract becomes the basis for the PCO's actions.

5. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE

a. Acceptable Performance The Government shall document positive performance. A report template is attached. Any report may become a part of the suppot1ing documentation for fixed fee payments or other actions.

b. Unacceptable Performance 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 Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the contractor's task manager or on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP.

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.

Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

6. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT

While the contractor is fully expected to comply with all requirements in the SOW, the government's assessment of contractor performance will focus mainly on the objectives listed in the AQL column of the Performance Standards Summary Matrix. The COR will monitor the contractor's performance to ensure it meets the standards of the contract. Unacceptable performance may result in the KO taking any of the following actions: Require the contractor to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements, reduce the contract price to reflect the reduced value of the services, issue a CDR, or require the contractor to re-perform the service. In addition, the contractor's performance will be recorded annually in the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR).

Signature – Patrick Hart Contracting Officer's Representative

Signature – Eric Hertl Contracting Officer

POSTIVE PERFORMANCE REPORT

1. CONTRACT NUMBER: W900KK-17-R-0016

2. TO: (Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative) <insert name>

3. FROM: Mr. Patrick Hart

4. Date and time of observation:

5. Observation:

<Examples of items to include in a report are:

· Method of surveillance.

· How frequently you conducted surveillance.

· Surveillance results.

· Number of observations.>

Prepared by: Patrick Hart

Contracting Officer's Representative

Received by:

Date

Signature Contractor Task Manager or on-site Representative

Date

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY R EPORT (CDR)

1. CONTRACT NUMBER: W900KK-17-R-0016

2. TO: (Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative) <insert name>

3. FROM: Mr. Patrick Hart

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 I is not > required.

< If a written corrective action plan is required to 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: Patrick Hart

Contracting Officer’s Representative Date

Received by:

Signature Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative Date image1.emf