B13_QASP_CATO_FY21_Hazard_Tree_Pkg_3_4-28-21.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan CATO FY21 Hazard Tree Package 3

Park Central Rd., Rt. 77, Round Meadow, Chestnut Picnic Area

4/28/2021 Issued May 20, 2021

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 CATO Hazard Tree Pkg 3. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the National Park Service, Catoctin Mountain Park (CATO) 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 the National Park Service (NPS), CATO 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.

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 CATO. 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 outlined in the Performance Requirements Summary. If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be paid as agreed upon in the contract. Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result nonpayment until the work is performed to a satisfactory level.

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

Surveillance Monitoring Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods may be used by the government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are:

File Reviews – COR review contractor logs and reports typically performed on a monthly basis.

Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR designated inspector.

Periodic Inspection – COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

Customer Complaints - COR will keep track of customer complaints on a monthly basis.

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 CO and 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. The COTR/COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate.

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

Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) are outlined throughout the PWS and in the Performance Requirements Summary, where contractor’s performance is 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 adherence to all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulation, specifically 29 CFR 1910 – General Industry and working closely with and alongside NPS personnel for 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 performance at CATO.

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 performance requirements summary may be assessed using the surveillance monitoring techniques previously identified.

Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance may be reported using a monitoring form similar to the one on the final page of this document or communicated in an email. The completed form and/or email will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required service results are being achieved.

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

At the end of each month, the COR may prepare a written report for the ACO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report 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 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

Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

The Quality Assurance Report 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 CS.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

The Government shall inspect the contractor’s performance under this contract periodically through the service and when the contractor declares the service complete. The Government must do so to ensure that the contractor has performed in accordance with the performance standards. If the Government should find any performance deficiencies, the Contractor shall correct the deficiencies within 24-hours of written notification by the COR, POC, or CO.

Required

Services/Tasks (from PWS)

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Method Used/ Frequency

Incentive (Positive and/or Negative)

(Impact on Contractor Payments)

Remove 227 trees identified in Exhibits 1 & 2

Per PWS 2.1 100% Final Inspection No Payment will be made

Prune 4 trees identified in Exhibits 1 & 2

Per PWS 2.2 100% Final Inspection No Payment will be made

Chipped material distribution 3” depth

Per PWS 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10

100% Periodic COR inspection

Contractor will reperform at no cost until the condition is compliant with the PWS - 10% of final payment will be withheld until compliant.

Chipped material distribution public use areas

Per PWS 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10

100% Periodic COR inspection

Contractor will remove material at no cost until the condition is compliant with the PWS – 10% of final payment will be withheld until compliant.

All Stumps Flush

Per PWS 2.1, 2.2

100% Periodic and Final COR inspection

All Stumps found not flush or greater than 3 inches above grade will be recut at no cost until the condition is compliant with the PWS – 10% of final payment will be withheld until compliant.

Repair all ground damage

Per PWS 2.1, 2.2

100% Final Inspection Ground damaged identified during final inspection will be repaired at no cost to the satisfaction of the COR – 10% payment will be withheld until compliant.

Wash Heavy equipment prior to arrival

Per PWS 4.1 100% Call COR for inspection upon arrival

Equipment will not be permitted to enter the park and cannot be used until cleaned to the satisfaction of the COR.

Safety Control Measures

Per PWS 4.1 100% Periodic COR inspection

Work will be STOPPED until condition is brought into compliance according to the PWS

Superintendent and Alt. written designation

Per PWS 4.2 100% Received & approved 2 weeks post award.

Contractor cannot start services.

Written Safety Plan

Per PWS 4.2 100% Received & approved 2 weeks post award.

Contractor cannot start services.

Written Quality Control Plan

Per PWS 4.2 100% Received & approved 2 weeks post award

Contractor cannot start services.

Written Work Schedule

Per PWS 4.2 100% Received & approved 10 days prior to intended start date.

Contractor cannot start services.

Work/Treatmen t log

Per PWS 4.2 100% Received & approved 5 days prior to final payment application

Final payment will not be made until COR receives and approves log.

Provide ISA Certified Arborist ID or Maryland Tree Expert Licenses

Per PWS 4.2 100% Received & approved 10 days prior to intended start date.

Contractor cannot start services.

Provide Maryland SHA approved certified flaggers along roadways open to traffic

Per PWS 4.2 100% Received & approved 10 days prior to intended start date.

Contractor cannot start services

Contractor Employee Conduct

Per PWS 4.3 95% No more than 2 reported instances in writing as outlined in 4.3 may occur per employee

Offending employee will be dismissed from the premises and shall not return for the remainder of the job.

SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling File Review Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

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: _________________

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY