Attachment J-3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).pdf

Solicitation # N5523625R30000

ATTACHMENT J-3

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

SOUTHWEST REGIONAL MAINTENANCE CENTER (SWRMC)

PRODUCT FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICE CONTRACT

Introduction. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth the guidelines and processes the Government will employ to ensure the contractor achieves the required standard of performance, as it relates to carrying out the tasks described in the Statement of Work (SOW). This QASP contains a Service Delivery Summary (SDS) that summarizes the performance objectives, identifies the performance standards, and states how performance will be evaluated. The SDS identifies those services considered most important for mission accomplishment and the minimum acceptable performance level. This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. The Government will coordinate any changes with the contractor. Updates will ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document.

Purpose. The QASP provides a means for the Government to determine if the contractor is meeting the specified performance standards.

Roles and Responsibilities. The Government will monitor contractor performance on a continuous basis, throughout the period of performance. The Government may elect to monitor contractor performance through the use of a surveillance team or assign the responsibility to one individual. The surveillance team may consist of the following members: Contracting Officer (KO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), Requirements Holders, and other Government staff or components as applicable.

Performance will be assessed by the members of the surveillance team, and this information will be used to rate the contractor’s performance. Information will be recorded in the contract file and will provide input for the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). CPARS is the Department of Defense (DoD) Enterprise Solution for collection of Past Performance Information (PPI).

CPARS is a web-enabled application that collects and manages contractor quality/performance, in essence a “report card”. Information on CPARS can be found at http://www.cpars.gov/. The contractor is responsible for the management of its personnel and quality control, and fulfilling the terms of the Contract in a timely manner, with quality services and products.

Service Delivery Summary (SDS). The SDS at the end of this document summarizes the expected service objectives (outcomes), and identifies the metrics that will be used to determine whether the outcomes are achieved at the appropriate levels of performance. In determining the evaluation criteria, the Government has considered specific contract requirements, how performance can be surveyed, and if the proposed method of surveillance is adequate to ensure the required level of performance has been achieved.

The contractor’s performance will be a factor affecting application of the plan (i.e., surveillance frequency may be increased or decreased based upon contractor demonstrated and documented performance). The Government will monitor the contractor’s performance using the surveillance methods identified in the SDS, but may choose to change or add methods from the list described below if performance requires closer surveying.

The Government retains the right to inspect any item performed or delivered under this effort, to include required tasks not shown in the SDS. In addition, the Government reserves the right to add new, delete existing, or change any of the existing tasks identified in the SDS if the contractor's performance in any area of this effort is less than satisfactory. These items will be inspected using one or more of the surveillance methods described below and will be documented by the COR in the contract file. If necessary, findings will be provided to the Contracting Officer for action. The Contracting Officer will handle each documented discrepancy on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.cpars.gov/

• One Hundred Percent Inspection. One hundred percent (100%) inspection is inspection of a requirement every time it occurs.

• Periodic Surveillance. Periodic surveillance inspection is the type of surveillance that is based upon selecting samples for evaluation on an other than 100% inspection or on a statistically random basis.

Selecting this tool to determine a contractor’s compliance to contract requirements can be quite effective and allows the COR to establish confidence or lack of confidence in the contractor without consuming a significant amount of time. An example of periodic surveillance is weekly inspections when the COR chooses the location and time on other than a statistically random basis.

• Sampling. This is the most appropriate method for frequently recurring tasks. Random sampling is done to determine whether to accept or reject the contractor’s performance of the total effort for a particular task for a given period of time, using the premise that the statistically selected sample is representative of the entire effort. Sampling may be on-the-spot, periodic or random.

• Inspection/Review. 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 of surveillance is used, the COR must inspect and evaluate the contractor’s performance each time it is performed to determine acceptability. This type of surveillance consists of the evaluation of samples selected on an other than 100% or statistically random basis. This will occur frequently at the beginning of the contract and is expected to decrease as standards are consistently met, but may increase if performance becomes substandard. The results of periodic surveillance inspections may be used as the basis for actions against the contractor. In such cases, FAR 52.246-5 Inspection of Services – Cost-Reimbursement, becomes the basis for the Contracting Officer’s actions.

• Customer Feedback. Feedback will periodically be gathered and documented regarding contractor performance. This information may be obtained via a formal inquiry/survey or monitored by customer complaints. To be considered valid, customer complaints must explain the detailed nature of the complaint in writing, and be signed and submitted to the COR. The COR will coordinate with the Contracting Officer for resolution, as needed, and will include all documentation in the contract file.

Evaluation Methodology. This QASP comprehensively guides the surveillance team’s activities and has been developed in a format to ensure ease of understanding and implementation. For each performance objective in the SDS, the specific methods of surveillance and performance thresholds are shown in the SDS Summary. The methodology described shall be used as the basis for performing surveillance of the respective performance objectives. The Government will use the following adjectival scheme to evaluate the contractor’s performance in meeting the identified standards:

• EXCEPTIONAL – Performance significantly exceeds contract requirements to the Government’s benefit.

• VERY GOOD – Performance exceeds some contract requirements to the Government’s benefit.

• SATISFACTORY – Performance meets contractual requirements.

• MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

• UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet contractual requirements.

Established Procedures. Each contractor assessment shall adhere to the following established procedure for surveillance, recording, reporting, and follow-up:

a. The frequency of surveillance will be in accordance with the schedule identified in the SDS.

b. Surveillance will be performed in accordance with the SDS with the results and comments recorded in the contract file (the COR will place the documentation in their file and also forward a copy to the

Contracting Officer). The COR may generate his/her own format. The Government will have five (5) working days to accept or reject submissions in writing, and notify the contractor of the acceptance or the cause of the rejection. The contractor shall then have five (5) working days to correct the deficiency and resubmit.

c. Performance/non-performance for particular tasks will be recorded and filed, and addressed with the Contracting Officer, if the COR and contractor cannot reach an agreement on how to resolve an incidence of non-performance. If no deficiency exists in contractor performance, no action is required.

d. If the contractor’s performance does not meet the specified criteria, the course of action will be dependent on the severity/impact/frequency of the deficiency. Re-work shall be the first action the contractor shall employ to resolve deficiencies. When the COR determines a deficiency is not Government-related and is significant to the performance of the contract, a DD Form 2772, Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) may be initiated. The COR will complete Blocks 1 through 6 of the form and send it to the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will evaluate the validity of the CDR and, if appropriate, sign and send it to the contractor to complete Blocks 9 and 10. The contractor shall return the CDR to the Contracting Officer within five (5) calendar days of receipt. Upon receipt of the contractor’s response, the Contracting Officer, in consultation with the COR, will evaluate the contractor’s response and take the appropriate action. The Contracting Officer must document the evaluation (Block 11) and action taken (Block 12) on the CDR.

e. When the contractor reports corrective action, the COR will follow up with additional surveillance to verify implementation.

In-Process Reviews (IPRs). The Government may schedule In-Process Reviews (IPRs) regularly, or as needed, during the performance of the effort. The purpose of IPRs is to discuss the status of efforts, concerns or issues, etc. The contractor shall be required to record minutes of all IPRs and submit them to the COR no later than five (5) business days after the meeting.

Service Delivery Summary (SDS)

Task Performance Requirement Acceptable Quality Level

Method of Evaluation

Frequency

All Tasks:

Deliverables/CDRLs

Submission of deliverables/CDRLS is timely.

Documents are readable, accurate, in the specified format, and of quality.

98% of the time deliverables are submitted on-time and in the format required, and are accurate and of quality. Minor corrections to documents are required only 2% of the time.

Government evaluation of deliverables received in accordance with established submission schedule. COR annotates their file and notifies the Contracting Officer if there is a persistent problem.

Reviewed at each delivery by the COR and/or Requirements Holders.

Documented monthly as part of the COR monthly status report to the Contracting Officer.

All Tasks:

Other CDRLs/Reports

All documentation submitted is accurate and timely. All required documentation meets contract requirements as to content and submission schedule.

Timesheet submittals are 99% accurate for the hours worked.

Other reports are accurate with occasional minor discrepancies.

Government review of reports submitted.

When requested, for Weekly Timesheet CDRL, with hours charged confirmed provided through solicited feedback by COR from Requirements Holders. For other reports, reviewed at each delivery by COR and/or requirements holder, as applicable.

All Tasks:

Performance and Cost Reporting

All documentation regarding performance, schedule, and incurred costs is accurate and timely. All required documentation meets contract requirements as to content and submission schedule. Detailed variance reports are provided.

99% of the time deliverables are submitted on-time and in the format required, and are accurate.

Minor corrections to documents are required only 1% of the time.

Government review of Performance and Cost Reports and invoices.

Bi-weekly or monthly (but not to exceed monthly), to align with contractor invoice submittal frequency.

Documented monthly as part of the COR monthly status report to the Contracting Officer.

All Tasks:

Contract Management

Contractor implements management approach described in their proposal. Contractor management is proactive, effective, and responsive. Contractor management is responsive to Government input and/or concerns, communications are effective, and contractor is proactive rather than reactive in addressing performance issues.

Government intervention is rarely, if ever, necessary to resolve performance issues. Required only 5% or less of the time.

Continuous review by Government personnel, via verbal (followed up by written) and written correspondence between contractor management, COR, and Requirements Holders.

Continuously.

Documented monthly as part of COR monthly status report to the

All Tasks:

Customer Feedback

Customer feedback received from Requirements Holders demonstrates contractor management’s proactive approach and effective communication style.

95% of the time, customer feedback solicited or received is positive.

Customer feedback.

COR will solicit and/or receive feedback with regard to contractor’s quality of support (timely, professional, etc.) from Requirements Holders.

Randomly.

Documented monthly as part of the COR monthly status report to the