B08_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan_West_Tennessee_NWR_Forest_Habitat_Improvement.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

West Tennessee NWR Forest Habitat Improvement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1: TSI PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled “West Tennessee NWR Forest Habitat Improvement”. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 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.

1.1.2 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.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 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 West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex 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.

1.2.2 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.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance. 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.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 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 Government Representative (GR) and the contractor. 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.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

The contracting officer’s Government Representative (GR) is designated in writing by the CO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. GR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The GR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The GR 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 GR 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.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.” If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be paid the amount agreed on in the contract. Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction from the contract amount.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort 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:

Periodic Inspection, measure sample plots to verify basal area/stems per acre and residual red oak component meets prescription; shall be performed by the GR.

4.2 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. Levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance at West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

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 Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the GR, will be reported using the monitoring form in Attachment 2. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

5.2.1 The GR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 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. Failure to meet the AQL may result in a deduction from the contract payment, prorated on an acreage or percentage basis.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each month, the GR will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This report, which includes the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (Attachment 2), 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.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The CO may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the GR and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The GR 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 GR as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

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

Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

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

6.3.3 The GR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action.

Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the PCO/ACO.

ATTACHMENT 1: TSI PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services (Tasks)

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Incentive (Positive and/or Negative)

(Impact on Contractor Payments)

Residual basal area is reduced to 50-60 ft2 or 130-180 trees per acre while maintaining 60% red oak cover

Undesirable trees are eliminated according to prescription specifications.

Contractor meets

Contractor meets

90%

90%

Periodic Inspections/

Periodic Inspections/ sample plots

If stem reductions fall short of prescription, the contractor will hack and squirt additional trees to meet Acceptable Quality Levels. Areas exceeding a reduction of 50-60 ft2 will be deducted from the contract payment on a prorated acreage basis.

If sample area falls short of prescription, the contractor will hack and squirt additional trees to meet Acceptable Quality Levels.

Areas where undesirable trees outnumber desirable trees (especially in cases where undesirable trees could have been taken instead) will be deducted from the contract payment on a prorated acreage basis.

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

Monthly Quarterly As needed

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: ______ %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Service Provider’s Performance (Check): Meets Standards

Does Not Meet Standards

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________