Attachment 3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract or Task Order Title (Contract Number TBD): Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Travel Telecommunications Services – V (DTTS – V)

2. Purpose:

This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

• What will be monitored?

• How monitoring will take place.

• Who will conduct the monitoring?

• How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

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.

Contracting Officer – The Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the Contracting Officer 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.

Trip Lead - The Trip Lead is responsible for providing information to the COR to assist in monitoring Contractor performance. This includes completing an evaluation form at the end of each trip.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance:

• 100 Percent Inspection o The COR will be responsible for reviewing all performance criteria listed in the Performance

Work Statement (PWS).

o The Trip Officer is required to complete a performance evaluation form at the end of each mission.

• Customer Input o The Trip Officer will fill out an evaluation form (see Appendix 4) at the end of each mission based on the criteria listed in the PWS.

o The COR will then validate the evaluation form completed by the Trip Officer and this information will be included into the COR Status Reports (see Appendix 1) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS).

Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (see 5. Performance Standards) 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. Documentation of COR surveillance and inspection will be executed via a COR Status Report which will be filed monthly in the Surveillance and Performance Monitoring (SPM) system.

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. The 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 Status Report.

5. Performance Standards:

Performance Standard PWS Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Performance Objective

24/7/365 access to Contractor to receive orders

6.1.1 100% DITCO can reach the Contractor within 30 minutes

Contractor Representative is proactive, responsive, and thorough (during the entire mission 24/7)

6.1.1 90% All evaluations by the Trip Officer are rated as Excellent or Satisfactory

Contractor receipt of cancellation

6.1.2 100% Notification of cancellation costs sent to DITCO within 12-hours

Mission Summary Report 6.2.1 100% DITCO received report within 30 days of end of previous quarter

On-Call Schedule 6.2.2 100% DITCO received schedule NLT one

(1) week prior to the current schedule’s expiration

Services installed, tested and operational for Hub Hotel

6.3.1 100% Services installed within 24-hours

Services installed, tested and operational for RON

6.3.2 100% Services installed within 48-hours

Services installed, tested and operational for Non-Hub

6.3.3 100% Services installed within 72-hours

Expedited Installation Non- Hub

6.3.4 100% Services installed < 24hrs

Notice of Completion (NOC) 6.3.5 100% NOC received by DITCO and uploaded into IDEAS within three

(3) business days. If a Smart City or Encore Global mission, NOC shall be received within 14 business days.

Troubleshooting/Reporting 6.3.6 100% Update/Restoration time provided at a minimum of every two (2) hours during the outage

Voice 6.4.2 100% Services installed, tested and operational within specified timeframes and in alignment with industry standard technical specifications

Internet 6.4.3 100% Speed and latency test completed by Contractor and annotated on DISA Form 67 at the time services are turned over to the customer.

Services installed, tested and operational within specified timeframes

Dry Pairs 6.4.4 100% Services installed, tested and operational within specified timeframes and in alignment with industry standard technical specifications

Lodging Exception 6.5.1 100% Per Diem Letter received by DITCO for approval before initiating travel personnel. Call is made to DITCO After Hours POC if after hours.

Contractor submits timely reimbursable costs invoices

6.5.3 100% Invoice received by customer within 90 days after mission completion

6. Documenting Performance:

Acceptable Performance.

The Government shall document positive performance. A COR Status Report template is attached (Appendix 1).

Any report may become part of the supporting documentation for payments, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) entries, or other actions.

Unacceptable performance.

Unacceptable Contractor performance can be identified by customer complaints (Appendix 2) 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. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in SPM and provide a copy to the Contracting Officer.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Corrective Action Report (CAR). The CAR is forwarded to the Contracting Officer for dissemination to the Contractor. A CAR template is attached to this QASP (Appendix 3).

The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing within 72 hours. 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 Contracting Officer 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, CPARS or other actions deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer.

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 will evaluate the initial submission and will conduct ad hoc reviews of the Contractor's compliance throughout the remainder of the contract.

• Travel shall be in accordance with FAR Part 31 and the Financial Management Regulation.

• Delivery Ticket Invoice (DTI) payments will be provided automatically by the US Government in accordance with FMR Volume 10, Chapter 7, Section 070203.

• The COR will monitor the Contractors' performance to ensure compliance with FAR 52.222-50, Combating

Trafficking in Persons, and notify the contracting officer of any potential violations.

8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

Reference chart in Section 5. Performance Standards.

9. Evaluation Method:

The COR will document contract performance IAW with the PWS monthly via completion of a COR Status Report. On an annual basis, the COR Status Reports will be reviewed and evaluated by the COR to provide the Contractor with a yearly CPARS rating.

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

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

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 – COR Status Report

Appendix 2 – 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 3 – 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

Appendix 4 – Trip Officer Evaluation Form

1. What is the Trip Document Number (TDN)?

2. Was this service provided under the DTTS Contract?

a. Yes

b. No

3. Who was the onsite DTTS Representative?

4. Did the DTTS Representative Manager arrive onsite at the agreed upon time? (Contract Requirement § 6.1.1)

a. Yes

c. N/A (Virtual Office, no rep on site)

5. Were the Hub Hotel services installed within 24hrs? (Contract Requirement § 6.3.1)

6. Were the RON services installed within 48hrs? (Contract Requirement § 6.3.2)

7. Were any services not delivered as ordered? (Contract Requirement § 6.4.2 - 6.4.4)

b. No

*If yes, please describe in detail in the remarks section below

8. Evaluate the DTTS Rep’s performance on the following criteria. Rate each element from a 1 - 3 with 1 being Poor, 2 being Satisfactory and 3 being Excellent. (Contract Requirement § 6.1.1)

a. Proactive

b. Responsive

c. Thorough

*If there is a rating of a 1 or a 3 please provide further explanation in the remarks section below

9. Provide an overall assessment of the contracted services. Rate the overall assessment from a 1 - 3 with 1 being Poor, 2 being Satisfactory and 3 being Excellent.

*If there is a rating of a 1 or a 3 please provide further explanation in the remarks section below Remarks: