Attachment 3-832675791-QASP.docx
DOCX document 51 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Furniture Procurement & Cubicle Reconfiguration, Movement & Installation Support Services
- Solicitation number
- 832675791
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
This is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for a hard case office furniture procurement and installation contract at DISA Global in Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
The QASP establishes the Government's systematic approach to monitoring contractor performance for the purchase and installation of three sets of office furniture, relocation of five Teknion cubicles, and setup of six hotseats. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) will conduct 100 percent inspection of all furniture installation items, using in-person surveillance methods to ensure compliance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) required is 100 percent compliance on all furniture installation. Performance will be documented through Performance Assessment Reports (PAR), with ratings assigned on a scale from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory based on whether the contractor meets, exceeds, or fails to meet contractual requirements. The COR maintains a Quality Assurance file documenting actual performance and provides annual performance assessments to the Contracting Officer (KO). When unacceptable performance is identified, the COR issues a Corrective Action Report (CAR) requiring the contractor to submit a corrective action plan within a specified timeframe, with the Government retaining the right to withhold payment until corrections are completed. The document includes templates for Performance Assessment Reports, Customer Complaint Records, and Corrective Action Reports to formalize all surveillance activities and performance documentation throughout the contract period.
View the file
Other files
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
CUI
QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)
1. Contract or Task Order Title: Hard case office furniture plus relocate 5 Teknion and 6 hotseats
2. Purpose:
This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:
· What will be monitored? Purchase and install 3 set of office furniture plus 5 Teknion cubes and 6 hotseats
· How monitoring will take place. In person
· Who will conduct the monitoring? The COR or ACOR
· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented. Performance Assessment Report will be filled out.
This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.
This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.
3. Roles and Responsibilities:
The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.
Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides program oversight and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities.
Contracting Officer (KO) – 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) – 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- (enter name or delete these lines if not applicable) This may include performance monitors, inspectors, technical experts, workforce service division and center directorate level security personnel, requirements office, or others (i.e. users) who provide information that helps the COR monitor contractor performance.
4. Primary Method of Surveillance:
There will be 100% inspection for Items in the PWS
Acceptable surveillance methods include:
· 100 Percent Inspection. This is usually only the most appropriate method for infrequent tasks or tasks with stringent performance requirements, e.g., where safety or health is a concern. With this method, performance is inspected/evaluated at each occurrence. One hundred percent inspection is too expensive to be used in most cases.
Surveillance Matrix
The Surveillance Matrix (Appendix 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.
Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. Government performance surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The AQL performance Standard Table should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.
5. Performance Standards:
· 6.1 Did Teknion get moved and set back up as outline in PWS
· 6.2 Did the hotseat get move and set back up as outline the PWS
· 6.2 Did the hard case furniture get purchase and installed as outline PWS
6. Documenting Performance:
Acceptable Performance.
The Government shall document positive performance. A Performance Assessment Report (PAR) template is attached (Appendix 2). Any report may become part of the supporting documentation for fixed price payments, award/incentive fee payments, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) entries, or other actions. Government acceptance of services permits the contractor to invoice for the service fee.
Unacceptable performance.
Unacceptable contractor performance can be identified by customer complaints (Appendix 3) or upon schedule surveillance evaluations. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication and may be through the PAR template (Appendix 2). The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file and provide a copy to the KO.
When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Corrective Action Report (CAR). The CAR is forwarded to the KO for dissemination to the contractor. A CAR template is attached to this QASP (Appendix 4).
The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing. The CAR 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 CAR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the KO and COR. The Government may withhold payment for services until corrective action is taken. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. Upon Government acceptance of the corrected services the contractor will be permitted to invoice for the service fee.
Any CAR may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, CPARS or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.
7. Mandatory or regulatory compliance items:
The contractor will provide initial proof of compliance with regulatory and compliance items contained in the contract. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (KO) will evaluate the initial submission and will conduct ad hoc reviews of the contractor's compliance throughout the remainder of the contract. The contractor will monitor compliance as required by FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and report any issues to the KO. The contractor shall inform its employees in writing of contractor employee whistleblower rights and protections as required by DFARS 252.203-7002, Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights. The contractor shall also ensure that the clause is included in all subcontracts. (NOTE: No later than 60 days prior to expiration of the period of performance, the contractor shall provide written affirmation to the COR that a written notification was provided to Contractor employees and the forum/means in which the written notification was provided (e.g., posted in hallways, cubicle spaces, common room spaces, email correspondence).
8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):
The AQL for this project is 100% on all furniture installation as outline in the PWS
9. Evaluation Method:
The COR will document the time of verbal notification to the contractor. The COR will document the official time and date of notification on the Maintenance Call Record. The COR will review self-diagnostic systems logs, conduct a comparison with actual maintenance performance and otherwise verify and validate contractor performance. The contractor shall enter in the record the official time the system is restored to full operational status. The COR will confirm the date and time of problem resolution in the record.
10. Performance Rating
In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used (same as CPAR ratings).
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Note |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor 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’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or 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 have been 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 of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only 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 of the element or sub-element contains a 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). |
Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix
Performance Standards Acceptable Quality Levels Methods of Calculation
| Surveillance |
| Results/Ratings |
Information Technology (IT) Service Integration and Delivery Performance Management
High level of (xyz) satisfaction with Contractor delivery management of IT Services (includes the Service Desk services and the SITEC).
Target Criteria:
90% of all survey respondents are Satisfied, More Than Satisfied, or very Satisfied
Minimum Acceptable:
> 85% of all survey respondents are Satisfied, More Than Satisfied, or Very Satisfied with Contractor delivery management of all SITEC IT Services Calculation:
The number of users who were Satisfied, More Than Satisfied, or Very Satisfied divided by the total number of completed surveys returned.
At least two Government personnel must complete and return surveys for the results to have at least a 90% confidence factor with a 5% error rate.
Measurement Interval – The Measurement Interval is three (3) months for the first year and then every six (6) months thereafter.
Measurement Period – The Measurement Period begins at 00:01 on the first day of the month and ends at 24:00on the last day of the month.
Source of Measurement Data – Data will be collected from management surveys containing satisfaction criteria specified by (xyz) that are either developed internally by (xyz) personnel or by a (xyz) selected impartial 3rd party.
Method of Surveillance – Customer feedback. The Government will issue customer satisfaction surveys to designated Government SITEC management representatives from (xyz) (Contractors cannot participate), , and survey responses will be tabulated to determine overall satisfaction with Contractor delivery management of IT Services using a five (5) category scale. The scale is: Dissatisfied, Less than Satisfied, Satisfied, More than Satisfied, Very Satisfied.
Timing of Measurement – Measurements are taken within five (5) days of the end of the Measurement Period.
Reporting Frequency: - Reporting to commence upon Contract Award and continue throughout the Period of Performance.
Monthly reporting of Service Level Agreement (SLA) and / or QASP attainment to periods survey. Quarterly survey reporting from (xyz) during the first year, semi-annual thereafter.
(Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)
(A rollup of assessment of the Surveillance Inspection Results to develop an overall rating for this objective)
Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)
(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)
| 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
Appendix 3 – Customer Complaint Record
CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD
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
Appendix 4 – Corrective Action Report
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)
(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)
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
Controlled By: DISA Global Controlled By: DG-13 CUI Category: PROCUREMENT Distribution/Dissemination Control: [Insert limited control (e.g., FEDCON)] POC: Ralph D. Mullins. 618-418-8889, ralph.d.mullins.civ@mail.mil
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .