Attachment 1 - Appendices A and B.pdf
PDF 1 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 7258170
About this file
The document is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for the RTP Central Utility Plant ABB Symphony Plus Control System Support Services contract. The QASP outlines the government's approach to monitoring and evaluating contractor performance, with a focus on key service requirements including monthly service reporting, annual usage reporting, task completion, computer and network maintenance, and distributed control system (DCS) logic maintenance. The performance standards include 99-100% compliance across various metrics, with surveillance methods including monthly reviews, random sampling, and periodic inspections.
The plan defines roles and responsibilities for the Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer's Representative, establishing a performance management feedback loop to assess contractor performance. The document includes two key attachments: a Performance Requirements Summary that details specific service standards and acceptable quality levels, and a Quality Assurance Monitoring Form template for documenting performance evaluations. The surveillance approach emphasizes results-based assessment, allowing contractor flexibility in process implementation while maintaining strict outcome-focused quality standards.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol 75N99025R00007.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - SCA Wage Determination.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Appendix A
RTP CUP S+ Network Diagram
Appendix B
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)
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 Representative
3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS
4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE
4.1 Surveillance Techniques
4.2 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: 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) entitled RTP NC CUP Support Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines RTP-FMB will use in ensuring the required performance standards or 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 the contractor’s ABB Service Agreement and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.
1.1.2 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 RTP-FMB 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 Service Agreement 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 system to assure performance management in order 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 (CO) 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 representative (COR) and the contractor. The CO will designate one full-time COR as the government authority for performance management.
2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative
The contracting officer’s representative (COR) is designated in writing by the CO 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 CO 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 required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.” Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction from the monthly amount.
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 (include those that apply)
Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR.
100% Inspection – Each month, the COR, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the Surveillance Activity Checklist.
Periodic Inspection – COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.
4.2 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 Operation and Control of the Central Utility Plant, 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 the RTP Central Utility Plant.
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 Contractor’s ABB Service Agreement and is 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 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 CO will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.
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.
6.2 Reporting
6.2.1 At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly service report 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 COR and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR 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 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
6.3.2 The COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.
6.3.3 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 CO.
ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Required Services
(Tasks) Performance
Standards Acceptable
Quality Levels
Methods of
Surveillance
Submit a service report of scheduled, completed, and outstanding tasks/work orders monthly
100% of reports accurately depict current work status
99%
Monthly review of reports submitted by on-site technician.
Annual Usage Report
Annual Report accurately depicts contract usage and summarizes the yearly support activity.
100%
Annual review of report submitted and its comparison to monthly QA results.
Tasks and Work Requests Completed
Tasks and Work Orders completed by agreed upon time frame
90% Random sampling accomplished monthly.
Control System Computer and Network Maintenance
Computers will be cleaned quarterly and security patches will be done monthly and backups will be maintained for each system.
100% Computers, backups and patch levels will be inspected quarterly.
DCS logic maintenance
Onsite services include the maintenance of the DCS logic configuration runtime and system drawings
100%
Periodic inspection of DCS Logic for incorporation of changes occurring through work requests.
ATTACHMENT 2: 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: _________________
| PWS Package - RTP NC CUP ABB Support Services (08012025) |
| QASP (08012025) |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .