Appendix H ATFP Ashore GSC QASP 20200306.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION (AT/FP) ASHORE

GLOBAL SUSTAINMENT CONTRACT (GSC)

Contract #

N3943019Rxxxx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the

Performance Work Statement (PWS) for Solicitation N3943019Rxxxx for NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore

Global Sustainment Contract (GSC). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Naval

Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (NAVFAC EXWC) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or necessary services levels are achieved by the Contractor.

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 to ensure that the Government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 The QASP defines the roles and responsibilities for the engineering and technical services to support the NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore Global Sustainment Contract execution in providing centrally-managed sustainment of the Navy’s Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Ashore security and life-safety systems/hardware and software identified in this PWS and supporting documents. The QASP identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the Contractor’s performance, describes the 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). The QASP will define the performance management approach taken by NAVFAC EXWC 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 (PA). 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 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 its performance to the designated government representative. 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 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) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the contracting officer's technical representative (COR) and the Contractor. 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 on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the KO. The KO has the final responsibility for contractor PA per FAR Part 42 – Contract Administration, Audit Services, and Non-compliance contract modifications.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative 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 QA monitoring forms 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 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The Contractor performing the work will be evaluated by using the Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS). The CPARS system rates contractors using five categories; “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, and “Unsatisfactory.” If the Contractor exceeds the service or performance level, they will receive an “Exceptional” Rating. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, they will be rated with a “Very Good”, “Satisfactory” or “Marginal” rating, depending on the quality of the service and their performance level. If the contractor fails to meet the required service or performance level, this will result in a rating of “Unsatisfactory.” Please note that there are other reasons where a lower or higher rating may be warranted. These reasons will be listed in the CPARS Evaluation which will be provided to the Contractor upon contract completion.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort 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 inspector.

Periodic Inspection – COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly or on an as-required/needed basis.

Customer Complaints (NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore Sustainment Director, COR, or Sustainment

Team Member).

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 COR, 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 Complaint

Investigation, identified in Attachment 2 and checking the Customer Complaint box.

Customer feedback may also be obtained 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.

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, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the Monitoring Form

(Attachment 2). The form, 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 COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

The 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, the

Contractor may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date they intend to bring performance up to the required levels.

6.2 Reporting

At the end of each month, the COR will update the associated contract file with the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This update will include the contractor’s submitted monthly progress report and a summary of task order surveillance or the completed quality assurance monitoring form (Attachment 2). This 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

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

Monthly, Quarterly, or as-Required/Needed performance assessment data and trend analysis.

Issues and Concerns of both parties.

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis.

Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness.

6.3.1 The COR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.2 The COR 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.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services

(Tasks)

Performance

Standards

Exceptional

Rating

Very Good

Rating

Satisfactory

Rating

Marginal

Rating

Unsatisfactory

Rating Methods of

Surveillance

Incentive

(Positive and/or

Negative)

Operational Availability

(Ao) – Contractor shall meet

Ao requirements for each installed site for all

NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore

Program Systems.

In accordance with PWS

Sections 1.5 and 3.1 and as determined by the following

Audits: NAVFAC Trend

Analysis Reports.

Greater than

99.95%

96% -

99.95%

95% -

95.9%

90.1% -

94.9%

Less than

90%

Aggregate Ao calculated by

NAVFAC on a

Tri-Annual basis

CPARS

Review

Ticket Maintenance –

Contractor shall update service requests to maintain data accuracy in Remedy to include 1) Complete and accurate Work Log entries, and 2) Associated Project, 3)

Service Summary and

Description, 4) Related affected assets and software,

5) All associated incident data as described in the

PWS, and 6) Correctly completed Customer Sign-off Form uploaded for each

Resolved Ticket.

In accordance with PWS

Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 7.3.1 and Appendix B Contractor

User Guide for the AT/FP

Ashore AIM and Remedy

Systems, and as determined by the following Audits: Quarterly

Closed Ticket Audit, Monthly

Help Desk Ticket Audits, and an Audit of A002 ticket content against NAVFAC AT/FP

Remedy ticket content.

99%

96% - 99%

Random ticket sampling (up to

100%) on a monthly basis

Configuration

Management – Contractor shall maintain Remedy data in an up-to-date and accurate condition to include 1)

Correctly completed Repair

& Replace Forms loaded into

In accordance with PWS

Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 7.3.1 and as determined by the following Audits: Quarterly

Closed Ticket Audit, Monthly

Help Desk Ticket Audits, and an Audit of A002 ticket content

99%

96% - 99%

Remedy (when required), 2)

Complete and accurate data in submitted A033 asset data forms, 3) Service ticket categorization, and 4)

Service ticket resolution categorization.

against NAVFAC AT/FP

Remedy ticket content.

Parts Availability – The

Contractor shall ensure sufficient parts are available to meet ticket resolution times measured by number of unresolved tickets due to lack of part availability.

In accordance with PWS

Sections 3.1, 4.1 and 5.5 and as determined by the following

Audits: Quarterly Closed

Ticket Audits and Spare Parts

Report.

97%

95 % -

94% -

90% -

93.9%

Up to 100% audit of service tickets failing to meet Resolution metrics on a

Ticket Resolution Time –

The Contractor shall meet the Ticket Resolution Time requirements for all

NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore

Program Systems.

In accordance with PWS

Section 4.3.2 and as determined by the following Audits:

Quarterly Closed Ticket Audit and Monthly Help Desk Ticket

Audits.

Ticket Response Time –

The Contractor shall meet the Ticket Response Time requirements for all

NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore

Program Systems.

In accordance with PWS

Section 4.3.2 and as determined by the following Audits:

Quarterly Closed Ticket Audit and Monthly Help Desk Ticket

CDRL Evaluations –

Contractor shall submit

CDRL deliverables in the required media format, quantity, and quality.

Contractor shall meet deliverable schedules for all

CDRL specified in the contract.

In accordance with PWS

Sections 10.0 - 10.2.16, Data

Requirements Checklist, the

Content Requirements of the

CDRLs associated Deliverable

Expectation Documents

(DEDs) and as determined by the following Audits: CDRL

Audits and the CDRL Approval

Process.

Greater than

97% of documents submitted are accepted without comments

96% - 97% of documents submitted are accepted without comments

95% -

95.9% of documents submitted are accepted with or without comments

90%-

94.9% of documents submitted are accepted with or without comments

Less than

90% of documents submitted are accepted with or without comments

Quarterly Audit of all documents submitted

Preventive Maintenance

Compliance – The

Contractor shall complete in a timely manner the required

Preventive Maintenance for all NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore

Program Systems.

In accordance with PWS

Section 4.2.1 and as determined by the following Audits:

Preventive Maintenance

Safety & Health

Compliance – Contractor shall comply with Safety &

Health requirements.

Contractor shall adhere to the

Safety Plan reporting process in a complete and timely manner.

In accordance with PWS

Sections 7.5.3.2, 7.5.5, 7.5.6 and Contractor’s approved

CDRL A009 Accident

Prevention Plan, and as determined by the following

Audits: Safety Audits.

Zero

Incidents

No More than Two

Incidents w/o Loss of Work

Days

No more than Four

Incidents;

including no more than One

Incident involving

Loss of

Work Days

No more than Six

Incidents;

including no more than Two

Incidents involving

Loss of

Work Days

More than

Two

Incidents with Loss of

Work Days, or more than

Six Incidents total

100% Auditing of safety issues on a monthly basis

Customer Satisfaction –

Contractor shall perform to regional customer’s satisfaction.

In accordance with PWS

Section 4.4.3 and as determined by the following Audits:

Customer Survey Audit.

5.0 average score on

Customer

Survey

4.0 average score on

Customer

Survey

3.0 average score on

Customer

Survey

2.0 average score on

Customer

Survey

1.0 average

(or less) score on

Customer

Survey

Requirement Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality

Levels Method of Surveillance Incentive

Compliance with FAR

52.222-50 Combating

Trafficking in Persons

52.222-50 (c) - (1) Notify its employees and agents of—

(i) The United States Government's policy prohibiting trafficking in persons, described in paragraph (b) of this clause; and

(ii) The actions that will be taken against employees or agents for violations of this policy. Such actions for employees may include, but are not limited to, removal from the contract, reduction in benefits, or termination of employment; and

(2) Take appropriate action, up to and including termination, against employees, agents, or subcontractors that violate the policy in paragraph (b) of this clause.

100% Random Monitoring &

Customer Complaints

CPARS Assessment

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

Monthly Quarterly As needed

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: ______ %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Service Provider’s Performance (Check): Meets Standards

Does Not Meet Standards

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________