Attachment D - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.docx

RFP# ED-ESE-11-R-0040

U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

ATTACHMENT D: QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Technical Assistance for Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) Grants Funded Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA)

Introduction

This QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP) sets forth procedures and guidelines that the US Department of Education (ED) will use in evaluating the technical performance of the contractor. A copy of this plan will be furnished to the contractor so that the contractor will be aware of the methods that ED will employ in evaluating performance on this contract and address any concerns that the contractor may have prior to initiating work.

There is no monetary Award-Fee or Incentive-Fee associated with this contract.

Purpose of the QASP

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

1. Define the roles and responsibilities of participating Government officials and outside experts;

2. Define the key deliverables which will be assessed;

3. Describe the rating elements and standards of performance against which the contractor’s performance will be assessed for each key deliverable;

4. Describe the process of quality assurance assessment; and

5. Provide copies of the quality assurance monitoring forms that will be used by the Government in documenting and evaluating the contractor’s performance.

Each of these purposes is discussed in detail below.

Roles and Responsibilities of Participating Government Officials

The following Government Officials will participate in assessing the quality of the contractor’s performance. Their roles and responsibilities are described as follows:

The Program Manager will be responsible for ensuring that the Contracting Officer's Representative is following the Departmental rules and regulations and all laws, and any directives governing its programs.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COR will also be responsible for completing the Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms (described in greater detail below and provided in Exhibits A through C) which will be used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance on key deliverables. It is extremely important for the COR to establish and maintain a team-oriented line of communication with the Contractor’s Project Director (PD) in order to perform monitoring functions. The COR, CO, and PD must work together as a team to ensure that required work is accomplished in an efficient and proper manner. Meetings should be held on a regular basis in order to resolve serious problems. Less serious problems should be discussed and resolved on an impromptu basis.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the Contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COR will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COR will also be responsible for completing the Evaluation Forms (described in greater detail below) which will be used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance on key deliverables.

The Contract Specialist (CS) will be responsible for the day to day monitoring of the Contractor's performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, cost control and property control; reviewing the COR's assessment of the Contractor's performance; and resolving all differences between the COR's version and the Contractor's version.

The Contracting Officer (CO) will have overall responsibility for overseeing the contractor’s performance. The CO may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required. The CO may appoint CS to attend meetings with the Contractor and to act on her/his behalf. All planned modifications must be approved by the CO prior to commencement. The Contracting Officer's procurement authorities include the following:

· SOLE authority for any decisions that produce an increase or decrease in the scope of the contract;

· SOLE authority for any actions subject to the "Changes" clause;

· SOLE authority for any decisions to be rendered under the "Disputes" clause;

· SOLE authority for negotiation and determination of indirect rates to be applied to the contract;

· SOLE authority to approve the substitution or replacement of the Project Manager and other key personnel;

· SOLE authority to approve the Contractor's invoices for payment, subject to the Limitation of Costs clause and the Limitation of Funds clause;

· SOLE authority to monitor and enforce Department of Labor promulgated labor requirements;

· SOLE authority to administer all property related clauses contained in the contract;

· SOLE authority to arrange for and supervise QA activities under this contract;

· Signatory authority for the issuance of all modifications to the contract.

Key Deliverables to Be Assessed

Although ED’s COR will monitor the contractor’s performance on a continuing basis, the volume of tasks performed by the contractor makes technical inspections of every task and step impractical. Accordingly, the Department of Education will use this QASP process to monitor the contractor’s performance under this contract. Specifically, the COR will assess the contractor’s performance across a set of tailored rating elements for the following key deliverables:

· Task 3: Technical Assistance to Formula Grantees

· Deliverable 3.3: Prepare and Implement an Action Plan to COR when consultative assistance is required

· Task 4: Technical Assistance to State Grantees

· Deliverable 4.3: Prepare and Implement an Action Plan to COR when consultative assistance is required

· Task 6: Analyze and Report Project Information for GPRA and APR’s

· Deliverable 6.3: Compile Data

The rating element for each key deliverable will be evaluated by the COR in accordance with the following definitions of contractor performance:

Unacceptable. Level of performance that is not acceptable and which fails to meet the minimum standards of performance.

Acceptable. Level of performance that meets the minimum standards of performance.

The criteria for each of these performance levels are outlined below. All services and products performed by the contractor shall, at a minimum, meet the level of “acceptable.”

1. Key Deliverable #1 (Subtask 3.3) Technical Assistance to Formula Grantees - Prepare and Implement an Action Plan

Performance Indicators: The contractor shall prepare and implement an Action Plan for States seeking consultative assistance. The Action Plan identifies what the State requested, what help will be given, and who will provide the assistance.

Primary Surveillance Method: COR review of deliverables.

Evaluation Criteria

Unacceptable Performance

· The contractor submitted deliverables on one or more occasion after the scheduled date for submission;

· Deliverables on more than one occasion required significant revisions; and

· Deliverable 3.3 failed to address, coordinate, and/or implement the specific technical assistance determined through a needs assessment for the State, inadequately documented the basis for the contractor’s findings, and its implementation efforts did not address key areas of focus used in determining project success as specified in the Statement of Work; the Action Plan was unclear and so general that it did not provide sufficient information as to the level of technical assistance service(s) and implementation efforts provided for the State collectively and individually.

Acceptable Performance

· The contractor submitted deliverables on every occasion by the scheduled date for submission;

· Deliverables were of generally good quality, requiring no more than minimal revisions; and

· Deliverable 3.3 addressed, coordinated and demonstrates how implementation of the Action Plan will take place based on an analysis of a needs assessment; adequately documented the basis for the contractor’s findings, and its summary and analysis of the implementation efforts addressing all key areas of focus specified in the Statement of Work; and the Action Plan provided sufficient information describing the degree of technical assistance service(s) and implementation efforts, collectively and individually, planned specific to the State’s needs.

2. Key Deliverable #2 (Subtask 4.3) Technical Assistance to Discretionary Grantees, BIE and Outlying Areas - Prepare and Implement an Action Plan

Evaluation Criteria

Unacceptable Performance

· The contractor submitted deliverables on one or more occasion after the scheduled date for submission;

· Deliverables on more than one occasion required significant revisions; and

· Deliverable 4.3 failed to address, coordinate, and/or implement the specific technical assistance determined through a needs assessment for the State grantees, BIE and the outlying areas, inadequately documented the basis for the contractor’s findings, and its implementation efforts did not address specific technical assistance and or did not provide for effective implementation as specified in the Statement of Work and in Subtask 4.3 moving the project towards success; the Action Plan was unclear and so general that it did not provide sufficient information as to the level of technical assistance service(s) and implementation efforts provided for the State grantees, BIE and the outlying areas did not elicit the corrective actions required either collectively and individually.

Acceptable Performance

· The contractor submitted deliverables on every occasion by the scheduled date for submission;

· Deliverables were of generally good quality, requiring no more than minimal revisions; and

· Deliverable 4.3 addressed, coordinated and demonstrates how to implement the Action Plan based on an analysis of a needs assessment; adequately documented the basis for the contractor’s findings, and its summary and analysis of the implementation efforts addressing all needs specific to the State grantee, BIE, or the outlying areas as specified in the Statement of Work and in Subtask 4.3; and the Action Plan provided sufficient information describing the degree of technical assistance service(s) and implementation efforts, collectively and individually, planned specific to the State grantee, BIE, and the outlying area’s needs.

3. Key Deliverable #3 (Subtask 6.3) Analyze and Report Project Information for GPRA – Analyze, Submit Summary and Analysis Report

Performance Indicators: The contractor shall provide support to ED staff in carrying out data analyses of SRCL grantees data for the purpose of assessing their progress in implementing their projects and their compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations. The contractor shall provide ED with a report containing a comprehensive analysis of the GPRA and ARP data.

Primary Surveillance Method: COR review of site visit reports.

Evaluation Criteria

Unacceptable Performance

· The contractor submitted deliverables on one or more occasions after the scheduled date for submission and deliverables on more than one occasion required significant revisions; and

· Draft data analysis of the GPRA and/or the APR report(s) for were unclear, poorly-organized, and did not document adequately that the contractor assessed the extent to which the grant recipient had made progress in implementing its project and it had complied with all applicable federal laws and regulations.

Acceptable Performance

· The contractor submitted deliverables on every occasion by the scheduled date for submission and deliverables were of generally good quality, requiring no more than minimal revisions; and

· Draft data analysis of the GPRA and/or the APR report(s) were clear and well-organized and documented adequately that the contractor assessed the extent to which the grant recipient had made progress in implementing its project and the grant recipient had complied with all applicable federal laws and regulations.

The COR will evaluate the contractor’s performance using the appropriate key deliverable evaluation forms (Exhibits A through C). These forms will serve to document and evaluate the contractor’s performance for each of the key deliverables under this task order. Each form will be completed by the COR and the rating element scores will be averaged to generate the final evaluation score for that key deliverable. This final evaluation score will document the contractor performance for that key deliverable.

The COR will substantiate, in narrative form, all individual scores judged to be indicative of unacceptable performance. At a minimum, performance at the acceptable level is expected from the contractor.

Following the final assessment of each evaluated deliverable by the COR, the COR will submit evaluation forms (Exhibits A through C) and a Memorandum of Findings to the CO for review. The CO will review each key deliverable evaluation form prepared by the COR. The CO will notify the Contractor in writing regarding the findings. The contractor will invoice for the applicable key deliverable within thirty (30) days of the Government's notification.

The contractor shall respond in writing to any unacceptable final average evaluation scores within five (5) working days after receipt of the form(s). When appropriate, the CO may investigate the event further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were considered in the COR opinions outlined on the forms. The CO will immediately discuss every event receiving an unacceptable rating with the contractor to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated.

Exhibit A: Key Deliverable Evaluation Form Key Deliverable #1 (Subtask 3.3)

Prepare and Implement an Action Plan

Reviewer: __________________________________ Date: ___________

Circle the appropriate number for your rating:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unacceptable Performance (1-6)

· The contractor submitted deliverables on one or more occasion after the scheduled date for submission;

· Deliverables on more than one occasion required significant revisions; and

· Deliverable 3.3 failed to address, coordinate, and/or implement the specific technical assistance determined through a needs assessment for the State, inadequately documented the basis for the contractor’s findings, and its implementation efforts did not address key areas of focus used in determining project success as specified in the Statement of Work; the Action Plan was unclear and so general that it did not provide sufficient information as to the level of technical assistance service(s) and implementation efforts provided for the State collectively and individually.

Acceptable Performance (7-10)

· The contractor submitted deliverables on every occasion by the scheduled date for submission;

· Deliverables were of generally good quality, requiring no more than minimal revisions; and Deliverable 3.3 addressed, coordinated and demonstrates how implementation of the Action Plan will take place based on an analysis of a needs assessment; adequately documented the basis for the contractor’s findings, and its summary and analysis of the implementation efforts addressing all key areas of focus specified in the Statement of Work; and the Action Plan provided sufficient information describing the degree of technical assistance service(s) and implementation efforts, collectively and individually, planned specific to the State’s needs.

Supporting Comments (required for Unacceptable or Superior performance ratings):

Exhibit B: Key Deliverable Evaluation Form Key Deliverable #2 (Subtask 4.3)

Prepare and Implement an Action Plan

Reviewer: __________________________________ Date: ___________

· The contractor submitted deliverables on one or more occasion after the scheduled date for submission;

· Deliverables on more than one occasion required significant revisions; and

· Deliverable 4.3 failed to address, coordinate, and/or implement the specific technical assistance determined through a needs assessment for the State grantees, BIE and the outlying areas, inadequately documented the basis for the contractor’s findings, and its implementation efforts did not address specific technical assistance and or did not provide for effective implementation as specified in the Statement of Work and in Subtask 4.3 moving the project towards success; the Action Plan was unclear and so general that it did not provide sufficient information as to the level of technical assistance service(s) and implementation efforts provided for the State grantees, BIE and the outlying areas did not elicit the corrective actions required either collectively and individually.

Acceptable Performance (7-10)

· The contractor submitted deliverables on every occasion by the scheduled date for submission;

· Deliverables were of generally good quality, requiring no more than minimal revisions; and

· Deliverable 4.3 addressed, coordinated and demonstrates how to implement the Action Plan based on an analysis of a needs assessment; adequately documented the basis for the contractor’s findings, and its summary and analysis of the implementation efforts addressing all needs specific to the State grantee, BIE, or the outlying areas as specified in the Statement of Work and in Subtask 4.3; and the Action Plan provided sufficient information describing the degree of technical assistance service(s) and implementation efforts, collectively and individually, planned specific to the State grantee, BIE, and the outlying area’s needs.

Supporting Comments (required for Unacceptable or Superior performance ratings):

Exhibit C: Key Deliverable Evaluation Form Key Deliverable #3 (Subtask 6.3)

Prepare and Implement an Action Plan

Reviewer: __________________________________ Date: ___________

· The contractor submitted deliverables on one or more occasions after the scheduled date for submission and deliverables on more than one occasion required significant revisions; and

· Draft data analysis of the GPRA and/or the APR report(s) for were unclear, poorly-organized, and did not document adequately that the contractor assessed the extent to which the grant recipient had made progress in implementing its project and it had complied with all applicable federal laws and regulations.

Acceptable Performance (7-10)

· The contractor submitted deliverables on every occasion by the scheduled date for submission and deliverables were of generally good quality, requiring no more than minimal revisions; and

· Draft data analysis of the GPRA and/or the APR report(s) were clear and well-organized and documented adequately that the contractor assessed the extent to which the grant recipient had made progress in implementing its project and the grant recipient had complied with all applicable federal laws and regulations.

Supporting Comments (required for Unacceptable or Superior performance ratings):