Attachment_No__03_-_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR

DELIVERY OF POTABLE WATER &

REMOVAL OF WASTEWATER

Alcatraz Island, Golden Gate National Recreational Area

09/21/23

1. OBJECTIVE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is developed in accordance with FAR

46.401. The QASP will assist in evaluating the contractor’s performance as required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The plan prescribes the objectives of the QASP, goals and responsibilities of the Contracting Officer (CO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and the process for performance assessment throughout the contract.

In addition to the services described in the PWS, the contractor is expected to be a partner with the NPS in continuously improving the quality and services offered. This QASP is designed to provide the COR with an effective and systematic method of monitoring contractor performance for each listed objective in the PWS. The QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract.

2. MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TEAM (MFT) ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

The following Government personnel will participate in performance management of the contractor. Their roles and responsibilities are described as follows:

2.1. Contracting Officer (CO).

The CO is responsible for monitoring the contractor’s overall performance, including the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, cost control, reviewing the COR’s assessment of the contractor’s performance and resolving all discrepancies between the COR and the contractor. The CO is the only person with the authority to direct the contractor in the performance of duties under the contract and to make interpretations of and/or changes to the contract. The CO will facilitate MFT meetings.

2.2. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

Responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on contractor compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract. A primary COR will be appointed for this contract. A n a l t e r n a t e C O R m a y b e a p p o i n t e d f o r t h i s c o n t r a c t . The Contracting Officer is the designating authority. The COR has primary responsibility for quality assurance monitoring and evaluation of the contractor’s performance

3. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

The contract service requirements are summarized in the performance objectives below. The performance threshold briefly describes the minimally acceptable levels of service required for each requirement. The SS and the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan provide information on contract requirements, the expected level of Contractor performance and the expected method of government validation and confirmation of services provided. These thresholds are critical to mission success. Procedures as set forth in the FAR 52.212-4 (a), Contract

Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items, Inspection/Acceptance, will be used to remedy all deficiencies.

3.1. The following table will be utilized for performance assessments.

Performance Objective PWS Paragraph

Performance Threshold (per month)

Method of Surveillance

Sample of water C.8.1.2 No more than 5 validated defects per month

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint Bacteriological Sampling C.8.1.2 No more than 3 validated defects per year Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint Testing of backflow prevention devices

C.8.1.2 No defects validated; this is an annual testing.

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint Removal of sewage water

C.8.2.1 No more than 7 validated defects per month

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint Management of odor and spillage for sewage

C.8.2.1 No more than 7 validated defects per month

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint Implementation and Maintenance of Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan

C.8.2.1 No defects validated; this is an annual plan

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer Complain

Delivery of Potable water

C.8.3.1 No more than 7 validated defects per month

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint Compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act

C.8.3.1 No more than 2 validated defects per month

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint Disinfection and flushing of repaired potable water systems

C.8.3.1 No more than 2 validated defects per repair

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint Monitoring and recording of chlorine residual levels

C.8.3.1 No more than 2 validated defects per year.

Periodic Inspection;

Validated Customer

Complaint

3.2. Inspections. The COR or Point of Contact (POC) will perform periodic inspections to ensure contractor compliance with the PWS. Inspection results will be recorded using Appendix A, and sent to the Contractor and CO on an as needed bases (adjusted based on quality levels). All negative findings will be sent to the CO for tracking purposes to ensure the performance thresholds outlined in paragraph 3.1. are met. The COR or POC will consider cleaning times and visitor use when documenting inspection results.

3.3. Remedies for Non-Conformance. If inspections indicate unacceptable performance, the COR or POC will take pictures of the area and notify the on-site contractor employee of the deficiencies for correction prior to reopening the restroom. The contractor will be given an appropriate time frame (depending on the discrepancy identified) to correct the unacceptable performance. If the contractor disagrees with the noted discrepancy and an agreement cannot be reached, the CO shall make a final decision. When re-performance is not possible, considerations may be sought.

4. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

4.1. MFT Meetings. The MFT forms a partnership between the Government and the contractor to ensure the best possible service is provided for the life of the contract. This team will meet a minimum of each year as necessary to plan annual performance. All performance assessment documentation will be reviewed at these meetings. If performance improvement is necessary, a plan of action will be created. The MFT will continually review documentation and procedures to improve efficiency.

4.2. Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The COR shall conduct, document, track, and analyze contractor performance via regularly scheduled assessments. The assessment results shall be maintained as Past Performance Information and utilized to prepare and support annual CPARS reporting. More frequent updates may be made as required to document a significant improvement or degradation of the level of contract performance. The Assessing Official Representative (AOR) will be the COR who will also prepare the CPAR document for the CO’s review. The contractor will have input prior to the CPAR being finalized.

The following chart is the data input required for CPARS completion regarding the contract effort. Always consult CPARS guidance at cpars.gov for current guidance prior to preparing actual CPARS evaluation.

Performance Element

Description

Quality Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety health standards).

Schedule Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedule, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or effect the schedule variance).

Cost Control (Not required for Firm-Fixed Price or Firm-Fixed Price w/Economic Price Adjustment (EPA). Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost.

Management Assess the integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history or reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts., and whether the contractor met small/small disadvantaged and woman owned business participation goals.

Management of Key Personnel (applicable when the contract / order contains a “Key Personnel” clause)

Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel.

Utilization of Small Business

Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract/order relating to Small Business participation (including FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Businesses and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when required). Assess any small business participation goals which are stated separately in the contract/order.

Assess achievement on each individual goal stated within the contract/order or subcontracting plan including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved.

Regulatory Compliance

Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract/order relating to applicable regulations and codes. Consider aspects of performance such as compliance with Financial, Environmental (Example: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act), Safety, and Labor regulations as well as any other reporting requirements in the contract.

In evaluating the contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings will be utilized as described in FAR Part 42.

Performance Ratings

Definition/Criteria Justification

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many 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.

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.

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.

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.

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, or 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

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 serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

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, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters).

5. REVISIONS TO THIS QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVEILLANCE PLAN

Revisions to this QASP are the joint responsibility of the CO and COR. The COR reviews the PWS and QASP annually and will provide proposed changes, if necessary. This is a living document that can be changed at any time as needed.

Appendix A COR/POC Daily Inspection Record

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

PWS

Paragraph

ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE

Removal of wastewater C.8.2

Delivery of potable water C.8.3

Potable water testing C.8.1

Monitoring of chlorine levels C.8.3

Odor management C.8.2

COR/POC Monthly Inspection Record

PERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVE

PWS

Paragraph

ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE

Describe in detail any Unacceptable ratings (include COR/POC name & date/time of inspection):