Attachment 4 - QASP WFI Region OCONUS.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

COMMANDER NAVY INSTALLATIONS COMMAND

INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

WATERFRONT FACILITIES INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

BASIC CONTRACT

Issued: 17 May, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in five separate Scopes of Architect-Engineer Services (SAES) entitled WATERFRONT FACILITIES INSPECTION AND ASSESSMENT AT Region 1, Region 2, Region 3, Region 4 and OCONUS. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (NAVFAC EXWC) will use in ensuring the required task orders are achieved by the contractor. As such, the basic contracts have no work actually associated with them, therefore there is no actual QASP for the basic contracts. All QA will be performed on the individual task orders, as per this template document.

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/quality levels identified in the SAES and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP is a template that will be used to provide QA guidelines for the individual task orders, ordered off the basic contracts. As such, there is no work actually associated with the basic contracts and so there is no QA required.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The SAES 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 NAVFAC EXWC to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the SAES are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. 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 project 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 all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control (QC) program. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QC program will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the SAES. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. The contractor’s QCP will consist of the Dive Safety Plan for on-site efforts and a schedule to verify timeliness. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. 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 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COR) and the contractor. The KO will designate one full-time 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 KO.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

The COR is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project 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 KO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document 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 contract.

3 Identification of Required Performance Standards/Quality Levels The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the SAES and in Attachment 1, ''Performance Requirements Summary.'' The Architect-Engineer Contractor (Contractor) performing the work is evaluated by using the Contractor Performance Assessment System (CPARS). The CPARS system rates contractor’s using five categories; ''Exceptional'', ''Very Good'', ''Satisfactory'', ''Marginal'', and ''Unsatisfactory.'' If the contractor significantly exceeds the service or performance level and thereby providing a significant benefit to the Navy, they may receive an ''Exceptional'' Rating. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, they will be rated with a ''Very Good'', ''Satisfactory'' or ''Marginal'' rating, depending on the quality of the service and their performance level. If the contractor fails to meet the required service or performance level will result in a rating of ''Unsatisfactory.'' Please note that there are other reasons where a lower or higher rating may be warranted. These reasons will be listed in the CPARS Evaluation which will be provided to the contractor upon contract completion.

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:

· Each month, the COR, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the associated eProject record.

· Periodic monitoring – The COR or NTR typically performs the periodic monitoring on an interval based upon milestones established in the e-project schedule.

· Random monitoring – Will be performed by the COR, NTR or other designated personnel.

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

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR, as opposed to the contractor.

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 using the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form, identified in Attachment 2 and checking the Customer Complaint box.

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

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed. For certain critical activities such as those involving; on-site waterfront facility inspections, and final report, the desired performance level is established at 100 percent.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

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

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported in e-projects based upon schedule milestones or by using, on an as-needed basis, the monitoring forms in Attachment 2. The form, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

5.2.1 The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, they may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 Once a month, the COR will update the associated eProject record summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance.

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 KO and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The KO 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 as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Performance assessment data

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for progress against schedule, including a corrective action plan analysis

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

6.3.2 The Quality Action Report (QAR) must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

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 will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the KO.

WRT FAR 52.222-50 (CTIP)

ATTACHMENT 1: TEMPLATE TO DOCUMENT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Accident Prevention Plan (SAES para. D.b)

Dive Operation Plan (SAES para. D.c)

Schedule with Milestones (SAES para. D.a)

Underwater and above water inspection of structural, electrical and mechanical system components (SAES para. C.b.v.1&.2)

Documentation of assessment findings (SAES para. D.e&.f)

Generation of cost estimates of recommended repairs (SAES para. D.e&.f)

Create or Update AutoCAD Drawings (SAES para. D.f)

Recommendation of appropriate remediation actions (SAES para. D.e&.f)

Preliminary Assessment Letter (SAES para. D.d)

Draft Report (SAES para. D.e)

Final Report (SAES para. D.f)

ATTACHMENT 2: TEMPLATE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD: _____________________________________________________________

SURVEY PERIOD: _____________________________________________________________

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: ______ %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

PREPARED BY: _____________________________ DATE: _________________________