Attachment 4 - QASP (MESG).docx

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for

Force Generation Professional Support Services

Requisition Number: TBD Solicitation Number: N0024426R3107

1. INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to monitor and evaluate contractor performance in connection with the Tactical Patrol Boat Training and Technical Support Services. The QASP establishes the methodology for measuring key performance in the stated performance work areas and establishes the standard of performance for each.

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 identified in the QASP and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the Government pays only the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members associated with the QASP, 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 the COR to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the QASP are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessments. 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 Task Order 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 the work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control (QC) program. The QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this Task Order 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, responsiveness, customer satisfaction and other performance requirements in the QASP. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the COR. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The COR will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against performance objectives. The Government will notify the contractor when performance is less than satisfactory. 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 Contracting Officer

The Contracting Officer is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations by the COR and the contractor. The Contracting Officer has designated the COR 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 Contracting Officer.

2.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the Contracting Officer to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a Task Order. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the Task Order 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 Contracting Officer for action. The COR will be responsible for documenting 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 Task Order.

2.3 Designated Acceptance Officials

Personnel authorized to submit or accept deliverables are designated below. While other personnel may physically deliver or receive deliverables and perform the reviews to determine acceptability, only designated personnel may authorize the submission of deliverables or approve/reject deliverables.

Government personnel authorized to submit or accept/reject deliverables are as follows:

David Gray, COR It may be necessary to make additions or deletions to the list of personnel authorized to submit or accept deliverables. Notification of changes will be made by the COR in writing to the Contracting Officer as far in advance as possible. The contracting officer will issue a notification of the change to the then current list of personnel authorized to submit or accept/reject.

2.4 Technical Assistant (TA)

The requiring activity representative who may be assigned to provide technical/administrative assistance to the COR. TA’s may be assigned to assist and support the COR but do not have the authority to provide any technical direction or clarification directly to the contractor.

3. IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/ QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included herein in the QASP, as specified in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary Tables”. The three critical areas items defined herein are also identified within the Statement of Work as subject to monitoring under this QASP. The three critical areas that will be used to measure performance success are schedule performance, on-time CDRL completion and quality. The “Performance Requirements Summary Tables” identify each of the three areas in more detail and includes the specific method of surveillance, inspection cycle, performance requirements, performance standard/AQL, sampling procedure and inspection procedure.

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 - Random monitoring shall be conducted if and when specified in the Task Order or periodically as defined by the COR. The random monitoring shall be performed by the COR.

· One Hundred–Percent Inspection – This surveillance type is preferred for those tasks that occur infrequently. It is also used frequently for those tasks having very stringent performance requirements. When this type surveillance is used, the COR must inspect and evaluate the contractor’s performance each time it is performed. The results of the contractor’s overall performance are then evaluated to determine the acceptability of the lot.

· Periodic Inspection - Periodic inspections shall be conducted if and when specified in the Task Order. The COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

4.2 Observing Contractor Performance

The COR must inspect task performance by either watching actual task performance, physically checking an attribute of the completed task, checking a management report, or otherwise inspecting the task or its results to determine whether or not the performance meets the standards contained in the contract. The COR should become familiar with the standards and requirements of compliance documentation set forth in the Task Order and incorporate surveillance of such requirements onto the overall plan. It is suggested that technical experts, who are most familiar with compliance requirements, be utilized as an extension of the COR.

4.3 Customer Feedback

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 indicator of success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

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 further.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

4.4 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1 “Performance Requirements Summary Tables”, are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed.

5. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards/AQLs are expressed in the QASP and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

Items such as system documentation, reports, and test results are examples of deliverables that the Contractor might provide to the Government for review and acceptance. Examples of Government deliverables are items such as review comments, marked-up documents returned to the Contractor, reference material, or other Government Furnished Information/Equipment (GFI/E). Deliverable Acceptance provides an opportunity for the receiving party to formally review a product and assess whether or not it conforms to specifications or will satisfy the requirements for its intended use. Some products are complete as is when delivered while others will be work product inputs into the creation of other deliverables or form part of the baseline for subsequent work to be performed. For example, GFI such as test data would be a work product input to a testing process and a design specification would become part of the baseline. Aspects of the Deliverable Acceptance process are detailed in the remainder of this section.

