70Z02319RM0202400_A3.pdf

Attachment 3

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

For: Services in support of the Recreational Boating Safety Testing Program (RBSTP) for the

Office of Recreational Boating Safety

Contract no.: 70Z02320CM0202400

Contract Description:

Contractor’s Name: To Be Determined (hereafter referred to as the Contractor).

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 the Contractor be monitored?

How monitoring will take place?

Who will conduct the monitoring?

How will 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.

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.

2. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Contracting Officer

The following bullets detail the Contracting Officer (KO) roles and responsibilities:

The KO is the only individual authorized to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determination and findings.

The KO is the only individual that is authorized to delegate (delegation must be in writing) specific contract administration duties to other individuals.

The KO ensures oversight and control of contracting actions. The KO will also be responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, cost control and property control; reviewing of the

Evaluation Monitor’s assessment of the contractor’s performance; and resolving all differences between the Evaluation Monitor’s version and contractor’s version. The KO may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required. The KO’s procurement authorities include the following:

Final authority for any decisions which produces an increase or decrease in the scope of the contract, Final authority for any actions subject to the “Changes” clause, Final authority for any decision to be rendered under the “Disputes” clause, Final authority to approve the contractor’s invoices for payment, subject to the

Limitation of Costs clause and the Limitation of clause and the Limitation of Funds clause, Signatory authority for the issuance of all modifications to the contract.

Assigned KO: To be determined

Organization or Agency: U.S. Coast Guard HQ, CG-9122

Telephone: (202) 475-____

Email: __________@uscg.mil

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR shall keep a quality assurance file. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the

Government’s behalf.

Assigned COR: Mr. William Hillyer

Telephone: (202) 372-1077

Email: William.Y.Hillyer@uscg.mil

Other Key Government Personnel - Evaluation Monitor

The Evaluation Monitor (EM) includes the COR and/or Division Chiefs and Branch Chiefs in the

Office of Performance Management and Assessment and the Port Security Evaluation Division.

The following bullets detail the EM’s roles and responsibilities:

EM shall be familiar with contract terms and conditions.

EM will monitor the contractor’s performance in accordance with this QASP, evaluate the contractor’s performance and report the results in a monthly report, citing contractor deficiencies and providing specific details of each deficiency cited. EM will note and document acceptable and unacceptable performance.

COR shall maintain a surveillance folder/binder containing a copy of this QASP, along with surveillance forms/reports, contract documents, and correspondence.

EM shall submit surveillance reports to the COR for review.

It is extremely important for the COR to establish and maintain a team-oriented line of communication with the contractor’s Project Manager (PM) and the PM’s staff in order to perform her/his monitoring functions. The EM, KO and PM must work together as a team to ensure that required work is accomplished in an efficient and proper manner.

Performance meetings will be held on a regular basis in order to resolve serious problems.

3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES

The following employees of the contractor serve as the contractor’s program manager for this contract.

a. Program Manager - <upon award, enter name>

Telephone: <enter number>

Email: <enter address>

b. Task Manager - <upon award, enter name>

c. Other Contractor Personnel - <upon award, enter name or delete these lines if not applicable>

Title: <enter title>

4. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

The Contractor must perform each contract requirement of the Statement of Work (SOW). Contract deficiencies not meeting the minimum standards shall be resolved or handled under the Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) process by the COR.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS):

The PRS table below reflects the deliverables considered by the USCG to be most important for the successful performance of this task order. This includes the expected standards of performance and positive or negative incentives.

Service Output Performance Objective Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Method of

Inspection

Positive Incentive Negative Incentive

1. Project Plans

(SOW 2.1.1 – 2.1.2).

The Contractor shall provide a project plan at the orientation meeting for the contract.

All Government comments are incorporated in the Project

Plan within five (5) business days.

COR Review Positive past performance reviews, positive Contractor

Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) reports.

Failure to meet the Performance

Standard will result in corrective action as determined appropriate by the

Contracting Officer in consultation with the COR. The range of possible actions includes re-performance of work, a negative past performance evaluation, renegotiating the schedule in conjunction with appropriate consideration, and partial or total termination for convenience/default.

2. Consolidated

Monthly Progress

Reports (SOW 2.1).

The Contractor shall provide a consolidated monthly report to the COR.

All reports shall be accurate and timely.

Daily reports, Observation

Positive past performance reviews, positive Contractor

Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) reports.

Failure to meet the Performance

Standard will result in corrective action as determined appropriate by the

Contracting Officer in consultation with the COR. The range of possible actions includes re-performance of work, a negative past performance evaluation, renegotiating the schedule in conjunction with appropriate consideration, and partial or total termination for convenience/default.

Service Output Performance Objective Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Method of

Inspection

Positive Incentive Negative Incentive

3. Compliance

Inspector’s Manual

(SOW 2.1.4).

The Contractor shall provide a consolidated monthly report to the COR.

All reports shall be accurate and timely.

Daily observation, Periodic Inspection

Positive past performance reviews, positive Contractor

Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) reports.

Failure to meet the Performance

Standard will result in corrective action as determined appropriate by the

Contracting Officer in consultation with the COR. The range of possible actions includes re-performance of work, a negative past performance evaluation, renegotiating the schedule in conjunction with appropriate consideration, and partial or total termination for convenience/default.

4. Compliance

Inspector’s Training

Plan (SOW 2.2).

The Contractor shall provide a consolidated monthly report to the COR.

All reports shall be accurate and timely.

Direct Oberservation Positive past performance reviews, positive Contractor

Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) reports.

Failure to meet the Performance

Standard will result in corrective action as determined appropriate by the

Contracting Officer in consultation with the COR. The range of possible actions includes re-performance of work, a negative past performance evaluation, renegotiating the schedule in conjunction with appropriate consideration, and partial or total termination for convenience/default.

5. INCENTIVES.

The Government shall use exercise of Option Period and Past Performance as incentives.

Incentives shall be based on exceeding, meeting, or not meeting performance standards.

6. SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES.

Performing Surveillance.

Actual surveillance must be done as stated in this QASP. Surveillance includes scheduling, observing, documenting, and resolving performance issues discovered through surveillance.

Even though the Government, through its COR and EM(s), will be monitoring the contractor’s performance on a continuing basis, the volume of tasks performed by the contractor makes technical inspections of every task and step impractical. Accordingly, only some tasks will contain incentives/disincentives, as monitored and evaluated as specified in the Performance

Requirements Summary.

Scheduling Surveillance.

The COR assigned to this contract is responsible for developing a monthly schedule of surveillance activities based on the QASP’s requirements. The schedule should be completed no later than 7 calendar days before the beginning of the period it covers. The COR must give one copy of the schedule to the contract administrator before start of the surveillance period.

Computer-generated or locally devised forms may be used.

Surveillance Approach.

The Government’s surveillance approach will be an oversight and insight approach to evaluating the performance requirements as set forth in the Statement of Work. Definitions of each approach and the conditions under which each will be used are described in the following paragraphs:

Insight as an assurance process uses performance requirements and performance metrics to ensure process capability, product quality and delivery and end-item effectiveness.

Insight relies on gathering a minimum set of product or process data that provide adequate visibility into the integrity of the product or process. The data may be acquired from contractor records/reports, usually in a non-intrusive parallel method.

Oversight as applied to this task will result in higher levels of Government surveillance.

The Government will gather information pertaining to the contractor’s process through on-site involvement in and/or inspection of the process and will monitor the process itself. The Government’s involvement in the contractor’s performance, through oversight, is determined necessary by the COR and client representative.

Documenting Surveillance.

Documentation is required to record, evaluate, and report contractor’s performance. This documentation provides the KO with contractor status as it applies to the performance criteria.

Every effort should be made to make this report to the KO as accurate as possible. The COR is required to maintain accurate records of the contractor’s performance. Documenting surveillance is of major importance to the total process of surveillance. The KO cannot properly administer the contract without documentation of actual surveillance.

All documentation resulting from surveillance must be made part of the contract file. The COR must keep the documentation files during the surveillance period, but either monthly or at the conclusion of the contract, as directed by the KO, the COR must give the files to the KO for inclusion in the official contract file.

Surveillance Folder.

A surveillance folder must be developed and maintained by the EM who is assigned to accomplish QA for a performance requirement. The folder is typically contained in a hardcopy, but may be maintained in a computer database provided there is adequate back up of the data to preclude accidental loss. The surveillance folder must contain as a minimum, the following documents and be set up using the EM File Index (Attachment 1).

Contract Documents.

The Contract with all modifications, directive documents references, pertinent terms defined by the contract, equipment listings, SOW and QASP.

Special Reports Documentation.

Minutes of the monthly performance meetings are maintained by the COR, KO and the contractor to instill good communication and resolve issues before they become significant challenges.

Monthly Inspection Paperwork.

Documented surveillance inspections performed by the EMs will be kept in this section. All paperwork that supports the documented surveillance should be kept in this section as well. The types of information that may be included are details of inspections or data gathering, conversations or meetings with the contractor, notes and comments that support the inspection paperwork. EM Monthly Surveillance Reports will be kept in this section.

Unacceptable Performance Documentation.

A section used for filing all documentation associated with contract quality assurance, e.g., Customer Complaints (both active and resolved), notices of contract deficiencies (MFRs of phone conversations, email messages, etc..), the KO’s inputs/determinations, Cure Notices, Show Cause, and all supporting documentation will be maintained by the COR.

Final Acceptance and Funding Issues.

In this area, keep paperwork for future changes to the contract, i.e. addendums, options, etc. that must be worked during the life of the contract.

7. PERFORMANCE MEETINGS.

The COR, Contractor, and EMs will meet weekly at Performance Meetings to discuss contract performance, resolve issues, discuss customer complaints, and provide positive interaction and feedback to all parties. The COR will provide a list of any unresolved deficiencies to the contractor's quality assurance representative to afford him/her the opportunity to show where the problem is already in the process of being worked. If evidence is shown where the contractor’s quality program has already documented the deficiency and timely corrective action is working the problem, the COR will follow up with the contractor’s quality control representative to ensure the deficiencies are remedied in a timely manner, in accordance with the SOW. All deficiencies associated with performance requirements listed on the Performance Requirements

Summary, whether remedied by the contractor or not, will be included in the EM’s Monthly

Report regardless of who identified the deficiency. The COR will provide a copy of the meeting minutes to all attendees within 2 workdays of the meeting. Additionally, the contractor will perform Monthly Progress Reports in accordance with the SOW.

8. SURVEILLANCE METHODS.

Periodic Surveillance

Performance evaluation will be accomplished by monitoring compliance with the performance requirements as described in the contract and in the following section of this QASP. The method of evaluation will depend on the service type, and each service type may be assessed by more than one method. The following are the specific evaluation methods to be used on the

Grants.gov:

Periodic Inspection - Evaluates tasks selected on other than a 100% or random basis. It may be appropriate for tasks that occur infrequently and where 100% inspection is neither required nor practicable.

Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)—This method is verification and validation performed by an individual or organization that is technically, managerially, and financially independent of the development organization and is used to determine that the work product delivered by the contractor matches the content requirement in the contract. This can include various types of system tests, analysis or other V&V techniques.

Operational Monitoring—Examination of reports generated by automated tools and logs and websites.

Customer Feedback—Surveys and random sampling will be used to evaluate customer satisfaction.

The mapping of specific surveillance methods to performance requirements are provided below.

The method of surveillance is a function of the activities being monitored and associated performance measures.

Once a month or as required by the performance requirement (frequency will be dependent on the specific performance requirement), the EM will review documentation and/or observe accomplishment of Performance Requirement(s) to ensure the minimum Performance

Standard(s) has (have) been met for the respective Performance Requirement(s).

The EM must document each surveillance as it is conducted. All performance must be documented, whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. The EM will provide the monthly EM

Assurance Monitoring Report to the KO prior to the Monthly Performance Meetings with the

KO and contractor.

9. PROCEDURES FOR SURVEILLANCE OF NON-PRS ITEMS.

Non-PRS items will be inspected randomly by the EM. The surveillance documentation should outline the same items indicated on the EM monthly schedule.

10. UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE/REPERFORMANCE PROCEDURES.

The PA will document all findings using a quality assurance monitoring report and reported monthly by the close of business on the days the forms are prepared. The COR shall verbally notify the contractor’s PM of the finding and provide a copy of the finding. The PM shall respond with the following information: Contractor Response as to cause, corrective action, and actions to prevent recurrence within 5 working days after notification. The COR will ensure the response is completed in its entirety, coordinated through the KO, with a copy retained in the official contract file. This information will be included when assessing the contractor’s overall performance (i.e. Option Exercise, CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires, etc.).

