Attachment 06 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth the procedures and guidelines FDRMC will use in ensuring the expected outcomes or performance objectives are achieved by the contractor.

2. PURPOSE

This QASP ensures that FDRMC has an effective and systematic method of surveillance for the services in the PWS. The QASP will be used primarily as a tool to verify that the contractor is performing all services required by the PWS in a timely, accurate and complete fashion. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

· What will be monitored

· How monitoring will take place

· Who will conduct the monitoring

· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

Per NAVSEAINST 4200.19 (series), this QASP will identify the method(s) that will be used to monitor all expenditures.

3. AUTHORITY

Authority for the issuance of this QASP is provided under contract Section E, Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in service contracts, to be executed by the Contracting Officer (KO) or a duly authorized representative.

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following Government personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

4.3 Contract Specialist (CS) - The CS is an individual assigned by a KO to assist in the daily administration of the contract. The CS may assist in providing input to the KO and COR on the quality of performance for areas addressed in this QASP. The CS is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

4.4 Technical Advisor (TA) - An individual designated by the COR to assist in surveilling and administering specific tasks under the contract. A TA cannot, in any manner, alter the scope of the task order, make commitments, or authorize any changes on the Government’s behalf.

5. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES

Contractor employees that have been designated by the contractor as being responsible for managing performance on the contract, such as the Program Manager and/or Task Manager, should be included during the execution of the QASP. This will increase their understanding of this process and provide awareness of the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) that must be met and should minimize disagreements between the contractor and Government on bestowed performance ratings.

6. REQUIREMENTS

The effort performed in accordance with this QASP does not replace any other requirement for evaluating contractor performance, such as a CPARS report. The following sub-sections provide details of the effort involved to satisfactorily comply with this QASP.

6.1 Surveillance – The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The primary methods of surveillance used to monitor performance will include, but not be limited to, random or periodic sampling, periodic or 100% inspection, and validated customer complaints. The COR conducts surveillance in accordance with the inspection methods contained in the Surveillance Matrix (hereinafter referred to as the Matrix), Attachment 1, to determine if the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements and has met the cited performance standards and AQLs.

6.2 Surveillance Matrix (Matrix) – The Matrix contains the performance objectives and standards that must be met by the contractor in order to be deemed compliant. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes and performance standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methods define how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The AQL identifies the lowest level of contractor performance deemed to be acceptable. If the lowest AQL is 100%, which means no deviation is allowed, then an AQL will not be cited in the Matrix.

6.3 Performance Standards

a. Schedule - The due dates for deliverables and the actual accomplishment of the schedule will be assessed against original due dates and milestones established for the task order.

b. Deliverables – The deliverables required to be submitted will be assessed against the specifications for the deliverables detailed in the task order for the required content, quality, timeliness, and accuracy.

c. Cost – The COR will review monthly cost vouchers to monitor the contractor’s expenditures throughout the performance period(s). Also, the COR will analyze the impact on cost of any inaccurate management assertions, acceleration of the due dates for the financial reports, or the lack of personnel.

d. Past Performance - In addition to any schedule, deliverables, and cost aspects of performance discussed above, pursuant to FAR 42.11, the Government will assess the contractor’s record of conforming to requirements and to standards of good workmanship, the contractor’s record of forecasting and controlling costs (for cost-reimbursement), the contractor’s adherence to schedules including the administrative aspects of performance, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction, and the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

6.4 Inspection – A formal inspection to determine if the required results are being achieved will be performed quarterly. The inspection dates and inspection periods will align with the contract’s active Period of Performance (POP). Each inspection will encompass all work performed by the contractor at any time during the respective inspection period but will not include cumulative information from prior inspections. The COR may invite the contractor to submit a self-assessment, if submitted the COR will consider the contractor’s input when conducting the inspection.

If performance is within acceptable levels, it will be considered to be satisfactory. If not, overall performance may be considered unsatisfactory.

7.1 Surveillance – The results of the on-going surveillance conducted in accordance paragraph 6.1 hereinabove will be emailed to the KO monthly.

7.2 Inspection – The results of each inspection, in accordance with paragraph 6.4 hereinabove, will be reported by completing the Matrix. This matrix when completed will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance for each specific inspection and the aggregate of these matrices will aid in the creation of a CPARS report. A copy of each completed Surveillance Matrix will be provided to the contracting officer.

7.3 Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) – For each item that does not meet acceptable levels, the Government may issue a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR). CDRs will be forwarded to the Contracting Officer with a copy sent to the contractor. The contractor must reply in writing within 5 days of receipt identifying how future occurrences of the problem will be prevented. Based upon the contractor’s past performance and plan to solve the problem, the Contracting Officer will determine if any further action will be taken.

For cost-reimbursement contracts, in accordance with inspection of services provisions, the contractor will be incentivized to provide quality products in a timely manner since the Government can require the Contractor, at no additional fee, to replace or correct work that fails to meet requirements. To maximize the profit earned on costs incurred, the contractor is incentivized to ensure that quality products are provided in a timely manner.

8. CHANGES

Decisions regarding changes to this QASP will be clearly documented and shall be approved by the contracting officer before being implemented via modification.

9. TYPES OF INSPECTION METHODS

9.1 DIRECT OBSERVATION - Can be performed periodically or through 100% surveillance.

9.2 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (MIS) - Evaluates outputs through the use of management information reports. Best used for general surveillance and may need to be supplemented by periodic inspections.

9.3 PERIODIC INSPECTION - Uses a comprehensive evaluation of selected outputs. Inspections may be scheduled daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annually or unscheduled, as required.

9.4 USER SURVEY - Combines elements of validated user complaints and random sampling. User survey is conducted to solicit user satisfaction. Appropriate for high quantity activities that have historically been satisfactory. May also generate periodic and 100% inspections.

9.5 VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS - Relies on the user of the service to identify deficiencies. Complaints are then investigated and validated. Highly applicable to services provided in quantity and where quality is highly subjective.

9.6 100% INSPECTION - Evaluates all outputs. Most applicable to small quantity, but highly important services. May be used where there are written deliverables and stringent requirements such as tasks required by law, safety, or security. This surveillance method should be used for deliverables.

9.7 PERIODIC SAMPLING - Variation of random sampling. However, sample is only taken when a deficiency is suspected. Good follow-up to MIS analysis. Sample results are applicable only for the specific work inspected. Since sample is not entirely random, it cannot be applied to total activity performance.

9.8 RANDOM SAMPLING - Designed to evaluate the outputs of the award requirement by randomly selecting and inspecting a statistically significant sample. Highly recommended for large quantity repetitive activities with objective and measurable quality attributes.

9.9 PROGRESS OR STATUS MEETINGS – Obtain performance results/data via meetings.

Rating Definition

Surveillance Matrix

CDRLs furnished as prescribed in the PWS, attachments, etc. as applicable.

Overall Performance/ Management

Overall Rating:

COR Signature and Date: ______________________________________ Notes: