EXHIBIT 1


This ATO IT uses its own Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) to evaluate
performance of the SP herein after known as the Service Provider or SP, under what will be a
joint Service Level Agreement. The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR)
will monitor SP actions to ensure the SP properly implements this Performance-Based
Statement of Work (PWS) in Section C of the contract along with the joint Service Level
Agreement (SLA) requirements to be negotiated and used in conjunction with this contract. The
Government’s QASP is designed to provide an effective surveillance plan for monitoring SP
performance for each area listed proposed and agreed to in the SP’s SLA. The QASP provides
the Government a systematic way to evaluate SP performance per the SLA, which is required to
perform in accordance with the contract and the SLA. The Government will have the same
metrics available to it as the SP, and the Government shall have access to all QC and SLA
documentation of the SP. The contract shall require the SP.

FAA will apply the SLA provided by the SP with includes mandatory minimum Acceptable
Performance Levels (APL) that must be achieved. The SP’s ability to earn or not earn any or all
of the Award Fee as well as position itself towards Award-Term options will be considered
based on SLA actual metrics. The SP will automatically lose part of its award fee potential for
less than acceptable performance (not meeting stated APL percentages), and it is therefore
important that the SP proposed and provide a realistic performance assessment plan (SLA) for
this effort.. For example, for exceptional performance it may be possible for the SP to earn the
entire award feel pool amount progressively throughout the period of performance; while at the
same time, should the SP’s performance be extremely poor, then the SP may earn no award fee
at all. The SLA shall have a requirement that the SP’s performance be constantly improving its
overall contract service and cost performance throughout the entire period of performance. Cost
control and cost reduction improvements will be rated under this contract as part of the SLA and
Award Fee Incentive Plan. SPs will know they will incur built-in fee reductions for substandard
performance because the SP will have agreed to this as part of its technical proposal submission.

The QASP aids the COTR in overall contract administration by providing a platform to guide the
contract administration team in establishing surveillance over SP performance, and ensuring the
SP provides quality services for all IT services listed in the PWS at the stated APLs. The SLA
stems from standard commercial practice, and is a formal agreement for achieving performance
and determining whether agreed to performance meeting APLs per key performance indicators
were achieved by the service provider.

The SP, and not the government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to
ensure it meets the terms of the contract and the SLA as proposed. The role of the government in
quality assurance is to monitor SP performance in relation to the SLA to assure minimum
performance standards have been met or are exceeded via their own Quality Control (QC)
program. The Government will inspect and make sure the SP has a workable QC program and
uses QC to ensure compliance with The QASP process serves as a double-check to the SP, that it
is doing its job correctly through the maintenance of inspections which can be 100%, random
and planned and other measures including all forms of electronic database monitoring and
                                                                                          EXHIBIT 1
feedback. REMEDY is an operational tracking tool used by the FAA call centers that is visible
to both the SP and the Government. Both the Government and the SP shall use Remedy.

The SP’s quality control program (QCP) drives service quality and relates service performance
directly to the SLA is to be updated annually and provided to the COTR for review and approval.
The SP is required to develop an internal comprehensive program of inspections and monitoring
to meet the SLA APLs. The SP quality control program will ensure robust performance.

2.0    STANDARD (APL/AQL): The SP must perform each contract requirement of the
Performance Work Statement (PWS), as indicated in the jointly agreed to SLA, and at the APL
level. Contract deficiencies not meeting the minimum APL standards shall be resolved or
handled under the Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) process by the COTR.


        (a) The Government uses a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) to monitor
compliance of the SP’s work within contract terms and conditions stated in the contract.
Performance shall be in accordance with the approved SLA. The COTR will identify any non-
conforming services, just as the SP shall determine non-conforming services and determine
appropriate corrective action. What is unique from a contract prospective is that the SP will use
their proposed and approved SLA as the baseline from which to measure its performance. The
SP shall meets or exceed the Government’s APL set forth in EXHIBIT 2 which is provided to
be used as the minimum performance levels acceptable by the FAA. The SP proposed SLA shall
provide for performance improvements. Monthly invoices for failed or non-conforming services
shall be handled by the COTR, except that, the COTR will ensure appropriate Contract
Discrepancy Reporting is used, and when necessary reported to both the Contract Office,
Program Management Office for consideration by both the Award Fee Board, and Award-term
option board. Monthly performance data will be collected on SP performance outcomes that will
enable the Government (Contracting Office, Program Office, COTR and Finance) to all know at
the end of each of each contract period how the SP performed and make it very easy to institute
increased withholds on SP billing and payment of fee if the SP is not performing satisfactorily.
The SP shall propose automatic award fee reductions for varied levels of service rendered at full
performance (meets Government minimum), and for less than full performance (does not meet
minimum Government APL performance metric). Both the Government and SP will have access
to the same performance metrics throughout the life of the contract. Under this contract, the
responsibility rests with the SP for performance metric daily reporting which will be reviewed
and viewable by not only the TOR, but by the COTR. The SLA agreement accepted by the
Government shall be very clear as to performance standards it proposes to meet the needs of the
FAA, and as to the fee reductions for each contract line item number (CLIN) designated as a
CPAF CLIN. All work required by the contract is subject to any and all surveillance by the
Government whether or not specifically included in the plan. Therefore, it is essential that the
selected SP for award have excellence in past performance, quality control, customer service,
technical excellence and problem resolution. Service quality is paramount for the SP to receive
an “award-term” option.

(b) When a SP’s performance fails to achieve the acceptable performance level (APL) and is
clearly the fault of the SP, the Government and the SP both will already know the areas needing
improvement. The COTR will issue a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) which can be via email
or letter, or similar document which will be maintained and forwarded to the Contracting Officer
to issue to the SP at the end of month once the SP reports all month metrics to the COTR for FAA
ATO. In response to each monthly CDR or other document, the SP shall explain within seven (7)
working days, in writing, why performance based on automatic metric reporting was unacceptable,
how performance will be improved or restored to acceptable levels and how recurrence of the
problem will be prevented in the future. The Contracting Officer and the program office will
evaluate the SP explanation and determine the appropriate course of action in writing to the SP
with 10 business days, unless an extension is granted. Deficient service outputs not meeting the
APL of the SLA will be considered in the payment or non-payment of base and award fee

5.0 ANALYSIS OF SURVEILLANCE RESULTS: The CO will review each CDR form
prepared by the COTR for handling discrepancies. When appropriate, the CO may investigate
the event further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were
considered in the COTR’s opinions outlined on the forms. The CO will discuss issues
receiving a substandard rating with the SP to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated,
and may escalate issues to the CO on a case-by-case basis.


To top