encl4_qasp COL SWGR Repair.docx
DOCX document 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Switchgear Repair and upgrade Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HC102820R0029
- Issued by
- Defense Information Systems Agency
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Switchgear HC102820R0029- CLIN Pricing Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC102820R0090 amend 0004.docx | DOCX document | |
| HC102820R0029 Switchgear amend 0003.docx | DOCX document | |
| HC102820R0029 SWGR QA 26May20.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC102820R0029 solicitation amend 2.docx | DOCX document | |
| DC COL Pre Bid VAR Instr 14May20.docx | DOCX document | |
| HC102820R0029 solicitation amend 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| submittal procedures.docx | DOCX document | |
| CLIN pricing worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Electrical safety program.pdf | ||
| Appendix A- Blank submittal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 1 elec one lines DC COL.pdf | ||
| SOW COL SWGR H9827220MPA0026.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix C- Deficiency log.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Appendix B- Transmittal cover.pdf | ||
| Contractor NDA.pdf | ||
| HC102820R0029 Switchgear solicitation.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sample MOP.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 18
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): Columbus SWGR Repair Project
2. Purpose: This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:
Contractor performance shall be monitored on under this contract applying a Government-implemented Quality Assurance (QA) Program. All aspects of contractor performance shall be monitored in performing the requirements of the project. Surveillance methods include, but are not limited to:
· 100% technical review of all contractor submittals
· Periodic random and scheduled inspections of contractor’s work onsite
· Participating in and witnessing contractor testing and commissioning to verify proper equipment performance.
The primary QA Evaluator fot the project is the Program Manager (PM). Other, onsite Government personnel will also observe and report on contractor execution of the project requirements to the PM. Submissions shall be reviewed and acceptance or noted corrections shall be transmitted back to the contractor. Physical work will be inspected and deficiencies transmitted to the contractor for correction via a deficiency log. Final acceptance shall be determined by the contracting officer.
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.
Facility Manager- The Facility Manager shall corrdinate site access, authorized service interruptions, coordinaqte daily work schedules, and will function as the local onsite coordinator for daily work activities.
4. Primary Method of Surveillance: 100 Percent Inspection. All work will be QA-inspected 100%. Periodic assessments and random sampling shall be performed to insure quality objectives are being met within the project schedule timelines.
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 – Develop detailed project schedule. |
| 100% schedule with complete phasing plan showing no data center operational interruptions. 100% SOW-compliant submissions in format, timing, and updates |
| 100% review of schedule. |
| 6.2 – Reprogram the SWGR/Generator system, including the Control HMI and Simulator, to provide Generator Demand. |
| Work meets equipment technical requirements 100% of the time. No unscheduled downtime of facility equipment. Submittals meet 100% of SOW requirements. |
| 100% Inspection |
| 6.3 Upgrade the HMIs to Windows 10 Operating System Environment |
| The upgraded HMIs have identical graphics and 100% of the capability as the previous operating system environment. |
| 100% Inspection |
| 6.4 – Purchase and install new SPDs into the C Main and D Main SWGR. |
| Work meets equipment technical requirements 100% of the time. No unscheduled downtime of facility equipment. Submittals meet 100% of SOW requirements. |
| 100% Inspection |
| 6.5 – Prepare and submit Electrical Engineering (EE) Studies for Government approval for the ENTIRE facility. |
| Work meets equipment technical requirements 100% of the time. No unscheduled downtime of facility equipment. Submittals meet 100% of SOW requirements. |
| 100% Inspection |
| 6.6 – Provide commissioning activities to verify proper system and simulator performance. |
| Work meets equipment technical requirements 100% of the time. No unscheduled downtime of facility equipment. Submittals meet 100% of SOW requirements. |
| 100% Inspection |
| 6.7 – Provide O&M Training and Close-Out documentation for Government review and acceptance. |
| Work meets equipment technical requirements 100% of the time. No unscheduled downtime of facility equipment. Submittals meet 100% of SOW requirements. |
| 100% Inspection |
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 critical support provided by the Generator and Essential Switchgear.
9. Evaluation Method:
The COR will document the time of verbal notification to the contractor. The COR will document the official time and date of notification on the Maintenance Call Record. The COR will review self-diagnostic systems logs, conduct a comparison with actual maintenance performance and otherwise verify and validate contractor performance. The contractor shall enter in the record the official time the system is restored to full operational status. The COR will confirm the date and time of problem resolution in the record.
10. Performance Rating
In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used (same as CPAR ratings).
(If your organization requires that you use a different rating mechanism, insert it here.)
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 Calculation
| Surveillance |
| Results/Ratings |
| See Performance standars detailed above |
| Target Criteria: |
100% technical compliance with SOW requirements.
Minimum Acceptable:
100% technical compliance with SOW requirements.
Calculation:
N/A.
Measurement Interval – Ramdom periodic and comprehensive at end of project.
Measurement Period – N/A
Source of Measurement Data – N/A
Method of Surveillance – 100% review of submittals and physical work.
Timing of Measurement At significant milestone completion.
Reporting Frequency: -
Periodic as required Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
(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 .