2.2.1 Attachment B Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan_2023-07-18.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Acquisition Plan #: HSFE-XX-XXX Acquisition Planning Forecast System #: 2023061164

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance for the Continental United

States (CONUS) National Fleet Equipment (CNFE)

Table of Contents

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1.0 PURPOSE

1.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

1.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATGEY

PART 2: ROLES AND RESPONSBILITIES

2.1 CONTRACTING OFFICER

2.2 CONTRACTING OFFICERS REPRESENATIVE

2.2 TECHNICAL MONITOR (TM)

PART 3: REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

3.0 REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

3.1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PART 4: METHODOLGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 SURVILLANCE TECHNIQUES

4.1.1 RANDOM INSPECTION

4.1.2 COR REVIEW OF MONTHLY REPORTS

4.1.3 100% INSPECTION

4.1.4 CUSTOMER COMPLAINT

4.2 CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

4.3 ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICES

PART 5: QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FEEDBACK

5.2 MONITORING FORMS

PART 6: ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 DETERMINING PERFORMANCE

6.2 REPORTING

6.3 REVIEWS AND RESOLUTIONS

PART 7: ATTACHMENTS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM (SAMPLE)

QUALITY CUSTOMER COMPLAINT FORM (SAMPLE)

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled “Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance for the Continental United States (CONUS) National Fleet Equipment (CNFE)”. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.0 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/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.

1.2 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 the CO and COR 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 as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATGEY

The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own Quality Control Program (QCP). Quality Control 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. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QCP.

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 will make determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric as outlined in PWS PART 6: ATTACHMENT/TECHNICAL EXHIBIT LISTING 6.1 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1:

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY and notify the contractor of those decisions. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

PART 2: ROLES AND RESPONSBILITIES

2.1 CONTRACTING OFFICER

The Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, cost control, and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the: “Technical Monitor”

(TM), "Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)," "Contracting Officer (CO)," 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.

2.2 CONTRACTING OFFICERS REPRESENATIVE

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.

2.2 TECHNICAL MONITOR (TM)

The Technical Monitor (TM) is the on-site representative for the (COR). While the COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance, the TM is the eyes and ears of the COR. Like the COR, the TM 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.

PART 3: REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

3.0 REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

3.1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS PART 6:

ATTACHMENT/TECHNICAL EXHIBIT LISTING 6.1 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1: PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY. If the contractor meets or exceeds the required service or performance level, it will be paid the amount agreed on in the contract. Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction from the monthly amount IAW PWS PART 6: ATTACHMENT/TECHNICAL EXHIBIT

LISTING 6.1 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY.

PART 4: METHODOLGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 SURVILLANCE 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.

4.1.1 RANDOM INSPECTION

As directed by the COR, performed by the site TM, random (10%) inspection of selected equipment to evaluate the performance of each task associated with services and specific tasks as outlined in the PWS. This is used to determine the acceptability of services performed.

4.1.2 COR REVIEW OF MONTHLY REPORTS

Review and validation by the COR and TM of the monthly reports detailing the scheduled inspection, maintenance performed as part of the PWS. This is used to determine the acceptability of services performed.

4.1.3 100% INSPECTION

As directed by the COR, performed by the site TM, 100% inspection all repairs performed to evaluate performance as outlined in PWS. This is used to determine the acceptability of services performed.

4.1.4 CUSTOMER COMPLAINT

Final validation by the CO after a thorough investigation and inspection by the COR. Complaints are initiated with the filing out a Quality Assurance (QA) Monitoring Form.

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 CO, 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.

4.3 ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICES

The minimum Acceptable Level of Service (ALS) for contractor performance as stated in PWS PART 6:

ATTACHMENT/TECHNICAL EXHIBIT LISTING 6.1 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1: PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY is structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. For certain critical activities such as those involving

Repair Services, the desired performance level is established at 100%. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance at FEMA.

PART 5: QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FEEDBACK

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

PART 6: ATTACHMENT/TECHNICAL EXHIBIT LISTING 6.1 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1:

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY.

5.2 MONITORING FORMS

The government’s QA surveillance accomplished by the TM and/or COR, will be reported using the QA

Monitoring Form and the QA Customer Complaint Investigation Form. The TM or other program personnel will provide the equipment description that was inspected and recorded on the Monitoring Form. Once completed, the forms will be sent to the COR at which point they will become part of contract records. Once completed the forms will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

PART 6: ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 DETERMINING PERFORMANCE

The Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance objectives/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.

Failure to meet the performance objectives/service levels may result in a deduction from the monthly payment, using the deduction amounts shown in PWS PART 6: ATTACHMENT/TECHNICAL EXHIBIT LISTING 6.1

TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY.

6.2 REPORTING

At the end of each performance period the TMs will prepare a written report for the COR summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted quarterly report, and the completed quality assurance monitoring form (QA Monitoring

Form) 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.

6.3 REVIEWS AND RESOLUTIONS

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 or COR 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:

➢ Quarterly performance assessment data and trend analysis

➢ Issues and concerns of both parties

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

➢ Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

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

The COR 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.

PART 7: ATTACHMENTS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

➢ PWS PART 6: ATTACHMENT/TECHNICAL EXHIBIT LISTING 6.1 TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1: PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY.

Performance Objective Standard Performance Threshold

Method of Surveillance Impact on Payments

PRS # 1

Per Equipment Sub-Class -all maintenance

The Contractor provided all required Maintenance

Services per the Equipment List.

FEMA fleet equipment has an FMC average rating of

90% or higher each month per each equipment sub-class.

A monthly Microsoft Excel formatted FMC report received from the contractor, to include customer complaints, to the COR by the 1st Friday of each month.

This Report is validated against the LMD Weekly

Part Log and GPRA.

When FMC rate falls below 90% on any equipment sub-class, there shall be a $100 deduction for each piece of equipment not FMC at the DC will be assessed. If more than one customer complaint is received per PRT/per month, this will result in a $100 deduction per complaint.

PRS # 2

Per FEMA site – all maintenance

The Contractor provided all required Maintenance

Services per the Equipment List.

FEMA fleet equipment has an FMC average rating of

90% or higher each month overall.

A monthly Microsoft Excel formatted FMC report received from the contractor, to include customer complaints, to the COR by the 1st Friday of each month. This Report is validated against the LMD Weekly Part Log and GPRA.

When the overall FMC average rating for each site for the month is less than 90%, there shall be a $500 deduction. If more than one customer complaint is received per PRT/per month, this will result in a $100 deduction per complaint.

PRS # 3

Required Repairs

The contractor provided repairs as agreed upon.

100% of the repair work is completed.

As validated by the TM, COR, and/or CO; 100% Inspection; Customer

Complaints

100% of the repair work is completed, if not re-work is required until completion. This may result in a negative CPARS rating.

PRS #4

Staffing

100% Fully Staffed 100% Fully Staffed As validated by the TM, COR, and/or CO; 100%

Inspection

IF the overall staffing % falls, the invoice shall be deducted by that % until the Contractor is fully staffed again.

QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM (SAMPLE)

QUALITY CUSTOMER COMPLAINT FORM (SAMPLE)