B.08.02 Attachment DRAFT QASP Olmsted AFB Sunset Annex FUDS.pdf

DRAFT

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Olmsted Air Force Base (Sunset Annex)

LONDONDERRY TOWNSHIP (Middletown), DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Contract# pending

FUDS Property Number: C03PA1016

Prepared By

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District

Contracting Division

City Crescent Building, Room 7000

10 South Howard Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

January 2024

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Subject Matter Experts

Table 2 – Evaluation Areas & Ratings Criteria

Table 3 – Key Deliverables by Evaluation Areas

Table 4 – Specific Evaluation Criteria for Established Key Deliverables

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

Attachment B: Quality Assurance Report

Attachment C: Corrective Action Form

Attachment D-5: On-Site Safety/Operations Quality Assurance Form

LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

COR Contracting Officer’s Representative

KO Contracting Officer

PM Project Manager

PMP Project Management Plan

POC Point of Contact

QAMF Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

QAR Quality Assurance Report

QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

SME Subject Matter Experts

SOW Scope of Work

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth the procedures and guidance that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will use in evaluating the technical and quality performance of the Contractor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scope of work

(SOW) for Contract No. (solicitation W912DR-24-Q-0010). A copy of the signed final plan will be furnished to the Contractor so that the Contractor will be aware of the methods that the COR will use in evaluating performance of this contract and will be uploaded to the Procurement Integrated Enterprise

Environment (PIEE).

1.2 Purpose. The purpose of the QASP is to ensure that the performance of specific activities and the completion of final project deliverables are accomplished in accordance with all requirements set forth in the SOW). This QASP describes the mechanism for documenting noteworthy accomplishments or discrepancies for work performed by the Contractor. Information generated from COR’s surveillance activities will directly feed into performance discussions with the Contractor. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with performance metrics set forth in the contract documents, the

Army receives the quality of services called for in the contract, and the Army only pays for acceptable services received.

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

• Define the role and responsibilities of participating Army officials.

• Define the final deliverables and standards that will be assessed.

• Describe the surveillance methodology that will be employed by the Army in assessing the

Contractor’s performance.

• Describe the surveillance documentation process and provide copies of the forms that the Army will use in evaluating the Contractor’s performance.

• Outline quality assurance procedures to be employed by the Government during performance of this task order.

• Define Evaluation Areas, including Quality, Schedule, Management, Small Business, Regulatory

Compliance, and other areas (as applicable).

• Define Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory performance standards for final deliverables and standards.

• Ensure clarity on recent changes to the formulation of contractor evaluations, from an overall/cumulative rating to a recommend/do not recommend.

• Outline corrective action procedures.

• Describe payment procedures.

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ARMY OFFICIALS

2.1 Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer (KO) has overall responsibility for overseeing the

Contractor’s performance. The KO is responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the Contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, and contract administration; reviewing the COR’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance; and resolving all differences between the COR’s assessment and the Contractor’s assessment of performance. It is the KO that assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance. The KO for this contract is Katie

Marrette at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), uestions for the KO should be directed to the assigned USACE

Contract Specialist, .

3.3 Performance Assessment Process. If a deliverable is rated as being unsatisfactory for Quality or

Regulatory Compliance at the time that the approved SOW deadline for the deliverable expires, the

Contractor may receive an unsatisfactory rating for Schedule, unless there is an Army approved delay that extends the SOW deliverable. This will only take place during the rating period, and will not necessarily influence future/later ratings.

3.3.1 Army Approved Delays. At the discretion of the COR, the performance standard of Schedule outlined in Table 4, may not be monitored due to Army-Approved delays. QAMFs will track and report this based on Contractor monthly reports to the COR.

3.4 Recommendation. In lieu of an overall rating, the Contractor will either be recommended/not recommended for similar future requirements.

3.5 Key Deliverables to be assessed. The following deliverables will be evaluated in accordance with this

QASP:

3.5.1 Final Deliverables

• Work Plan

• Site Safety and Health Plan and Accident Prevention Plan

• Completed Fence Repair

3.5.2 Monitoring Method

• 100% Inspection: All project deliverables will be evaluated through 100% inspection by onsite inspection or document review. The USACE Project Manager will document performance for each completed deliverable prior to payment, as described in Section 5.0.

• Periodic Inspection: At the USACE Project Manager’s discretion, periodic inspections will be conducted to evaluate progress toward deliverables. This will include QA Inspections (safety, geophysics, chemical data packages, etc.) by a government representative. The USACE Project

Manager may also complete a periodic progress inspection if he/she believes that deficiencies exist that must be addressed prior to deliverable completion. While corrective action or re-performance will be required if necessary, the Contractor will not be financially penalized for unacceptable performance recorded in periodic progress reports, provided that final performance evaluation of the deliverable is deemed acceptable.

• Customer Feedback: Contractor performance feedback will be obtained through periodic inquiries by the USACE Project Manager with project stakeholders. The purpose of these inquiries would be to supplement the other forms of evaluation and to also provide the Contractor with constructive criticism and/or recognition for the project deliverables completed. Customer feedback received will be thoroughly validated to ensure it relates to the requirements of the

SOW and will be used in a prudent manner by the COR. Customer feedback will also be solicited in the form of a concurrence letter by the Contractor from appropriate stakeholders for final deliverables.

3.5.3Additional Surveillance Activities

Additional Government surveillance activities may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Review and approval of meeting minutes.

• Review of daily reports.

• Review of data deliverables.

• Oversight of field work activities.

• Review of uploaded electronic deliverables.

• Review of the Contractor’s quality control documentation.

Manager will forward these records through the COR and to the KO at termination or completion of the contract.

4.4 Technical Quality Assurance Monitoring. In general, all work will be evaluated in terms of how well the requirements of the task order are satisfied, the extent to which the work performed follows the approach found in the contractor’s technical proposal and/or implements the decision of Technical Project

Planning, and clarity of documentation. At the discretion of the COR or the Contracting Officer or

Specialist, other government officials approved by the Contracting Officer or Specialist may be asked to evaluate a particular deliverable or set of deliverables. The results of all Technical Quality Assurance

Monitoring will be documented using a Technical Review Form. Technical Quality Assurance

Monitoring Documentation will document technical criteria evaluated. Relevant forms are included as attachments to this document and will be updated as needed.

5.0 PAYMENT

5.1 Acceptable Performance. Estimates are typically made monthly, but can be made other than monthly, of the amount and value of the work and services performed by the Contractor under this contract which meet the standards of quality established under this contract. The estimates, along with any supporting data required by the Contracting Officer, shall be prepared by the Contractor and submitted along with its voucher. After receipt of each substantiated voucher, the Government shall pay the voucher as approved by the Contracting Officer or authorized representative.

5.2 Unsatisfactory Performance. If a deliverable receives an unsatisfactory rating for either the Quality or Regulatory Compliance performance standard, re-performance is required until the deliverable receives an acceptable rating. This re-performance is required regardless of cost or schedule constraints that may result from the unsatisfactory performance, unless the KO has opted to terminate the contract.

QASP Approval:

Name Date

Contracting Officer’s Representative