A02. Appendix D - QASP.docx

Appendix D

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Grounds Maintenance Mowing Services Contract located at Rend Lake Contract #

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Statement of Work. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rend Lake Project Office will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor in accordance with the performance objectives stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 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.

1.1.2 The intent of this QASP is to: 1) ensure Contractor performance meets or exceeds contract terms, conditions and specifications; 2) hold the Contractor accountable for quality control; and 3) encourage the Contractor to take appropriate steps to control and improve quality. Accordingly, the Government will perform surveillance on the contract in accordance with this QASP but reserves the right to monitor the contract in any manner necessary, at any times necessary, and at all places necessary to ensure that the rendered services conform to contract requirements.

1.1.3 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.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rend Lake Project Office 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.

1.2.2 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

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control (QC) program. QC 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. 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. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 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 performance determination 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.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (KO) The term "Contracting Officer" (KO) means a person with the authority to enter, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. The term includes certain authorized representatives of the contracting officer acting within the limits of their authority as delegated the contracting officer. “Administrative contracting officer (ACO)” refers to a contracting officer who is administering contracts. “Termination contracting officer (TCO)” refers to a contracting officer who is settling terminated contracts. A single contracting officer may be responsible for duties in any or all of these areas.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The contracting officer’s representative (COR) is 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 order/contract or in any way obligate additional funds by the Government; such authority rests solely with the KO.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.” If the contractor meets the required service and performance level, it will be paid after each cycle in accordance with services performed and identified in the work schedule and task order. Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction from the scheduled cycle amount.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 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:

· Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR designated QAR.

· 100% Inspection – The QAR performs 100% inspection of services performed to insure performance results.

· Periodic Planned Inspection – The QAR performs planned periodic inspections to insure performance results.

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 Contracting Officer’s Representative 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 using the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. For certain critical activities such as those involving (see contract bid list), the desired performance level is established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance at Rend Lake Project Office, Visitor Center, and Recreation/Day Use Areas.

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 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, assured by the COR and QA, will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachment 2. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

5.2.1 The QAR will place a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms in the project file.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 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 may result in up to a 25 percent deduction from the cycle payment, using the deduction percentages or procedures shown in Attachment 1.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each contract year, the contractor’s QC reports and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (Attachment 2), 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

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the QAR and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR and/or QAR 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 and QAR as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly and/or annual performance assessment data and trend analysis

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for upcoming months/year and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis if necessary

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

6.3.2 The QAR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The COR, QAR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the KO.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

SDS-1

a. Maintain Level I Grounds Paragraphs 1.1 inclusive No more than five (5) valid defects per cycle

*Excluding reperformed services that meet the PWS Standards.

1. Re-performance within 8 hours of notification, or a mutually acceptable timeframe to KO, COR and Contractor.

2. Deficiency (More than 5 Defects = Up to 25% deduction from invoice total.)

3. Cure Notice

4. Contract Termination Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

SDS-2

Maintain Level II Grounds Paragraphs 1.2 inclusive No more than 2 (2) defects per cycle

*Excluding reperformed services that meet the PWS Standards.

1. Re-performance within one day or a mutually acceptable timeframe to KO, COR and Contractor.

2. Deficiency (More than 2 Defects = Up to 25% deduction from invoice total.)

3. Cure Notice

4. Contract Termination Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

SDS-3

Leaf Mulching Paragraphs 1.3 inclusive No more than zero (1) defects per cycle

*Excluding reperformed services that meet the PWS Standards.

1. Re-performance within one day or a mutually acceptable timeframe to KO, COR and Contractor.

2. Deficiency (More than 1 Defect = Up to 25% deduction from invoice total.)

3. Cure Notice

4. Contract Termination Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

SDS-4

Quality Control

a. Contractor’s quality control plan (incorporated into contract after award) Paragraph 2.1

2. Deficiency

3. Cure Notice

4. Contract Termination Periodic Inspection

ATTACHMENT 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE FORM

LMS Form 248 (DEC 73) (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

INSPECTOR’S PROGRESS REPORT FORM

Name of Inspector: Date:

Unusual Conditions:

Weather V Vandalism

Broken Equipment Other:

Work Performed Today: Service the Following Checked Items: Level I Mowing Level II Mowing Leaf Mulching

Location of Mowing/Cleanup Inspection(s):

Areas satisfactorily completed:

All Other:

Number of personnel on the job: Supervisor -

Unsatisfactory Work Today:

None Other:

Comments:

Who in contractor’s org. was contacted of deficiencies:

Action Taken to Correct Deficiencies:

Area of Disagreement Between Inspector & Contractor:

Recommendations to Improve Today’s Work:

Signature of Inspector: Date:

Manager’s Comments:

Corrective Action Taken by Manager Concerning Work:

Progress of Contractor:

Remarks:

Signature of Manager:

LMS Form 248 (DEC 73) image1.png