Deficiencies shall not exceed the performance standards cited in the PRS for each performance requirement. If any of the services do not conform to contract requirements, In Accordance With the FAR 52.212-4, “Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items”, the Government may require the Contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount. In Accordance With FAR 52.246-4, “Inspection of Services—

Fixed-Price”, “If any of the services do not conform with contract requirements, the Government may require the Contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount. When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government may --

(1) Require the Contractor to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements; and

(2) Reduce the contract price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed.”

11. ACCEPTANCE/CERTIFICATION OF SERVICES.

All documents shall be submitted by the contractor in accordance with the SOW.

12. CAPTURING SURVEILLANCE INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN MEETING PAST

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.

Past Performance Assessment Report (PPAR)

On a yearly basis, the COR is required to complete a narrative summary of contractor past performance for each contract year. The data will be used by the COR to complete the contractor’s yearly past performance evaluation in the National Institutes of Health’s Contractor

Performance System. The EM will forward the narrative to the KO addressing all of following assessment elements:

Quality of Product or Service

Cost Control

Timeliness of Performance

Business Relations

Subcontractors

Contractor Key Personnel

Small Disadvantaged Business Goals

Customer Satisfaction

13. PERFORMANCE RATINGS.

The ratings used for the Past Performance Assessment Report are described by one of the following five adjectives: Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Fair, Satisfactory, Excellent or Exceptional.

Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and acceptable quality level. A rating scale shall be used to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. The following ratings shall be used:

Overall Performance

Rating

Standard

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government's benefit.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet implemented satisfactory corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Contractor's corrective actions to date are ineffective.

14. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE.

Acceptable performance.

The Government shall document positive performance. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action.

Unacceptable performance.

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the

COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a

Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the contractor's program manager.

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 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 any contractual action deemed necessary by the KO.

15. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT.

a. Frequency of Measurement.

During contract performance, the COR will periodically analyze whether the negotiated frequency of surveillance is appropriate for the work being performed.

b. Frequency of Performance Assessment Meetings. Every 90 days (Once a quarter)

The COR shall meet with the contractor MONTHLY to assess performance and shall provide a written assessment.

Evaluation Monitor’s Assurance Monitoring Report

Survey Period: ________/________

EM: _______________________________

Contractor: ______________________________________

Contract Number ___________________

CLIN ___________________________

Performance Requirement ______________________________________________________

________ The contractor has met all the requirements of the contract.

________ The contractor has not met all the requirements of the contract. These are summarized in this report and are supported by the EM periodic surveillance checklists and/or reports and customer feedback attached to this form.

Summary of discrepancies:

Actions taken to remedy discrepancies:

Other comments:

Evaluation Monitor’s Yearly Past Performance Narrative Report

Quarterly Report Covers: _________________thru ____________________.

EM: ________________________________________________________

Contractor: ____________________________________________________

Contract Number: _______________________________________________

I am forwarding this report to the CPARS Assessing Official to summarize the contractor’s past performance over the past quarter that covers the performance months of ________thru

_______. I have reviewed the past three months monthly reports from the past performance meetings to arrive at the following comments for the four assessment elements that will be included in the Annual Past Performance Assessment Report.

(1) Quality of Product or Service Rating: Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory

Excellent Exceptional

(2) Timeliness of Performance. Rating Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory

Excellent Exceptional

(3) Business Relations. Rating Unsatisfactory Marginal Satisfactory

Excellent Exceptional

(4) Comments on Contractor’s Key Personnel, by position:

(5) Did the Contractor make a good faith effort to comply with its subcontracting plan consistent with the goals and objectives, reporting and other aspects of the plan?

(6) Did the contractor make a good faith effort to comply with its subcontracting plan consistent with the goals and objectives, for small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation, monetary target for SDB participation, and required notifications?

(7) Is/Was the contractor committed to customer satisfaction?

(8) Would you recommend the selection of this firm again?

(9) Additional comments: