A02. Appendix F - QASP FINAL.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Recreational Area & Janitorial Cleaning Services for USACE, ST. LOUIS DISTRICT Rend Lake Benton, Illinois

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

QASP

Rend Lake Recreational Area & Janitorial Cleaning Support Services

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance-based Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled “Recreation Area and Janitorial Cleaning Services”. This performance-based plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will use in evaluating the technical performance of the operations and maintenance (O&M) service contractor.

1.1 PURPOSE

1.1.1. The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to measure performance and to identify the reports required and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the PWS.

1.1.2 This QASP is designed to define roles and responsibilities, identify the performance objectives, define the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describe quality assurance reporting, and describe the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

1.2.1 The performance based PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service is required as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work. This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the Rend Lake Staff to monitor, manage, and take appropriate action on the contractor’s performance against expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS. Performance management rests upon developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance metrics. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management. The data generated in a performance management approach provides information that indicates whether or not expected outcomes for required services are being achieved adequately by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management also represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether or not outcomes are being achieved and migrates away from scrutiny on compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (Federal, State, and local) and compelling business situations such as safety and health. An outcome focus provides the contractor flexibility to

QASP

Rend Lake Recreational Area & Janitorial Cleaning continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved at the desired levels of performance.

1.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

1.3.1 The contractor’s Quality Control Plan (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 their performance to the designated Government representative.

1.3.2 The Government representative 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 determine contractual/performance deficiencies based on the performance requirement data and notify the contractor of those deficiencies. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1. The Contracting Officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control; and resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer representative (COR)/Quality Assurance Inspector (QAI), and the contractor’s performance.

2.2 The KO will designate one full-time COR as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as Technical Inspectors depends upon the complexity of the services measured as well as the contractor’s performance.

2.3 The COR and/or the QAI is responsible for monitoring, assessing, and communicating the technical performance of the contractor and assisting the contractor. The COR and/or the QAI will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms (refer to Attachments 2 and 3) 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.

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED

The contractor shall provide recreational cleaning and janitorial services in accordance with the PWS. The performance standards are established in the paragraph of the PWS that covers the specific category of work. The acceptable level of performance shall be in accordance with the performance standards.

4.0 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 The methods of surveillance that will be used by the government to determine whether AQL’s have been met are 100% inspections, random inspections, and planned inspections. Observations, complaints, and review of those records and files that are required to be maintained and delivered under this statement of work are alternate methods of surveillance that may be used. In the beginning of the contract period of performance the government may inspect more frequently to ensure the level of service meets the contract requirements. The Government will use appointed representatives, as well as reports and input from Rend Lake employees and visitors as sources of comments on the contractor’s performance.

NOTE: The COR will accept customer/visitor complaints and will investigate using the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form – Customer Complaint Investigation identified in Attachment 3.

4.2 The acceptable quality levels (AQL) located 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 remedies for performance shortfalls. Levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance at Rend Lake.

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTING

5.1 The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and measured by the performance requirements summary table in Attachment 1.

5.2 The Government’s Quality Assurance monitoring, accomplished by the QAI, will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachments 2 and 3. The forms, when completed, will be documented for the COR’s understanding of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the PWS requirements are being met.

5.2.1 The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA monitoring forms.

6.0 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING RESULTS

6.1 The Government shall use the observation methods cited to determine whether the AQLs have been met. The Government will evaluate the results which then may be translated into the specific negative incentives that cause adjustments to the contractor’s monthly payments, should performance not meet the AQL’s.

6.2 At the end of each month, the QAI will prepare a written report for the KO/COR summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance monitoring of the contractor’s performance. This written report which consists of the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms (Attachment II) will become part of the QA documentation.

6.3 The KO may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the KO, COR, QA inspector, and other Government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR or KO will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, however if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR or KO as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may discuss:

· Monthly performance measured by the metrics and trends

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends

· Recommendations made by the QAI based on contractor information

· Issues arising from independent reviews and inspections

6.4 In addition to QA monitoring, the QAI will use the information contained in the contractor’s monthly report to assess the contractor’s level of performance for each objective measured in this QASP (detailed in Attachment 1). The QAI must coordinate with the COR and the COR and/or the KO will communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns of marginal or unacceptable performance. The contractor will discuss with the KO/QA inspector satisfaction ratings receiving a “less than acceptable” rating. For such cases, the contractor should highlight its perspective on factors driving customer satisfaction and present plans to adjust service levels accordingly to bring the satisfaction rating up to an acceptable level.

6.5 The COR and/or the KO 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 KO.

7.0. FAILURE TO PERFORM

7.1 The contractor may receive deductions or even termination based on failure to perform. The following criteria apply for determining appropriate action:

1. Notifications. Consistent with FAR Part 49, the KO shall notify the contractor of failure to meet standards through QA monitoring forms, cure notices, or show cause notices and shall inform the contractor or designated alternate of such notices.

2. Deductions. The Government has the right to deduct a specified dollar for failure to meet performance standards. The deduction rate for unsatisfactory performance that exceeds the contract’s performance threshold will be based on the following formula:

Price of service times the quantity of services not performed satisfactorily plus the cost of the effective hourly rate of the Government’s QA inspector times the hours to complete reinspection.

The deduction rate for reinspection will be based on the following formula:

Price of the effective hourly rate of the Government’s QA inspector multiplied by the hours to complete reinspection.

3. Termination. If the KO determines that the contractor has failed to perform to the extent that a termination for default is justified, the KO shall issue a notice of termination, consistent with FAR Part 49.

ATTACHMENT I

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Performance Objective (The Service required—usually a shall statement) Performance Standard Performance Threshold (This is the maximum error rate. It could possibly be “Zero deviation from standard”)

(AQL)

Method of Surveillance

Remedy

PRS # 1.

Timeliness: Satisfactorily completion of scheduled services within specified time frames.

PWS Paragraphs:

1.7.2.1.- Recreation Area Cleanings, 1.7.2.2.- Janitorial Cleanings, and Part 5, Specific Tasks

Zero (0) unresolved defects per month.

More than five (5) defects in a month will result in a defect against PRS #4. Quality Control.

Reperformance and Deduction can be applied for this item.

100% inspections, random inspections, planned inspections and valid customer complaints.

1. Re-Performance

2. Deficiency

3. Cure Notice

4. Contract Termination

PRS #2.

Quality of Completed Services: Satisfactorily completion of scheduled services and frequencies IAW performance standards.

PWS Paragraph:

Part 5 Specific Tasks

Zero (0) unresolved defects per month.

More than five (5) defects in a month will result in a defect against PRS #4. Quality Control.

Reperformance and deduction can be applied for this item.

2. Deficiency

3. Cure Notice

4. Contract Termination

PRS #3.

Deliverables:

Complete, accurate, and timely IAW Timeliness/Schedule: Submitted within specified times.

Quality of Service: Submittals, to

PRS #3. continued: include plans, lists, and reports are complete and accurate.

See Technical Exhibit 2, Deliverables Schedule.

1. Deficiency

2. Cure Notice

3. Contract Termination

PRS #4.

Quality Control:

Inspection procedures are followed and documented in IAW the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (incorporated into contract after award).

PWS. Paragraph:

1.17.4. Supervision.

2. Cure Notice

3. Contract Termination

ATTACHMENT II

QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

INSPECTOR'S PROGRESS REPORT FORM

NAME OF INSPECTOR:_______________________________________________________DATE: ______________________

CONTRACTOR: PROJECT: REND LAKE__________________

MOWING:___________CLEANUP:__________________________________________________________________________

OTHER: ________________CONTRACTOR NO: W912P9-XX-X-XXXX

UNUSUAL CONDITIONS: (weather, vandalism, broken equip.)___________________________________________________

WORK PERFORMED TODAY: Recreation Cleaning____________________________________________________________

EQUIPMENT ON THE JOB/OR BROKEN DOWN:__Basic cleaning supplies: brooms, water hoses, mops, dusters, brushes,___ buckets, cleaning chemicals, squeegees, chemical sprayers, etc._____________________________________________________

LOCATION OF MOWING/CLEANUP: Rend Lake, all recreation areas _____________________

AREAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED:___________________________________________________________________

NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ON JOB: SUPERVISOR: PERSONNEL: ______________________________

UNSATISFACTORY WORK TODAY:_______________________________________________________________________

COMMENTS:____________________________________________________________________________________________

WHO IN CONTRACTOR'S ORG. WAS CONTACTED OF DEFICIENCIES: Supervisor _______ _____

ACTON TAKEN TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES:______________________________________________________________

AREA OF DISAGREEMENT (if any) BETWEEN INPECTOR & CONTRACTOR:___________________________________

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE TODAY'S WORK:______________________________________________________

SIGNATURE OF INSPECTOR

MANAGER'S COMMENTS:________________________________________________________________________________

CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN BY MGR. CONCERNING WORK:______________________________________________

PROGRESS OF CONTRACTOR:____________________________________________________________________________

REMARKS:_____________________________________________________________________________________________

SIGNATURE OF MANAGER:

ATTACHMENT III

QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM – CUSTOMER COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

DATE/TIME COMPLAINT RECEIVED: AM / PM

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT: (NAME)

(ORGANIZATION)

(PHONE NUMBER)

(EMAIL ADDRESS)

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

RESULTS OF COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION:

DATE/TIME SERVICE PROVIDER INFORMED OF COMPLAINT: AM / PM

CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN BY SERVICE PROVIDER:

RECEIVED AND VALIDATED BY:

PREPARED BY: DATE: