2.04 Attachment 9 - QASP.pdf

N0017810D6251 NW01

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Naval Air Station

Cryogenic Services

Table of Contents

1. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities

1.3 Security

1.4 Deliverables

1.5 Methods of Assessment (MOA)

1.6 Assessment Procedures

1.6.1 Post-Award Planning

1.6.2 Performance Assessment Process

1.7 Summary

2. Attachments ............................................................................................................................... A-1

2.1 Attachment A: Functional Assessment Plan (FAP) ............................................................. A-1

2.2 Attachment B: Customer Complaint Record ....................................................................... A-7

2.3 Attachment C: Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) ........................................................... A-8

2.4 Attachment D: Deliverables Table..................................................................................... A-15

2.5 Attachment E: Performance Assessment Documents Table .............................................. A-16

1. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

1.1 Introduction

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) establishes performance assessment (PA) provisions for Cryogenic Services at Naval Air Stations identified in the Performance Work Statement.

Cryogenic Services include the receipt, storage, handling and issue of Liquid Oxygen (LOX) and

Liquid Nitrogen (LN2) products.

The QASP describes the methodology that will be used to assess Contractor performance, provide feedback, and update Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS). The QASP includes the applicable Functional Assessment Plan (FAP), Monthly Assessment Form, Customer

Complaint Record, Customer Satisfaction Survey, Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), Deliverables

Table, and Performance Assessment Documents Table. The role of the Government is to assess

Contractor work against measurable performance standards from the PWS.

A positive relationship between the Government and the Contractor is essential in fulfilling a performance-based requirement. The relationship with the Contractor should be one that promotes a strong and positive business alliance to achieve mutually beneficial goals, such as timely delivery and acceptance of high-quality services using efficient business practices. It is essential that the

Government and the Contractor work together as a team to communicate expectations, agree on common goals, develop a common understanding of measurable standards, and identify and address problems early in the contract to achieve desirable outcomes.

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities

The key roles and responsibilities of the Government for performance assessment are as follows:

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO). The PCO has final responsibility for Government PA per

FAR Part 42 - Contract Administration and Audit Services.

Contracting Officers Representative (COR). The COR is responsible for a variety of duties that assist in performance assessment and reporting.

1.3 Security

The COR should become familiar with all security requirements specified in the PWS and report any observed violations to the Contractor Site Lead.

1.4 Deliverables

The COR should review reports and other deliverables identified in Paragraph 4.0 of the PWS to ensure they comply with applicable requirements and specifications.

1.5 Methods of Assessment (MOA)

The COR will periodically assess services for conformance to contract performance objectives and standards using the following MOAs:

Periodic Sampling (PS)

Validated Customer Complaints (VCC)

Customer’s Evaluation (CE)

The MOAs used for assessment of each performance objective and standard are identified in the

Functional Assessment Plan (FAP).

1.6 Assessment Procedures

1.6.1 Post-Award Planning

The COR should review and understand contract requirements and performance objectives and standards, as stated in the PWS as well as the Contractor’s technical proposal, work schedules, and deliverables. Following this review, the COR should develop a planned assessment schedule based upon factors such as selected MOAs, Contractor’s recurring performance schedule, population of work, and local priorities and conditions.

1.6.2 Performance Assessment Process

Monthly assessments shall begin on the first full month of performance. The COR shall maintain a file of all Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan correspondence for the life of the delivery order.

Functional Assessment Plan (FAP).

Throughout the month, the COR reviews contractor performance using the MOA’s, sample size and frequency outlined in the Functional Assessment Plan (Attachment A). At the end of the month, the

COR compiles results from all MOAs and completes page A-6 of the FAP. The COR forwards to the

Contractor Site Lead by the 15th of the following month.

Validated Customer Complaint.

Validated Customer Complaints (VCC) or instances of non-conforming work discovered should be documented as defects or failure to meet PWS requirements. Where customer complaints are received, all alleged defects must be evaluated by the COR within a reasonable time to validate that the performance standards were not met. Documentation will be completed using the Customer

Complaint Record, (Attachment B). If the COR validates a customer complaint, then discussions with the Contractor Site Lead should be initiated to resolve, or a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) initiated if verbal communication does not resolve the complaint. VCC should also be used to assist in completion of monthly performance documentation. Customer Complaints determined as invalid by the COR should be maintained on file to assist in monitoring trends and developing modifications to the requirements as applicable.

Periodic Sampling.

A statistically based method shall be used that assumes receipt of satisfactory performance if a given percentage or number of scheduled assessments is found to be acceptable. It is most appropriate for frequently occurring tasks conducted at specific intervals or dates. This tool determines a contractor’s compliance with contract requirements without consuming a significant amount of time. As with any other methods of assessment, if the periodic sampling results are unsatisfactory, COR’s should initiate discussions with the Contractor Site Lead to resolve the issues, or a CDR initiated if verbal communication does not resolve the discrepancy.

Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR).

When the assessed work fails to comply with performance objectives and standards from the PWS, the COR shall document the discrepancy on a CDR (Attachment C) and forward to the Contractor for review and signature. On the CDR, the COR must note the specific PWS paragraph(s) or proposal page and paragraph when providing a detailed description of the discrepancy plus the impact or potential impact to workload production in quantity or quality. The Contractor shall sign and return the CDR by end of next workday to acknowledge receipt of the document. The Contractor’s signature does not constitute agreement with the Government’s assessment; it merely acknowledges that the

Contractor has been notified of a Government observed defect. Should the Contractor disagree with the Government’s observations, discussions should be conducted to reach a common understanding of performance objectives and standards. The Contractor shall provide a written response to the COR within 3 working days after notification. Upon receipt of the written response, the COR may determine the matter is resolved or forward the CDR to the PCO for action as applicable. The Contractor and

COR are not authorized to modify the requirements of the basic contract or delivery orders, only the

PCO can authorize modifications. When completing monthly performance assessments, the COR shall annotate all CDRs initiated during the reporting period.

Communication between the COR and Contractor Site Lead is paramount to successful contract services. The COR is not authorized to accept less than what the contract requires. Prior to initiating a CDR, the COR should consider the alternatives because a CDR may not be appropriate for every occurrence of poor performance. Informal communication to address concerns should be the first consideration and, if in doubt, contact the PCO for guidance.

Assessment Rating

If the Contractor has performed all work in accordance with the PWS Performance Objectives and

Standards, a performance rating of satisfactory should be assigned. The COR will document any instances of value-added services or work that exceeds performance standards with supporting narrative on the Monthly Assessment Form of the FAP, Attachment A. When the assessed work fails to comply with performance objectives and standards, the COR will document the defect on a CDR and notify the Contractor and PCO as applicable. The following guideline is provided to streamline the assessment rating process.

Excellent - Exceeds contract requirements (Government Benefit)

- Few minor problems

- Corrective actions to problems are highly effective

“Excellent” performance is considered a measure of success, graded between 95.1% and 100% overall with no deficiencies noted. It is defined as a high level of performance and quality that meets all and exceeds several performance objectives and standards. The Performance Assessment (PA) is presumed effective based on little or no minor performance inconsistencies, all of which have been corrected/resolved. All work is performed in a timely manner and customer needs are met.

Satisfactory - Meets all contract requirements

- Some minor problems

- Corrective actions to problems satisfactory

“Satisfactory” performance is considered a measure of success graded between 90% and 95% overall with only minor deficiencies. The Contractor demonstrates a level of performance and quality that meets all performance objectives and standards. The PA is deemed acceptable; all minor deficiencies have been corrected with or without some discussions between the official Government representatives and contractor management. Customer needs are predominantly met.

Unsatisfactory - Does not meet contract requirements

- Serious problems

- Corrective actions to problems ineffective

A CDR should be submitted for any Unsatisfactory rating

A success rate graded below 90% overall is considered unsatisfactory. The Contractor demonstrates a level of performance and quality that fails to meet any performance objective or standard and/or performance deficiencies have had a substantial impact on quality. The Contractor’s performance is inadequate or inferior with an excessive number of inconsistencies. Government documentation backed by persistent follow-up and/or input is required to achieve corrective actions. PA documentation and preventive actions are inadequate. Customer feedback indications are unsatisfactory.

1.7 Summary

The QASP is based on the premise that the Contractor is responsible for managing and ensuring that quality controls as specified in its technical proposal are implemented and effective in order to meet the terms of the contract and specifically the PWS. The QASP facilitates consistent and effective performance assessments to evaluate overall conformance to performance objectives and standards.

The QASP is a “living” document that will be revised or modified as circumstances warrant.

Page A- 1

2. Attachments

2.1 Attachment A: Functional Assessment Plan (FAP)

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FAP

Assessment Frequency (Freq)

M – Once per month

Method of Assessment (MOA)

PS – Periodic Sampling

VCC – Validated Customer Complaints

Note: The first method listed in the MOA column below is the primary assessment method.

Spec

Item Performance Objective Performance Standard MOA

Sample Size Freq

Normal Reduced

3.2 The contractor must obtain LOX

samples and perform quality surveillance testing or forward samples to the appropriate facility for testing in the event the on-station ABO analyzer is not in service. The contractor must maintain a log of samples drawn and tested or submitted to an outside laboratory for testing, and the test results. Copies of the test result forms must be maintained on file and available to the COR on request for the duration of the contract.

LOX samples are tested as required, documentation logs are accurate and up to date.

Zero major discrepancies discovered affecting product quality during random spot checks by the

COR or formal inspections conducted by the FRC

Quality Assurance

PS

PS

10%

10%

N/A

N/A

M

M

Page A - 2

Item Performance Objective Performance Standard MOA

Sample Size Freq

Normal Reduced

3.4 The contractor shall issue LOX / LN2

products to authorized customers within two (2) hours from the time a customer’s LOX / LN2 container is received at the cryogenics facility for servicing by the contractor.

Customers will transport LOX and/or

LN2 containers to the cryogenics facility for servicing and return when notified by the contractor that the customers container is ready for pick up.

LOX / LN2 products are issued to customers within two (2) hours of the customer’s container being transported to the cryogenics facility.

PS 10% N/A M

Page A - 6

MONTHLY ASSESSMENT FORM

Month/Year:

Item Title

MOA Rating

VCC

PS (Sample

Size)/VCC Excellent Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

3.2 Cryogenics Quality Surveillance

and Control

3.4 Cryogenic Product Issue Response

Time

Comments: (List comments explaining Unsatisfactory ratings by PWS statement and performance standard)

Recommended Actions/Value-added Services:

COR Signature: ____________________________________________________ Date: _______________________

Page A - 7

2.2 Attachment B: Customer Complaint Record

CRYOGENIC SERVICES CUSTOMER

COMPLAINT FORM

DATE/TIME RECEIVED:

RECEIVED BY:

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION: INDIVIDUAL: PHONE:

LOCATION:

PWS Paragraph: TITLE:

DETAILS OF COMPLAINT:

COMMENTS:

Complaint Validation(COR): Valid Non-valid

COR signature: DATE:

Contractor signature: DATE:

Page A - 8

2.3 Attachment C: Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)

CRYOGENIC SERVICES CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR):

Contract ___________________

DATE: SERIAL NUMBER: (BY-001, OY1, OY2)

GOVERNMENT ACTION

2. TO (Contractor) 3. FROM (COR)

4. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM

5. PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT REFERENCE

6. CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED (Date, Time, Contact Name)

7. COR SIGNATURE 8. DATE

CONTRACTOR ACTION

9. TO (COR) 10. FROM (Contractor)

Page A - 9

11. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE (Cause, corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

12. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE 13. DATE

GOVERNMENT CLOSE OUT

14. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION (Acceptance, partial acceptance. Attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

15. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS:

16. SIGNATURE OF COR 17. DATE

18. SIGNATURE OF PCO IF REQ’D 19. DATE

Page A- 15

2.4 Attachment D: Deliverables Table

Specification

Item Report Title Frequency Submit Due Date

2.8 Annual Property

Inventory

Annually

COR Annually on anniversary of contract start date

3.1.1 Accounting report Monthly COR NLT 10th of

following month

3.10 Accident/Incident

Report

As required COR As required

2.5 Attachment E: Performance Assessment Documents Table

Performance Assessment Documents

Title QASP

Reference

Prepared

By

Submit To Description/Disposition

Contract Discrepancy

Report (CDR)

1.6.2

COR Contractor Site Lead Site Lead acknowledges by end of next workday then responds within 3 working days. If response is satisfactory file in COR

Contract File. If not resolved or contractor deems solution to be beyond contract scope, forward to PCO for Action.

Customer Complaint

Record

1.6.2

End User

(Customer) at any time.

COR Validate nature of complaint. If contractor is deficient notify

Contractor or submit CDR to resolve. If contract requirements are inadequate, submit to PCO for resolution.

Monthly Assessment

Form

1.6.2 &

Page A-5 of the FAP

COR, monthly by 15th of next month

COR with the contract workload report and copy to contractor site lead

Assess contract performance & level of service in regards to the contract PWS and contractor’s proposal. If any rating is unacceptable you should have a VCC or CDR to back it up.