Attachment 4-QASP.pdf

The contractor will be evaluated in accordance with the following:

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

• What will be monitored?

• How will monitoring take place?

• Who will conduct the monitoring?

• How will monitoring efforts and results be documented?

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the Government shall coordinate changes with the contractor through contract modification. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

2. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

a. Contracting Officer (CO) – The CO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The CO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

Assigned CO: Jana Kolb

Organization or Agency: NOAA/Eastern Acquisition Division, Supporting the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR shall keep a quality assurance file. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf.

Assigned COR: Information will be provided at award Organization or Agency:

3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES

The following employee(s) of the contractor serve as the contractor’s program manager(s) for this contract.

Primary Program Manager: _______________________________

Alternate Program Manager: _______________________________

DRAFT

Attachment 4

4. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The contractor is responsible for performance of ALL terms and conditions of the contract. The performance standards outlined in this QASP shall be used to determine the level of contractor performance in the elements defined.

Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine the level of Contractor performance to these standards.

The Performance Requirements are listed below. The Government shall use these standards to determine contractor performance and shall compare contractor performance to the standard and assign a rating. At the end of the performance period, these ratings will be used, in part, to establish the past performance of the contractor on the contract.

5. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE

Various methods exist to monitor performance. The COR shall use the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP.

a. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. Discussion with the Mariner’s post services, and individual(s) provide feedback of the Occupational Health Services Task(s) provided. .

DRAFT

6. Performance Requirements

Measure SOW Reference

Performance Requirement Standard Acceptable Quality Level

Surveillance Method

Mariner (Patient) Access to Occupational Health Support Services as required in awarded Task Order(s).

Section IV. Tasks The Occupational Health Support Services shall be available in the location as designated in the awarded Task Order.

The support services should be provided as stated in the Task Order SOW.

The contractor’s Occupational Health Services are available for required services.

-The Mariner was notified of scheduled services in a timely manner.

100% The COR has discussion with the Mariner after Task(s) are provided.

The feedback is maintained a report provided to the vendor as necessary.

Mobile unit Section IV. Tasks The onsite mobile team may be required at new hire event or a location with multiple same physical exams.

Onsite mobile unit should be on time and able provide services as requested.

100% The COR will document any AQL concerns to Contracting Officer. If requirement COR will keep documentation; and performance may be reflected in CPARS Annual Report. DRAFT

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

7. CPARS EVALUATION REPORT

A Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) Evaluation report will be completed yearly. Metrics and methods are designed to determine rating for a given standard and acceptable quality level. Ratings will be in accordance with the definitions in FAR 42.1503(h)(5) “Evaluation Ratings Definitions”.

RATING DEFINITION

EXCEPTIONAL Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how these events were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

VERY GOOD Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

SATISFACTORY Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems that the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract or order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract or order.

MARGINAL Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective, or were not fully implemented.

Note: To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming, and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the Contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

UNSATISFACTORY Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

DRAFT

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming, and state how these events impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the Contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

DRAFT