Final inspection and acceptance of all deliverables shall be performed at the place of delivery. The government requires a period not to exceed 30 days after receipt of the final deliverable item(s) for inspection and acceptance or rejection. All deliverables must be submitted directly to the TA for forwarding to the COR. The COR will monitor the contractor efforts to ensure technical suitability. If the deliverable does not meet the specified criteria, it will be returned by the government. After notification that the deliverable did not meet the acceptance criteria, the contractor shall re-submit the deliverable within 14 calendar days. Upon re-submission by the contractor, the government will reapply the same acceptance criteria. If the deliverable does not meet the acceptance criteria a second time the government might consider the Contractor as having deficient performance. The Contractor shall permit the Contracting Officer or designated representatives’ access at any reasonable time to all records, data, and facilities used in the performance of contemplated services.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The Government’s QA surveillance will in part be reported using the Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form which shall accompany deliverable submissions. The Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form, when completed, will in part document the Government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the Task Order to ensure that the required quality levels are being achieved.

Attachment 1 to this QASP is a sample form with a brief explanation of the information to be entered on the form. Electronic copies of deliverables will also be provided via email and quarterly summarized versions of all deliverables will be provided via CD-ROM. The party submitting a deliverable will complete Sections 1 and 2 of the form. The preferred method is for the individual originating the form to submit it electronically as an attachment to an email rather than signing and submitting a hard copy of the form. This allows the form to be detached by the recipient (a person authorized to accept/reject deliverables) to complete Section 3 and return it to the originator as an email attachment. The Contractor shall provide a soft copy Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form template to Government personnel that will be submitting deliverables and work products under the Deliverable Acceptance process.

6. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 An individual authorized to accept/reject deliverables will need to complete Section 3 of the Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form by acknowledging the acceptance of the deliverable, conditional acceptance of the deliverable, or rejecting the deliverable.

a. Acceptance of a deliverable means that the deliverable conforms to specifications or will satisfy the requirements for its intended use and will be considered completed by the submitting party. Accepted deliverables may become part of the baseline for subsequent work or may be work product inputs for future tasks. As important as it is to complete the review and acceptance of deliverables in a timely manner so as not to impede schedules, it is equally important that a thorough review be done so as not to overlook critical aspects that could adversely affect subsequent deliverables. Additional work on or changes to accepted deliverables will be considered to be new deliverables and may affect scope, cost, and or schedule.

b. Conditional acceptance means that the deliverable essentially conforms to specifications or will satisfy the requirements for its intended use but some non-critical changes may need to be made. The reason(s) for the conditional acceptance and actions that may be deemed necessary to make the deliverable acceptable must be detailed in the Comments block of Section 3 of the Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form. This will form a basis for discussion and understanding between the two parties of the steps necessary to make the deliverable acceptable. In some instances, the conditional acceptance may not require any corrective action but full acceptance may be contingent upon some future event. The actions necessary to attain acceptance should represent low risk because conditionally accepted deliverables may become part of the baseline for subsequent work or may be work product inputs for future tasks.

c. Rejection of a deliverable means that it fails to conform to specifications or will not satisfy the requirements for its intended use. The reason(s) for rejection and actions necessary that may be deemed necessary to make the deliverable acceptable must be detailed in the Comments block of Section 3 of the Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form. This will form a basis for discussion and understanding between the two parties of the steps necessary to make the deliverable acceptable.

d. The Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form will always reflect the date that the deliverable was submitted for acceptance as well as the number of business days to review and accept or reject the deliverable. A default of five business days will be used. Of course it may not be realistic to expect that all deliverables can be reviewed and accepted within five business days. Whenever possible the parties involved should agree upon those cases where more or less review time will be required for planned deliverables. This will allow these expected review durations to be used in project plans to more accurately project the start and completion dates of dependent activities. Circumstances may arise such that a review cannot be completed within the time agree to and reflected on the Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form. In such cases an extension of the review period should be discussed and agreed to by the parties before the scheduled review completion date. If project milestone dates are to be met, deliverable reviews cannot be allowed to continue for indeterminate periods of time. Therefore, deliverables not reviewed within the specified review period will be considered accepted.

6.2 Reporting

The Government will use the results of the Deliverable Submission/Acceptance to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards/AQLs.

