Attachment_B_-_QASP.docx

Attachment B

U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Participation in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2015

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

Introduction

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth procedures and guidelines that the Department of Education will use to monitor performance of the Contractor under this contract. A copy of this plan will be furnished to the contractor so that the contractor shall be aware of the methods that the Government will employ in monitoring performance on this project and address any concerns that the contractor may have prior to initiating work.

Purpose of the QASP

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

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

· Describe the process of quality assurance surveillance.

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 inspecting all deliverables submitted under this contract and providing a recommendation regarding the acceptability of the deliverable to the Contracting Officer.

It is essential that the COR 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 (CO) will have overall responsibility for overseeing the contractor’s performance. The Contract Specialist will be responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the contractor’s performance in the areas of compliance, 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 CO may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required.

Quality Assurance Surveillance Process

Even though the Government, through the COR, will be monitoring 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 a quality-assurance review process to monitor the contractor’s performance under this contract through the contract deliverables, specifically through a review of the timeliness of submission and the acceptability of the content of each deliverable.

The COR will inspect each deliverable and recommend acceptance of the deliverable to the Contracting Officer. In the event the COR has a concern regarding the timeliness or quality of the content of a deliverable, the contractor shall be notified as well as the Contracting Officer shall be notified.

The Contractor’s performance shall be documented and measured through the annual past performance evaluation through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Performance will be evaluated in the areas of:

1) Quality of Product or Service – Coherence, accuracy and clarity of key deliverables. Conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship.

2) Schedule – Timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

3) Cost Control- effectiveness in forecasting, managing and controlling contract costs.

4) Business Relations- Integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.

5) Management of Key Personnel- performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel.

6) Utilization of Small Business- Did the contractor provide maximum practicable opportunity for Small Business (including Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Indian Tribes) (including Small Disadvantaged Businesses (which also includes ANCs and Indian Tribes), Women Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone, Veteran Owned, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, Historically Black Colleges and Minority Institutions and ANCs and Indian Tribes that are not Small Disadvantaged Businesses or Small Businesses) to participate in contract performance consistent with efficient performance of the contract.

7) Other Areas – as applicable.

The following rating elements will be used to evaluate each area:

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 was highly effective.

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 was effective.

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.

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.

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 contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Evaluation Ratings Definitions for Utilization of Small Business:

Exceptional- Exceeded all negotiated subcontracting goals or exceeded at least one goal and met all of the other negotiated subcontracting goals for the current period. Had exceptional success with initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB). Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Went above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan and other small business requirements of the contract. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Very Good- Met all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the traditional socio-economic categories (SB, SDB and WOSB) and met at least one of the other socio-economic goals (HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB) for the current period. Had significant success with initiatives to assist, promote and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met or exceeded any other small business participation requirements incorporated in the contract, including the use of small businesses in mission critical aspects of the program. Endeavored to go above and beyond the required elements of the subcontracting plan. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Satisfactory- Demonstrated a good faith effort to meet all of the negotiated subcontracting goals in the various socio-economic categories for the current period. Complied with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Met any other small business participation requirements included in the contract. Fulfilled the requirements of the subcontracting plan included in the contract. Completed and submitted Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate and timely manner.

Marginal- Deficient in meeting key subcontracting plan elements. Deficient in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Failed to satisfy one or more requirements of a corrective action plan currently in place; however, does show an interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level and has demonstrated a commitment to apply the necessary resources to do so. Required a corrective action plan.

Unsatisfactory- Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and any other small business participation requirements in the contract. Did not submit Individual Subcontract Reports and/or Summary Subcontract Reports in an accurate or timely manner. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan.

The CO/CS will review each CPARS evaluation prepared by the COR. When appropriate, the CO/CS may investigate an event further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were considered in the COR opinions outlined in the evaluation. The CO/CS will discuss every event receiving a substandard rating with the Contractor to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated, prior to finalizing the evaluation report.