21_17_EXHIBIT1-QASP.doc

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

For

The Shawnee National Forest and

INTRODUCTION

This Performance-Based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) was developed pursuant to the requirements of the Performance-Based Statement of Work for the Shawnee National Forest. This plan sets forth procedures and guidelines to be used in evaluating the technical performance of the Contractor. A copy of this plan will be furnished to the Contractor so that the Contractor will be aware of the methods that the Government will employ in evaluating performance and address any concerns that the Contractor may have prior to initiating work.

PURPOSE OF THE QASP

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

1. Define the roles and responsibilities of participating Government officials;

2. Define the types of work to be performed with required end results;

3. Describe the evaluation methods that will be employed by the Government in assessing the Contractor’ s performance;

4. Provide copies of the performance assessment form that the Government will use in documenting and evaluating the Contractor’ s performance; and

5. Describe the process of performance assessment documentation.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPATING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the Contractor. They will have the primary responsibility for completing “Performance Assessment Form” which they will use to document their evaluation of the Contractor’s performance. It is extremely important for the COR to establish and maintain a team-oriented line of communication with the Contractor’s Project Manager and their office staff in order to perform her/his monitoring functions. The COR, Contracting Officer (CO), and Project Manager must work together as a team to ensure that required work is accomplished in an efficient and proper manner. Concerns should be discussed and resolved as they arise.

METHODOLOGIES TO BE USED TO ASSESS THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

The Government, through the COR, will be assessing the contractor’s performance on a periodic basis or upon completion of a report or major deliverable, so technical inspections of every task and step are impractical. Accordingly, a performance assessment review process to monitor the contractor’s performance will be used. The contractor’s performance will be assessed by the COR in terms of the required deliverable products and related services and assessed according to three categories: “superior,”“ acceptable,” and “unacceptable.” The criteria for each of these performance levels are outlined below. All products produced, or related services performed, by the contractor shall meet the level of “acceptable”.

In general, the work will be evaluated in terms of how well the contractor’s performance meets the performance standard or acceptable quality level identified in the Performance Requirements Summary as well as the extent to which the work performed follows the approach found in the contractor’s technical proposal, clarity of documentation, and timeliness of schedule accomplishment. The COR or the CO may request other government officials to assess particular deliverables or services using a customer service approach to performance assessment, or as a technical inspector assessing and assigning performance levels in accordance with this plan.

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FORM

The COR will use a performance assessment form (attached) to document and assess the Contractor’s performance under this Task Order. The form, when completed, will document the COR’s understanding of Task Order requirements, what was actually completed, and the impact or consequences of what was not completed, and any recommendation for rework or re-performance.

The COR will assess each product or related service in accordance with the following definitions of contractor performance:

· Superior — a level of performance that exceeds the acceptable quality level or minimum standards of performance;

· Acceptable — an acceptable level of performance that meets the acceptable quality level or minimum standards of performance; or

· Unacceptable — a level of performance which is not acceptable and which fails to meet the acceptable quality level or minimum standards of performance.

The COR must substantiate all tasks that they judge to be indicative of “superior” or “unacceptable” performance. Performance at the “acceptable” level is expected from the Contractor. Contractor performance will be assessed and identified as “superior,” “acceptable,” or “unacceptable”.

The COR will forward copies of all completed Performance Assessment forms to the CO and the Contractor either electronically or by fax. Negative assessments will be forwarded the same day when possible, all others will be forwarded as they are prepared. The Contractor shall respond in writing (electronically or by fax) to any negative Performance Assessment form(s) within 5 working days after receipt of the form(s).

ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The CO will review each Performance Assessment form prepared by the COR. When appropriate, the CO may investigate the event further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were considered in the COR opinions outlined on the forms. The CO will immediately discuss every instance of receiving an “unacceptable” rating with the Contractor to assure that any necessary corrective action is promptly initiated.

At the end of the Task Order, or as requested, the COR will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of their assessment of the Contractor’s performance during the previous months. This report will become part of the formal Performance Assessment documentation.

The products or related services used to evaluate contractor performance, and the deductions tied to each, are listed in the Performance Requirements Summary attached hereto. Deductions for the products or related services will be taken only once, when the Task Order is completed.

PRODUCTS AND RELATED SERVICES GENERAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:

Unacceptable Performance:

1. The service is not completed or the product is not delivered within the specified time;

2. The service is poorly carried out such that the COR must intervene;

3. The product is of poor quality, lacks structure, fails to meet the Acceptable Quality Level, or requires substantial revisions;

Acceptable Performance:

1. The service is completed on time, or the product is delivered on time;

2. The service is in compliance, focused, and completed to the satisfaction of the COR pertaining to final technical and legal defensibility;

3. The product is of generally good quality, requiring no more than usual amounts of revision;

Superior Performance:

In addition to meeting the criteria for “acceptable” performance:

1. The service is completed or the product is delivered ahead of schedule; or

2. The product is of high quality, requiring very limited revision or no revision.

REPORTS ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:

Unacceptable Performance:

1. The report is unstructured or is not concise;

2. The report is incomplete, inaccurate, or inappropriate;

3. The report does not meet standard and referenced law, regulation, or policy; or

4. The report does not include the suggested revisions of the COR.

Acceptable Performance:

1. The report is complete, accurate, and appropriate;

2. The report is well structured and comprehensible;

3. The report includes the suggested revisions of the COR

4. All analyses included in the report meet standard, and referenced law, regulation, or policy standards

5. The report clearly details all aspects, as specified or required by standard, referenced law, regulation, or policy.

Superior Performance:

In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance:

1. The report is informative yet concise in length;

2. The report presents clear plans for improvement of the main study; or

3. The report presents feasible and insightful interpretations of the findings.

FORMATTED VERSIONS OF ALL PUBLICATIONS

Contract Requirement: Deliverable

Performance Indicator: The Contractor shall provide original manufacturer’s literature. The Contractor shall deliver these products on time, according to established delivery dates. Method of Surveillance: The COR review of submitted material.

Standard of Performance: The Contractor shall submit original manufacturer’s literature for each required deliverable. The Contractor shall meet all established delivery dates.

Evaluation Criteria:

Unacceptable Performance :

1. The documents or drawings do not meet the document specifications; or

2. The documents or drawings are not delivered on time, according to established delivery dates.

Acceptable Performance :

1. The documents or drawings are for the correct for the product installed; and

2. The documents or drawings user-friendly and accessible; and

3. The electronic documents or drawings are delivered on time, according to established delivery dates.

Superior Performance:

In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance:

1. The documents or drawings are submitted ahead of established delivery dates.

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FORM

WORK TASK: _______________________________________

ASSESSMENT PERIOD: _______________________________________

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT: COR REVIEW

EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR’ S PERFORMANCE:

(Unacceptable, Acceptable, Superior) _____________________________

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION OF CONTRACTOR’ S PERFORMANCE DURING SURVEY PERIOD:

PREPARED BY: _____________________________________

DATE: _______________________________