6.2.1 The COR will, in addition to providing documentation to the Contracting Officer, maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government’ s performance of the quality assurance function. All such records will be retained for the life of this Task Order. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the Task Order.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the COR or other Government 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 is required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis.

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness.

· Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes.

6.3.2 The COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance in any critical area.

6.3.3 The COR and 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 may be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the Contracting Officer.

7.0 Notification of Deficient Performance

Contractor performance deficiencies identified during the 6-month evaluation periods will be brought to the immediate attention of the COR. When contractor performance in any area approaches or reaches below the performance standard, or is not fully compliant with the requirements of the Task Order, the COR will notify the Contracting Officer of the discrepancy in writing. The Contracting Officer may issue a formal letter to the contractor stating the deficiency. The contractor will then have no more than one week to implement corrective action and to explain the corrective action in writing to the COR. If the contractor’s response resolves the problem, no further action will be taken. If the problem continues after implementation of corrective action, the COR will submit a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) to the contractor. Unsatisfactory contractor performance that causes significant injury or damage to personnel or equipment, which puts personnel or equipment unnecessarily at risk, or which results from gross negligence or inattention to standing procedures may result in an immediate Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) with no advance notification by the COR. When the COR submits a CDR, the contractor is required to prepare a formal reply delineating corrective action. If the reply satisfies the COR, no further action will be taken. If replies are unsatisfactory and resolution cannot be obtained, the COR will forward the contractor’s reply along with the recommended action to the Contracting Officer to initiate formal action against the contractor for unsatisfactory contract performance.

Attachment 1 “Performance Requirements Summary Tables”

Schedule Performance

Performance Requirements

All SOW Taskings

Schedule performance is measured by summing the total number of delivery dates met (as listed on work plans) divided by the total number of scheduled delivery dates outlined in work plans.

For any instance in which a performance requirement was not filled in accordance with the standard, the COR must determine whether this was solely attributable to the Contractor or whether the Government, by its actions, prevented the Contractor from meeting this requirement. In those instances, where failure to meet the performance requirement is solely attributable to the Contractor, the COR will identify and document the incident as a defect. Following the evaluation of all samples for the 6-month period, the COR will total the number of delivery dates not met and express as a percentage.

Deliverable On-Time Completion

Inspection Cycle

6 month evaluation periods for the duration of the Task Order

Performance Requirements

All SOW taskings

On-time completion of deliverable requirements percentage is measured by dividing the total number of deliverable items delivered on time by the total number of deliverable items required.

For any instance in which a performance requirement was not filled in accordance with the standard, the COR must determine whether this was solely attributable to the Contractor or whether the Government, by its actions, prevented the Contractor from meeting this requirement. In those instances, where failure to meet the performance requirement is solely attributable to the Contractor, the COR will identify and document the incident as a defect. Following the evaluation of all samples for the 6-month period, the COR will total the number of timely CDRLs and express as a percentage.

Quality Control (Errors)

Quality Control discrepancies (errors) are defined as incomplete or not in compliance with the applicable quality standard, or factually inaccurate, improperly formatted or not in standard Microsoft office (or another application approved by Government Port Engineers).

Quality Control (error percentage rate) is measured by dividing the total number of errors by the total number of documents reviewed.

For any instance in which a performance requirement was not filled in accordance with the standard, the COR must determine whether this was solely attributable to the Contractor or whether the Government, by its actions, prevented the Contractor from meeting this requirement. In those instances, where failure to meet the performance requirement is solely attributable to the Contractor, the COR will identify and document the incident as a discrepancy. Following evaluation of all samples for the 6-month period, the COR will total the number of discrepancies.

ATTACHMENT 1

Deliverable Submission/Acceptance Form Section 1

If neither acceptance nor rejection is provided to the originator by return of a signed copy of this form by the end of the review period, acceptance will be assumed.

Section 2

Deliverable Description

Provide sufficient description of the contents of the deliverable

Section 3 Accepted or Rejected by? Name and title of authorized person accepting/rejecting the deliverable

Accepted? (Sign/date and delete or line through the other two choices)

Conditionally Accepted?

Rejected?

Comments? (Reason(s) for conditional acceptance or rejection and actions required for acceptance of the deliverable)

Source Selection Information --- see FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Quality Assurance Plan 6/25/26 2