D.1 ATTACHMENT 1 QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN.PACIFIC BASIN.pdf

PACIFIC BASIN UNIVERSITY FOR CPIVH

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled Pacific Basin University. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Department of Veterans Affairs will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the Contractor.

2. PURPOSE

2.1. The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and identify required documentation and 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 ensures the government pays only for the level of services received.

2.2. 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.

3. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

3.1. The Performance Work Statement (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 CPVIH to monitor and manage the Contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcome or performance objectives communicated in 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.

3.2. 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, if 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 if the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

4. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

4.1. The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s 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 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 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 also 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.

4.2. 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 determinations 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.

5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

5.1. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO/KO)

5.1.1. The CO is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control, and resolving any differences between 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.

5.2. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE (COR)

5.2.1. The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as their 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 authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions must 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.

6. IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

6.1. The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary. If the Contractor meets the required service or performance level, the monthly amount agreed on in the contract will be paid. If the Contractor exceeds the service or performance level, it is eligible to receive favorable contracting review.

Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction from the monthly amount.

7. METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

7.1. SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES

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

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

7.1.1.2. Periodic inspection – the COR typically performs the periodic inspection

7.2. CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

7.2.1. 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.

7.2.2. 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 or COR, as opposed to the Contractor.

7.2.3. 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 COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate.

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

7.3. ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVELS

7.3.1. The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1 for contractor performance 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 curriculum development, policy landscape assessment and recommendations, and collaborative initiatives.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

8.1. THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FEEDBACK LOOP

8.1.1. The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

8.2. MONITORING FORMS

8.2.1. The Government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, 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 the required recruitment levels are being achieved.

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

9. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

9.1. DETERMINING PERFORMANCE

9.1.1. 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. Failure to meet the AQL may result in a deduction from the monthly payment, using the deduction percentages shown in Attachment 1. Likewise, if the contractor exceeds the performance standards, an incentive or award fee will be paid, in accordance with the incentive fee or award fee plan included in the contract.

9.2. REPORTING

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

9.3. REVIEWS AND RESOLUTION

9.3.1. The COR may require the Contractor’s project manager or designated alternate to meet with the CO and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss the 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:

9.3.1.1. Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

9.3.1.2. Issues and concerns of both parties

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

9.3.1.4. Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

9.3.1.5. Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

9.3.2. The QAR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

9.3.3. 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 procuring CO (PCO) or ACO.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services (Tasks)

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Incentive (Positive and/or Negative)

(Impact on Contractor Payments)

Curriculum development:

Comprehensive curriculum package, including training modules and materials, submitted within six (6) months and updated annually

Completed and approved by CPIVH leadership

100% Periodic reviews and spot checks

Payment is reduced by percentage based upon failure to meet acceptable quality levels.

Policy landscape assessment and recommendations:

Policy assessment report and initial recommendations submitted by the end of Year 1.

Completed and approved by CPIVH leadership

100% Periodic reviews and spot checks

Payment is reduced by percentage based upon failure to meet acceptable quality levels.

Collaborative initiatives:

Quarterly progress reports on collaborative initiatives, including metrics on community engagement and project outcomes.

Completed and approved by CPIVH leadership

100% Periodic reviews and spot checks

Payment is reduced by percentage based upon failure to meet acceptable quality levels.