Attachment 3 - QASP Mechanical Services 0001.docx

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 Mechanical Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the mechanical services contractor will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

0. Purpose

0. The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and identify required documentation and 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 ensure the government pays only for the level of services received.

0. This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project team (IPT), 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.

1.1.3 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. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

0. Performance Management Approach

1. 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 Facilities Management Services and the 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.

1. 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, if 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.

0. Performance Management Strategy

2. The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s quality control program (QCP). 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 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 contractor’s QCP will also 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 program.

2. 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 determinations regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data 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.

1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1. The Contracting Officer (CO) The CO is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control, and resolving any differences between 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, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the CO.

1. The COR The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as their 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 authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions must 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.

1. IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS paragraph 6.2 and Attachment A – Performance Requirements Summary. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, the contractor may be rated “Satisfactory” and the government may elect to exercise further option years. Failure to meet performance standards may result in the requirement of a Corrective Action Plan, an “unsatisfactory” rating in the Contractor Performance System (CPARS) and other actions as detailed in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 49 including Cure Notice, Show Cause Notice and/or termination of contract.

1. METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

0. Surveillance Techniques 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:

a. Direct Observation

b. Periodic Inspection

c. User Survey

d. Validated User/Customer Complaints

e. Inspection

f. Periodic Sampling

g. Random Sampling

h. Progress or Status Meetings

i. Analysis of Contractor’s Progress Reports

0. 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 or 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.

0. QUALITY ASSURANCE

The government shall evaluate the contractor’s performance under this contract in accordance with the following:

a. Maintain the operating condition of the station mechanical equipment.

1) Equipment in a non-operational state for more than seven (7) days is unsatisfactory.

b. Maintain the operating condition of the station heating and cooling systems.

1) Supply and distribution systems in a non-operational state for more than seven (7) days is unsatisfactory.

c. Maintain the operating condition of the station air distribution systems.

1) An air distribution system in a non-operational state for more than seven (7) days is unsatisfactory.

d. Maintain the operating condition of the station direct digital control systems.

1) A direct digital system in a non-operational state for more than seven (7) days is unsatisfactory.

0. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

0. The Performance Management Feedback Loop The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are evaluated during the review of the monthly reports.

0. PERFORMANCE ACCEPTANCE

The government’s acceptance of the contractor’s performance is acknowledged by the COR by providing a response to the monthly reporting. This response will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure the required results listed above are being achieved.

5. The COR will retain a copy of all performance acceptance documentation.

0. Reporting

6. At the end of each month the COR will provide a written response summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the response as stated above 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.

0. Reviews and Resolution The COR, or CO, may require the contractor’s project manager or designated alternate to meet with the CO, and COR and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss the 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 or CO 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

7. The COR, 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 procuring CO.

5.0 Ratings

Metrics and methods are designed to determine rating for a given standard and acceptable quality level. The following ratings shall be used:

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, you should identify multiple significant events in each category and state how it was a benefit to the GOVERNMENT. However a singular event could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, you should identify a significant event in each category and state how it was a benefit to the GOVERNMENT. Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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

Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Note: To justify Marginal performance, you should 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).

Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, you should identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the GOVERNMENT. However, a singular problem 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).

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Standard Acceptable Quality Levels Methods of Surveillance Incentive (Positive and/or Negative) (Impact on Contractor Payments)

evaluation.

Government may elect to exercise the option year

evaluation.

Government may elect to exercise the option year

evaluation.

Government may elect to exercise the option year

evaluation.

Government may elect to exercise the option year

evaluation.

Government may elect to exercise the option year

evaluation.

Government may elect to exercise the option year

evaluation.

Government may elect to exercise the option year

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (check):

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: _Lenny Spaulding________________________________ DATE: _________________