Attachment 2 QASP.pdf

SPE602-26-R-0701

Attachment - 2

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP) FOR

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY – DLA ENERGY

PACIFIC ISO CONTAINER SUPPORT REQUIREMENT

1. Requirement

Defense Logistics Agency – Energy-FEBAB (DLA-Energy) has a requirement to transport fuels by bulk fuel ISO containers into storage tanks, bladders, tank trucks, or tank containers that are permanent or temporary. The contractor shall, as part of the two dedicated transportation Line Items, transport Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII), Lube Oil – 6 (LO6), Light Lube Oil (LTL), Diesel Fuel – DS2, and F24/JAA with additives. The contractor shall transport the empty/full ISO containers to/from various locations in Honolulu, to include Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH), HI as well as all commercial sea ports in Honolulu for either onward movement by vessel or ground movement to local storage on base or other designated points located on JBPHH.

JBPHH is comprised of Pearl Harbor Naval Station, HI and Hickam AFB, HI. Required services shall be performed in accordance with best commercial practices.

2. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan is a government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

a) What will be monitored

b) How monitoring will take place

c) Who will conduct the monitoring

d) How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan. The QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards. It is the government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s quality control plan. This QASP is a "living document" and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance. The government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances might occur that are outside the control of the contractor.

3. Authority Authority for issuance of the QASP is developed to comply with FAR Subparts 37.6, Performance-Based Acquisition, and 46.4, Government Contract Quality Assurance. In addition, FAR Subpart 46.103, Contracting Officer Responsibilities, states that agencies shall develop quality assurance surveillance plans when acquiring services. This acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized representative.

4. Roles and Responsibilities

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Contracting Officer (KO), Amanda Webster – The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), Tony Scales - The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance.

The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

Other Key Government Personnel (TBD), this may include performance monitors, inspectors, technical experts, or others who provide information that helps the COR monitor contractor performance.

Contractor Representatives TBD upon award

5. Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance

5.1. Performance Standards

Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards. The table below identifies the Critical Performance Elements and the respective Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) which the Government will use to determine contractor performance. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The

Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

Table 5.1- Performance Requirement Summary

Performance Objectives

PWS

Paragraph

Performance Thresholds

Transportation 2.6.1. NMT four (4) failures per year to deliver equipment to designated locations at designated time.

ISO Container Cleaning

2.6.2. No more than (NMT) two (2) failures per year to

provide equipment clean and free of contaminates.

Testing 2.6.3. 100% performance of mandated Integrity Test.

ISO Container/Chassis Maintenance/Repair

2.6.4. 100% of required maintenance and repair.

5.1 Contract Surveillance

The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for management and QC/QA actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

The Government reserves the right to perform inspections and surveillance to evaluate the Contractor's compliance to the contract terms and performance of the requirements in the PWS. The Government will make every effort to ensure that the surveillance methods described below are conducted in an objective, fair, and consistent manner.

5.1.1. Periodic Surveillance. This action occurs when the COR or other Government official observes a deficiency. Examples include evidence from accidents, incidents, or delays. Regardless of where in the line-of-duty the COR observes contractual procedures not being followed, he/she has an obligation to document and repo1t the deficiency to the Contracting Officer.

5.1.2. Customer Complaint Surveillance. This action is instituted when the COR receives a complaint from a stakeholder (stakeholder organizations include: SPPD). The COR will obtain the complaint in writing and then conduct an investigation to determine its validity. If the complaint is deemed valid, the COR will immediately notify the contracting Officer for action. The COR will notify both the Contract Manager and the complainant of the Government's response to their complaint.

5.1.3. Regardless of the surveillance method, the COR will always contact the contractor's manager or on-site representative when a defect is identified and inform the manager of the specifics of the problem. The COR, with assistance from the TRs and Other Key Government Personnel, will be responsible for monitoring the contractor's performance in meeting a specific performance standard/AQL.

5.1.4. Surveillance results may be used as the basis for actions (to include payment deductions) against the contractor. In such cases, the Inspection of Services clause in the Contract becomes the basis for the CO’s actions.

5.2. Performance Rating Definitions

Contractor performance will be rated using the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in accordance with FAR 42.1503. Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and acceptable quality level. Use the rating scale in the ratings table below to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. Use the notes to properly complete CPARS rating document.

Table 5.2- Performance Rating Definitions

Performance Rating

Criteria Notes

Excellent / Outstanding

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefits. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no problems and contractor actions were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government benefits. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant even and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should be no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should be NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

6. Performance Reporting

6.1. Acceptable Performance. The Government will document positive performance. The most common format used for this action will be via CPARs. Any repo1t may become a part of the supporting documentation for fixed fee payments, award fee payments, or other actions.

6.2. Unacceptable Performance. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR will inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the COR will document the discussion and place it in the COR file.

6.2.1. When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR will prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the contractor's manager or on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP.

6.2.2. The contractor shall be required to acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COR. The Government will review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.

6.2.3 Any CDR will become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment when applicable. The Government will use any completed CDR as part of an overall evaluation of Contractor performance when determining present or future contractual actions.

7. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT

7.1. During contract/order performance, the COR will take periodic measurements and analyze whether the negotiated frequency of measurement is appropriate for the work being performed.

7.2. The COR will interact with the contractor at least monthly and meet annually to assess performance and will provide a written assessment.

8. ATTACHMENTS:

8.1. Customer Complaint Form (CCR)

8.2. Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)

8.3. Corrective Action Report (CAR)

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD (CCR)

DATE/TIME OF

COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION BUILDING

NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)

1. CONTRACT/TASK

ORDER NUMBER

2. CONTRACTOR 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND

DATE

5. COR PHONE 6. SUSPENSE

DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL

BOXES THAT APPLY)

NEW

REPEAT

NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH

ITEM REVIEWED

9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF

DEFICIENCY BOX WAS CHECKED)

10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE

CONCUR NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED

COMPLETION DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR

REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. CONCUR NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

1. CONTRACTOR 2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA 5. SUSPENSE

DATE

6. CONTROL

NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY MAJOR MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT

RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

ACCEPTED REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE