Attachment 3 - FY25_GMNF_Planting_QASP.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

FY25 PLANTING CONTRACT: GREEN MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST

Introduction This plan describes the methods used to measure performance and evaluate whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

QASP Revisions The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) may make revisions or changes to the QASP procedures and surveillance methods or increase or decrease the degree of surveillance methods at any time during the contract performance period. Changes to the metric must be incorporated into the PWS and QASP by a bilateral modification to the contract that is issued by the Contracting Officer (CO). A copy of the QASP is provided to the contractor to enable the contractor to enhance its own Quality Control (QC), and to perform in accordance with its own Quality Control Plan (QCP).

Surveillance of Performance Progression Throughout the performance period, the levels of surveillance may be altered for service areas where performance is either consistently excellent or unsatisfactory. If consistently good performance, then the amount of surveillance may be reduced. If observations reveal consistent deficiencies, increased surveillance may be implemented.

QASP Relation to the QCP The Contractor’s QC program and the Government’s QASP should be complementary programs that ensure successful contractor performance.

Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) The contract requires the Contractor to perform all work as specified. Any inaccuracies or omissions in services or products are referred to as “defects” on the part of the Contractor. The Contractor shall be responsible for all identified defects and may be required to perform the work at no cost to the government to meet specification, or to take a reduced payment commensurate with the work percentage below the AQL. The AQL takes into account that in some instances, an allowable level of deficiencies (deviations) is possible while overall performance continues to meet the Government’s desired level of service.

The COR or inspector will make visual inspections of each project area to check for compliance with contract specifications. This will include a series of plots to provide a sample of planting quality, which will represent the entire area planted. These inspection plots shall be located throughout the planting areas to obtain a representative sample of the work. The number of plots in a planting unit will be determined by its total acreage, rounded up to the nearest whole acre:

Table 1

ACRES IN UNIT NUMBER OF PLOTS

1 - 20 1 Per acre 20 - 40 20 41+ 1 plot per every 2 acres

Plot size will be determined by the unit’s specified planting density and on the ongoing performance of the contract, with the goal of neither over nor under-sampling the unit.

The inspection procedure is as follows:

The COR will select a suitable plot size from table 2 below. Note that a larger plot may be used at the discretion of the COR from the same plot center to provide a greater number of data points, as in the case for measuring species diversity.

Table 2

Plot Size and Possible Number of Planting Spots by Spacing

Average Spacing 1/100 Acre 1/50 Acre 1/20 Acre

6 x 6 12 24 N/A 7 x 7 9 18 N/A 8 x 8 7 14 N/A 9 x 9 5 11 N/A

10 x 10 4 9 22 11 x 11 N/A 7 18 12 x 12 N/A 6 15 13 x 13 N/A 5 13 14 x 14 N/A 4 11 15 x 15 N/A 4 10 20 x 20 N/A 2 5

The COR shall determine from Table 2 the average number of planting spots for the plot based on the specified average spacing. From this number, they will subtract the number of unplantable spots. The difference will be recorded as the number of plantable spots on which seedlings should be planted.

Planting Distribution There is some allowable variation from the determined number of plantable spots in an inspection plot and what was planted. Each difference greater than the allowable variation on Table 3 will be recorded as a defect.

Table 3

Acceptable Variation in Spot Selection Spots Variation Spots Variation

0 1 13 3 1 1 14 3 2 1 15 3 3 1 16 3 4 1 17 3 5 1 18 4 6 1 19 4 7 1 20 4 8 2 21 4 9 2 22 4

10 2 23 5 11 2 24 5 12 2 25 5

Planting Quality

All seedlings within the plot shall be inspected above ground to see if they have been planted according to specification. Incorrect planting shall be recorded as a defect. Additionally, a number of seedlings will be dug to be inspected below ground from those found to be satisfactorily planted by the initial inspection. The number of trees dug will be determined from Table 4.

Table 4

Minimum Inspection Trees

Number of planted trees on plot Minimum number of trees to dig* 1 1

2-6 2 7-9 3

10-12 4 13 plus 5

* Note this is the minimum; there is no maximum. The inspector may dig all trees on plot.

Trees incorrectly planted will be recorded as a defect.

Tree Misuse Tree within the inspection plot found to be discarded incorrectly, or planted in number greater than 1 per hole will be recorded as a defect.

Species Diversity Some units will be planted with multiple species that should be intermingled (planted concurrently, rather than planting 100% of one species until exhaustion). If the presence of a single species is 90% or greater on a 1/20th acre plot, this will be recorded as a single defect.

