Attachment 5 QASP.doc

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF

TRAINING, DOCTRINE, CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS,

INSTRUCTION, ROLE PLAYERS AND SUPPORT SERVICES

AT FORT KNOX KY, AND FORT BENNING GA

MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY (ID/IQ) CONTRACT

Prepared by:

U.S. ARMY MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING COMMAND (MICC)

MICC CENTER – FORT BRAGG

G3, MCOE FT Benning, GA

Prepared on May 2009

Revised on March 2010

TRAINING, DOCTRINE, CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS,

INSTRUCTION, ROLE PLAYERS AND SUPPORT SERVICES

AT FORT KNOX KY, AND FORT BENNING GA

MANEUVER CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

1. INTRODUCTION.

a. Purpose. This QASP has been developed in conjunction with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to assist the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) in evaluating contractor performance. This QASP identifies the Government’s systematic approach/method for evaluating contractor products to ensure contract performance objectives and standards are satisfactorily met; and it provides detailed direction to Government personnel performing contract surveillance activities. This plan is based on the premise that the contractor is responsible for delivering quality products and services to the Government and will ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with (IAW) the Performance Objectives (metrics) set forth herein (and in the contract documents and task orders there under), that the Government receives the product outcomes called for in the contract/task orders (TOs), and that the Government only pays for acceptable products. This QASP identifies the roles and responsibilities of participating Government officials; it identifies the services to be surveilled and the applicable performance standards; and it identifies the surveillance methodology to be utilized to include scheduling, observing, documenting, accepting products, and determining payments due. This plan will serve as a guide for the COR to perform evaluations, assess performance, and ensure contract compliance. This QASP was jointly developed by Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) Center – Fort Eustis and the Armor Center Directorate of Training, Doctrine and Combat Development, as the executive agent for the MCOE. Government personnel assigned to survey contractor performance will be required to read and understand the QASP prior to them being appointed by the ID/IQ ACO. They will also be required to periodically review the QASP throughout the life of the contract.

b. Changes. Because this plan is a tool to be used by the Government, it can be modified at any time as necessary. The decision to change the plan would depend largely on the Contractor’s demonstrated capability to carry out its quality control plan effectively. The ID/IQ ACO may unilaterally change any of the matters in this plan prior to the start of the next monthly evaluation period. The ID/IQ ACO will communicate the changes in writing to the COR. These changes will not require modification to the contract.

c. Surveillance. Information gathered from this surveillance plan will be used to document the contract file with sufficient information to assess contractor's performance. The methods used will include 100 percent inspection, random sampling, external evaluations, and customer feedback, including complaints. The specific methods to be used will be specified in the QASP for each task order.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

a. Administrative Contracting Officer. A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government. The ID/IQ ACO is located at the MICC Center – Fort Bragg, NC. The ID/IQ ACO ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguards the interest of the United States in the contractual relationship. The ID/IQ ACO will be responsible for appointing the MCOE COR for the overall ID/IQ, and the COR for the respective Task Orders (TOs) issued under the ID/IQ, reviewing the COR’s assessment of the contractor’s performance, and resolving any differences that may exist between the COR’s version and the contractor’s version. The KO will determine the appropriate course of action when performance problems occur and ultimately be responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance.

b. COR. An individual designated, in writing by the ID/IQ ACO, to act as his/her authorized representative to assist in the technical administration of the contract. The source and authority for a COR is the ID/IQ ACO. COR limitations are contained in the written letter of designation. The COR is located at MCOE. The COR is responsible for the overall technical administration of the contract/TOs and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance in accordance with the QASP. 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 ID/IQ ACO for action. The COR will have primary responsibility for reviewing the Surveillance schedule(s), Surveillance Activity Checklist(s), and performance evaluation forms (PEFs) submitted by various customers. The COR is responsible for making customers aware of contract requirements, investigating and validating customer complaints, and ensuring the contractor takes appropriate corrective action. The COR shall also have the overall responsibility to maintain accurate and complete documentation of all surveillance activities. This should also include minutes of any meetings and all correspondence between the Government and the contractor. The Contractor shall submit their Quality Control (QC) Plan to the COR. The COR must approve the Contractor’s QC plan and may request changes to the plan to accommodate local Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and/or mission requirements.

c. Contractor Quality Control. The Contractor’s quality control plan must be detailed, containing a systematic approach to monitor daily operations of key and essential functions for providing quality service to the government. The COR will initially approve the Contractor’s quality control plan determining if the plan adequately covers all major PWS requirements. The COR will monitor the plan will recommend any changes required to those plans to accommodate local SOPs, problem areas, and/or mission requirements.

3. PROCEDURES.

a. Scheduling. The COR is responsible for developing a monthly schedule for their surveillance activities. The schedule will be complete by the last workday of the preceding month and kept on file. A COR Sureveillance Schedule (DA Form 5475-R) or a similar form shall be used for documenting the schedule. See DA Form 5475, Attachment 6. Individual TOs may have additional surveillance requirements, such as In-Process-Reviews (IPRs), identified. In general, inspections will be scheduled as follows:

(1) Contractor’s Progress, Status, and Management Report – Monthly

(2) TO Performance Report – Monthly

(3) Contractor Inspection Records – Quarterly

(4) Contractor submitted documentation - As submitted

(5) Customer Satisfaction Survey – Quarterly

(6) Quality Assurance Office inspections on instruction.

b. Performance Evaluation. Performance of a service will be evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the performance standard (see Performance Requirements Summary, Section 6a of this document). If an unacceptable item is annotated on a Contract Discrepancy Report (DA Form 5479), the contractor shall provide the Government written response why the performance standard was not met, how performance will be returned to acceptable levels, and how recurrence of the cause will be prevented in the future. At the end of the Period of Performance, the COR will review all the information collected, and assess the number of deficiencies accumulated. With this data, the COR will determine if the Contractor’s performance is within standards. This information will be retained by the COR and used in formulating past performance evaluations for subsequent contracts. For deficiencies not corrected in a timely manner to the COR’s satisfaction, the KO will be contacted for remedies available to the Government.

c. Surveillance Methods. Distinct surveillance methods will be utilized for evaluating the Performance Objectives. Methods of surveillance can change after contract award based on, but not limited to: acceptance of a Contractor QC plan; a partnering agreement which establishes the metrics to be used; and Contractor performance.

(1) 100 Percent Inspection. This method monitors all observations and provides the best indication of contractor performance and the most documented basis to support the exercise of an option. The Government will use the 100 percent inspection method for all Contractor-provided deliverables.

(2) Random Sampling. This is a sampling method whereby some part, but not all of the contractor’s performance is evaluated. In this manner the COR and the TPOC need only make a few observations from which they can project the quality of the entire process. The Government will randomly inspect the contractor’s inspection records and timekeeping records.

(3) External Evaluations. Some tasks under this ID/IQ will be routinely monitored by the MCOE Quality Assurance Office (QAO). This is primarily inspections on instruction. Instruction presented in a classroom or field environment will be subject to independent inspection by the MCOE Quality Assurance Office using TRADOC Reg 350-70 “Systems Approach to Training Management, Processes, and Products” established criteria and checklists. These inspections will capture strengths/weaknesses of the observed instructor, and can be used for remediation, or positive recognition, as appropriate. As part of this QAO process, student feedback sheets are also collected and analyzed for each course, with strengths/weaknesses of instructors provided to Course Manager.

(4) Customer Feedback. This method is initiated by any individual working with or coming in contact with the Contractor. The Customer Complaint concerns Contractor’s performance. The Government will use the Customer Complaint method to process any negative observation relating to the Contractor’s performance. While the focus for evaluation is negative, i.e., complaints, good news and identification of laudatory actions are also part of Customer Feedback. To be successful, this method must be well publicized to the customer.

d. Surveillance Procedures. Surveillance of the Contractor will be focused around a monthly evaluation period, primarily focused at the task order level. The Government will maintain a broad view of Contractor performance by monitoring how the Contractor implements the requirements of each specific task. The Government will also monitor the quality of specific services supplied and review all documentation submitted by the contractor. The COR is responsible for reporting all of the deficiencies discovered during an inspection, either on the inspection checklist and work sheets if the matter can be easily corrected, or on the Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) when the deficiency cannot be immediately corrected or has a significant impact upon contract performance. A copy of DA Form 5479, See DA Form 5479, Attachment 8

(1) In-Progress Reviews (IPRs). IPRs require the Contractor to provide status reports or briefings on progress to date, tailored to the task order deliverables and schedule. The frequency of these reviews, which may be in person, via Video Teleconference (VTC), or telephonic, will be specified in the individual TOs, but will be no less than quarterly. Problem areas requiring Government assistance to resolve will also be highlighted.

