MCoE_DRAFT_RFP_Attachment 5_MCoE_IDIQ_QASP_ _PRS.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

September 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 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 developed by the Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) Center – Fort Bragg and the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning. Government personnel assigned to survey contractor performance will be required to read and understand the QASP prior to them being appointed. 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 Contracting Officer (KO) may unilaterally change any of the matters in this plan prior to the start of the next monthly evaluation period. The KO 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 (to include complaints). The specific methods to be used will be specified in the QASP for each task order.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

a. 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 KO is located at the MICC Center – Fort Bragg, NC. The KO 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 KO will be responsible for appointing the MCOE COR for the overall IDIQ, and the COR for the respective Task Orders (TOs) issued under the IDIQ, 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. Contracting Officer Representative. An individual designated, in writing by the KO, 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 KO. 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 KO 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. Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTR). An individual designated, in writing, by the KO to act as his/her authorized representative for the technical administration of the task orders. The COTR will report directly to the COR concerning daily administration matters. Any matters pertaining to the contractor’s failure to perform will be reported directly to the COR and KO. The duties and limitations of the COTR are contained in a written letter of designation. The COTRs will be appointed for each task order. The COTR provides detailed technical oversight of the Contractor’s performance in accordance with the QASP and reports his or her findings to the COR in a timely, complete and impartial fashion to support the COR’s technical administration activities. While the COTR may serve as a direct channel to provide Government guidance and feedback to the Contractor on technical matters outlined in the contract/task orders, he or she 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 KO for action. The COTR will ensure that the Contractor’s performance is evaluated on a routine basis. The COTR may use his/her first-hand observations of the Contractor, the observations of MCoE personnel and customers in this evaluation. 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 SOPs, and/or mission requirements. The COTR must provide the Contractor written feedback of the performance on the task orders. For task orders with a period of performance that exceeds one month, the COTR will provide the Contractor written monthly feedback, and at the conclusion of the task order.

d. 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 Schedule (DA Form 5475-R) or a similar form shall be used for documenting the schedule. 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. If an unacceptable item is annotated on a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR - DA Form 5479), the contractor shall provide the Government written response why the performance standard was not met. The documents shall address how the contractor’s 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. 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 when the deficiency cannot be immediately corrected or has a significant impact upon contract performance.

Several distinct surveillance methods will be utilized for evaluating the Performance Objectives under the contracts/task orders. Methods of surveillance can change after contract award based on, but not limited to: acceptance of a contractor QC plan; a partnering agreement which established the metrics to be used; and contractor performance.

(1) 100 Percent Inspection. This is a method whereby all outputs of a particular service output are monitored. What distinguished 100% inspection is that all services of a particular area are inspected because these areas are of such critical importance that contractor nonperformance would pose a direct risk to mission failure.

(2) Random Sampling. Random sampling is a method whereby some part, but not all of contractor performance in an area is evaluated. What distinguishes it as random sampling is that each service output (lot) has an equal chance of being selected for inspection. In this manner, the COTR need only make a few observations from which to project the quality of the entire lot. The Government through its COR/COTRs will monitor the contractor’s compliance on a continuous basis in areas surveyed by random sampling, however, the sheer volume of the tasks required in these performance objectives makes 100% technical inspections impractical.

(3) External Evaluations. Some tasks under this IDIQ 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’s service. Customer Complaints will be submitted to the COR on a DA Form 5477, Customer Complaint Record, as incidents occur. Once a customer’s complaint is provided the COR will investigate the matter and, if validated, document the unsatisfactory performance. 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.

Because customer’s complaints are likely to be subjective and may not always relate to actual requirements of the contract, it will be used in focusing on potential problem areas that might not be observed during normal surveillance. 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.

(5) 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.

(6) Reporting Requirements. 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 TO’s tasks, deliverables, and schedule. Problem areas requiring Government assistance to resolve will also be highlighted.

Additionally, MICC Center - Fort Bragg will require contract awardees to submit a Quarterly Program Report to provide visibility of program status, attainment of metrics, and other information necessary to aid in the administration of the contract and to prepare for subsequent competitions.

d. 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 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.

e. Contract Payment Deduct Computation. The Government expects the Contractor to provide fully operational and satisfactory services. The contractor will not be paid for re-performance. Therefore, deliverables will be reworked until they are found acceptable. Periodic reviews will ensure that problems are corrected quickly. The specific technique to be used will be specified in the QASP for each task order.

f. 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 for review/approval.

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. 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. If a third reoccurring CDR must be issued, consider issuing a cure notice. However, a cure notice can be issued sooner, if necessary. Depending on the contractor’s overall performance, the government may issue a cause letter if the reply to a cure notice is unsatisfactory; next consider terminating the contract.

4. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY.

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

- Task order level PRS metrics.

· Timeliness of Performance

· Cost Control (If applicable)

· Quality of Product/ Services

· Management of Personnel

- Contract level PRS metrics.

· Quality of Product/ Services

· Timeliness of Performance

· Cost Control

· Management of Personnel

· Business Relations

· Limitation of Subcontracting (If applicable)

· Compliance with Subcontracting Plan (If applicable)

- Program level metrics.

· Customer Satisfaction (MCoE)

· Management of Service Contracts (MCoE)

· Timeliness of Task Order Execution in meeting Mission Requirements (MCoE)

· Effectiveness in supporting Army Socio-Economic Program Goals (MICCC-FB)

· Effectiveness in supporting Army Competition Program Goals (MICCC-FB)

· Opportunity Cost Savings (MCoE)

For each Performance Objective to be measured, a guide will be developed that delineates the procedure; how the inspection will be performed; the performance standard and maximum degree of deviation from requirement; and if necessary, the contract deduction computation.

It must be noted that the absence of any contract/task order requirement from the Performance Objectives shall not detract from its enforceability nor limit the rights or remedies of the Government under any other provision of the contract including the clauses entitled “Inspection of Services” and “Default”.

b. Performance Requirements Summary. The Government will utilize a tiered approach to overall MCoE Program Management consisting of Task Order level - Performance Requirement Summary (metrics), which roll up to Contract level - Performance Requirement Summary, which roll up to Program level - Performance Requirement Summary.

Task order level PRS metrics. Task order level PRS metrics will be outlined in each task order awarded over the life of the contract. Performance at the task order level is extremely important and must be carefully monitored. At a minimum, every task order will include the following Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) metrics:

Timeliness of Performance

The contractor adhered to all schedule timelines, milestones, delivery schedules and administrative requirements that contribute to, or effected schedule variance, to include scheduled on-time delivery of reports, data products, billing invoices, staffing of personnel, and action items.

Monthly

Cost Control (Task Orders with Cost, T&M, and/or LH CLINs)

Contractor was effective in forecasting, managing, and controlling cost, including reporting and analyzing variances in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. Contractor complies with Limitation of Cost, invoicing, and availability of funding contract terms and conditions.

Monthly

Quality of Product/ Services

Management of Personnel

Monthly

Additional task order level PRS metrics may be added depending on the specific task order circumstances. The Ordering Guide will discuss metrics and will include a repository of sample Performance Work Statements, Performance Requirements Summary metrics and other documentation that might be deemed useful.

In accordance with AFARS 5142.1502-90 and the DoD Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Policy Guide, dated March 10, 2010, the contract and associated ordering guide will require a CPARs report for all task orders over $100,000.

Contract level PRS metrics. Will be outlined in the basic contract and used by the Government to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall MCoE support services provided by the Contractor under all active task orders during the evaluation period. The following Contract level Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) metrics apply:

Quality of Product/ Services

Annual

Timeliness of Performance

Task Order Performance Assessment Reports

Annual

Cost Control

Annual

Management of Personnel

Annual

Limitation of Subcontracting (Suite 1)

Contractor is in compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

Contractor meets all subcontracting plan goals during the surveillance period

Program level metrics. MCoE program level metrics will be utilized to assess the effectiveness of the MCoE MATOC(s) in meeting MCoE mission requirements and to guide the direction of the program. The following program level metrics apply:

Customer Satisfaction (MCoE)

Management of Service Contracts (MCoE)

All MCoE contracts and task orders have a contract level QASP approved, a trained COR appointed, and an annual performance assessment report executed for task orders over $100,000

100% – Green

80%- 99% - Amber

<80% - Red

100% – Green

80%- 99% - Amber

<80% - Red

Effectiveness in supporting Army Socio-Economic Program Goals (MICC Fort Bragg) Contractors in Suite 1 complied with FAR 52.219-14, Limitation of Subcontracting.

Contractors in Suite 2 complied with 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals.

Effectiveness in supporting Army Competition Program Goals (MICC Fort Bragg)

Annual

PAGE

Attachment 5, QASP and PRS