Allowable Deviation The AQLs define the level or number of performance deficiencies the Contractor is permitted to reach under this contract. AQLs take into account the difference between an occasional defect and a gross number of defects. AQLs can be expressed as a percentage of or as an absolute number (e.g., three per month). There may be instances where 100 percent compliance is required, and no deviation is acceptable (e.g., where safety is involved).

For the items under inspection, an average defect rate of 10% or lower per unit will be considered having met the AQL.

Substantially Complete In some cases, service outputs are evaluated using subjective values (e.g., excellent, satisfactory, unsatisfactory). The criteria for acceptable performance and for defects must be defined for these service outputs. The concept of “substantially complete” should be the basis for inspections based on subjective scales. Work is considered “substantially complete” where there has been no significant departure from the terms of the contract and no omission of essential work. In addition, the Contractor has performed the work required to the best of its ability and the only variance consists of minor omissions or deficiencies.

Non-Performance Non-performance occurs when the Contractor’s performance does not meet the AQL for a given requirement. Requirements may contain multiple performance elements, and therefore, deficiencies may occur in one or more aspects of performance (e.g., timeliness, accuracy, completeness, etc.) or subject areas of effort.

When surveillance indicates that the contractor's service output is not in compliance with the contract requirements, the COR must determine whether the Contractor or the Government caused the deficiency. If the cause of the defect rests with the Government, corrective action must be taken through Government channels. If the cause of the defect is due to action or inaction by the Contractor, the Contractor is responsible for correction of the problem at no additional expense to the Government, or may be required to take a reduction in payment commensurate with the amount of defect if no field remediation is possible.

Documentation Documentation of work non-performed or unacceptable work is essential for tracking Contractor performance. The COR will document deficient work by compiling facts describing the inspection methods and results and to substantiate nonconformance with the contract. A sample documentation reporting form is provided in Appendix – Exhibit A Inspection Report.

The documentation, with any recommendations, will be forwarded to the CO. In the case of the Contractor, the COR will decide whether to elevate the problem to the CO for corrective action.

Remedial Actions The Federal Acquisition Regulation allows for penalties in the event that the Contractor fails to perform the required services. Penalties are defined as those actions taken under the direction of the CO against the contractor within the general provisions of the contract for nonconformance to the PWS and PRS.

Items that are not accepted can be reworked and reinspected in instances where the deficiency is correctable. In instances where items cannot be reworked (for example trees have been improperly planted and no surplus trees exist) a 2% disincentive will be subtracted from the total value of the sub item for each percent of trees sampled and determined to be planted incorrectly in excess of 10%. For example, if the average of 7 quality assurance plots indicates that 12% of trees were incorrectly planted or wasted, the price of the subitem will be reduced by 4%.

Contractor Responsibility The Contractor is responsible for delivering products or services in accordance with the contract. It will appoint a single quality control point-of-contact to act as a central recipient of communication from the COR or CO prior to the start of operations. It is further responsible for implementing its QCP, which describes the Contractor’s methods for ensuring all products and services under the contract meet established performance standards and AQLs. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to maintain, and provide for audit, their own quality control records and reports, and any other necessary records associated with investigation and complaint resolution.

Government Responsibility

The Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for administering and monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, cost control, and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the COR and the contractor’s performance. The CO may delegate various day-to-day contract administration duties to an Administering ACO (ACO) and/or the COR for performance management and administrative actions such as invoice approval and issuance of Contract Discrepancy Reports may be, and normally are, delegated by the CO to the COR. The CO shall approve any revisions to the QASP processes or standards.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative COR is designated in writing, by the CO. The COR will ensure that the QA function is properly executed, plays a key role in contract administration, and performs the contract surveillance and monitoring. Some key contract administration duties include, but are not limited to; performs surveillance as required by this QASP; make recommendations to the CO for issuance of Contract Discrepancy Reports or letters of commendation and acceptance or rejection of completed work and for administrative actions based on unsatisfactory or non-performed work, and revisions or changes to the QASP, and assists the CO in identifying necessary contract modifications and preparing reports of Contractor performance and cost.

The COR may use the form(s) included in the Appendices to perform the inspection or other forms as approved by the CO.

Surveillance Methods The surveillance methods used in the QA process are the Government’s tools to monitor the Contractor’s products and services. The best means of determining whether the Contractor has met all contract requirements is to inspect the Contractor’s service products and analyze the results. Further, documented inspection results are an effective tool in contract administration that can confirm the successful achievement of all performance requirements or highlight areas where defects exist, and improvements are necessary.

Appendix

Exhibit A. Sample Inspection Form