B01 RFP Attachment 1- QASP.docx

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

For: Division of Environmental Health Services (DEHS)

Contract Number: TBD

Contract Description: Division of Environmental Health Service Data System

Contractor’s Name: XXXX (hereafter referred to as the contractor).

1. Introduction The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) contains the high-level technical and professional requirements for the Web-based Environmental Health Reporting System (WebEHRS) which is a modified commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) database driven, web-based environmental health inspection and management system that will support a nationwide environmental health program. The system will be utilized at the national, regional, and field levels by approximately 250 environmental health specialists. The contractor must have technical experience or competency in the fields of environmental and public health. The QASP focuses on “how” service quality will be delivered along with targets in the form of acceptable quality limits (AQLs). These AQLs. These AQLs define the parameters for the services provided.

2. Work Requirements The detailed work requirements of the WebEHRS contract are set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

In brief, the work requirements correspond to the following categories:

· Technical

· System modifications

· Reporting capability

· Training

3. Purpose This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan is a government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

· What will be monitored

· How monitoring will take place

· Who will conduct the monitoring

· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan. The QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance and their Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) actions to assure they meet contract standards. It is the government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s quality control plan. This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance.

The government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances might occur that are outside the control of the contractor.

Bottom line, the QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance.

4. Authority Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Inspection of Services clauses, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract or order. This acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized representative.

5. Roles and Responsibilities The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Program/Project Manager (PM) or Functional Services Manager (FSM) – The PM/FSM provides primary program oversight, nominates the COR, ensures the COR is trained before performing any COR duties and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. While the PM/FSM may serve as a direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the contractor on technical matters, they are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or any contract changes on the government’s behalf.

Assigned PM/FSM: Martin Smith, RS, MPH Organization or Agency: Indian Health Service, Division of Environmental Health Services (DEHS) Telephone: (301) 443-9843 Email: martin.smith@ihs.gov

Contracting Officer (CO) – The CO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The CO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Assigned CO: Matthew Phelps Organization or Agency: Division of Engineering Services (DES) Telephone: (206) 613-2153 Email: matthew.phelps@ihs.gov

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the CO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the CO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for surveillance of the contractor’s quality program and help the COR to document contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

Contractor Representatives

The following employees of the contractor serve as the contractor’s Program Manager and Task Manager for this contract. (Complete this section after the contract award)

Contractor Program Manager – Name Telephone:

Email:

Contractor Task Manager – Name Telephone:

Email:

6. Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance

6.1. Contract Surveillance

The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR’s contribution is their professional, non-adversarial relationships with the CO, PM and the contractor, which enables positive, open and timely communications. The foundation of this relationship is built upon objective, fair, and consistent COR evaluations of contractor performance against contract requirements. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for management and QC/QA actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

6.2. Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (Attachment 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance and frequency the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

6.3. Performance Rating Definitions

The performance ratings below reflect definitions at FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1. The COR will use these rating to evaluate the quality of contractor’s performance.

Performance Rating Definition

Note 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to change the evaluation status.

Note 2: N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation.

7. Performance Reporting

7.1. Corrective Action Report (CAR) Describes how discrepancies are reported and resolved (see sample CAR below).

7.2. Customer Complaint Form (see sample customer complaint form below)

7.3. Performance Assessment Report (PAR) (see sample customer PAR below)

Attachment 1 DEHS WebEHRS Contractor

QASP

Surveillance Matrix

The environmental health COTS will therefore be capable of providing several features

· Document establishment and operator information

· Allow users to document, track and report work

· Allow users to attach pictures, PDFs, spreadsheets and other common electronic files

· Allow users to email completed reports, with selected electronic attachments directly from the system

· Provide electronic inspection data collection capability to be used by environmental health inspectors both in the field on mobile devices and in the office using a web browser-based version

· Provide user permission levels based on user roles and geographic locations

· Allow users to select, monitor, trend, and report specific electronic inspection violations

· Provide user support (e.g. manuals, help desk)

· Meet Federal IT/Security/FedRAMP/Accessibility requirements

· Have data redundancy and backup

· Have the capacity to provide a data transfer protocol which will allow web services to connect to external database products or commercial databases

· Have routine evaluations for system and data quality assurance

· Have routine system maintenance

Negative: Document past performance report card, paying particular attention to performance that is below the standard.

Environmental Health COTS modifications

Calculate Resource Requirements Methodology figures to determine workload

Provide additional electronic inspection forms/checklists as requested by the IHS

Establishments shall be identified using codes from the IHS coding system for Area, Service Unit, Tribe, Reservation, and Community 100%

100%

Review processes to calculate these essential values and conduct testing

Review processes to generate these forms/checklists and conduct testing

Review processes to incorporate IHS codes and conduct testing Positive: Document past performance report card, paying particular attention to performance that exceeded the standard

Negative: Document past performance report card, paying particular attention to performance that is below the standard.

Environmental health and management related pre-existing reports and the ability to create ad-hoc reports from all data fields

Summary reports based on user selected parameters

User selected inspection violation trend reports

Tribal code and ordinance reports 100%

Review processes to generate these essential reports and conduct system testing

Review processes to generate these essential reports and conduct system testing

Review processes to generate these reports and conduct system testing

Positive: Document past performance report card, paying particular attention to performance that exceeded the standard

Negative: Document past performance report card, paying particular attention to performance that is below the standard

Training

Provide two on-site train-the-trainer sessions the first and third years of the contract

Provide two live webinars per year 75%

75% Discussed and planned during monthly contract monitoring calls; number of trainings completed

Discussed and planned during monthly contract monitoring calls; number of webinars completed

Positive: Document past performance report card, paying particular attention to performance that exceeded the standard

Negative: Document past performance report card, paying particular attention to performance that is below the standard

Inspection Metrologies:

M1: Inspection of Reports. All reports shall be reviewed upon receipt. The reviewer will report any flaws in the document and categorize the flaws (Editorial, Format, and/or Substance).

Appendix 1 – Surveillance Matrix

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY |_| MAJOR |_| MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

|_| ACCEPTED |_| REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. |_| DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

|_| NEW

|_| REPEAT

|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS