D.1 WATER TREATEMENT QASP_signed.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Water Treatment Services

The contractor shall be evaluated in accordance with the following:

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

• What will be monitored?

• How will monitoring take place?

• Who will conduct the monitoring?

• How will monitoring efforts and results be documented?

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis.

However, the Government shall coordinate changes with the contractor through contract modification. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and government officials implementing surveillance activities.

2. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Contracting Officer (CO) – The CO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The CO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

Assigned CO: Troy Davis

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance.

The COR shall keep a quality assurance file. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf.

Assigned COR: Willard Rushing

3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES

The following staff of the contractor serve as the contractor’s program manager(s) for this contract.

Primary:

Alternate:

4. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The contractor is responsible for performance of ALL terms and conditions of the contract. CORs will provide contract progress reports quarterly to the CO reflecting performance on this plan and all other aspects of the resultant contract. The performance standards outlined in this QASP shall be used to determine the level of contractor performance in the elements defined. Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine the level of contractor performance to these standards.

If any portion of the requirement is not met and/or the acceptable quality level in any of the elements in this section/subsection are not maintained, the contractor will be notified by the contracting officer for response outlining the contractor’s proposed remedy. The Government may seek an equitable price reduction or adequate consideration for acceptance of nonconforming services per FAR 52.212-4.

The performance requirements are listed below in Section 6. The Government shall use these standards to determine contractor performance and shall compare contractor performance to the standard and assign a rating. At the end of the performance period, these ratings will be used, in part, to establish the past performance of the contractor on the contract.

5. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE

Various methods exist to monitor performance. The COR shall use the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP.

WATER SYSTEMS VERIFICATION. Contractor responsible for verification of water systems, establishing correct initiation points for chemical input, investigation of possible leaks or overuse of chemicals and repairs to leaks etc.

WATER TREATMENT. Perform water treatment to cooling tower water system, boiler/heating water and condensate systems as well as chill water loop system by contractor. Injections points need prior approval by COR. Inspections of work performance and required documentation to remain in compliance with policies and regulations and reports submitted to COR within7 days.

WATER TREATMENT TESTING. Collect water samples and conduct tests using appropriate testing kits or send them to a certified laboratory and adjust parameters based on results by contractor.

WATER TREATMENT MONITORING. Applies to all contractor responsible for supplying and installing all equipment to provide monitoring points within water systems that will connect with SCADA system. Locations approved by COR prior to installation.

CHEMICAL STORAGE/HANDLING/DELIVERY. Chemical handlers must be certified in Hazmat compliance, equipped with all proper PPE, and equipped with necessary items to handle spills and unexpected incidents. Chemical transport must comply with DOT requirements for transporting hazardous materials.

6. Measures

Boiler Plant Operator Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) As of August 1, 2024

METRIC SOW

Para Performance Requirement

Standard Acceptable Quality Level

Method of Surveillance and frequency

Met AQL/Did Not Meet AQL (Add comment)

REQUIRED

REPORTING

Employment SOW Contractor shall be 100% 100% Random Eligibility para. 14 enrolled and Compliance Compliance, no

Verification (E- maintain compliance deviations

Verify) with the E-Verify program.

Service Contract Reporting

SOW

para. 14

Contractor shall report contract activity monthly as prescribed.

100% Compliance

100% Compliance, no deviations

Random

7. Ratings:

Metrics and methods are designed to determine rating for a given standard and acceptable quality level. The following ratings shall be used:

EXCEPTIONAL: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Note: To justify an Exceptional rating, you should identify multiple significant events in each category and state how it was a benefit to the GOVERNMENT.

However, a singular event could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

VERY GOOD: Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Note: To justify a Very Good rating, you should identify a significant event in each category and state how it was a benefit to the GOVERNMENT. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

SATISFACTORY: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Note: To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

MARGINAL: Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Note: To justify Marginal performance, you should identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the GOVERNMENT. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., Management, Quality, Safety or Environmental Deficiency Report or letter).

UNSATISFACTORY: Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Note: To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, you should identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the GOVERNMENT. However, a singular problem could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g. Management, Quality, Safety or Environmental Deficiency Reports, or letters).

8. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE

a. The Government shall document positive and/or negative performance. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action and preparing annual past performance using CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CPAR).

b. If contractor performance does not meet the Acceptable Quality level, the CO shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the CO shall document the discussion and place it in the contract file. When the COR and the CO determines, formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to CO. The CO will in turn review and will present to the contractor's program manager for corrective action.

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the contractor must present this corrective action plan to the CO. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. The CO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance and the acceptability of the Contractor’s corrective action plan.

Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for any contractual action deemed necessary by the CO.

9. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT

a. Frequency of Measurement.

The frequency of measurement is defined in the contract or otherwise in this document. The government (COR or CO) will periodically analyze whether the frequency of surveillance is appropriate for the work being performed.

b. Frequency of Performance Reporting.

The COR shall communicate with the Contractor and will provide written reports to the Contracting Officer quarterly (or as outlined in the contract or COR delegation) to review Contractor performance.

10. COR AND CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QASP

SIGNED:

Willard Rushing, COR DATE

SIGNED:

CONTRACTOR NAME/TITLE DATE