encl 4_qasp - MEC Raised Floor Upgrade.docx

DOCX document 38 KB Posted

Attached to
MEC Raised Floor Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
HC102821R0024
Issued by
Defense Information Systems Agency

About this file

This document is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for a raised floor upgrade project at the Defense Information Systems Agency Data Center in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. The QASP outlines performance standards and monitoring methods for replacing the existing access flooring system with concrete core panels and support structure rated to support 2,500 pounds. Key deliverables include a project schedule, installation of the new raised floor meeting technical specifications, installation and testing of a signal reference grid, and closeout documentation. The acceptable quality level is defined as 100% compliance with requirements due to the critical computer room environment. Monitoring will consist of a 100% review of submittals and inspection of completed work by technical points of contact and the facility manager. Performance ratings of exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory are defined to evaluate contractor performance.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to MEC Raised Floor, newest first.
File Type Posted
832117746 MEC updated PWS.doc DOC document
HC102821R0024 0001 solicitation amend.docx DOCX document
encl 2cPWS MEC Raised Floor Upgrade 31 Mar 2021.docx DOCX document
Structural Drawings MEC.pdf PDF
NAVFAC Bldg 308 Fire Suppression System Dwgs.pdf PDF
ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS - MECHANICSBURG.pdf PDF
DSCN0715.JPG JPG image
DSCN0707.JPG JPG image
DSCN0716.JPG JPG image
Mechanicsburg Master Floor Plan-203 Existing.pdf PDF
DSCN0717.JPG JPG image
DSCN0710.JPG JPG image
HC102821R0024 solicitation questions and answers.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
09 69 13 Rigid Grid Access Flooring edited 26 MAR 2021.docx DOCX document
DSCN0709.JPG JPG image
DSCN0714.JPG JPG image
Mechanicsburg Master Floor Plan-214 EXISTING.pdf PDF
Mechanicsburg Master Floor Plan-214 Cable Tray.pdf PDF
DSCN0708.JPG JPG image
MEC CR 203 and 203A Cable Tray.pdf PDF
MEC raised floor RFQ clin pricing sheet.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Appendix C - Signal Reference Grid for Grounding.pdf PDF
Appendix D - MIL-STD-188-124B.pdf PDF
Appendix A - Raised Access Floor Plan.pdf PDF
Appendix F - SEC Inventory Format (excel spreadshhet).xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Appendix E - SRG Grounding System Commissioning.pdf PDF
Appendix B - Rigid Grid Access Flooring.pdf PDF
HC102821R0024 solicitation.docx DOCX document
Appendix G - Contractor NDA.docx DOCX document
Pre-Proposal Site Visit Access Clearance_ODP.xls XLS spreadsheet
Pre-Proposal Site Visit Request Instructions (MEC RF).doc DOC document
Pre-Proposal Site Visit Access SECNAV_5512_FORM.pdf PDF
Show all 32

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract or Task Order Title: Raised Floor Upgrade and SRG – DISA Data Center Mechanicsburg

2. Purpose:

This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:

· What will be monitored?

· How monitoring will take place.

· Who will conduct the monitoring?

· How monitoring efforts and results will 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. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

3. Roles and Responsibilities:

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides program oversight and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities.

Contracting Officer (KO) – The KO 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 KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

Other Key Government Personnel – This may include performance monitors, inspectors, technical experts, workforce service division and center directorate level security personnel, requirements office, or others (i.e. users) who provide information that helps the COR monitor contractor performance.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance:

All tasks shall be evaluated with 100% inspection as the surveillance method.

· 100 Percent Inspection. This is usually only the most appropriate method for infrequent tasks or tasks with stringent performance requirements, e.g., where safety or health is a concern. With this method, performance is inspected/evaluated at each occurrence. One hundred percent inspection is too expensive to be used in most cases.

Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (Appendix 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performance surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The AQL performance Standard Table should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

5. Performance Standards:

Performance Standard
Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)
Method of Surveillance
6.1 – Task 1: Project schedule. Prepared and submit detailed project scheduled, investigate existing conditions, conduct weekly project status meetings, and prepare and submit shop drawings/product data
Detailed schedule with phasing plan showing no planned data center operational interruptions.

Minimum Acceptable:

100% compliance with requirements.

100% review of schedule, meeting minutes and submittals. All submittals and information shall be complete, accurate and approved by Government.

6.2 – Task 2: Raised Access Floor Upgrade. Replace Access Flooring. Clean underfloor area and repair existing concrete slab.
Installed materials meet technical requirements 100% of the time. Deficient work is corrected in a timely manner prior to contract completion.

Minimum Acceptable:

Compliance with requirements of “09 69 13 – Rigid Grid Access Flooring”.

100% inspection of work. All installed materials and systems shall be complete, usable and operational, and approved by Government.

6.3 – Task 3: Signal Reference Grid (SRG) Upgrade. Install and conduct grounding certification test of SRG under raised access floor.
Installed materials meet technical requirements. Deficient work is corrected in a timely manner.

