A.15.01.03.09 Annex I Contractor Provided Work Order System.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP)

For

Contract # TBD

Facility and Equipment Maintenance Contract

Defense Commissary Agency

NOTE: THIS QASP IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL

PURPOSES ONLY. IT WILL NOT BECOME PART OF THIS

CONTRACT.

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN FOR THE

Refrigeration Maintenance contract at the Kaiserslautern

Cold Storage Facility

1. OVERVIEW:

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed to evaluate contractor actions while implementing the Performance Work Statement (PWS). It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring contractor performance for each listed performance requirement. The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate the services the contractor is required to furnish. The QASP is based on the premise the government desires to maintain a quality standard in operating and maintaining a facility/refrigeration maintenance contract. This is the best means of achieving that objective. The contractor, and not the government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. The role of the government in quality assurance is to ensure contract standards are achieved. In this contract the quality control program is the driver for product or service quality. The contractor is required to develop a comprehensive program of inspections and monitoring actions. The first major step to ensuring a “self-correcting” contract is to ensure that the quality control program accepted at the beginning of the contract provides the measures needed to lead the contractor to success.

Once the quality control program is accepted, careful application of the process and standards presented in the remainder of this document shall ensure a robust quality assurance program.

2. AUTHORITY:

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Inspection of Services clauses, which provide 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. CONTRACTING OFFICER:

The Contracting Officer (KO) shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The KO shall determine and document the final assessment of the contractor's performance in the governments past performance tracking system.

Assigned KO: Daniel J. Ellis Organization or Agency: DeCA Telephone: +49(0) 631-3523241 Email: Daniel.ellis@deca.mil

4. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE / ALTERNATE CONTRACTING OFFICER

REPRESENTATIVE:

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative(s) 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 KO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing Quality Assurance (QA) surveillance 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.

5. SURVEILLANCE APPROACH:

This section details the method used in verifying contractor compliance with the contract requirements. The key elements of this process are PWS tasks risk rated as high or moderate tasks, the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) which provides the standard, performance threshold and method of surveillance. Although the PRS contains only those items considered most important for mission accomplishment, the government retains the right to inspect all requirements of the contract. The COR may choose to periodically inspect requirements not listed on the PRS. Non-conformance with any contract requirement, whether specifically addressed in the PRS or not, is a “defect”. The preferred course of action upon discovery of unacceptable service is to require the contractor to re-perform at no additional cost to the government. If the contractor’s re-performance does not meet the thresholds in the PRS or the quality stipulated in any other part of the contract, COR shall notify the KO.

6. CONTRACTOR ASSESSMENT.

Contract performance will be assessed and documented using several approaches. Additionally, the CO relies upon the commissary’s store management to aid the COR and SOF and to observe the Contractor’s performance and report any performance variations which may impact the operation of a commissary. There are five surveillance methods that will be used to evaluate the contract work: Planned Sampling Inspection, 100% Inspection, Customer Complaints, Unscheduled Inspections, and Random Sampling Inspections. The government will determine how to use each of these methods based on assessment of context, performance, scheduling, and risk.

PLANNED SAMPLING INSPECTIONS. Planned sampling involves evaluating a portion of the work as the basis for appraising the Contractor’s performance. Samples are selected based on a subjective rationale with the sample size being determined by the CO. Planned sampling is useful when population sizes are not large enough or homogeneous enough to make random sampling practical. This method consists of periodic evaluation of tasks, up to 100 % surveillance.

100% INSPECTION. 100% Inspection is an evaluation method that requires 100% inspection of a major contract requirement. The AQL analysis for 100% inspection will be based on 100 % inspection of all work. This method of surveillance will be used for all work performed on a time and materials basis.

UNSCHEDULED INSPECTIONS. Unscheduled inspections will be used where the requirement is not critical and, therefore, does not require a planned inspection approach. In some cases, a requirement with few work occurrences and few locations can be inspected through this method, but only if it is a non-critical requirement and does not require inspection immediately upon completion. Unscheduled inspections may also include inspection or audit of the Contractor’s accounting system and methods, to ensure that the government is not being over-charged or charged more than once for materials or material handling costs.

Unscheduled inspections may also be used to further identify the extent of problems that have been previously identified using planned sampling or customer complaints. When a problem is identified in the performance of a requirement, additional unscheduled inspections may be performed to identify if the problem exists in more than the one location previously inspected and will provide additional information to the COR and CO in instituting contract administrative actions. All items of work that are found to be unsatisfactory by the SOF’s will be identified to the COR and could result in a service call being issued, a rework order being generated, or other appropriate CO action.

VALIDATED STORE MANAGEMENT (CUSTOMER) COMPLAINTS. Store Management complaints constitute a surveillance method based on Store Management awareness, timeliness in completing service calls, and satisfaction ratings. Store Management will notify the COR and/or SOF’s when there is a case of perceived poor performance, untimely performance, or non- performance. Upon notification, the COR and/or SOF’s investigate the complaint and, if valid, document the performance issue. In addition, Store Management will provide the COR and CO with copies of DeCA Form 40-70 (Government Property Lost or Damaged) and any associated reports or documentation of Contractor performance, including lack of response or delayed response time that results in loss to the government.

RANDOM SAMPLING INSPECTIONS. Random Sampling will be used when some part, but not the entire part, of the Contractor’s performance is to be evaluated. The Random Sampling level of inspection may be normal, reduced, or tightened. These levels only pertain to Random Sampling and may be adjusted by the COR based the Contractor’s performance.

7. UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE:

If the number of defects/discrepancies exceeds the performance threshold for any item in the PRS, approved Government representatives will determine the possible cause of this unacceptable performance. Government-caused defects/discrepancies shall not be counted against the contractor. The same applies to any other requirement of the contract when Government-caused defects/discrepancies are the cause of unacceptable contractor performance. If the contractor’s performance is judged unacceptable on the PRS items or any other requirement of the contract by the appointed COR personnel, the COR will inform the contractor’s on-site representative, and request his or her signature and date of surveillance on approved Non-Conformance Report (NCR) form acknowledging notification. If the on-site contractor representative refuses to sign, COR shall annotate on the documentation the date and time of notification and name of representative and his/her refusal to acknowledge. If the contractor disputes the results of surveillance, COR must refer the contractor to the KO for resolution. The COR shall notify the KO for appropriate action in accordance with FAR 52.212.4, or the appropriate Inspection of services clause.

8. CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS:

This record is used to document customer complaints of unsatisfactory performance, the validity of the complaint, time and date the responsible official was notified, and the actions taken to correct the problem. Customer complaints shall be handled in the following manner: When a complaint is received, the COR will complete appropriate documentation to record the complaint on a DA Form 5477-R. The COR shall investigate the complaint to determine contract nonconformance. If after investigation the COR determines the complaint as valid, COR will inform the Contractor’s Quality Manager. The Contractor’s Quality Manager will be given 4 (Four) hours to correct the unacceptable performance. If the Contractor’s Quality Manager disagrees with the complaint after investigation and challenges the validity of the complaint, the Contractor’s Quality Manager shall notify the COR personnel within 24 (twenty four) hours. If the COR determines the complaint as invalid, the COR shall document their findings and notify the customer. The COR will retain the annotated copy of the written complaint for their file. All customer complaints received, valid and invalid, will be documented.

9. GOVERNMENT NON-CONFORMANCE REPORT:

NCRs are used in evaluating the contractor’s corrective action and determining if an appropriate root cause has been assigned and effective timely corrective action has been taken by the contractor to prevent or reduce recurrence in the same or other similar services or products and to assure that adequate remedial action has been taken to remove existing faults. There are three types of NCRs which are used and issued by the COR to the contractors. NCRs must be submitted to the contractor after non-compliance has been identified.

NCR Level I – Minor effects on product/service, issued for nonconformity that can be corrected on the spot and where no further corrective action response is necessary. Level I NCRs shall be documented and issued to the contractor management level responsible for taking corrective actions.

NCR Level II – Major effects on product/service, issued when contractual nonconformity cannot be corrected on the spot. Level II NCRs should be directed to the contractor management level responsible for initiating corrective actions.

NCR Level III – Critical effect on product/service (Potential Health Hazard or Safety Hazard), Issued to the contractors’ top management to call attention to serious contractual nonconformity. Repeat nonconformities found within one year for the same single point failure, Safety of Flight (SOF) characteristics shall be issued as a level III NCR. A level III NCR may be coupled with contractual remedies such as reductions of progress payments, cost disallowances, or business management systems disapprovals, etc. A level I or II NCR need not be issued before a level III NCR is generated. All level III NCRs shall be coordinated with the KO.

10. DOCUMENTATION OF DEFICIENCIES:

The Government will use NCRs to document deficiencies when the contractor’s quality control system is found to be inadequate or the contractor’s non-compliance has led to substandard performance requiring corrective action.

NCR’s will reflect CRITICAL, MAJOR or MINOR non-conformances.

CORs will complete NCR’s and coordinate them with the appropriate KO, and contractor representative. Once the contractor’s representative has issued a corrective action for the NCR it will be forwarded to the KO and COR and determination of the need for further correction action. The COR shall notify the contractor’s representative of the determination within 5 (five) business days. NCR’s will be accumulated and analyzed by the KO and COR to determine when further corrective action is needed. Further corrective action requests will be documented and submitted to the KO for coordination with the contractor. The COR will discuss all minor deficiencies with cognizant contractor counterparts to resolve issues identified prior to requiring corrective action. All reports, complete with recommendations, will be forwarded to the KO and COR for review and action. The COR will transmit all NCRs directly to the contractor’s Quality Manager or representative for tracking coordination and investigation.

NOTE: The COR will review, approve and coordinate the NCR with the KO

The KO and COR shall review the NCR, coordinate any observations/comments and submit the NCR to the contractors Quality Manager QM or contractor’s representative for investigation and corrective action. The KO, COR and QAS shall review the contractor’s corrective action for approval or other appropriate action. During the course of monitoring the contractor’s activity, the COR may become aware of conditions that are not in accordance with the contract. The COR shall determine the level of corrective action required. (i.e.: verbal notification or written notification, documented on a NCR). If a verbal corrective action method is selected, the contractors Quality Manager or representative will be briefed by the COR and a written record made and filed in the COR files. When a verbal notification is selected, the contractor’s supervisor will be advised that he is required to coordinate the problem with the contractor’s Quality Manager. If a written NCR is selected the contractors Quality Manager or Representative will be briefed by the COR. A written NCR will be coordinated with the KO. A written NCR will also be issued when a verbal NCR has been previously given and the contractor has failed to respond adequately.

The COR, after review by the KO, will forward the NCR to the contractor’s Quality Manager or representative and will monitor the suspense status. Suspense of 10 (Ten) calendar days is required. Disagreements between contractor personnel and government personnel on deficiencies and corrective action will be resolved by the KO. When a review of NCR or NCR history indicates a trend that appears to be systemic or management related, and the contractor has failed to correct, all objective evidence will be collected by the COR and submitted to the KO for review. Upon determination by the KO, corrective action will be escalated, in the form of a letter to the Contractor’s Project Director.

11. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT SUMMARY (PRS)

can be found in ANNEX H in the original contract