Escalante_Janitorial_-_Attachment_1_-_QASP.pdf

Escalante Visitor Center Janitorial

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP)

June 16, 2023

FOR:

The United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Paria River District 669 South Highway 89A

Kanab, UT 84741

Contract Number: TBD

1 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

1. Introduction 2

1.1. Purpose 2

1.2. Performance Management Approach 2

1.3. Performance Management Strategy 3

2. Roles and Responsibilities 3

2.1. The Contracting Officer 3

2.2. The Contracting Officer’s Representative 3

2.3. The Program Coordinator 3

3. Identification of Required Performance Standards/Quality Level 4

4. Methodologies to Monitor Performance 4

4.1. Surveillance Techniques 4

4.2. Acceptable Quality Levels 4

5. Quality Assurance Documentation 4

5.1. The Performance Management Feedback Loop 4

5.2. Monitoring Forms 4

6. Analyses of Quality Assurance Assessment 5

6.1. Determining Performance 5

6.2. Reporting 5

6.3. Reviews and Resolution 5

Attachment 2A The Performance Requirements Summary

Attachment 2B Sample Quality Assurance Monitoring Form

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP) Contract TBD

Escalante Visitor Center Janitorial

Contract TBD

2 | P a g e

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled Big Water Visitor Center Janitorial. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Paria River District, will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the contract, identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by BLM to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management;

this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

3 | P a g e

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control (QC) program. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make a determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting

Officer’s Representative, and the contractor. The CO will designate one COR as the government authority for performance management. Additional representatives serving as project inspectors may be appointed as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the CO.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The COR is designated in writing by the CO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR 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 contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the CO for action. The COR, along with the

Project Inspector, will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract. The COR will track and communicate with the CO findings, trends, and any other contract support to the CO.

2.3 Project Inspector

The Project Inspector is designated in writing by the CO to aid the COR in his or her duties in performance of monitoring activities and quality assurance evaluations for the contract. Project Inspector limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The Contractor, nor its employees, shall not

4 | P a g e have direct communications with the Project Inspector.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS /

QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment 1A, “Performance Requirements Summary.” If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be paid the monthly amount agreed on in the contract. Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction from the monthly amount.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are (include those that apply)

➢ Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR or designee.

➢ 100% Inspection – Each month, the QAEs, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the Surveillance Activity Checklist.

➢ Periodic Inspection – QAEs typically perform the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

4.2 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1A, Performance Requirements Summary

Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes.

Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1A.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance will be reported using the monitoring form in Attachment 1B. The form, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

5.2.1 The CO and COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

5 | P a g e

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels. Failure to meet the AQL may result in a deduction from the monthly payment, using the deduction percentages shown in Attachment 1. Likewise, if the contractor exceeds the performance standards, an incentive or award term will be considered, in accordance with the award term plan included in the contract.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 QA surveillance forms may be shared with the Contractor. Forms with negative findings will be shared within 24hrs, as practicable, with the Contractor to review and make remediations. The Contractor is responsible to inform the CO or COR of when remediation has been completed for review by the COR.

Completed quality assurance monitoring forms (Attachment 1B), will become part of the QA documentation within the contract file. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The CO and COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet, in person or via other means, to discuss performance evaluation. The frequency will be as necessary, or per the contractor’s request, and could include in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor. The agenda of the reviews may include:

➢ Inspection performance and trend analysis

➢ Issues and concerns of both parties

➢ Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

➢ Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

6.3.2 The CO and/or COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The COR, CO, and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action.

Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented.

Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the CO.