A.03.23 QASP_ENV-23-0003.pdf

1 | P a g e

PROGRAMMATIC QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVIELLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

FUELS PROGRAM

SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION, & MODERNIZATION (SRM) PROJECTS

1. PURPOSE

This QASP is a Government developed document used to ensure that the Government receives quality services, and pays only for services actually provided. The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate the services the Contractor is required to furnish. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan is a government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the process for a continuous oversight practice:

What will be monitored How monitoring will take place Who will conduct the monitoring How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan. The QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards. It is the government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s quality control plan. This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance.

2. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Inspection of Services clauses, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract or order. This acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized representative.

3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Contracting Officer (KO) - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into, administer and terminate contracts on behalf of the Government. The KO is the only person who can legally commit the Government and only the KO, as the Government’s agent, can modify the contract/order. The KO is the final authority for determining the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance. KO decisions arising under or relating to the contact are final.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – An individual designated in writing by the KO to perform specific technical and administrative functions within the scope and limitations of their written appointment (e.g., surveillance of Contractor’s performance, accept services). The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or authorize any changes to the

2 | P a g e order/contract or in any way obligate additional funds by the Government; such authority rests solely with the KO.

Quality Assurance Evaluator (QAE) – There will be a designated QAE by the requiring activity to assist the COR and provide technical oversight of the Contractor’s performance. The QAE’s will assist the COR in monitoring the Contractor’s performance by checking to see that tasks are completed, reports are submitted, and desired outcomes are achieved. When a surveillance observation results in an unacceptable evaluation, the QAE will report the unacceptable performance to the COR. The QAE is not authorized to direct work, offer advice on how the work should be performed, change the contract, or in any way obligate payment of funds by the Government.

4. PROJECT INFORMATION

The Contractor shall provide all labor, supervision, transportation, supplies, vehicles, tools, materials, equipment and incidental services required to execute and document Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) repair services. Contractor shall provide SRM Repair Services to maintain and repair systems and infrastructure for fuel facilities in order to provide compliance with code, criteria, and regulations. Fuel systems include underground or aboveground storage tanks, connected piping, containment systems, ancillary equipment and appurtenances. The non-routine, SRM repair services of increased scope and complexity (included in this acquisition strategy) will provide repairs and upgrades as needed, and not currently planned for, in the RMMR services. The SRM requirements will be performed primarily for DLA Energy at the same fuel facilities requiring repair services within Germany, Belgium, and Italy at DLA Energy Army-Owned capitalized fuel facilities.

5. METHODS FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

5.1 Evaluation Areas. The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated by assessing the final deliverables according to the standards of Quality, Schedule, and U.S. and Host regulations.

Other Evaluation Areas can be included at the discretion of the COR and PM. Each Evaluation Area is rated as Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory.

5.2 Evaluation Areas and Ratings Criteria.

TABLE 1 – Evaluation Areas & Ratings Criteria

EVALUATION AREAS & EXAMPLE INDICATORS

Quality Product performance relative to contract’s performance parameters Performance in terms of contract’s quality objectives Use quantitative indicators wherever possible Contractor’s management of the quality control program Quality of the work or service

Schedule Timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements

3 | P a g e

Contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule, that contributes to or affects the scheduled variance

Adverse actions such as the assessment of liquidated damages or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract schedule and should, therefore, be noted in the evaluation

Adequacy of Initial Progress Schedule Submission of Required Documentation Adherence to Approved Schedule Submission of Updated & Revised Progress Schedules Resolution of Delays

Management Integration and coordination of activity Problem identification Corrective action plans Reasonable and cooperative behavior Customer satisfaction Subcontract management Program management Management of key personnel

U.S. and Host Nation regulations

Compliance with regulations and codes Financial Environmental Labor o Correction of Noted Deficiencies o Compliance with Labor Laws and Regulations with

Specific Attention to the Davis-Bacon Act and o EEO Requirements o Payrolls Properly Completed and Submitted

Safety o Adequacy of Safety Plan o Correction of Noted Deficiencies o Implementation of Safety Plan

Other Reporting requirements in the contract

EVALUATION AREA RATINGS DEFINITIONS*

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

4 | P a g e 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 being assessed 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. Per DOD Policy, a fundamental principle 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 recover 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 would constitute 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 report or letter).

*The guidelines provided for issuing ratings are subjective in nature, and these ratings will be supported by the weight of evidence documented during the government's surveillance efforts.

5.3 Performance Assessment Process. If a deliverable is rated as being unsatisfactory for quality or U.S. and Host Nation compliance at the time that the approved PWS deadline for the deliverable expires, the Contractor may receive an unsatisfactory rating for Schedule, unless there is an Army approved delay that extends the PWS deliverable. This will only take place during the rating period, and will not necessarily influence future/later ratings.

5 | P a g e

5.3.1 Approved Delays. At the discretion of the COR, the performance standard of Schedule outlined in the PWS, may not be monitored due to Approved delays. This will be tracked and reported based on Contractor monthly reports.

5.4 Recommendation. In lieu of an overall rating, the Contractor will either be recommended/not recommended for similar future requirements.

6. METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE

Surveillance is performed by the Government to provide objective quality evidence that there is a reasonable level of confidence that the services provided by the Contractor have met all the requirements of the contract before authorizing payment. The primary methods of surveillance are periodic inspections and customer feedback.

Periodic Assessment of Services – Periodic inspections will be performed regularly, yet randomly, during the period of the Contractor’s field work. Periodic inspections may be performed more frequently if the COR/QAE discovers the quality of the Contractor’s performance is less than acceptable.

Customer Feedback – Customer feedback is typically obtained via telephone or email.

Telephonic customer complaints must be followed up in writing/email. To be considered valid, the customer complaint must clearly articulate the nature of the complaint, time, date, etc. The COR will investigate the complaint; if determined valid, the COR will advise the KO to notify the Contractor of the deficiency. Copies of valid complaints and the resolution must be retained in the official contract file.

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) SURVEILLANCE TASKS

a. The PM, COR, and QAE will perform surveillance on all services required of the contractor either through periodic inspection or the use of objective quality evidence (i.e. customer feedback or evaluation of contractor supplied performance data), and will ensure all required services of the Contract/Order are properly executed.

b. Any noted contractual deficiencies will be reported to the Contractor and the KO, to include date, specific contract requirement, deficiency, request for contractor corrective action and suspense date. When Contractor contractual performance deficiencies are noted increased periodic inspections will take place to assure contract compliance.

c. Services that were found deficient will be re-inspected. Failure to complete corrective actions will be reported immediately to the KO for further action.

DELIVERABLE METHOD OF SURVEILLANCE

Work Plans Review for inclusion of all required activities as outlined in the PWS, and timely submissions.

Preparation and submittal of all applicable technical deliverables

Review compliance with applicable UFGS, UFCs, host nation, and PWS requirements

Schedule Within established contract period of performance and approved milestone dates

Safety Plan In accordance with EM 385-1-1 and all applicable host nation and OSHA regulations

6 | P a g e

Completion Reports Review for inclusion of all completed activities as outlined in the PWS, and timely submission.

8. DOCUMENTATION.

All documents shall be maintained, in perpetuity, in the designated folder on the NAU server.

Electronic copies of all versions of documents, to include, but not limited to work plans, all reports, validated costs and budget information, internal and external communications, and all other deliverables shall be maintained by the PM. Guidance and decision bearing communications will be kept in the appropriate server folder.

Should performance problems be encountered, the QAE, PM, and COR must forward any records maintained to the KO after accepting the Contractor’s services for use in the event of a future contract claim/dispute.

9. CHANGES

The QASP is a living document and, as such, may be changed as needed. However, the KO must approve changes. The COR will submit recommended changes to the KO for approval.