B08_Attachment_9_-_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.docx

C&O CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

FY21 PACKAGE 9

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND SURVEILLANCE PLAN

QASP

CONTENTS

4. Required Performance Standards / Quality Levels

5. Methodologies to Monitor Performance

a. Surveillance Techniques

1) Random Monitoring

2) Periodic Inspection

3) Close-out Inspection

a. Monitoring Documentation

a. Determining Performance

b. Reporting

c. Reviews and Resolution

//PROCEED TO NEXT PAGE//

1.1 CONTRACTOR'S QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

In accordance with section 1.2 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the contractor shall provide the government a copy of the contractor’s internal Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QCP shall contain the active and passive control measures the contractor will implement to ensure that work is performed at an acceptable level of quality. Examples include but are not limited to internal monitoring practices and frequencies, staff education and training specific to this contract, and internal contractor work standards. The QCP has no standard or mandated format, but shall be grounded in reasonable trade standards and best management practices. The contractor shall be bound by the provisions in QCP. This does not prevent the contractor from implementing additional measures above and beyond the QCP during the performance period.

1.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND SURVEILLANCE PLAN:

This quality assurance (QA) surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled FY21 PACKAGE 9 (Tree Management). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1. Purpose and Approach The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project team (IPT), identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by COR to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the contractor.

Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

2. Performance Management Strategy The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control (QC) program. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

a. The Contracting Officer: The contracting officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the (COR) and the contractor. The CO will designate one full-time (COR) as the government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the CO.

b. The Contracting Officer’s Representative: Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the CO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the CO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

4. Required Performance Standards / Quality Levels The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in the “Performance Requirements Summary” PRS. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be paid in the amount and intervals agreed on in the contract. Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction in overall payment rendered in accordance with the PRS.

5. Methodologies to Monitor Performance

a. Surveillance Techniques: To minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are:

1) Random monitoring: Random monitoring shall be performed by the COR designated inspector or the COR. The random inspection is generally unannounced, but the COR may elect to coordinate with the contractor in advance order to facilitate communication about the inspection findings.

2) Periodic Inspection: The COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis, but periodic inspections may vary in their frequency at the COR's discretion (based on workload and need).

3) Close-out Inspection: When the contractor considers work is ACCEPTABLE to the Government and complete, the contractor shall inform the COR that the work is complete and ready for inspection. The COR will inspect the work on-site in consultation with the staff arborist(s). The close-out inspection shall be documented in writing, and must clearly convey any deficiencies and remedial action required. The contractor shall provide a representative with requisite knowledge and authority to accompany the COR during the close-out inspection to provide clarity, context, and rationale when necessary, as well as position the contractor to better execute any necessary follow-on actions. In the event that the work is NOT ACCEPTABLE, the contractor shall record a list of items noted by the Government to be corrected. A subsequent inspection shall take place to review the corrected items. The contractor is responsible for ensuring all TASK(S) are complete at an ACCEPTABLE level of quality during the performance period, to include all necessary corrections at their own expense.

b. Customer Feedback: The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR as opposed to the contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed (an email signature line is acceptable), and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate when warranted.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

c. Acceptable Levels of Quality: The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) table, are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. For certain critical activities such as those involving tree removal, the desired performance level is established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance at the C&O Canal National Historical Park.

6. Quality Assurance Documentation The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in the PRS.

a. Monitoring Documentation The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported in writing, and shall contain the following information:

· Contract Administrative Data

· Surveillance Method(s)

· Service or Standard Being Evaluated

· Performance narrative with adjudication of acceptability

· Signature line

The COR or inspector may elect to include supporting imagery or other information to provide context and refine specificity. When completed, the COR will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results for tree management and arboricultural services are being achieved. The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance documents.

7. Analysis of Quality Assurance

a. Determining Performance: The Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

b. Reporting: After each documented inspection, the COR will prepare a written report for the Contracting Officer (CO) summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes any contractor submitted reports and any completed quality assurance monitoring documentation, will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

c. Reviews and Resolution: The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the COR and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

· Issues and concerns of both parties

· Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

The COR and CO must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The CO, COR, and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the PCO/ACO.

//PROCEED TO NEXT PAGE//

8. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

image1.png