FEDERAL CONTRACTS

SeaPort-e

Contract Number: #N00178-15-D-8430

Contract Period of Performance: 4/5/2015 to 4/4/2019

Zones Awarded:
Zone 1 – Northeast
Zone 2 – National Capital Zone
Zone 3 – Mid Atlantic Zone
Zone 5 – Midwest Zone
Zone 6 – Southwest Zone

ITEM Numbers
7000-7999: Engineering, Technical, and Programmatic Support Services (Cost Type Orders)
8000-8999: Engineering, Technical, and Programmatic Support Services (Fixed Price Orders)
9000-9999: Other Direct Costs required to perform effort under ITEMS 7000 – 7999

SeaPort-e is the Navy’s electronic platform for acquiring support services in 22 functional areas including Engineering, Financial Management, and Program Management. The Navy Systems Commands (NAVSEA, NAVAIR, SPAWAR, NAVFAC, and NAVSUP), the Office of Naval Research, Military Sealift Command, and the United States Marine Corps compete their service requirements amongst 2400+ SeaPort-e IDIQ multiple award contract holders. Since nearly 85% of its contract–holders are small businesses, the SeaPort-e approach to acquiring services provides opportunity that fuels the Nation’s engine of job growth.

Services to be provided under this contract are categorized into 22 functional services

Contacts for Contract Related Questions
Melissa Barnett
502-813-8001
mbarnett@yourstrategic.com

Contacts for Customer Related Questions
Kathy Mills
502-657-3412
kmills@yourstrategic.com

Brian Walls
502-813-8008
bwalls@yourstrategic.com

Task Order Awards
N00178-15-D-8430-0001

Past Performance
Strategic Communications makes it a top priority to deliver on what we promise to our clients. Our dedicated staff go the extra mile to ensure that customers are satisfied with our products, solutions and services. It is because of this focus that we have been able to build up an impressive past performance rating among our customers.

To view our past performance and how it ties into the Functional Areas of SeaPort -e, Click Here.

Quality Assurance Policy

Strategic understands the Government often leverages risk assessments to derive key discriminators. This is often done to ensure every new solicitation draws from industry innovation and truly value added solutions to solve its toughest problems and greatest risk areas. Similarly, Strategic prepares and reconciles a comparable risk assessment on every opportunity we bid to ensure we capitalize on the opportunity to improve and deliver a better solution tailored to the Government’s unique needs and underlying risk variables. Strategic realizes every opportunity contains a unique set of risk variables.

The following is a description of identified moderate to high-risk areas salient to the successful accomplishment of Delivery Orders. Analogous to the Government’s methods, Strategic’s risk assessment methodology outlined the probability of incident occurrence as well as the impact of risk variables. In other words, those risks with the highest likelihood of occurrence and the greatest negative impact were reflected as high risks. Conversely, the risk areas assessed as having the least likelihood of occurrence, and which were assessed as having the very least amount of adverse impact, were determined to be low risks. Please note for the purposes of this response, Strategic has only reflected the performance variables we identified as moderate to high risks.

Risk Themes	Risk Rating	Mitigation Steps	New Risk Rating
Risk 1. Ensuring Program Success: Obsolescence of Program Management standards, service delivery, and communication approach	Moderate	Strategic’s policy of continual risk management and collaboration ensures continual development and implementation of relevant standards and service delivery approaches	Low
Risk 2. Effective Communication and Organizational Support: Inhibited organizational support due to resource and subsequent communications strain	High	Contracting: Experienced multifunctional and redundant staging model to support PMO and ensure consistent contract administration support of high volume/ complexity contract matters	Low
Risk 3. Effective Process, Structure, Tools and Automation: Inhibited operational throughput due to lack of relevant leadership experience	High	Strategic’s investment in CSAT underlines a commitment to effective and adaptive order management throughput capacity	Low
Risk 4. Service Solution Development and Deployment Throughput Capacity: Inhibited ability to design and concurrently deploy multiple task order requirements effectively	Moderate	Dedicated resources applying industry best practices, a proven project management framework, leveraging a centralized project management suite of tools (CSAT), mitigates risk of inhibited project management capabilities	Low

Table 2. Identified Moderate to High Risk Areas

Strategic’s Quality Control (QC) program encompasses all areas of QC and Quality Assurance (QA). It focuses on monitoring the key performance areas performed by a team of technical managers and engineers. These key performance areas include planning, analysis, development, testing, quality assurance, configuration, installation, implementation, integration, maintenance, and/or management of networks and systems. It also focuses on continuous improvement of processes of the general and administrative functions impacting all areas of contract performance, such as remote management, change control, COOP, property management, hardware and software maintenance agreements, lifecycle management and deliverables, reports and documentation. We use our QC processes on all contracts to monitor and measure our performance. Our approach to service quality has resulted in early identification of opportunities for improvement. On our AMCOM contract – referenced in the Past Performance section – we have achieved a customer approval rating of 99.7 percent based on input from thousands of customer surveys.

Inspection Procedure: The primary method Strategic uses to monitor and control quality is ongoing project work reviews by the Project/Account Manager(s) and corporate management personnel. The Project/Account Manager(s) assume responsibility for reviewing significant quality findings and recommendations and acting upon the suggested actions in a timely manner.

The inspection plan is implemented through:

Notification. Advance notification allows department management to make final preparations for the inspection.
Inspection. This is the information, verification, and evaluation phase of the inspection. The inspector must obtain sufficient, relevant information and supporting documentation to permit a valid and reliable verification and evaluation.
Post Inspection Meeting. At the conclusion of the inspection and prior to preparing the inspection report, a meeting is held by the inspector with associated manager. The main purpose of the meeting is to present and clarify all inspection findings and observations to be reported and supporting documentation so the department can initiate necessary corrective actions effectively without delay.
Inspection Report. This is a definitive assessment of compliance with established procedures, along with significant findings and observations relative to the inspection objectives, sufficient and relevant documentation, explanation, and comments. Observations and findings should be ranked by importance and arranged in a logical manner. This report also contains recommendations for inspection follow‑up of corrective actions.
Follow‑up and Close Out. Follow‑up consists of verification of corrective actions resulting from the inspection. Corrective action and follow‑up inspections should be completed within a reasonable period consistent with the urgency of the corrective action. The follow‑up report is prepared and distributed in a manner similar to the inspection report.
Corrective Process: Defects or non-conformities detected from a quality control checkpoint must be corrected. To effectively correct the problem, we must determine the root cause of the defect or non-conformity. Three broad sources of quality control problems exist and are described in Table 1, along with suggested corrective actions.

Sources of Problem	Description	Potential Corrective Actions
Individual or Isolated case	An individual team member produces a deliverable with an error in content, consistency, correctness, or compliance	· Rework the deliverable · Review applicable standards or guidelines with the individual
Insufficient team level comprehension	Recurring defects and repeated errors indicating project team members do not understand standards, guidelines or content of deliverables.	· Provide additional training for the project team · Clarify tasks · Clarify standards or guidelines that are ambiguous
Inadequate standards	Team members are unable to effectively apply a specific standard or guideline to the production of deliverables	· Revise portions of methodologies, standards or guidelines that prove inappropriate for the work being performed

Table 3. Corrective Process

Management’s Relationship to QC. At the corporate level, our corporate management team has the same level of quality commitment as our front line team members: we will do whatever it takes to ensure our customers are satisfied. As a small business, our corporate management team is very close to our customers and our employees. We regularly hold meetings and continually promote frequent communications between the Strategic onsite management team and the corporate management team to ensure we address quality issues early in the process. Strategic’s management team commits to providing all the support necessary to ensure we perform our duties and responsibilities with honesty and integrity coupled with a “no surprises” management approach. All Strategic employees are part of our QC processes.

The Strategic Communications Team