(2) Monthly Status/Progress Reports. This method requires the Contractor to provide status of individual TOs every month for the life of the TO. It will include funds expended to date, percentage of work accomplished, actions completed during the reporting period, and any problem areas encountered. This will all be focused on the task order tasks, deliverables, and schedule. Problem areas requiring Government assistance to resolve will also be highlighted.

(3) Customer Feedback. Customer Complaints will be submitted to the COR on a DA Form 5477, Customer Complaint Record (Attachment 7), as incidents occur. The COR will investigate the complaint and, if validated, document the unsatisfactory performance as a CDR. The CDR will be processed through the Contracting Officer to the contractor for resolution of the problem. Positive observations should also be submitted to the COR to be documented.

(4) The Contractor will be allotted time to resolve unsatisfactory performance. If the allotted time is exceeded, this lack of action will also be documented as a CDR. The contractor will not be paid for re-performance.

(5) The Government expects the Contractor to provide fully operational and satisfactory services. Negative contractor performance based on submitted documentation IAW this plan will be an agenda item at IPRs and addressed in the monthly status until resolved.

e. Performance Standards and maximum degree of deviation from requirement. The performance standard is the standard the contractor must meet for a particular inspection to be deemed acceptable. Thorough documentation of services provided under this contract is essential. The Government will do this by routing factual reports prepared by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to the Contracting Officer as required. These reports will serve to document acceptable or outstanding performance as well as deficient or unperformed work. The standards for surveillance will derive, in part, from the Contractor’s performance plan and in part from standards imposed by the Government for functionality. These standards are identified in section 4(b).

f. Contract Payment Deduct Computation. There will be limited contract payment deduction option. Deliverables will be reworked until they are acceptable. Periodic reviews will ensure that problems are corrected quickly. In instances where the number of contract employees to support the task are inadequate based on PWS requirements (hire lag, no personnel at specified school/center locations, etc), and this condition exists longer than two work-weeks, the Government will deduct the corresponding labor fee for days exceeding 10 days, until the position(s) is filled. Missed days outside of the allowable range of 2% of total instructor days required will require deductions to the monthly invoice.

g. Contract Discrepancy Reports (CDR). The CDR will be used whenever necessary in the administration of the contract to formally document unacceptable performance. The COR will initiate a CDR (complete the form and attach the supporting documentation), forward it to the KO, and review/approve the Contractor's response. The COR will initiated a CDR, as a minimum, whenever unacceptable performance is determined critical in nature and requires immediate correction; trends in unacceptable performance (repetitive deficiencies) are recorded and require correction.

(1) Whenever possible, the Contractor should be given the opportunity to take corrective action on all deficiencies noted. The COR will note all deficiencies in the “Remarks” section of the applicable oversight checklist or work sheet, and will inform the Contractor. The Contractor will initial and date the deficiency noted on the checklist or work sheet, placing the Contractor on notice that correction is required. If the Government is responsible for any discrepancies, these will not be counted as deficiencies on the part of the Contractor but shall be kept on file as part of the official audit trail.

(2) If on-the-spot corrections to the noted deficiencies are made, they should be noted in the “Remarks” section of the checklist and/or work sheets, showing the time and date of the correction.

4. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY.

a. Performance Objectives. The Performance Objectives (metrics) are outcomes that are required to be surveilled on a monthly basis to ensure acceptable contractor performance.

(1) TO milestones are on track.

(2) Drafts of written deliverables are available and follow codes of best practices or other standard guidelines for the type of analysis.

(3) Monthly TO Contract Status Report is submitted as required by the contract.

(4) Monthly TO Status Reports for TOs in progress are submitted as required by the contract.

b. Performance Requirements Summary. The PRS, as used in this QASP, is a tool to provide information and documentation to document any trends that may have a negative impact on contract performance which would be forwarded to the KO for any action deemed necessary. The performance objectives listed in the PRS are considered to be major elements for successful execution of this contract and associated TOs.

Performance Objective

PWS

Para

Performance meets all technical and functional requirements, and is highly responsive to changes in technical direction and/or the technical support environment.

Personnel qualifications, assessments, evaluations, analyses, recommendations, and related input are thorough, reliable, highly relevant to TO requirements, and consist of substantial depth and breadth of subject matter expertise.

Deliverable reports contain all required data and meet all applicable CDRL requirements.

Performance meets all and exceeds many TO requirements. Performance delivered with no required re-performance/rework at least 100% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a highly effective manner.

VERY GOOD

Performance and deliverables meet all and exceed some TO requirements. Performance delivered with no required re-performance /rework at least 95% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in an effective manner.

SATISFACTORY

Performance and deliverables meet all TO requirements. Performance delivered with no re-performance/rework at least

90% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

MARGINAL

Some TO requirements not met and/or performance delivered with re-performance/rework required more than 20% of time. Problems encountered were resolved in a less than satisfactory manner.

UNSATISFACTORY

Many TO requirements not met. Numerous re-performances/ rework required. Substantial problems were encountered and inadequate corrective actions employed.

Contractor meets Task Order delivery requirements at least 95% of the time (excluding Government caused delays).

TO milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 100% of time (excluding government caused delays)

VERY GOOD

TO milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 95% of time (excluding government caused delays)

SATISFACTORY

TO milestones/ performance dates met or exceeded at least 90% of time (excluding government caused delays)

MARGINAL

TO milestones/ performance dates met less than 80% of time (excluding government caused delays)

UNSATISFACTORY

TO schedule/performance dates met less than 70% of time

Submission dates are met or exceeded at least 100% of time (excluding government caused delays) with no or minor errors, which are easily resolved.

VERY GOOD

Submission dates are dates met or exceeded at least 95% of time (excluding government caused delays) with minor errors, which are effectively resolved.

SATISFACTORY

Submission dates are dates met or exceeded at least 90% of time (excluding government caused delays) with minor errors, which are satisfactorily resolved.

MARGINAL

Submission dates are dates met less than 80% of time (excluding government caused delays) and problems encountered were resolved in a less than satisfactory manner.

Submission dates are dates met less than 70% of time and substantial problems were encountered and inadequate corrective actions employed.

Performance meets all technical and functional requirements, and is highly responsive to changes in technical direction and/or the technical support environment. Deliverables contain all required data and meet all applicable CDRL requirements.

Performance meets all and exceeds many TO requirements. Performance delivered with no required re-performance/rework at least 100% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a highly effective manner.

VERY GOOD

Performance and deliverables meet all and exceed some TO requirements. Performance delivered with no required re-performance /rework at least 95% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in an effective manner.

SATISFACTORY

Performance and deliverables meet all TO requirements. Performance delivered with no re-performance/rework at least

90% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

MARGINAL

Some TO requirements not met and/or performance delivered with re-performance/rework required more than 20% of time. Problems encountered were resolved in a less than satisfactory manner.

Many TO requirements not met. Numerous re-performances/ rework required. Substantial problems were encountered and inadequate corrective actions employed.

Performance meets all and exceeds many TO requirements. Performance delivered with no required re-performance/rework at least 100% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a highly effective manner.

VERY GOOD

Performance and deliverables meet all and exceed some TO requirements. Performance delivered with no required re-performance /rework at least 95% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in an effective manner.

SATISFACTORY

Performance and deliverables meet all TO requirements. Performance delivered with no re-performance/rework at least

90% of time; problems that are encountered are minor and resolved in a satisfactory manner.

MARGINAL

Some TO requirements not met and/or performance delivered with re-performance/rework required more than 20% of time. Problems encountered were resolved in a less than satisfactory manner.

Many TO requirements not met. Numerous re-performances/ rework required. Substantial problems were encountered and inadequate corrective actions employed.

Attachment 5, QASP