2.04e N0060426Q4096_Att (5)_QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Contract Number: TBD Contract Description: Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group One (EODGRU ONE)

TOA Equipment Readiness Support Services Contractor’s name: TBD

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 monitoring will take place.

Who will conduct the monitoring.

How monitoring efforts and results will 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. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

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. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. 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 (KO) – The KO 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 KO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

Assigned KO: Kristina Bazard Organization or Agency: NAVSUP FLC Pearl Harbor Regional Contracting Office Telephone: 808-306-2415 Email: kristina.n.bazard.civ@us.navy.mil

b. Contract Specialist (CS) – The CS works in conjunction with the Contacting Officer to assist with contract administration functions and serves as the liaison between the contracting office and Requiring Activity. The Contract Specialist is not authorized to bind the Government into any legally contractual instrument.

Assigned CS: Kristina Bazard Organization or Agency: NAVSUP FLC Pearl Harbor Regional Contracting Office Telephone: 808-306-2415 Email: kristina.n.bazard.civ@us.navy.mil

c. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR will act as the Contracting Officer’s representative for technical matters, providing technical direction and discussion as necessary with respect to the specifications or statement of work, and monitoring the progress and quality of contractor performance. Additionally, the COR shall monitor the contractor’s performance regarding trafficking in persons such that non-compliance with FAR clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, is brought to the immediate attention of the contracting officer. The

COR is not an administrative Contracting Officer and does not have authority to direct the accomplishment of effort outside the existing scope of the contract.

Assigned COR: RWCS Ogden Douglas Telephone: (808) 607-5455 Email: ogden.p.douglas.mil@us.navy.mil

3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards.

The Performance Requirements Summary Matrix, paragraph 5, in the Performance Work Statement includes performance standards. The Government shall use these standards to determine contractor performance and shall compare contractor performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

4. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE.

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

Regardless of the surveillance method, the COR shall always contact the KO when a defect is identified and inform the KO of the specifics of the problem. The COR, shall be responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in meeting a specific performance standard/AQL.

a. PERIODIC/RANDOM INSPECTION. (Uses a comprehensive evaluation of selected outputs. Inspections may be scheduled monthly or unscheduled, as required.)

b. USER SURVEY. (Combines elements of validated user complaints and random sampling. Random survey is conducted to solicit user satisfaction. Appropriate for high quantity activities that have historically been satisfactory.

May also generate periodic and 100% inspections.)

c. 100% INSPECTION. (Evaluates all outputs. Most applicable to small quantity, but highly important services.

May be used where there are written deliverables and stringent requirements such as tasks required by law, safety, or security.)

Surveillance results may be used as the basis for actions (to include payment deductions) against the contractor. In such cases, the commercial clause in the Contract becomes the basis for the KO’s actions.

5. RATINGS.

For each performance standard and the respective AQL identified in the PWS, the COR will assign an adjectival rating from the table below and document the results on the Quality Assurance Surveillance Log. In addition, each contract will be assigned an overall evaluation rating.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

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.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they 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

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 with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

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.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/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/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.

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.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it 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).

6. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE.

a. UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE.

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the KO. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the KO shall document the discussion and place it in the contract file.

If necessary the KO shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) (Enclosure 1) and present it to the contractor or on-site representative. A CDR template is enclosed 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 KO and 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 contract payment deductions, or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

7. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT.

During contract performance, the COR shall take periodic measurements, monthly, as specified in the Frequency column of the Performance Standards Summary Matrix, and shall analyze whether the negotiated frequency of measurement is appropriate for the work being performed.

Enclosure (1)

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)

1. Contract Number: < upon award, enter contract number>

2. TO: (Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative) <insert name>

3. FROM: Contracting Officer

4. Date and time observed discrepancy:

5. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM:

<Describe in detail. Identify any attachments.>

5. 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: Contracting Officer

Signature – Contracting Officer Date

Received by:

Signature - Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative Date