B08(c)_-_Attachment_2_QASP_for_USPP_SFFO_HMP_Stable_Maint.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

United States Park Police Horse Mounted Patrol Stall Maintenance Services i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled STALL MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING SERVICES UNITED STATES PARK POLICE HORSE MOUNTED PATROL. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines USPP HMP Staff will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

Purpose 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.

Performance Management Approach 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 USPP Staff 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.

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.

1.3.2 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.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

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 contracting officer's representative (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.

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

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 monthly amount agreed on in the contract.

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

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:

· 100% Inspection – Daily, the COTR/COR, and/or his/her designee, shall review the work as outlined in the PWS.

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, and must be forwarded to the COTR/COR.

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

Acceptable Quality Levels

1) 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. For all activities at each of the USPP HMP Stables that are stabling horses, the desired performance level is established at 100 percent.

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

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.

Monitoring Forms The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachments 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 of USPP HMP Stable Maintenance and Cleaning Services are being performed in accordance with the PWS.

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

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

Determining Performance 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.

Reporting Quarterly, the COR, will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and 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.

Reviews and Resolution The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO, COR, and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The CO 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 must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The COR 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 CO.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

The following Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) indicates the desired outcomes, performance objectives, performance standards, and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs). Refer to the Performance Work Statement for the actual descriptions.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Prior to returning the horse to the stall or releasing it into the paddock, the contractor shall pick each horse’s hoofs

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Replace removed soiled bedding with an equal amount of Government provided clean/dry sawdust or wood shavings. The amount of sawdust or wood shavings bedding in the stall will be listed on the stall card or IAW directions provided by USPP staff.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Remove cobwebs and dust from the interior walls of all occupied stalls (up to 8’)

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Sweep sawdust away from stall entrance to prevent bedding from blocking door and spilling into the aisle.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Return horse to stall, remove halter and secure door.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Provide all horses with additional hay or soaked alfalfa as designated on their stall card (as needed) after stalls are cleaned.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Check, clean, and fill outdoor waterers, buckets, and/or basins. There should be no algae, mold, or foreign matter in the outdoor waterers, buckets, and/or basins. Provide hay or soaked alfalfa as designated on their stall card to horses remaining in turnout.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Remove cobwebs and dust from the exterior walls of all stalls, and all aisle walls and posts (up to 8’)

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Fill feed bins with 50-pound bags of feed when feed bins are empty.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

Trends of less than acceptable performance could result in reductions in payments at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Additionally, a negative review of the Contractor could affect future contract awards.

NOTE: Government surveillance of Contractor performance is not limited to the Performance Objectives as outlined in this PRS. The Government reserves the right to conduct compliance surveillance of any contractual requirement of this acquisition.

PRS Description of contents:

a. PRS #: indicates the numbering sequence within the PRS table.

b. Paragraph: PWS paragraph number(s) specifying each required task(s)

c. Specific Task: a brief summary of required tasks to be monitored.

d. Actual Quality Level (AQL): This column lists the maximum allowable degree of deviation from perfect performance of each requirement before the Government considers contractor performance unsatisfactory. An AQL does not say the contractor may knowingly offer defective service to the Government, but recognizes defective performance sometimes happens unintentionally.

e. Performance Standard: appropriate performance standard, usually described in terms of quality and timeliness, so that a distinction can be made between satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance.

f. Method of Surveillance: method(s) utilized to objectively perform surveillance of requirement.

g. Consequence of failure to achieve the AQL

ATTACHMENT 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________