Attachment 2 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PANG) Kitchen Attendant dated 24 June 2022

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 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

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. INTRODUCTION. This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) - Kitchen Attendant. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the 193 Special Operations Force Support Squadron Services Flight (FSS) 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 quality control plan (QCP), 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 FSS 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 QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, BOHLMAN, CAITLYN B SSgt USAF ANG 193 SOMSG/MSC Calling you Services in these documents could get confusing since the word service is going to be thrown around a bit so we’re just going to call you FSS. I also deleted every instance of “Services’ COR” because there are no non-Services COR’s.

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. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. 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 Government will make determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. 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 Representative (COR) and the contractor. The KO will designate one full-time representative 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.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative. The 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 required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment 3, Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Performance Monitoring Techniques. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be paid the monthly amount agreed on in the contract. If the contractor exceeds the service or performance level, it is eligible to receive an incentive or award fee as stated in the contract. 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 random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR designated inspector; 100% Inspection; Each month, the COR, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the

Applicability?

Surveillance Activity Checklist; Periodic Inspection – COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis; Exit Inspection – COR or designee will inspect the facility to ensure the desired cleanliness level is reached.

4.2 Customer Feedback.

4.2.1 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.

4.2.2 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 FSS as opposed to the contractor.

4.2.3 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.

4.2.4 Customer feedback may also be obtained either 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 3, 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 case management, 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 FSS.

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 3.

5.2 Monitoring Forms. The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the Services’ COR, will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachments 4. 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 COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT.

6.1 Determining Performance. 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. Every six months, starting six months after the first date of service, the COR will prepare a written report biannually for the KO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report(s) and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (Attachment 4), 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 other Government FSS 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: Issues and concerns of both parties and/or 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 the 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 via contract modification issued by the KO.

MICHAEL LENGLE

Is this necessary or should frequency be changed to annual? The template had quarterly

The FAR doesn’t specify a frequency but reporting is required. Quarterly is the standard but I think based on the frequency of performance we could do this twice per year. I don’t think once per year would be a good idea because this is our opportunity to regularly be on top of any issues that may arise which also gives us the opportunity to track any ongoing issues or repeat offenders. Lets keep it biannually.