4_OneSAF_QASP.pdf

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

For

One Semi-Automated Forces (OneSAF)

PRODUCTION AND SUPPORT

15 November 2017

PREPARED BY:

Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) Project Manager Integrated Training Environment

Project Lead Constructive Simulation Support Orlando, FL 32826

1. Purpose.

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

What will be monitored.

How monitoring will take place.

Who will conduct the monitoring.

How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the

QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

The OneSAF system is a composable, Computer Generated Forces (CGF) simulation that represents a full range of operations, systems, and control processes from individual combatant and platform to brigade level. OneSAF includes a variable level of fidelity that supports all Modeling and Simulation domains. It accurately and effectively represents specific activities of ground, air, sea, and space warfare

(engagement and maneuver), Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and

Intelligence, combat support, and combat service support. It employs appropriate representations of the physical environment and its effect on simulated activities and behaviors.

The OneSAF program is currently in the production and support phase of the life cycle with ongoing implementation of Pre-Planned Product Improvements (P3I) as approved by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command Project Office. Through these Pre-

Planned Product Improvement efforts, capability enhancements are continuously developed and integrated into the current baseline resulting in, as a minimum, yearly version releases. OneSAF has been fielded to multiple Army users within the six

Army Modeling and Simulation communities as well as other Department of Defense agencies, and a multitude of industry, Foreign Military Sales, and academic locations.

Concurrent with Pre-Planned Product Improvement enhancements, customer requirements, user feedback and needs are continuously addressed by way of

Change Requests and Engineering Change Proposals to assure maximum utilization of the system throughout the growing user community. This program provides for the

Pre-Planned Product Improvements, integration, test and evaluation, fielding, and exercise support of the OneSAF for both US Army and external customers.

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is for the OneSAF Production and

Support contract. Pursuant to DFARS 246.401, the requirement for a QASP shall be addressed and documented in the contract file for each contract except for those awarded using simplified acquisition procedures . For contracts for services, the

Contracting Officer should prepare a QASP to facilitate assessment of contractor performance.

In compliance with DFARS, AFARS and local policy, this QASP will be uploaded to the Army Contracting Command online Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)

Management Tool (https://arc.army.mil/COR l) to provide the standard of surveillance for monitoring Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training , & Instrumentation

(PEO STRI) Contracting Center contract actions and to provide a systematic approach for conducting the surveillance . The Contracting Officer (KO) will appoint a

COR that will also serve as the Quality Assurance Evaluator (QAE) and will use this

QASP to ensure the standards of the contract are being met. The COR/QAE will be referred to as COR throughout this QASP.

The QASP is intended to be a “living document.” That is, it may be revised or modified as circumstances warrant throughout the contract period. 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.

The contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. The role of the Government is quality assurance to ensure contract standards are achieved.

2. Roles and Responsibilities.

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities:

(a) Contracting Officer (KO) - The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

(b) Contract Specialist (KS) - The KS acts as an acquisition consultant and serves as liaison between KO and the OneSAF program management office and the

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

(c) COR - The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance.

The COR shall keep a quality assurance file. At the conclusion of the contract or when requested by the KO, the COR shall provide documentation to the KO.

The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. The contractor shall refer any changes they deem may affect contract price, terms, or conditions to the KO for action.

(d) Other Key Government Personnel – All members of the OneSAF Government

Integrated Product Team (IPT) will be utilized to assist the COR to gain insight and surveil.

3. Surveillance Methodology.

The basis for the requirements is the Performance Work Statement (PWS) which defines the required tasks and required results for the development, testing, integration, interoperability, support, and delivery of the OneSAF baseline. Quality assurance surveillance and monitoring will be performed for all aspects of the

OneSAF Production and Support effort. This will include cost, schedule and performance. Surveillance will include all aspects of the PWS and will not be limited to specific portions of the PWS. Specific acceptable quality levels to be formally tracked are identified in Table 2 below.

Surveillance of Contractor performance is the method used by the Government to determine whether the Contractor is effectively and efficiently complying with all terms and conditions of the contract. In addition to statistical analysis, the functional expertise of the COR plays a critical role in adequately evaluating Contractor performance. The COR will utilize the other members of the OneSAF Government

IPT to gain insight. The following surveillance methods shall be used:

(a) Contractor reports: The Government will conduct surveillance and assess performance by reviewing deliverable data such as monthly reports, cost reports, technical data deliverables, and other information. Specifically, The contractor required monthly progress reports detailing accomplishments and events from the previous month and future planned activities as well as identifying issues to the COR that need to be addressed will highlight cost, schedule performance indicators. The required process reports established at the kick off meeting will formally track high risk activities.

(b) Metrics: Metrics will be established and used to review progress.

Development metrics such as Problem Tracking Reports (PTRs) and test pass fail status will provide indicators the quality of the software. Weekly review of build status at IPT meetings will be used to provide insight on schedule.

(c) Active participation: The requirement to utilize the proven OneSAF processes (proven methodology for more than fifteen years across multiple contracts and contractor developers) establish defined stakeholder engagements. These include the review daily of software integration into the baseline, weekly IPT meetings, formal peer review of system and software capability development at defined phases of capability development, and opportunity for participation from all of the Army M&S User communities. The requirement for the OneSAF development environment to be accessible to all stake holders allows for day to day routine surveillance by the IPT to see, track, retrieve and review any and all artifacts.

(d) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and Defense Contract Audit

Agency (DCAA): DCMA and DCAA surveillance in plant is not anticipated as the Program Office will be able to provide recurring in plant surveillance.

DCMA and/or DCAA may be contacted to conduct audits on an as required basis.

4. Rating

The ratings in Table 1 will be used for performance evaluations. The rating scheme is based on the definitions from the DoD CPARS Policy Guide.

Table 1 - Evaluation Ratings

5. Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs).

Performance standards have been established that the Contractor will meet in performing the contract. In the event the Contractor does not meet the established standards, the Contracting Officer has the right to exercise the negative incentives stated in this QASP. The performance standards are described in Table 2.

Marginal

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 was highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however , could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an

Exceptional rating. Also , there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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 was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

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 .

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Performance does not meet some 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 .

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management , quality, safety , or environmental deficiency report or letter).

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 a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An

Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management , quality, safety , or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

Table 2 - Performance Standards

Required Service

Performance Objective

Method of Surveillance

Maximum allowable Deviation from Requirement

(AQLs)

Incentive

Program Management

Ensure all aspects of the requirements are met

Cost Control

Efficient and effective use of resources

Adherence to schedule

Manage Risk

Monthly & Quarterly reports

Metrics reported weekly at IPT

TIMs, IPRs

Active participation - Continuous review and observation

Build planning

10% Option Exercise

Annual Past Performance Report

Software Baseline Management

Baselines identified, controlled and managed in an integrated method IAW established processes

Risks identified and mitigated

Responsive and flexible to changes in tasks and schedules

Testing IAW established procedures (recurring regression, daily automated and build, performance, integration, load, etc.)

Process improvements implemented

Daily participation in software integration

Weekly IPTs

Observation

Evaluation of metrics

Active participation in test

Process Reports and Data

Customer feedback

5% Option Exercise

Annual Past Performance report

Software Development

Quality Software & Defect Management

Following established processes and standards

Compliant with the architecture

Usability

Maintainability

Active participation in software development processes.

Participation in Peer Reviews

Weekly IPTs

Inspection

Test participation

Reports and Data

Customer feedback

10% Incentive Fee

Option Exercise

Annual Past Performance report

Co- Developer Support

Responsive-ness to co-developers

Integration is accurate and timely

Complete and accurate delivery of integrated software

Weekly IPTs

Participation in Peer Reviews

Observation

Inspection

Reports and Data

Active participation in Testing

Customer feedback

10% Option Exercise

Annual Past Performance report

Integration, Test and Release

Testing IAW established procedures (recurring regression, daily automated and build, performance, integration, load, etc.)

Stable Version Release usable for user community

Weekly IPT metrics on PTRs

Continuous review and observation

Active participation in Testing

Test Status Reports and Data

Customer feedback

10% Incentive Fee

Option Exercise

Annual Past

Customer Support

Responsive to site requests

Complete problem resolution

Accurate reporting and status

Weekly IPTs

Observation

Inspection

Reports and Data

Customer feedback

10% Option Exercise

Annual Past

Report

Cyber Security

Software is compliant with Army standards

Users can load the software on the networks

Weekly IPTs

Continuous review and observation

Inspection

Reports and Data (IAVAs, STIG compliance)

Customer feedback

0% Option Exercise

Annual Past

6. Evaluation of Incentive Contract Line Items (CLINs).

The Government shall use incentive fees as incentives. Incentives shall be based on exceeding, meeting, or not meeting performance standards. The

OneSAF Production & Support Contract will contain the following three Cost

Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs after the first two years of period of performance:

a. Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) Capability Development,

b. Integration, Test and Release, and

c. Tailored Version Software Release.

All three CPIF CLINs provide for an initially negotiated fee to be adjusted later by a formula based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target costs. The sharing ratio and minimum and maximum fee will be defined in the contract.

For the P3I Capability, fee determination will be made based on evaluation of the quality of the capability and how well the defined requirements were met in assessment of final capability prior to delivery.

For both the Integration, Test and Release and Tailored Version Software

Version Release CLINs, fee determination will be made based on evaluation of the quality of the OneSAF Version software against the Release Test prior to final delivery.

7. Negative Incentives.

If any of the Contractor’s performance does not meet the standards, the

COR shall document the discrepancy(s) and shall notify the Contractor promptly , and the Contracting Officer for appropriate action. When the performance is below the standard , the Government may implement a negative incentive that includes increased surveillance and/or Contractor reporting , as well as, documentation on the Contractor's interim and annual past performance reviews (per FAR 42 .15) .

8. Notification.

The COR will notify the Contracting Officer , in writing, of unacceptable quality levels. The Contracting Officer will promptly provide written notification of discrepancies on a monthly basis, or immediately if the situation significantly affects the well-being of the project. The

Contractor will be given the opportunity to respond, in writing, to each discrepancy.

9. Response.

The Contractor shall provide a written response to the cause and the corrective action to prevent recurrence within 10 working days after receipt of

Contracting Officer's notification. The Contractor should cite specific quality assurance program procedures or new procedures instituted to prevent recurrence.

10 . Records.

The COR will maintain contract surveillance files as directed by the

Contracting Officer. Surveillance files will include, in part, the following documentation but may be tailored depending on the scope of the contract and subsequent task orders :

a. COR designation and appointment letters;

b. A copy of the contract and all contract modifications;

c. Copies of all task orders;

d. QASP and any other tools, checklists, etc.;

e. All correspondence including Contracting Officer notifications and the

Contractor's responses;

f. Contractor monthly status reports ;

g. Evidence of satisfactory performance;

h. Evidence of cost monitoring;

i. Evidence that all Government Furnished Equipment is documented and accounted for;

j. Required COR Reports;

k. Out-of-cycle reports may be submitted in support of unacceptable performance identified during the performance period by the COR, or when there is a significant change in performance that alters the assessment in one or more evaluation areas.

Approved by:

Mr. Rodney Figaroa

Program Manager OneSAF

U.S. ARMY PEO STRI

12350 Research Parkway

Orlando, FL 32826-3276

Ph: (407) 384-3657

DSN: 970-3657

Email: rodney.r.figaroa.civ@mail.mil

Ms. Dunamis Triska

Branch Chief/Contracting Officer - ACC-ORL-OPC

U.S. Army Contracting Command - Orlando

12350 Research Parkway

Orlando, FL 32826-3276

Ph: (407) 208-5862

DSN: 970-3410

Email: dunamis.t.triska.civ@mail.mil mailto:dunamis.t.triska.civ@mail.mil