Attachment B_ QASP_ECLSK2011.docx

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011) Third- and Fourth-Grade Contract

Attachment B -- Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

1. Purpose This performance-based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth procedures and guidelines that the Department of Education (“the Department”) 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 the Government will employ in evaluating performance on this contract and address any concerns that the Contractor may have prior to initiating work.

2. Scope The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

1. Define the roles and responsibilities of participating Government officials

2. Describe the rating elements and standards of performance against which the Contractor’s performance will be assessed

3. Describe the process of quality assurance assessment

4. Provide copies of the annual 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:

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): 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 Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms (described in greater detail below). 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, Contracting Officer (CO), Contract Specialist (CS), and PD must work together as a team to ensure that the required work is accomplished in an efficient and proper manner. Meetings and conference calls should be held on a regular basis in order to resolve serious problems. Less serious problems should be discussed and resolved on an as-needed basis.

Contract Specialist (CS): The 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 of events and the Contractor’s version of events. The CS may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required.

Contracting Officer (CO): The CO ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the CO that assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract. The CO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance. The CO’s procurement authorities include the following:

· SOLE authority for any decisions which produce an increase or decrease in the scope of the contract/task order;

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

· SOLE authority for any decision 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 Director 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;

· Authority to arrange for and supervise Quality Assurance activities under this contract;

· SOLE authority to approve the contractor’s Quality Control Program;

· To approve all contractor purchases of equipment, supplies, and materials exceeding $2,500 are encouraged even though not required by FAR 13.106; and

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

Deliverables to be Assessed The Government will review all deliverables and monitor all tasks required under the contract for adherence to NCES Standards, government regulations or requirements for research studies, and general best practice research standards in addition to ensuring that the deliverables and tasks meet all requirements specified in the contract.

Rating Elements and Standards of Performance The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated by the COR according to three categories: “Superior,” “Acceptable,” and “Unacceptable.” The criteria for each of these performance levels are outlined below. All products produced by or activities performed by the Contractor shall, at a minimum, meet the level of “acceptable.”

· Unacceptable: A level of performance that is not acceptable and which fails to meet the minimum standards of performance;

· Acceptable: An acceptable level of performance that meets the minimum standards of performance; or

· Superior: A level of performance that exceeds the minimum standards of performance.

In general, the work will be evaluated in terms of how well the requirements of the contract are satisfied, the extent to which the work performed follows the approach found in the Contractor’s technical proposal, clarity of documentation, and timeliness of scheduled task accomplishment. At the discretion of the CO/CS and COR, other government officials approved by the CO/CS may be asked to evaluate a particular deliverable or set of deliverables.

The following factors will be considered when evaluating ECLS-K:2011 deliverables:

1) Timeliness: When was the deliverable received? Was it received on the date specified?

· Unacceptable: Standard not met—Deliverable was received after the due date.

· Acceptable: Standard met—Deliverable was received between the period of two business days earlier than the due date and the due date.

· Superior: Standard exceeded—Deliverable was received three or more business days before the due date.

Note: In the event of a delay, the Contractor must notify the Department (reference FAR 52.242-17 Government Delay of Work). The Department and the Contractor shall work together to modify the contract with regard to the due dates of the deliverables. If such an event were to occur that would require a modification to the due dates of the deliverables, the Contractor’s performance shall be measured by the date agreed upon in the modification.

2) Presentation: To what degree was the deliverable free of grammatical, typographical, and formatting errors?

· Unacceptable: Standard not met—Substantial numbers of corrections were needed.

· Acceptable: Standard met—Minor corrections were needed.

· Superior: Standard exceeded—No corrections were needed.

3) Responsiveness to Comments and Suggestions: Did the contractor thoughtfully consider and acknowledge comments and suggestions throughout the drafting process? Did the contractor accept specific direction from the Department regarding format or content, when such direction was given?

· Unacceptable: Standard not met—The Contractor had unsubstantiated disregard for reviewers’ suggestions throughout the drafting process and refused to acknowledge the Department’s edits/comments.

· Acceptable: Standard met —The Contractor employed thoughtful consideration and acknowledgement of reviewers’ comments and suggestions for revisions throughout the drafting process.

· Superior: Standard exceeded—The Contractor employed an efficient method for soliciting edits and comments from the Department that resulted in the draft being of high quality and prepared on time.

4) Adherence to IES/NCES standards for research: Did the deliverable follow IES/NCES standards for research design, analytic procedures, and presentation of results?

· Unacceptable: Standard not met—The deliverable had one or more serious deficiencies in research design, analytic procedures, and/or presentation of results that would require substantial reworking of the deliverable to meet IES/NCES standards.

· Acceptable: Standard met —The deliverable required moderate revisions to meet IES/NCES standards for research design, analytic procedures, and presentation of results.

· Superior: Standard exceeded— The deliverable demonstrated adherence to IES/NCES standards for research throughout, with minor revisions or no revisions needed.

5) Coherence, accuracy, and clarity: Was the deliverable well organized, clear, accurate, and complete?

· Unacceptable: Standard not met— The deliverable was not well organized, was incomplete, or was inaccurate; or the writing style and content were not clear.

· Acceptable: Standard met— The deliverable was well organized, complete, and accurate; and the writing style and content were clear.

· Superior: Standard exceeded— The deliverable was of the highest quality; it was well organized, accurate, and complete; and the content and all aspects of the writing were clear.

6) Adherence to technical proposal: Did the deliverable follow the Contractor’s technical proposal in terms of design, analysis, or presentation?

· Unacceptable: Standard not met—The deliverable had one or more serious deficiencies in design, analytic procedures, and/or presentation that would require substantial reworking of the deliverable to meet the requirements outlined in the technical proposal.

· Acceptable: Standard met —The deliverable required moderate revisions to meet the requirements outlined in the technical proposal.

· Superior: Standard exceeded— The deliverable demonstrated adherence to meet the requirements outlined in the technical proposal.

Process of Quality Assurance Assessment The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated by the COR. NCES will provide written reviews of all deliverables submitted to the Government as well as regular feedback on tasks being performed under the contract. The Government’s annual performance evaluation will reflect the feedback given to the Contractor on deliverables submitted during the evaluation year.

In addition to the required annual evaluation, the COR will submit annually the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form along with a written narrative describing the Contractor’s performance in terms of the six points noted above. The monitoring form describes Contractor’s performance in terms of the rating criteria listed above, which are reflective of the specific work conducted at the Center.

Attachment A

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011) Third- and Fourth-Grade Contract Annual Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

Contract Year:

Reviewer:

Average Overall Rating:

1) Timeliness: On average, when were deliverables received?

3) Responsiveness to Comments and Suggestions: On average, did the contractor thoughtfully consider and acknowledge comments and suggestions from the ED?

4) Adherence to IES/NCES Standards for Research: On average, did the deliverable follow IES/NCES standards for research design, analytic procedures, and presentation of results?

5) Coherence, Accuracy, and Clarity: On average, were the deliverables well organized, clear, accurate, and complete?

6) Adherence to technical proposal: On average, did deliverables follow the Contractor’s technical proposal in terms of design, analysis, or presentation?

Discussion of Contractor’s performance during rating period (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

image1.png