QASP Ogden Ground Services.pdf

Ground Maintenance Services

IRS Ogden Service Center - UT0036 1160 W 1200 S

Ogden, UT 84404

Month & Year

Contracted Company Name

Contract Number

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) entitled Ground Maintenance Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Internal Revenue Services will use to ensure the required performance standards and services levels are achieved by the Contractor.

This Attachment describes the desired outcomes, performance requirements, standards, surveillance methods, and deductions for this award order. The Table below is divided into ???

discrete tasks. It is intended to align Contractor’s goals and objectives with the IRS program goals and objectives as follows:

The tables below reflect the guidance and methods for determining metrics, Acceptable Quality Levels, and incentives/disincentives for this PWS.

All Deliverables, Documents, and Services shall satisfy program and project requirements, and comply with IRS CMMI standards, existing IRS standards and guidelines, and integrate with IRS, security requirements and Section 508.

1.1 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.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the team, 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.

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 Internal Revenue Services 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 Strategy

The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed and to correct unsatisfactory work results. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QCP 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.

1.4 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 contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer (CO)

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) 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.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering the 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 through the COR. 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.

7. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Performance Standard requirements for this PWS are identified as indicated in Attachment A, Performance Requirements Summary. The Performance Standards are a critical component of the performance objectives that relate directly to the overall objectives of the PWS herein. A Performance Standard is associated with each performance requirement.

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment A, “Performance Requirements Summary”

Timely

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs)/maximum allowable defect rate (MADR) included in Attachment A, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance of the Internal Revenue Services.

6.1 Determining Performance

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. Failure to meet the AQL/MADR may result in a negative performance assessment and deductions from payments using the deduction percentage/fixed amount shown in the performance requirement summary. No payments will be made for services not performed and will be deducted accordingly. Services not performed in their entirety will be deducted on the percentage amount that was not completed. This may be factored into the Governments decision on whether to exercise option years. Likewise, a positive performance assessment is the incentive for the Contractor to perform well.

7.1 Deduction Threshold

For services performed if the number of defects, instances of unacceptable performance, failure to follow PWS, failure to follow work plans, failure to follow timeframes, etc. observed is equal to or less than the maximum allowable defect rate (MADR), then there will be no deduction in payments to the Contractor for that task. Defects are attributed to more than slight deficiency’s in performance requirements. However, multiple slight deficiency can cumulatively amount to a full defect.

Deduction Amount to Contractor Payment: Example A.

a) The MADR for pruning is 0 defects based on the performance objective. A verified customer complaint submitted will be considered a defect as will any inspected work that falls below the same standards. If one or more complaint is received regarding the same item this will only be considered one complaint. Upon notice of the defect(s) a deduction will be taken.

b) Assume that damaged branches were not removed.

c) One defect exceeds the MADR of zero, therefore, there will be a deduction in the payment to the Contractor for this month.

d) The deduction amount will be as follows:

(i) Assuming the maximum possible contract payment for pruning is $1,000 per month.

(ii) A pruning is deduction is weighted at 10% of the total payment.

(iii) A deduction of $100 will be taken.

(iv) The Contractor will receive a payment of $900, which is the maximum possible payment of $1,000 minus the deduction amount of $100.

Deduction Amount to Contractor Payment: Example B.

a) A required weekly service that wasn’t performed on a given week.

b) Assume the required weekly mowing wasn’t performed the 2nd week of a month.

c) The percentage of mowings not performed that month will be deducted in the payment to the Contractor for the month for that service.

d) The deduction amount will be as follows:

(i) Assuming the maximum possible contract payment for weekly mowing service is $4,000 per month.

(ii) There is a total of 5 weekly mowing services this month, therefore each weekly mowing represents 20%.

(iii) One weekly mowing service was not performed. A deduction of 20% will be taken, equaling $800.

(iv) The Contractor will receive a payment of $3,200 which is the maximum possible payment of $4,000 minus the deduction amount of $800.

Deduction Amount to Contractor Payment: Example C.

a) A service wasn’t completed in its entirety.

b) Assume 50% of the mowing wasn’t completed for the week.

c) The percentage of the service not completed will be deducted in the payment to the

Contractor for that week for the month for that service.

d) The deduction amount will be as follows:

(i) Assuming the maximum possible contract payment for weekly mowing service is $4,000 per month.

(ii) 50% of the mowing wasn’t completed a particular week. There is a total of 5 weekly mowing services this month, therefore each weekly mowing represents 20%, equaling $800.

(iii) 50% of the mowing service was not completed the 3rd week of the month. A deduction of 50% will be taken from the weekly mowing amount of $800, equaling $400.

(iv) The Contractor will receive a payment of $3,600 which is the maximum possible payment of $4,000 minus the deduction amount of $400.

3. 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:

1. Planned Sampling Inspections

2. 100% Inspections

3. Unscheduled Inspections

4. Validated Customer Complaints

5. Random Sampling Inspections

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, 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.

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 shown in Attachment A.

Approval of all deliverables will be the responsibility of the contract Program Manager. The COR will provide acceptance of deliverables.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the monitoring form in Attachments A & Attachments B. The form, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results of contractual deliverables, services, invoice submission, and management reports are being achieved.

5.2.1 The Contractor shall turn in the logs which provide who, when, where and reports of the work being performed to the COR weekly on Mondays according to the PWS. If Mondays fall on a holiday, the logs shall be submitted on the next business day.

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

6. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.2 Reporting

The COR will prepare the QASP report monthly summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report 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 Resolution

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

The 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. 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.

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

The COR and the 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.

Attachment A: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

GROUNDS MAINTENANCE

Services/Tasks

Performance Standards

AQL/MADR: Deduction Weight:

Rating

Comments:

Service C.2.1.

Lawn Mowing, Trimming, and Edging.

PWS: C.2.1.,

C.6., C.8., C.9.

Lawn care is a weekly occurrence.

1) 0 defect/month

2) 0 defect/month

1) 5%/defect up to 25%.

2) % of not performed services out of the total number of services for the month. See QASP Section 7.1., Example B & C.

☐ Pass

☐ Marginal

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.2.2.

Weed Control (Non-Lawn Areas)

PWS: C.2.2.,

C.6., C.7., C.8., C.9.

Weed control (non-lawn areas) is a weekly occurrence.

1) 0 defect/month

2) 0 defect/month

1) 5%/defect up to 25%.

2) % of not performed services out of the total number of services for the

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.2.3.

Irrigation/ Sprinkler System

PWS: C.2.3.,

C.6., C.8., C.9.

Irrigation/ Sprinkler

System is a weekly occurrence

1) 5%/defect up to 15%.

services out of the total number of services for the

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Comments:

Service C.2.4.

Landscaped Areas

PWS: C.2.4.,

C.6., C.7., C.8., C.9.

Landscaped areas is a weekly occurrence.

1) 5%.

services out of the total number of services for the

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.2.5.

Shrubbery and Vegetation

PWS: C.2.5.,

C.6., C.7., C.8., C.9.

Shrubbery and Vegetation is a weekly occurrence

1) 5%/defect up to 10%.

services out of the total number of services for the

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.2.6.

Tree Maintenance

PWS: C.2.6.,

C.6., C.7., C.8., C.9.

Tree

Maintenance is a weekly occurrence.

1) 5%/defect up to 10%.

services out of the total number of services for the

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.2.7.

Policing of Grounds

PWS: C.2.7.,

C.6., C.8., C.9.

Policing of grounds is a weekly/workday occurrence.

1) 0 defect/month

2) 0 defect/month

1) 5%/defect up to 10%.

2) % of not performed services out of the total number of services for the

GROUNDS SERVICES

Comments:

Service C.3.1.

Irrigation/ Sprinkler System

PWS: C.3.1.,

C.6., C.8., C.9.

1) 0 defect/job

1) 10%/defect.

☐ Marginal

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.3.2.

Irrigation/ Sprinkler Parts

PWS: C.3.2.,

1)10%/defect.

☐ Marginal

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.3.3.

Lawn Applications

PWS: C.3.3.,

C.7., C.8., C.9.

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.3.4.

Aeration & De- Thatching

PWS: C.3.4.,

Comments:

Service C.3.5.

Lawn Repair

PWS: C.3.5.,

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.3.6.

Landscaped Areas

PWS: C.3.6.,

C.6., C.7., C.8., C.9.

1) 10%/defect

☐ Marginal

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.3.7.

Shrubbery and Vegetation

PWS: C.3.7.,

☐ Marginal

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.3.8.

Tree Services

PWS: C.3.8.,

1) 0 defect/job 1) 10%/defect.

☐ Marginal

Comments:

Service C.3.9.

Insects, Diseases, and Vegetation Health

PWS: C.3.9.,

☐ Marginal

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.3.10.

North and East Fields

PWS: C.3.10.,

☐ Marginal

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Service C.3.11.

Sweeping Parking Lot/ Roadways/ Gutters

PWS: C.3.11.,

ADDITIONAL TASKS

Comments:

Task C.4.

Grounds Maintenance Plans and Reports

PWS: C.4.

1) No Annual Plan

2) 1 defect/month

1) $500.

2) $25/defect.

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Task C.11.

Contractor Quality Control

PWS: C.11.

1) No QCP Plan

2) 1 defect/month

1) $500.

2) $25/defect.

☐ Fail

# of Defects:

Task C.13.

Contractor Personnel

PWS: C.13.

1) 1 defect/month

1) $25/defect.

Comments:

Service

PWS:

1) defect/month

2) defect/month

1) %/defect.

2)

☐ Fail

☐ Fail

☐ Fail

Attachment B: QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE FORM (Additional pages may be added)

SERVICE: Grounds Maintenance

MONITORING PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

☐ COR Monitoring ☐ Inspection ☐ Testing ☐ Random Sampling ☐ Report ☐ User/Customer Observations/Complaints

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

☐ Daily ☐ Weekly ☐ Monthly ☐ Quarterly

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Contractor’s Performance (Check):

☐ Satisfactory ☐ Marginal ☐ Unsatisfactory

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: DATE:

1.3 Performance Management Strategy