Attachment I - Task 2 SW QASP.pdf

Attachment I

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) National Assessment of Educational Progress

NAEP Sampling and Weighting

Introduction This performance-based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Evaluation Plan has been developed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.401(e)(3) and pursuant to the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The QASP sets forth procedures and guidelines that the Department of Education (ED) will use in evaluating the technical performance of the contractor. A copy of this plan will be forwarded to the contractor so that the contractor shall be aware of the methods that the Government will employ in evaluating performance on this contract, and to address any concerns that the contractor may have prior to initiating work.

Purpose of the QASP

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

• Define the roles and responsibilities of participating Government officials and outside experts.

• Define the key deliverables that will be assessed.

• Describe the rating elements and standards of performance against which the contractor’s performance will be assessed for each key deliverable.

• Describe the process of quality assurance assessment; and

• Provide copies of the quality assurance monitoring forms that will be used by the

Government in documenting and evaluating the contractor’s performance.

Roles and Responsibilities of Participating Government Officials and Experts The following Government officials and/or experts will participate in assessing the quality of the contractor’s performance. Their roles and responsibilities are described as follows:

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COR also is responsible for documentation, inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance.

Additional ED staff with technical knowledge and experience related to the sampling and weighting procedures used by the NAEP Program may provide input and review deliverables. However, ED reserves the right to have only the COR assess each deliverable.

The Contract Specialist (CS) is responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, cost control, property control; reviewing the COR’s assessment of the contractor’s performance; and resolving all differences between the COR’s version and the contractor’s version. The CS may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required.

The Contracting Officer (CO) has the following procurement authorities:

• Sole authority for any decisions that produce an increase or decrease in the contract’s scope.

• Sole authority for any decision to be rendered under the “Disputes” clause.

• Sole authority to approve the substitution or replacement of the project manager or other key personnel.

• Sole authority to monitor and enforce Department of Labor promulgated labor requirements.

• Authority to arrange for and supervise quality assurance activities under this contract.

• Sole authority to approve the contractor’s quality control program.

• Signatory authority for the issuance of all modifications to the contract.

Annual Past Performance Evaluation The Contractor’s overall performance shall be documented and measured through the annual past performance evaluation through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Performance will be evaluated in the areas of:

• Quality of Product or Service

• Schedule

• Cost Control (if applicable)

• Business Relations

• Management of Key Personnel

• Utilization of Small Business

Quality Assurance Review Process Even though the Government, through the COR, will monitor the contractor’s performance on a continuing basis, the volume of tasks performed by the contractor makes technical inspection of every task and step impractical. Therefore, ED will use an annual quality assurance review process to monitor the contractor’s performance under the award. Specifically, the COR will assess the contractor’s performance on the following key deliverables:

1. Meeting annual Sampling and Weighting small business goal.

2. Meeting annual team Nation’s Report Card 6- or 12-month reporting deadline.

3. Planning and scheduling the preparation of preliminary and final sampling weights - Schedule for preparation of preliminary and final sampling weights, for approval by COR, 60 days prior to delivery of weights to the DAR contractor.

4. Developing a Quality Control Plan - Quality Control Plan for each contractor approved by COR 30 days prior to initiation of each activity.

5. Providing Monthly Administrative Reports - Project status due by the 10th of each month.

6. Preparing Technical Documentation of Sampling and Weighting Activities - Text & tables approved by COR 1 month prior to completion date for consolidated report.

The contractor’s performance will be evaluated annually by the COR using the following adjectival ratings: Outstanding, Superior, Acceptable and Unacceptable. Descriptions of these adjectival ratings are provided below:

CPARS Adjectival

Rating Description

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Very Good: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Marginal: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Each key task/subtask shall be separately evaluated using the above scale.

ED will rate performance separately for each Key Outcome.

The contractor shall revise any key deliverable determined to be “unacceptable” at no additional cost to the Government. That is, the contractor shall not charge the Government for the additional work to revise unacceptable products, such as reports that do not meet NCES Statistical Standards.

Each year ED will evaluate the contractor's performance by assessing the performance on key deliverables within the task. The work will be evaluated in terms of how well the contract requirements are satisfied; the extent to which the work performed follows the approach found in the contractor’s technical proposal; quality and clarity of documentation; and timeliness of key deliverables.

