2.2.1 Att 9 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) draft.pdf

Attachment 1

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

DR-4559/4570 LA Maintenance & Deactivation

Issued 11/01/2023.

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 Introduction

Due to the critical nature of this contract in aiding disaster survivors and in accordance with FAR Subpart 42.15, FEMA will monitor and evaluate contractor performance to ensure that services and supplies are rendered thoroughly, completely, and expeditiously with minimal setbacks. This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) - DR‐4559/4570‐LA. The QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for the day to‐day performance of the work and the management and quality control actions required to meet the terms of the contract. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Contracting Officer will use to ensure the required performance standards or services levels are achieved and maintained by the contractor.

This plan has been developed to support the requirements set forth in this contract. FEMA has developed the QASP to work in conjunction with the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Contractors will be rated annually in CPARS for their performance on the contract.

The contractor will be rated on the quality of the work performed; compliance with the schedule requirements; the contractor’s ability to control costs and the contractor’s ability to manage the contract.

Specific areas where technical performance requirements are defined are in PWS.

2 Purpose

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 and quality levels identified in the PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure the government pays only for the level of services received.

3 Performance Management Strategy

This QASP provides a quality surveillance strategy for the Maintenance and Deactivation Services Contract DR‐4559/4570‐LA TTHU mission. The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures 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 QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

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 (based on the roles and responsibilities identified below). The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members, identifies the performance objectives, defines 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.

4 Performance Management Approach

The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, 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 FEMA 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.

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. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract if the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1 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 COR and the contractor. The CO will designate one full-time COR 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.

5.2 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.

5.3 Technical Monitor

The Technical Monitor (TM) assists the COR in observing the progress of the contractor’s performance, completes checklists and logs as prescribed in the QASP and reports findings to the COR in a timely, complete, and impartial manner. The TM assists the COR in monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor. The TM will document all observations and provide a copy to the COR.

5.4 Contractor

The contractor must develop a Quality Control Plan (QCP), subject to CO and COR approval, that sets forth procedures and responsibilities for ensuring high-quality work and adequately addressing and supporting the mission requirements, objectives, and schedules in the most cost-efficient manner.

6 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

The Government will use, at its discretion, the appropriate method for surveillance. The following are examples of the types of surveillance that the Government uses.

6.1 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:

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

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

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

6.2 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 CO and COR, 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. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate.

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

6.3 Inspection

When this type of surveillance is used, the COR or TM shall monitor, survey, and evaluate the contractor’s performance when the contractor performs a task associated with the TO. This method provides the best indication of contractor performance and is the most thoroughly documented basis for taking contract payment actions.

One hundred percent (100%) inspection is preferred when the requirements are so critical that non-performance would pose a direct risk to the safety of personnel or property, or when the work occurs infrequently, and the output quantity is small. Inspecting smaller percentages can be acceptable as long as the frequency of inspection increases, and the sample size selected for inspection is representative of 100% of the units being inspected.

7 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

7.1 Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes.

Performance standards are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in this document.

7.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the monitoring forms at the end of this document. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

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

8 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

8.1 Determining Performance

Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/ 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.

8.2 Reporting

At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report for summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms, will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

8.3 Reviews and Resolution

The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO and other government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The CO 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 the COR 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

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

The CO 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

CO.

9 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation

9.1 Performance Criteria

Results of surveillance activities will be documented using the criteria noted below. Services shall ordinarily not be accepted before completion of Government contract quality assurance actions (FAR Part 46.5). All ratings assigned by the COR will be supported with formal documentation.

9.2 Ratings

Contractor performance for each will be evaluated by aggregating the rating category’s requirements within each Performance Area into a final score.

9.2.1 CPARS Rating

The final score entered into CPARS will use the definitions provided in FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1. For contractor performance that extend beyond a single rating period, FEMA may use a plus or minus sign to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend that is notable but insufficient to change the rating.

FEMA will use N/A (not applicable) if a rating category is not going to be applied to a particular Performance Area.

Evaluation Ratings Definitions – FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1

CPARS

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 assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was 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 assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

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

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

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed 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).

9.3 Performance Area Ratings

FEMA will provide both FEMA textual scores (e.g., Outstanding, Exceeds Expectation, etc.) and numeric scores (e.g., 5, 4, etc.) for each Performance Area. Numeric scores are defined during the rating of the individual Performance Area. The FEMA textual score definition and descriptions are provided here.

The FEMA textual scores, while similar to the CPARS rating descriptions, are tailored to reflect the characteristics of FEMA’s unique mission. Also, each Performance Area has area-specific definitions for each rating level. Each Performance Area textual rating has an assigned point value that will be used to calculate the numeric rating. The FEMA textual scores, point value and related CPARs rating description are compared below.

Table E.5-3: FEMA and CPARS Rating Comparison

FEMA and CPARS Comparison

FEMA Rating FEMA Point Value CPARS Rating

Outstanding 3.51 – 4.00 Exceptional

Exceeds Expectation 2.76 – 3.50 Very Good

Meets Expectation 1.51 – 2.75 Satisfactory

Below Expectation 0.51 – 1.50 Marginal

Unacceptable 0.00 – 0.50 Unsatisfactory

9.3.1 Outstanding Rating

Outstanding is the highest rating that can be given for an individual Performance Area. This rating is worth four (4) points for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the CPARS rating category.

9.3.2 Exceeds Expectations Rating

Exceeds Expectation is the second highest rating that can be given for an individual Performance Area.

This rating indicates that though the contractor exceeded the requirements, the performance did not meet the definition for an O rating. The EE rating is worth three (3) points for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the rating category.

9.3.3 Meets Expectations

Meets Expectation is the rating given when the Performance Area score indicates that the requirements for the Performance Area have been met. This rating is worth two (2) points for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the rating category.

9.3.4 Below Expectations

The Below Expectations rating is given when the requirements of the Performance Area are not met as described in the contract. However, the contractor’s performance for the area overall has not fallen to the level of unacceptable. This rating is worth one (1) point for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the rating category.

9.3.5 Unacceptable Rating

Unacceptable (U) means that the performance in this area does not meet the requirements of the contract and is therefore unacceptable. This rating is worth zero (0) points for the Performance Area when the Performance Areas are aggregated into the rating category.

9.4 Rating Determination

The COR will evaluate the contractor’s performance for each applicable Performance Area as is described in the Performance Area Matrices contained the appendices. The evaluations in each of the Performance Areas use one or more of the following terms.

Table E.5-4: Evaluation Terms

Clock-Stop Days

Days where the work on the task could not be performed due to delays beyond the Contractor's control.

Findings The CORs determination of the acceptability of the Contractor’s performance recorded as either “Yes” or “No”.

Though the COR may ascribe a negative finding to any performance outside of requirements, a finding of "No" is typically reserved for failure to deliver or a late / incomplete delivery rendering the deliverable obsolete.

Escalations When the Contractor's performance requires FEMA to resolve an issue within the Contractor’s control in order to complete a task.

Exceptions Events where the Contractor's performance was delayed or undermined by circumstances beyond the Contractor's control.

Points A point is awarded for each “Yes” finding.

9.5 Contractor’s Process to Challenge CPARS Rating

FEMA will use a sample ranging from five percent (5%) to one hundred percent (100%) when calculating the individual Performance Areas that are aggregated into the contractor’s CPARS ratings.

While FEMA does not anticipate a challenge to the rating, the Agency has included a process by which the contractor may challenge the rating. If the contractor chooses to challenge any or all the ratings, the contractor may do so by using a one hundred percent (100%) sample of all of the work orders for each applicable Performance Area. It is the contractor’s burden to provide the data analysis in a report to the COR. The challenge report shall be written so that it can be clearly understood.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services (Tasks)

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Levels

Methods of Surveillance

Tracking spreadsheet showing available units submitted daily by 8:00 am Central Standard Time.

100% of reports accurately depict current status

99% COR review

Administer maintenance oversight on all units leased.

100% 99% File reviews, periodic inspections, and random, observations, customer complaints

Submit management reports on all issues reported by applicants

100% 100% COR review

FEMA QA INSPECTOR QA DATE

DATE OF PMI

CONTRACTOR

BARCODE

ITEMS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION?

OCCUPANT HOME

AIR FILTERS ‐ CHECK / CHANGE / INITIAL & DATED

APP HAS MAINTENANCE HOTLINE NUMBER

FLOORINGS / WALLS / CEILING

PLUMBING FIXTURES & PIPING

WINDOWS / WINDOW COVERINGS

GLASS ‐ MIRRORS / WINDOWS / DOORS

TRIM (WALL / FLOORING / CEILING / DOOR) 4 3 2 1 0

LIGHT FIXTURES / RECEPTACLES / SWITCHES

FIRE EXTINGUISHER / VERIFY GAUGE "IN GREEN" 4 3 2 1 0

SINKS ‐ VANITY / KITCHEN

CABINETS ‐ DOORS / DRAWERS 4 3 2 1 0

HEATING SYSTEM & AC

REFRIGERATOR 4 3 2 1 0

WATER HEATER

BEDS / FURNITURE / CUSHIONS / MATRESSES 4 3 2 1 0

SHOWER / TUB FIXTURE / ENCLOSURE / HANDRAIL

BATHROOM VENT & FAN / GFCI 4 3 2 1 0

TOILET ‐ CONNECTION / FLOOR MOUNTING

COOKTOP / RANGE / VENT 4‐ Outstanding 1‐ Marginal

MICROWAVE 3‐ Excellent 0‐ Unsatisfactory

SAFETY DETECTORS ‐ SMOKE / LP/ CO 2‐ Satisfactory

YES NO N/A SPRINKLER SYSTEM

ITEMS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION?

LEVEL (STEPS / RAMPS / HANDRAILS / RAILS) PMI Performed 4 3 2 1 0

EXTERIOR DOORS

PMI completed withing 25‐ 35 days of last PMI 4 3 2 1 0

WINDOWS / HARDWARE Qualified contractor made repairs 4 3 2 1 0

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES

WATER SUPPLY CONNECTION 4 3 2 1 0

ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL AND BREAKER BOX

SEWER CONNECTION AND HOSES

SHINGLES / ROOFING 4 3 2 1 0

FOUNDATION SUPPORTS

UNIT LEVEL?

TIE DOWNS SECURE?

SIDING INTACT AND SECURE?

SKIRTING FULLY SECURE? 4 3 2 1 0

VAPOR BARRIER PRESENT

NUMBER OF AXLES/NUMBER OF TIRES PRESENT 4 3 2 1 0

YES NO N/A TPS ON SITE

YES NO N/A TPS FUNCTIONING

YES NO N/A

TPS WATER TANK FILLED TO THE FILL LINE

Contractor reported maintenance problems covered by warranty.

4 3 2 1 0

_______________________ TPS BARCODE

_______________________ TPS WATER PRESSURE GAUGE READING

APPLICANT SIGNATURE DATE

FEMA QA SIGNATURE DATE

YES NO N/A

________ / __________ Did contractor perform responsibilities according to the SOW?

PMI QA FORM

CUSTOMER SERVICE‐ App interview

TIMELINESS: made appt & arrived on time

EXAMINATION & RESOLUTION:

inspected unit & made repairs

Contractor repaired the unit to a safe, working, livable and comfortable condition

New materials are of a quality equal to or better than the materials that were replaced.

Contractor provided appropriate

FEMA reports on work in a timely manner

QUALITY‐ completed by TM in the office

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

INTERIOR CHECKLIST

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

EXTERIOR CHECKLIST

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

YES NO N/A

CITY

OVERALL CONDITION OF MHU

COMMENTS

YES NO N/A

OCCUPANT NAME

ADDRESS/LOT #

YES NO N/A

PROFESSIONAL: badge, polite, professional attire

THOROUGH INSP: Tech assessed interior & exterior of MHU

QUALITY OF WORK: app satisfied with quality

SAFETY: work area left in safe condition

YES NO N/A

QUALITY‐ completed by TM in the field

INSPECTOR QA DATE

DATE OF MAINT

WORK

CONTRACTOR

BARCODE

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL

Description of Repairs (observed by TM)

4 3 2 1 0

4 3 2 1 0

4 3 2 1 0

QUALITY OF WORK: app satisfied with quality

4 3 2 1 0 Contractor provided appropriate FEMA reports on work in a timely manner

4 3 2 1 0

SAFETY: work area left in safe condition

4 3 2 1 0 Did contractor perform responsibilities according to the SOW?

4 3 2 1 0

4- Outstanding 1- Marginal Contractor reported maintenance problems covered by warranty.

4 3 2 1 0

3- Excellent 0- Unsatisfactory

2- Satisfactory

Repairs Performed 4 3 2 1 0

4 3 2 1 0

4 3 2 1 0

New materials are of a quality equal to or better than the materials that were

4 3 2 1 0

APPLICANT SIGNATURE DATE

FEMA QA SIGNATURE DATE

QUALITY- completed by TM in the field

Qualified contractor made repairs

Contractor repaired the unit to a safe, working, livable and comfortable condition

EXAMINATION &

RESOLUTION: inspected area & made repairs

PROFESSIONAL: badge, polite, professional attire

TIMELINESS: made appt & arrived on time

CUSTOMER SERVICE- App interview

Contractor made repairs in timely manner. Emergency: Contact in 2 hour & repairs completed within 96 hours.

Routine: Repairs completed in 48 hours.

4 3 2 1 0

CITY

OVERALL CONDITION OF MHUTYPE OF SITE:

ADDRESS/LOT #

Description of Issue

QUALITY- completed by TM in the office

COMMENTS/FOLLOW UP MAINT NEEDED:

ROUTINE/ EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE INSPECTION QASP

OCCUPANT NAME

Justification of Scoring :