Minimum Acceptable: Compliance with “Signal Reference Grid for Grounding” with continuity test of completed SRG shall ensure resistance does not exceed 1 ohm.

100% inspection of work. All installed materials and systems shall be complete, usable and operational, and approved by Government.

6.4. – Task 4: Close-Out documentation. Close-out documents shall include: Inventory sheet, test reports, as-built drawings, warranty letters, and Operations & Maintenance manuals.
Material submissions, As-built drawings, Operation & Maintenance Manuals, require only minor modifications to comply with technical requirements. Revisions that occur are minor and resolved to meet contract requirements.

Minimum Acceptable:

Submittal requires only minor modifications. Required revisions are resolved in a satisfactory manner.

100% inspection of work. All submitted documents shall be complete, usable and technically compliant for approval by Government.

6. Documenting Performance:

Acceptable Performance.

The Government shall document positive performance. A Performance Assessment Report (PAR) template is attached (Appendix 2). Any report may become part of the supporting documentation for fixed price payments, award/incentive fee payments, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) entries, or other actions. Government acceptance of services permits the contractor to invoice for the service fee.

Unacceptable performance.

Unacceptable contractor performance can be identified by customer complaints (Appendix 3) or upon schedule surveillance evaluations. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file and provide a copy to the KO.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Corrective Action Report (CAR). The CAR is forwarded to the KO for dissemination to the contractor. A CAR template is attached to this QASP (Appendix 4).

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing. The CAR 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 CAR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the KO and COR. The Government may withhold payment for services until corrective action is taken. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. Upon Government acceptance of the corrected services the contractor will be permitted to invoice for the service fee.

Any CAR may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, CPARS or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

7. Mandatory or regulatory compliance items

The contractor will provide initial proof of compliance with regulatory and compliance items contained in the contract. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (KO) will evaluate the initial submission and will conduct ad hoc reviews of the contractor's compliance throughout the remainder of the contract. The contractor will monitor compliance as required by FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and report any issues to the KO.

8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

The AQL for this project is 100% due to the raised floor computer room environment this project supports.

9. Evaluation Method:

There will be a 100% review of the submittals by Technical POC, as defined by PWS. Once the package has been approved of and all comments have been addressed, the contractor can proceed onto the installation phase.

At the close-out of the project a walkthrough will be to verify that the installation was properly done and that there are no deficiencies. Any existing deficiencies shall be added to a punch list and will be addressed in a timely manner.

10. Performance Rating

In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used (same as CPAR ratings).

Performance Rating Criteria

Exceptional
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefits. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no problems and contractor actions were highly effective.
Very Good
Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government benefits. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Satisfactory
Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.
Marginal
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear 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 contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix

Performance Standards
Acceptable Quality Levels
Methods of

Calulation

Surveillance
Results/Ratings

Performance is based on timely delivery of all tasks as specified in PWS Section 6.

High level of government satisfaction with the Contractor’s work includes the successful delivery of all technical tasks on schedule as specified in PWS Section 6.

Target Criteria:

Equipment and installation work meets technical requirements 95% of the time, as specified in PWS Section 6.

Minimum Acceptable:

Deficient work is corrected in a timely manner.

Calculation:

The number of required equipment items, 100% of the total, are satisfactorily installed correctly and on schedule.

The Government technical personnel (site Facility Manager) must inspect the completed work for correct equipment installation for the results to have at least a 100% completeness rate.

Measurement Interval:

The Measurement Interval is at completion of each specified task in the PWS Section 6.

Measurement Period:

The Measurement Period begins at issuance of Notice to Proceed (NTP) and ends at final acceptance of technical compliance of the contract.

Source of Measurement Data: Data will be collected from site Facility Manager inspection of the completed work for timely and correct equipment installation.

Method of Surveillance:

Facility Manager on-site 100% inspection of the completed work.

Timing of Measurement: Measurements are based on inspection of completed work when notified by the Contractor that task is complete.

Reporting Frequency: Reporting to commence upon Contract NTP and continue throughout the Period of Performance on a monthly schedule or as needed when Contractor completes tasks.

Exceptional - All work completed without corrections. Delivered ahead of schedule.

Very Good - All work completed with minor corrections. Delivered on Schedule

Satisfactory - Work completed within PWS technical requirements. Close monitoring by Govt required. Formally identified deficiencies corrected within 1 week. Delivered on Schedule.

Marginal - Project delivered in compliance but outside the POP.

Unsatisfactory- Contractor unable to fulfill PWS requirements

(A rollup of assessment of the Surveillance Inspection Results to develop an overall rating for this objective)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER NUMBER
2. CONTRACTOR
3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE

5. COR PHONE
6. SUSPENSE DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. |_| DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

|_| NEW

|_| REPEAT

|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF DEFICIENCY BOX WAS CHECKED)
10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report

Appendix 3 – Customer Complaint Record

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

Appendix 4 – Corrective Action Report

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY |_| MAJOR |_| MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

|_| ACCEPTED |_| REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

Enclosure 6, Page 1 of 2 Pages 17Jul2013/Version 2

Encl 4, QASP 23Jun2017/v3

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .