ATTACHMENT D - QASP.docx

Attachment D

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

EDUCATION STATISTICS SUPPORT INSTITUTE NETWORK

F. QASP Evaluation Form

A. Introduction

This performance – based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth procedures and guidelines that the Department of Education will use in evaluating the technical performance and overall performance of the contractor in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Task Order. A copy of this plan will be furnished to the contractor so that the contractor will be aware of the methods that the Government will employ in evaluating performance on this contract and address any concerns that the contractor may have prior to initiating work. The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and the Award Term Plan shall be contractually binding.

The QASP shall be used as a Government document to enforce the inspection and acceptance of the Task Order. The QASP describes the mechanism for documenting noteworthy accomplishments or discrepancies for work performed by the Contractor.

The QASP can be changed/updated, etc. It is intended to be a “living” document that should be revised or modified as circumstances warrant. Either the Contractor or the Government may initiate changes to the QASP. Bilateral changes may be made to the plan at any time during task order performance. Such changes may not entitle the Contractor to equitable adjustments or to any other compensation for performance in a prior period.

B. General Purpose of the QASP

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

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

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

· Describe the process for conducting quality assurance assessments;

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

· Provide basis for determining incentive involving additional work or award terms earned for the Contractor

C. Roles and Responsibilities of Participating Government Officials The QASP is a guide to be used by Department officials to conduct surveillance activities of the Contractor after Task Order award. The Task Leader will review technical documents and deliverables generated by the Contractor. ED contract managers (e.g., Contracting Officers (CO) and Contract Specialists) will also conduct review of contract specific Reports or Deliverables such as invoices, monthly status reports, and work plans. The COR and the CO will use the QASP as a tool to evaluate if the Contractor-provided service meets the performance standards in the contract and will be the basis for determining incentives involving additional work earned for the Contractor.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is responsible for technical administration. However, the COR will serve as backup to the project Task Leader in monitoring and reporting on the day-to-day technical performance. It is essential that the project Task Leader, along with the COR as backup, establish and maintain a team-oriented line of communication with the contractor’s project director on each task to ensure that the task is accomplished in an efficient and proper manner. Phone and email contact should be held on a regular basis in order to clarify expectations, confront difficulties, and avoid serious problems. The project Task Leader shall enlist the assistance of the COR in reviewing and evaluating the contractor’s overall performance for each individual task.

Each individual project Task Leader (TL) will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor on each task. The project Task Leader will be responsible for completing the QASP monitoring forms which are used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s performance related to completing the specific tasks and submission of deliverables (initial and final drafts).

The COR or Task Leader 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 price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

The Contracting Officer (CO) or his/her representative will have overall responsibility for overseeing the contractor’s performance. The Contract Specialist (CS) will also be responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, recording of deliveries, cost control and property control; reviewing the COR’s assessment of the contractor’s performance; and resolving differences between the COR’s version and contractor’s response to assessment. The CO may call upon the expertise of other government individuals as required.

The Contracting Officer’s (CO) procurement authorities include the following:

D. Award Term Plan

Evaluation of the Contractor’s performance will be based on the contract Activities and Standards contained in the QASP. In order to make any change(s) to the QASP, the Government and contractor shall agree to a Modification of the Contract, that changes language in the QASP, 12 months after the start date of the contract. The length of time provides both NCES and the contractor ample opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of activities and standards in the QASP and to determine if change(s) are warranted.

QASP Reporting The project Task Leader and the COR will use a quality assurance monitoring form to document and evaluate the Contractor’s performance under each subtask. These forms will serve to document and evaluate the contractor’s overall performance. Each form will be completed by the project Task Leader with sign-off by the COR.

The Contractor’s Task and subtasks evaluation will be based on five rating area elements, which include: (a) Quality of Product or Services; (b) Timeliness of Performance; (c) Cost Control; (d) Problem Resolution and (e) Business Relations. A rating from 0 to 4 that most closely matches the project Task Leader’s evaluation of the contractor’s performance will be awarded for each area element, for a maximum total score of 20.

For individual scores indicating unsatisfactory (0) or excellent (4) work, the project Task Leader and the COR will substantiate them in narrative form.

· Analysis of Surveillance Reports

The Performance Work Statement includes incentives involving work.

At the end of each quality assurance processing cycle, the COR will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of the surveillance of the Contractor’s performance (approximately April 1, July 1, Sept 1, Jan 1) for the previous three (3) months. Depending on the period of performance, the Contractor will be evaluated 3-4 times. This report will become part of the formal quality assurance documentation. The CO will review each monitoring form and 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 a substandard rating with the Contractor to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated.

Within 7 days after the end of an Evaluation Period each NCES Task Leader along with COR will meet to determine a rating of the Contractor’s performance on completed Contract Tasks for the preceding period. The contractor will submit a brief written self-evaluation of its performance within 5 days after the end of the evaluation period. The self-evaluation report shall not exceed seven pages, and it may be considered in the Government’s evaluation of the contractor`s performance during this period.

The COR will forward copies of all completed Quality Assurance monitoring forms to the CO within 14 days of the end of the final evaluation period. All contractors must be registered in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The contractor will be notified through the CPARS www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsmain.htm that past performance information is available. The contractor shall have 30 days to review the past performance information and respond.

· Contractor Performance Evaluation Points At the end of the performance period, Contractors receiving18-20 total evaluation points will be considered to have performed Superior during the year. These contractors will remain in the ESSIN and the Task Leader may decide to award that contractor an award term period for the next task order PWS in lieu of competing the task order in the ESSIN. Contractors receiving 15-17 total evaluation points will be notified that their performance was Acceptable during the year; however at this level of performance the Government may decide to award that contractor an award term period for the next task order PWS in lieu of competing the task order in the ESSIN or compete the task order in the ESSIN. Contractors receiving less than 15 total evaluation points will be notified that their performance was considered Unacceptable. The contractor will not be allowed to compete for that Task Leader’s task order during the next competition. The contractor could respond to that particular task order after one year. The contractor can continue to conduct work under Task orders where they have been awarded an evaluation score of 15-20 points.

The Government’s award term determination is final and not subject to dispute under the Contract Disputes Act and FAR Clause 52.233-1 Disputes (July 2002).

E. Contractor Task Work Performance Standards

The work will be evaluated in terms of how well the requirements are satisfied and the extent to which the work performed follows the approach found in the Contractor’s technical proposal. The Task Leader and COR will evaluate the contractor’s performance by using the following categories: Quality of the work and deliverables to determine accuracy, if they meet NCES statistical standards, and present information in a way that is useful for the intended audience; Timeliness to determine the contractor’s responsiveness to technical direction, if the work was performed and deliverables received as specified in the PWS; Cost Control to determine if the work and deliverables were within budget; Problem Resolution to determine if the contractor satisfactorily overcomes or resolves problems; Business Relations to determine if the contractor exhibits effective management to perform the work and produce deliverables as specified.

The Task Leader and COR will rate the contractor’s performance in each category as defined below.

· Unsatisfactory. Level of performance which is not acceptable and which fails to meet the minimum standards of performance; jeopardizes the achievement of contract goals. Score: 0

· Poor. Nonconformance requires major agency intervention to ensure achievement of contract goals. Score: 1

· Fair. Some agency intervention required to ensure achievement of contract requirements. Score: 2

· Satisfactory. Level of performance, which meets the minimum standards of performance. Score: 3

· Excellent. Level of performance, which exceeds the minimum standards of performance. Score: 4

F. QASP Evaluation Form

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. CONTRACTOR NAME AND ADDRESS (identify Division)

1. Task Number

2. Name of the Task

3. Value of task

4. Period of Performance

7. DESCRIPTION OF Key Deliverables/Tasks

8. RATINGS – Summarize contractor performance and check the box corresponding to the performance rating for each category. See Attachment for rating descriptions.

(a)

QUALITY

(b)

TIMELINESS

(c)

COST

CONTROL

(d)

PROBLEM RESOLUTION

(e)

BUSINESS

RELATIONS

*Supporting comments are required for Unsatisfactory and Excellent performance Ratings. Additional sheets may be added

7. TOTAL

EVALUATOR - Project Task Leader DATE

COR Review DATE

Rating Guidelines

Quality of Product or Service

· Compliance with contract requirements

· Accuracy of reports

· Appropriateness of personnel

· Technical excellence

Timeliness of Performance

· Meets interim milestones

· Reliable

· Stays on schedule despite problems

· Responsive to technical direction

· Completes work on time, including wrap-up and contract administration

· No liquidated damages assessed

Cost Control

· Within budget

· Current, accurate and complete billings

· Costs properly allocated

· Unallowable costs not billed

· Relationship of negotiated costs to actual

· Cost efficiencies

Problem Resolution

· Anticipates and avoids or mitigates problems

· Satisfactorily overcomes or resolves problems

· Prompt notification of problems

· Pro-active

· Effective contractor-recommended solutions

Business Relations

· Effective management

· Use of performance-based management techniques

· Business-like concern for the customer’s interest

· Effective management and selection of subcontractors

· Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program

· Reasonable/cooperative behavior

· Effective use of technology in management and communication

· Flexible

· Minimal staff turnover

· Maintains high employee morale

· Resolves disagreements without being unnecessarily litigious

Rating Points

Quality or Product or Service 0 Unsatisfactory Nonconformance jeopardizes the achievement of contract goals; default.

1 Poor Nonconformance requires major agency intervention to ensure achievement of contract goals; show cause or cure notices.

2 Fair Quality meets specifications in most cases, however, some agency intervention required to ensure achievement of contract requirements 3 Good Quality meets specifications in all cases.

4 Excellent Quality exceeds specifications in some cases.

Timeliness of Performance 0 Unsatisfactory Delays jeopardize the achievement of contract goals.

1 Poor Significant delays.

2 Fair Minor delays.

3 Good All deliverables on time.

4 Excellent All deliverables on time with some ahead of schedule; or stays on schedule despite unforeseen circumstances.

Cost Control 0 Unsatisfactory Cost increases jeopardize achievement of contract goals; or billings routinely unallowable costs.

1 Poor Significant cost increases; or some inaccurate billings including some with unallowable costs.

2 Fair Minor cost increases; or some inaccurate billings, but a minimal (1-2) number of unallowable costs.

3 Good Contractor performed within cost; but some late billings, none with unallowable costs.

4 Excellent Costs were less than the amount cited in the contract; and billings accurate and timely.

Problem Resolution 0 Unsatisfactory Inadequately resolved problems jeopardize contract goals.

1 Poor Significant agency intervention required to resolve problems jeopardizing contract goals.

2 Fair Some agency intervention required to resolve problems jeopardizing contract goals.

3 Good Successfully overcomes or resolves all problems and achieves contract goals with minimal agency intervention.

4 Excellent Anticipates and avoids most problems and successfully overcomes all unforeseen problems.

Business Relations

Business practices are not attuned to customer support.

2 Fair Business practices are somewhat attuned to customer support.

3 Good Business practices focus on customer support.

4 Excellent Highly effective, proactive business practices focused on customer support.