Attachment C Sample QASP.docx

RFQ Attachment

Deep Packet Capture and Inspection

SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

(for RFQ Information Purposes Only)

SBU - CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITIONS

SBU - CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the program office will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received. This QASP defines metrics of key interest to the program office in order to partner with the vendor to identify the appropriate performance objectives, define the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is measured, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the program office to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health or Department policy. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control (QC) program. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The Government shall use past performance reporting in public forums as an incentive for the Contractor to perform satisfactorily or better. Additionally, the Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and Not-to-Exceed (NTE) structured line items incentivize the contractor to perform the duties required in the PWS within the originally quoted budget, as the Government is not liable for Contractor overruns using this structure.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the contracting officer's representative (COR), contracting officer's technical representative (COR), quality assurance representative (QAR), government task lead or program manager (PM) and the contractor. The CO will designate one full-time COR and GTL as the government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the CO.

A/OPE/AQM

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The contracting officer’s representative (COR) is designated in writing by the CO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the CO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

Assigned COR:

Telephone:

Email:

2.3 Contractor Representatives

a.) Contractor’s Name b.) Contractor’s Name

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS. Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the Contractor exceeds, meets or fails to meet these standards. The Performance Work Statement (PWS) includes the following list of performance standards. The Government shall use these standards to determine Contractor’s level of performance. The Government shall compare the Contractor’s performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) that is established in the PWS.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are (include those that apply):

· Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR and or COR designated inspector.

· 100% Inspection – Each month, the COR and or COR, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the Surveillance Activity Checklist.

· Periodic Inspection – COR/COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

4.2 Customer Feedback

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR or GTL, as opposed to the contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR/COR. The COR/COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate using the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form – Customer Complaint Investigation.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality level (AQL) examples, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed. As the nature of our workload may shift, so may these metrics and deliverables. In this case there may be new metrics designed with a partnership between the Government and the contractor.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, QA, GTL or PM, will be reported and will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

5.2.1 The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each month, a written report will be provided, assembled by the Performance, Technology and Training Team, for the contractor summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and or performance standards, including cost, technical, and or scheduling objectives. The following ratings shall be used:

a.) Acceptable Performance.

The Government shall document positive performance.

b.) Unacceptable performance.

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the Contractor and the Contracting Officer. Notice to the Contractor will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file. When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) and present it to the Contractor's Program Manager or on-site representative. A copy of all CDRs shall be forwarded to the Contracting Officer and maintained in the official contract file. A CDR template is attached to this QASP.

The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR will specify if the Contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the Contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the Contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COR. The Government shall review the Contractor's Corrective Action Plan to determine acceptability. Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for Task Order payment withholdings, fixed fee reductions, or other actions deemed applicable by the CO.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the GTL or PM and other government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR or GTL will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with COR or GTL as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

· Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

6.3.2 The COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The COR, GTL, or PM and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the PCO/ACO.

The following are EXAMPLES ONLY, and not actual targets/metrics

6.3.3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Tier 1

Tier 1 SLOs/KPIs

Priority 1 = 15 minutes Priority 2 – 2 hours Priority 3 – 8 hours Priority 4 – 24 hours 98% of responses are created within:

Priority 1 = 15 minutes Priority 2 – 2 hours Priority 3 – 8 hours Priority 4 – 24 hours The CSC will review regular reports produced from the BMC Remedy tool with response rates.

Tier 2

Amount of tickets assigned per Technician per Month

Amount of service Requests per Technician per Month

Number of tickets resolved per desktop support technician

Amount of time desktop support tickets spend in the queue:

· Incidents

· Service Requests Break out of Incidents and Service requests available upon government completion of Service Request workflows

Percentage of tickets covered by an SLA/OLA that meet the specified goal or target:

· Incidents

· Service Requests Break out of Incidents and Service requests available upon government completion of Service Request workflows

Tickets per Seat per Month

· Incidents

· Service Requests Break out of Incidents and Service requests available upon government completion of Service Request workflows

Additional Metrics requested based on future availability

Percentage of tickets sent to desktop support that could have been resolved by the support center (level 1)

[Number of desktop support tickets that could have been resolved by the support center ÷ Total number of tickets received by the desktop support team]

We will require completion of IT categorization cleanup project and Remedy configuration changes.

Target Tier 2 SLOs

The metrics identified by an asterisk may or may not be currently measurable to the degree that the THE PROGRAM OFFICE requires and the THE PROGRAM OFFICE expects to partner with the contract provider to be able to develop and deliver these in a timely manner for reporting and continual improvement.

Tier 2 Target SLOs

Average desktop support customer satisfaction rating

87%

Additional SLOs made available upon government system changes, anticipate having the ability to measure these within Option Year 1 or 2. Upon system ability to provide reporting on these metrics, the contractor would be expected to meet the below SLOs.

Software Installation

• Critical 2 business days

• Non-Critical: Per scheduled Software Release 95.0%

• Critical; 3 business days

• Non-Critical: Per scheduled Software Release 95.0%

• Criticals; 5 business days

• Non-Critical: Per scheduled Software Release 95.0%

approved by the Government) to successful deployment for End-Users who connect to the Network during the specified time frame 98%

Proposed Asset Tracking Service Levels, Accomplished by adding Owning organizational data in active directory fields and pulling reports for active/retired machines

Install, Moves, Adds and Changes- Devices and Peripherals- Defined as an Installation, Move, Add or Change of any hardware or approved user software included within the scope of End-User Management Services.

"Percent (%) Attained"

Proposed Client Satisfaction (Touch Survey)

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)

Contract Number: <insert number>

TO: (Contractor’s Program Manager or on-site representative) <insert name>

FROM: (Name of COTR/COR) <insert name>

Date and time observed discrepancy:

DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM:

<Describe in detail. Identify any attachments.>

Corrective action plan:

A written corrective action plan < is / is not > required.

< If a written corrective action plan is required include the following. > The written Corrective Action Plan will be provided to the undersigned not later than < # days after receipt of this CDR. >

Prepared by: <Enter COTR/COR’s name>

Received by:

Signature – Contractor’s Program Manager or on-site representative Date

The COR may initiate a CDR at any time, including whenever the number of monthly recorded defects for a performance standard exceeds the allowable number of defects; anytime unacceptable performance is determined critical in nature and requires formal corrective action; and whenever an unfavorable trend is detected in Contractor’s performance.