While quality is closely tied to the performance standards for activities and /or deliverable content, timeliness and cost are also important considerations in the assessment of contractor performance.

In the event of an excusable delay (as defined in FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays and EDAR 3452.242-71, Notice to the Government of Delays), the Department and the contractor shall work together to modify the contract with regard to the due dates of the deliverables. If such an event were to occur that would require a modification to the due dates of the deliverables, the contractor's performance shall be measured by the date agreed upon in the modification.

Below are the SDC evaluation periods (dates may vary based on actual date of award, but will align with the period of performance):

1. Base Year – October 15, 2024 – September 30, 2025

2. Option Period I – October 1, 2025 – September 30, 2026

3. Option Period II – October 1, 2026 – September 30, 2027

4. Option Period III – October 1, 2027 – September 30, 2028

5. Option Period IV – October 1, 2028 – September 30, 2029

The specific task/subtask, performance indicators, and primary surveillance method.

Key Task #1: – Annual Sampling and Weighting small business goal

Performance Indicators: The Department of Education’s Contracts and Acquisitions Management (CAM) (housed within the CFO’s office) will determine annually a small business goal for the NAEP SDC contract.

Primary Surveillance Method: CAM review of percentage of Sampling and Weighting dollars spent by small businesses.

Evaluation Criteria:

Acceptable Performance: Annual Sampling and Weighting small business goal was met.

Key Task/Subtask #2: – Annual NAEP Report Card

Performance Indicators: The Annual NAEP Report Card is the culmination of NAEP activities from item development to the operational administration of the assessment to students. Findings from the NAEP assessment are made available to the public through the release of the Nations Report Card. NCES is required to release findings from the mathematics and reading report cards six months after the end of the data collection; 12- 15 months are the average release times for all other NAEP reports. The contractors shall, as a Coalition, ensure the established deadlines are made for release of all NAEP reports in the defined contract period.

Primary Surveillance Method: CORs review of Nations Report Card.

Evaluation Criteria:

Acceptable Performance

1. Materials prepared by the contractor (i.e., draft and final publications) are of high quality, require no more than minimal revisions, and are consistent with ED’s guidance on content, formatting and publishing requirements.

2. Materials prepared by the contractor are complete and delivered on time to the

COR.

Key Task/Subtask #3: – Generate Sampling Weights.

Performance Indicators: Plan and schedule for preparation of preliminary and final sampling weights to COR - Delivery of the schedule for preparation of preliminary and final sampling weights, for approval by COR, 60 days prior to delivery of weights to the DAR contractor

Primary Surveillance Method: COR review of the deliverable.

Evaluation Criteria:

Acceptable Performance: Contractor submitted plan for preparation of NAEP preliminary and final sampling weights to COR on expected due date.

Key Task/Subtask #4: – Develop Quality Control Plan.

Performance Indicators: Delivery of an annual Sampling and Weighting Quality Control Plan approved by COR 30 days prior to initiation of each activity.

Primary Surveillance Method: COR review of the deliverable.

Evaluation Criteria:

Acceptable Performance: Contractor submitted quality control plan to COR on expected due date.

Key Task/Subtask #5: - Provide Monthly Administrative Reports.

Performance Indicators: Delivery of monthly project status reports by the 10th of each month.

Primary Surveillance Method: COR review of the deliverable.

Evaluation Criteria:

Acceptable Performance: Contractor submitted project status report to COR on expected due date.

Key Task/Subtask #6: – Prepare Technical Documentation.

Performance Indicators: Text & tables approved by COR 1 month prior to completion date for consolidated report.

Primary Surveillance Method: COR review of the deliverable.

Evaluation Criteria:

Acceptable Performance: Contractor submitted technical report chapters to DAR on expected due date.

Process of Quality Assurance Assessment

In the event of an excusable delay (as defined in FAR 52.249-14), the Department and the contractor shall work together to modify the contract regarding the due dates of deliverables. If an event occurs that would require modifying deliverable due dates, the contractor’s performance, where applicable in this QASP, shall be measured by the date agreed upon in the modification.

In narrative form, the COR will substantiate all adjectival ratings other than Satisfactory.

Performance at the “Satisfactory” level is expected from the contractor. The COR will forward a report of average scores to the CS.