Attachment 3 - Temp HVAC DH QASP.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Contracting and Logistics Department

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Kittery, ME 03904

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Temp HVAC and DH Services

1. PURPOSE.

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

a) What will be monitored, see QASP Matrix?

b) How monitoring will take place, See QASP Matrix?

c) Who will conduct the monitoring, See QASP Matrix?

d) How monitoring efforts and results will be documented. See QASP Matrix

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. However, the Government will coordinate changes with the contractor. 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 Contracting Officer (KO) and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

The following FAR clauses may apply depending on contract type:

52.246-4 Inspection of Services – Fixed-Price,

2. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

a) Contracting Officer - The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract/task order terms, and safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract/task order. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

b) Contracting Officer’s Representative - The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract/task order and shall ensure 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. The COR’s specific duties are delineated in the COR Appointment Letter.

c) Other Key Government Personnel – Technical Point Of Contact (TPOC) - A Technical Point of Contact (TPOC)—is the government's primary subject matter expert responsible for the day-to-day technical oversight of a contract.

3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES:

See the contract for the current contractor’s representative.

4. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:

Performance standards define required levels of service. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the contractor exceeds, meets, or does not meet these standards. Performance standards and associated Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) are defined in the Performance Requirements Summary Table (PRS Table) attached to the contract/task order

5. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE:

Various methods exist to monitor performance. The COR shall use the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP. The surveillance method applicable to each performance standard is listed in the PRST, attached to the contract/task order.

Regardless of the surveillance method, the COR shall always contact the contractor's representative when a defect is identified and inform the representative of the specifics of the problem. The COR shall also document any identified defects in the COR’s Status Report to the KO. The COR shall be responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in meeting performance standards/AQLs.

a) DIRECT OBSERVATION: Includes on-site inspections and can be performed periodically or through 100% surveillance.

b) PERIODIC INSPECTION: Uses a comprehensive evaluation of selected outputs. Inspections may be scheduled or unscheduled, as required.

c) USER SURVEY: Combines elements of validated user complaints and random sampling. Random survey is conducted to solicit user satisfaction. Appropriate for high quantity activities that have historically been satisfactory. May also generate periodic and 100% inspections.

d) VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS: Relies on the user of the service to identify deficiencies. Complaints are then investigated and validated. Highly applicable to services provided in quantity and where quality is highly subjective.

e) 100% INSPECTION: Evaluates all outputs. Most applicable to small quantity, but highly important services. May be used where there are written deliverables and stringent requirements such as tasks required by law, safety, or security.

f) PERIODIC SAMPLING: Variation of random sampling. However, sample is only taken when a deficiency is suspected. Good follow-up to MIS analysis. Sample results are applicable only for the specific work inspected. Since sample is not entirely random, it cannot be applied to total activity performance.

g) RANDOM SAMPLING: Designed to evaluate the outputs of the award requirement by randomly selecting and inspecting a statistically significant sample. Highly recommended for large quantity repetitive activities with objective and measurable quality attributes.

h) PROGRESS OR STATUS MEETINGS.

i) ANALYSIS OF CONTRACTOR’s PROGRESS REPORTS: Evaluate cost, schedule, etc.

j) PERFORMANCE REPORTING: Evaluate metrics for a specific time period. Develop metrics or use metrics found in MIS.

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/task order is the authority for the KO’s actions.

6. RATINGS

Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and acceptable quality level. A rating scale shall be used to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. The following ratings shall be used:

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.

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 was effective.

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.

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.

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.

7. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE.

a) GENERAL DOCUMENTATION.

The COR shall document performance in the COR Status Report to the KO, and shall document performance annually in the Contractor Performance Assessment Ratings System (CPARS), if applicable.

b) MARGINAL / UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE.

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the KO and the contractor within 5 days.

This will normally be via email unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the COR shall document the discussion, place it in the COR File, and include it as an attachment to the COR’s Status Report.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) and send it to the KO for approval. Once approved, the COR shall send the CDR to the contractor's representative with a copy to the KO. The CDR will be completed on a C400 CDR Template.

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR shall 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 shall also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this Corrective Action Plan to the COR. The Government shall review the contractor's Corrective Action Plan to determine acceptability.

Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

8. EVALUATION AREAS

During performance, the COR will assess the following evaluation areas:

1) Technical/Quality of Product or Service (Quality)

2) Cost Control (Not required for Fixed Price type contracts/task orders)

3) Schedule/Timeliness (Schedule)

4) Management or Business Relations (Management)

5) Small Business Subcontracting (Only applicable to requirements that contain FAR 52.219-9 Small

Business Subcontracting Plan)

6) Regulatory Compliance

7) Other (Specify up to three additional evaluation areas that are unique to the contract/task order, or that cannot be captured elsewhere in the evaluation. For example, if contract/task order includes award fee, a separate evaluation area should be included for award fee)

9. RATINGS

The COR shall use the ratings to evaluate and document performance as defined in the Department of Defense (DoD) Guidance for the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), if applicable.

10. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT.

During contract, the COR shall take periodic measurements, as specified in the AQL column of the PRST, and shall analyze whether the negotiated frequency of measurement is appropriate for the work being performed.