ATTACHMENT G - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VBACO Office of Military to Civilian Readiness

Date: XXX

SAC-VA-24-XXXXXXX

QASP Version Number: 1.0

THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT GET INCORPORATED INTO THE CONTRACT/ORDER; IT IS USED BY GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO CHANGE ITS METHOD OF SURVEILLANCE AT ANY TIME. THE CO/COR SHOULD PROVIDE A COPY TO THE CONTRACTOR THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE.

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

For: VBACO Office of Military to Civilian Readiness

Contract/Order Number: Blank until contract/order award

Contract/Order Description: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Office of Military to Civilian Readiness (M2CR), is seeking Contractor services as part of VA’s support to the military services’ Transition Assistance Program (TAP). M2CR requires contract support with advancing ongoing implementation of VA’s current and future efforts in TAP to ensure that service members and their families are provided with the necessary tools and information to facilitate their readiness for civilian life.

Contractor’s Name: Blank until contract/order award Purpose This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to monitor Contractor performance. This QASP describes:

What will be monitored How monitoring will take place Who will conduct the monitoring How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the Contractor and Government officials responsible for surveillance activities. The Government can change the method of surveillance at any time without the approval of the contractor.

Performance Management Approach The PWS sets forth “what” service is required as well as the performance standards associated with that task, 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 Office of Military to Civilian Readiness to monitor the Contractor’s performance and ensure the expected outcomes or performance standards communicated in the PWS 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 to what extent the expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the Contractor.

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. Required processes are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus by the Government provides the Contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract/order as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

Performance Management Strategy The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures 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/order regardless of whether the work is performed by Contractor employees or by Subcontractors. The Contractor’s QC program will set forth the procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The Contractor will implement a performance management system with a process to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative.

The government representative(s) will monitor performance by the Contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against performance standards. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively. The Contractor will be monitored and assessed throughout the period of performance of the contract/order as to either meeting or not meeting the performance thresholds stated in the Performance Metrics Section of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will perform quarterly assessments. The Performance Based Service Assessment, or other method, may be used to document this assessment. A Performance Based Service Assessment is provided at the end of this document. When Contractor performance is unacceptable, the COR will notify the Contractor Program Manager (CPM) and the Contracting Officer (CO). Unacceptable performance is defined as failing to meet the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) of Satisfactory (90% or better) as defined in PWS Section 9.3. Notification of unacceptable performance issues shall be immediately provided to the CPM and shall not remain un-addressed until the end of an assessment period. To remediate performance issues in a timely manner, the COR should work collaboratively with the CPM. The COR/CO will engage the CPM to resolve the discrepancy.

Performance Feedback The COR will conduct a QASP Review with the contractor every 90 days (quarterly) during the period of performance. If imediate performance related feedback is required, the COR will notify the CPM via phone call and/or email for corrective action. If Contractor performance is assessed as Marginal or Unsatisfactory at any time during contract period of performance, the COR shall notify the CO.

Government Roles and Responsibilities The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities:

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

Assigned CO: XXXXXXXXXX@VA.GOV, Contracting Officer Organization: Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Procurement, Acquisition, and Logistics, Strategic Acquisition Center

Contract Specialist: rebecca.ubert@va.gov

b. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract/order and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR shall keep a quality assurance file. This file shall contain all quality assessment reports. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf.

Assigned COR: william.waddington@va.gov

c. Other Key Government Personnel – Comment by Zais, Christina C., VBAVACO: Does this need to change to Burcu Altunc or be added?

1. Program Manager: christina.zais@va.gov Contractor Representatives

a. Program Manager – To be completed at award

b. Other Contractor Personnel – To be completed at award; if any (name and title) Performance Standards Performance Standards define required performance for each of the performance objectives. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the Contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards.

The Performance Metrics for Performance Standards are defined in Section 9 of the PWS. The Government may utilize the Performance Based Service Assessment, provided at the end of this document, or other methods to compare Contractor performance to the ALPs.

Methods of QA Surveillance Various methods exist to monitor performance. The COR shall use any or a combination of the surveillance methods listed below in assessing performance using this QASP.

1. 100% INSPECTION. (Evaluates all outcomes to include tasks and deliverables.)

a. The COR/ACOR shall review all of the Contractor’s performance and deliverables in accordance with PWS delivery schedule and document the results accordingly. This assessment shall be placed in the COR’s QA file.

2. Random Sample

a. The COR/ACOR shall review a random sample of the Contractor’s deliverables and document the results accordingly. This assessment shall be placed in the COR’s QA file.

3. Validated Customer Complaint or Validated Below Average Acceptable Level of Performance (ALP) in a Specific Area

a. As needed, the COR/ACOR shall review the Contractor’s performance and deliverables corresponding to a validated customer complaint or validated inability to perform in accordance with the ALP in a specific area and document the results accordingly. This assessment shall be placed in the COR’s QA file.

4. On-Site Surveillance

a. The COR/ACOR shall review and document findings from scheduled and unscheduled on-site surveillance and document the results accordingly. This assessment shall be placed in the COR’s QA file.

Acceptable Quality LevelS (AQL) Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and AQL.

The AQLs are included in Section 9.3 of the PWS for Contractor performance and are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed, while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls.

Incentives The Government shall consider the Contractor’s performance when making a determination to exercise any options and determining CPARS Ratings.

Documenting Performance

a. ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE

The Government shall document acceptable performance accordingly. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action.

b. UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE

Unacceptable performance is defined as failing to meet the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) of Satisfactory (90% or better) as defined in PWS Section 9.3. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the CO. This will always be in writing although when circumstances necessitate immediate verbal communication, that communication will be followed up in writing. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file.

When the CO determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) and present it to the Contractor's program manager.

The Contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing to the CO. The CDR will state how long after receipt the Contractor has to take corrective action. The CDR will also 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 CO shall review the Contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.

Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action deemed necessary by the CO.

Frequency of Measurement

a. Frequency of Measurement. During contract/order performance, the COR will periodically analyze whether the PWS frequency of surveillance is appropriate for the work being performed.

b. Frequency of Performance Assessment Meetings. The COR shall meet with the Contractor quarterly to assess performance and shall provide a written assessment to the CO.

10.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

a. Contractor performance will be evaluated in accordance with PWS Section 9.

b. Acceptable Quality Levels Standards:

EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds much 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.

AQL = 100%

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 with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

AQL = 95% to 99% To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should 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.

AQL = 90% to 94% 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.

AQL = 80% to 89% 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, 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.

AQL = 79% or less 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, environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

image1.emf