Attachment_2_-_QASP_Template.pdf

QASP EXAMPLE

1.1 Purpose

This QASP has been developed to evaluate Vendor actions while implementing this PWS. It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring Vendor performance for each listed deliverable. By employing a fully developed QASP, the Government and the Vendor achieve an understanding of performance expectations and how performance will be measured against those expectations.

The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate the services the Vendor is required to furnish. This QASP is based on the premise the Government desires to maintain a quality standard in facility support services and that a service contract to provide the service is the best means of achieving that objective.

The contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the task order. The role of the Government is quality assurance to ensure contract standards are achieved.

The contractor is required to develop a comprehensive program of inspections and monitoring actions. The first major step to ensuring a self-correcting task order is to ensure that the quality control program approved at the beginning of the task order provides the measures needed to lead the contractor to success. Once the quality control program is approved, careful application of the process and standards presented in the remainder of this document will ensure a robust quality assurance program.

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities

Quality Assurance (QA) is defined as the functions and associated actions performed by the Government to ensure that contract requirements are performed in accordance with specified standards, and that an appropriate level of contractor quality control activities is in place and operational. The Government executes its Quality Assurance Program through direct observation supplemented by input from customers served by the Vendor.

Successful quality assurance is a team effort. The Contracting Officer (CO) administers the Contract; the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) provides technical direction to the contactor; the Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAEs) observe and evaluate performance.

Together they provide an orchestrated team effort, which is essential to provide quality assurance for all aspects of the Contract. The QA effort must carefully balance oversight, evaluation, and monitoring of Vendor operations so that compliance with performance standards within the task order is evaluated from observation.

The Government shall evaluate the Vendor’s performance under this requirement in accordance with the QASP. This plan is primarily focused on what the Government must do to ensure that the Vendor has performed in accordance with the performance standards. It defines how the performance standards will be applied, the frequency of surveillance, and the minimum acceptable defect rate(s).

1.3 Methods of Assessment

The methods of evaluating Vendor compliance may vary depending on the tasks specified by the TO. The COR is responsible for selection of the method(s) to be used and the specific detailing of the method(s). The following describes alternative methods of observation:

1.3.1 100 Percent Evaluation

This is the appropriate method of evaluating infrequent tasks or tasks with stringent performance requirements, e.g., where safety or health is a concern. With this method, performance is inspected/evaluated at each occurrence. One hundred percent inspection is too expensive to be used in most cases.

1.3.2 Random Review

This is an appropriate method of surveillance for recurring tasks. Random sampling works best when the number of instances of the services being performed is very large and a statistically valid sample can be obtained.

1.3.3 Customer or Other Government Feedback

Customer feedback can come from interaction with the general public or through interaction with Government employees and other Government Offices/Agencies. Although usually not a primary method, this is a valuable supplement to more systematic methods. For example, in a case where random sampling indicates unsatisfactory service, customer complaints can be used as substantiating evidence. In certain situations where customers can be relied upon to complain consistently when the quality of performance is poor, e.g., dining facilities, building services; customer surveys and customer complaints may be a primary surveillance method.

1.4 Government Remedies

The Government Contracting Officer shall follow FAR 52.212-4, “Contract Terms and Conditions-Commercial Items” for Vendor’s failure to perform satisfactory services or failure to correct non-conforming services.

1.5 Quality Measures

Task Performance Objectives

Performance Standard Schedule Method of Surveillance/QAE

Incentives/ Disincentives

PRS #1 The Contractor will ensure all Deliverables are

Deliverables are provided to the COR as required on or before the established due

As indicated in

PWS

Random review by the COR no less than once a month and

Consistent total satisfaction with work product may favorably impact

Task Performance Objectives

Performance Standard Schedule Method of Surveillance/QAE

Incentives/ Disincentives provided on time and meet quality standards. (PWS reference X.X) date; are comprehensive, coherent and accurate;

are well researched and encompass all appropriate variables;

articulate clear conclusions and/or recommendations, if appropriate; are written and formatted to the appropriate audience, and; reflect Government guidance on the submittals or draft(s).

feedback from appropriate government sources (state other QAEs if any) schedules for future deliverables following contractor suggestions that might benefit the contractor in workload management, staffing, etc. – review specific for this incentive will be done at midpoint of base period.

Less than total satisfaction with the quality of work product may adversely impact past performance ratings

PRS#2 The contractor shall recommend the most efficient use of assets and maximize cost savings taking into account assets and services that can be used from or shared with the ASY event. (PWS reference X.X)

Recommendations to be provided are derived from thorough research, full and complete coordination with the sponsoring agency and any other agency; show sound judgment; reflect appropriate analysis of efficiencies and cost savings, and; result in minimal engagement of the COR or staff for other than inherently governmental functions.

Throughout the duration of the contract

Random review by the COR no less than once a month and feedback from appropriate government sources

Total satisfaction with final recommendations and successful implementation of those will result letters of Commendation and other recognition of contractor personnel and teams.

PRS #3 The contractor shall provide Monthly Status Report(s) (PWS reference

Status Reports accurately reflect due dates, and all issues requiring resolution or otherwise may impact

10th of every month

100% COR Review More than one COR or DoD Program Manager directed re-write for any submission due to

Task Performance Objectives

Performance Standard Schedule Method of Surveillance/QAE

Incentives/ Disincentives

X.X) the success of the PME;

include other metrics as determined by the COR, and; are comprehensive and timely.

inadequacy will result in a re-do of the report and resubmission with no additional compensation.

More than one submission or re-submission to be late by more than two (2) business days result in a 2% reduction for the FFP deliverable amount (or if T&M/LH a % reduction of the total funding).

1.6 Performance Criteria

1.6.1 Acceptable Performance

Acceptable performance meets the specified standard and does not exceed the allowable deviation. The Government may conduct trend analysis of surveillance results to increase or decrease the level of surveillance for specific requirements.

1.6.2 Unacceptable Performance

Unacceptable performance does not meet the specified standard and exceeds the allowable deviation. The Government Quality Assurance contact may if the Vendor fails to provide performance at the allowable deviation for any two consecutive months, penalize the Vendor’s next invoice by deducting up to the amount specified in the Deduction column of the table above from the next invoice.

1.7 Deduction Administration

The COR shall forward an official email request to the Government Contracting Officer for an official determination.