Atch. 2-2025_Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.docx

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Contents

Project Name Fort Pierre National Grassland Noxious Weed Treatment Contract

Solicitation / Contract Number Insert Solicitation / Contract Number

Section 1: Introduction This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled This solicitation is for the treatment of noxious weeds in designated areas on the Fort Pierre National Grassland (FPNG), located in central South Dakota. Treatments are to be done by spot treatment application targeting thistles (Canada thistle, bull thistle, and musk thistle) and absinth wormwood. These species are predominantly located on upland rangeland; however, there are some infestations around riparian areas. The identified species will be treated during the plants’ developmental stage when optimum effectiveness can be obtained, preferably the rosette to flowering stage. Treatments are forecasted to start September 1, 2025, and run through August 31, 2026 if necessary. Determination of when to spray will be based on agency monitoring of growing conditions and weather. All treatments will be mapped with a GPS capabile device and will be submitted to the COR within two weeks of treatment completion along with completed application records. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines that the USDA, Forest Service will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

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. 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 QASP Relation to the Contract

1.2.1 QASP Revisions

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) may make revisions or changes to the QASP procedures and surveillance methods or increase or decrease the degree of surveillance methods at any time during the contract performance period. Changes to the Metric must be incorporated into the PWS, Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) and QASP by a bilateral modification to contract that is issued by the Contracting Officer (CO). A copy of the QASP is provided to the contractor to enable the contractor to enhance its Quality Control (QC) program to perform in accordance with its Quality Control Plan (QCP).

1.2.2 Surveillance of Performance Progression

As the performance period progresses, the levels of surveillance may be altered for service areas where performance is either consistently excellent or unsatisfactory. If consistently good performance, then the amount of surveillance may be reduced. If observations reveal consistent deficiencies, increased surveillance may be implemented.

1.3 QASP Relation to the Quality Control Plan (QCP)

The QCP is a required element of contract and the Contractor shall adhere to its established quality control processes and procedures in managing and performing work as described in the contract. While the QCP represents the way in which the Contractor will ensure its quality and timeliness of services, as defined in the PWS, the QASP represents the way in which the Government personnel specified in Section 3: Contractor and Government Responsibilities, Paragraph 3.2, Government Responsibilities will evaluate the contractor’s performance. The contractor’s QC program and the residual organization’s QASP should be complementary programs that ensure successful contractor performance.

Section 2: Performance Description Performance of the contractor will be monitored through the surveillance methods described in Section 4: Surveillance Methods to Perform Quality Assurance to assess the Contractor’s performance against PWS requirements.

2.1 Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) For selected activities in the PWS, the PRS provides a performance standard and an AQL. A performance standard is the expected level of contractor performance. An AQL defines the level of performance that is satisfactory. Depending on the service evaluated and the evaluation method selected, performance standards and AQLs may be stated as a number of occurrences or as a percentage. Performance standards and AQLs for random sampling and 100 percent inspection are generally stated as percentages. For periodic inspections, performance standards may be stated as either percentages or as absolute numbers.

The contract requires the Contractor to perform all work as specified. Any inaccuracies or omissions in services or products are referred to as “defects” on the part of the Contractor. The Contractor shall be responsible for all identified defects and may be required to perform the work at no cost to the government. The AQLs take into account that in some instances an allowable level of deficiencies (deviations) is possible while overall performance continues to meet the government’s desired level of service.

2.1.1 Allowable Deviation

The AQLs define the level or number of performance deficiencies the Contractor is permitted to reach under this contract. AQLs take into account the difference between an occasional defect and a gross number of defects. AQLs can be expressed as a percentage of or as an absolute number (e.g., three per month). There may be instances where 100 percent compliance is required, and no deviation is acceptable (e.g., where safety is involved).

2.1.2 Substantially Complete

In some cases, service outputs are evaluated using subjective values (e.g., excellent, satisfactory, unsatisfactory). The criteria for acceptable performance and for defects must be defined for these service outputs. The concept of “substantially complete” should be the basis for inspections based on subjective scales. Work is considered “substantially complete” where there has been no significant departure from the terms of the contract and no omission of essential work. In addition, the Contractor has performed the work required to the best of its ability and the only variance consists of minor omissions or deficiencies.

2.2 Non-Performance

Non-performance occurs when the contractor’s performance does not meet the AQL for a given requirement. Requirements may contain multiple performance elements, and therefore, deficiencies may occur in one or more aspects of performance (e.g., timeliness, accuracy, completeness, etc.) or subject areas of effort.

When surveillance indicates that the contractor's service output is not in compliance with the contract requirements, the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) must determine whether the Contractor or the Government caused the deficiency. If the cause of the defect rests with the Government, corrective action must be taken through Government channels. If the cause of the defect is due to action or inaction by the contractor, the contractor is responsible for correction of the problem at no additional expense to the Government.

2.2.1 Documentation

Documentation of work non-performed or unacceptable work is essential for tracking Contractor performance. The COR will document deficient work by compiling facts describing the inspection methods and results and to substantiate nonconformance with the contract. A sample documentation reporting form is provided in Appendix B – Example Discrepancy Report. The documentation, with any recommendations, will be forwarded to the CO. In the case of the Contractor, the COR will decide whether to elevate the problem to the CO for corrective action.

2.2.2 Remedial Actions

The Federal Acquisition Regulation allows for penalties in the event that the Contractor fails to perform the required services. Penalties are defined as those actions taken under the direction of the CO against the contractor within the general provisions of the contract for nonconformance to the PWS and PRS.

Section 3: Contractor and Government Responsibilities

3.1 Contractor Responsibility

The Contractor is responsible for delivering products or services in accordance with the contract. Implementing its QCP, which describes the Contractor’s methods for ensuring all products and services under the contract meet established performance standards and AQLs. Maintaining, and providing for audit, quality control records and reports and all records associated with the investigation and complaint resolutions. Appointing a single quality control point-of-contact to act as a central recipient of communication from the COR or CO.

3.2 Government Responsibility

3.2.1 Contracting Officer (CO)

The CO is responsible for administering and monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by COR and the contractor’s performance. The CO may delegate various day-to-day contract administration duties to a Administering ACO (ACO) and/or the COR for performance management and administrative actions such as invoice approval and issuance of Contract Discrepancy Reports may be, and normally are, delegated by the CO to the COR. The CO shall approve any revisions to the QASP processes or standards.

3.2.2 Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

The COR, is designated in writing, by the CO. The COR will ensure that the QA function is properly executed, plays a key role in contract administration and performs the contract surveillance and monitoring. Some key contract administration duties include, but are not limited to, performs surveillance as required by this QASP; make recommendations to the CO for issuance of Contract Discrepancy Reports or letters of commendation and acceptance or rejection of completed work and for administrative actions based on unsatisfactory or non-performed work, and revisions or changes to the QASP; and assists the CO in identifying necessary contract modifications and preparing reports of Contractor performance and cost.

The COR may use the form(s) included in the Appendices to perform the inspection or other forms as approved by the CO. The Contractor overall guidance is also provided by FAR clause [Insert Inspection & Acceptance Clause Number] in Section [Insert Number] of the contract.

3.2.3 Customers

Insert this Section if applicable Customers or organizations/offices that the Contractor provided support may be requested to assist the COR in conducting QA to provide information relating to the Contractor’s performance through Customer Feedback. Information gained from the Customer Feedback may be used in conjunction with other methods of observation to rate the performance of the Contractor.

Section 4: Surveillance Methods to Perform Quality Assurance

4.1 Surveillance Methods

The surveillance methods used in the QA process are the Government’s tools to monitor the Contractor’s products and services. The best means of determining whether the Contractor has met all contract requirements is to inspect the Contractor’s service products and analyze the results. Further, documented inspection results are an effective tool in contract administration that can confirm the successful achievement of all performance requirements or highlight areas where defects exist and improvements are necessary.

The contract will be monitored by trips to the work site. These visits will be conducted with a day or two after treatment of the site, so that the chemical has time to take effect on the plants. Inspections will be made on how well the area is covered by the contractor in searching for infestations and how effective the treatment was on the targeted species. The effect on non-targeted species will also be checked. For the spatial data, it will be reviewed to determine if the data lays in the areas treated and has the information required for species name, date, and applicator.

4.2 Analysis and Results

When the inspections and validations have been completed, the COR will perform an analysis of the Contractor’s performance. The purpose of the analysis is to ensure Government is receiving high-quality products and services from the Contractor. The COR will review the results, rate the Contractor’s compliance with the performance standards and AQLs, and characterize the Contractor’s overall performance. Analysis of all types of contract monitoring will result in one of the following outcomes:

[THIS PAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES]

The Contacting Officer must include as attachments or exhibits the appropriate performance requirement summary, forms, checklists, etc. in the QASP that will be used during surveillance / monitoring for the applicable contract.

Appendix A: Example Performance Requirement Summaries The following documents are examples only, which is not all inclusive, that can be revised and used, if applicable, in the QASP as attachments or exhibits.

Performance Requirements Summary Key Deliverables

Responsible for the effects of herbicide residue on non-target species and any drift.

Treat at temperatures less than 95 F and wind speeds less than 15 mph

Complete treatment to required standards as defined in Section 3.0 and provide COR with updates on where treatments have occurred.

Acceptable level of performance thus resulting in 90% kill of targeted species.

Less than 20% loss of non-target species

Follow task order direction and manufacturer label direction 100%.

Government shall perform inspections on treated areas indicated on application records. Inspections will be visual in nature, looking for treatment coverage and visual impact on targeted species.

Full payment will be approved for acceptable work. Rework of unacceptable work will be permitted if the schedule allows. If the unacceptable work is not redone, then a deduction will be made.

Spatial data and application records are submitted as outlined in Section 3.0.

Payment will not be made until spatial data and application records have been received in a satisfactory manner.

Appendix B: Example Discrepancy Report The following document is only an example, which is not all inclusive, that can be revised and used, if applicable, in the QASP as attachments or exhibits.

CONTRACT NUMBER: DATE:

4. DISCREPENCY OR PROBLEM (Describe in Detail. Include PWS references. Attach Continuation Sheet if Necessary)

5. SIGNATURE OF COR

8. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE, EFFECT, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE (Attach Continuation Sheet if necessary. Cite applicable Contractor QC program procedures or new QC procedures)

11. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION (Acceptance, partial acceptance, or rejection. Attach Coordination Sheet if necessary)

12. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (Cure notice, show cause, other)

CLOSE OUT

KTR NOTIFIED

COR

Appendix C: Example Quality Assurance Monitoring The following document is only an example, which is not all inclusive, that can be revised and used, if applicable, in the QASP as attachments or exhibits.

CONTRACT NUMBER: ______________________________________

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check the applicable item):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check the applicable item):

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______% Service Provider’s Performance (Check the applicable item):

Meets Standards Does Not Meet Standards Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

Prepared By: _______________________________ Date: ______________ image1.png