Exhibit 004-Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.pdf

Operation and Maintenance Contract National Center of Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) USDA-ARS, Peoria, IL

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) used by the Government is to ensure systematic quality assurance methods are utilized for administration of the contract’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) standards and in subsequent task orders. The results from the Government derived performance metrics will be used to evaluate the quality of contracted services.

2. SCOPE

To fully understand the roles and the responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) and the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The Contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the PWS.

The Contractor develops and submits the QCP for Government approval in compliance with the contract deliverables. Once accepted, the Contractor then uses the QCP to guide and to document the implementation of the required management and quality control actions to achieve the specified results.

The QASP is the Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s efforts and reporting mechanism to document how successfully the Contractor is meeting the minimum contract requirements. The QASP is not a part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the Contractor’s QCP. The Government may provide the Contractor a copy of the QASP as an attachment to the solicitation to support the Contractor’s efforts in developing a QCP.

The performance management described in this plan represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways because the results focus upon whether or not outcomes are being achieved and migrates away from scrutiny on compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome.

The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (Federal, State, and local) and compelling business situations such as safety and health. An outcome focus provides the Contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expressed in the PWS are achieved.

Because the QASP is results focused, it will be the primary tool to evaluate the contractor’s performance and means of documentation for ACO review of Contractor performance in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

The primary purpose of the CPARS is to ensure that accurate data on contractor performance is current and available for use in source selections through the Past Performance Informational Retrieval System (PPIRS). Performance assessments will be used as a resource in awarding best value contracts and orders to contractors that consistently provide quality, on-time products and services that conform to contractual requirements. CPARS can be used to effectively communicate contractor strengths and weaknesses to source selection officials.

3. GOVERNMENT RESOURCES

The USDA ARS NCAUR QASP has been developed from the following document which may be referenced upon through the duration of the performance period.

1. Office of Federal Procurement Policy - Pamphlet Number 4 - Supplement No. 2 to OMB Circular No. A-76

4. RESPONSIBILITIES

The listed Government personnel have responsibilities for the implementation of this

QASP:

Contracting Officer (CO) – The CO has the final authority and responsibility for Contract implementation. The CO designates Government oversight of the contracted performance to one full-time ACO (administrative evaluator) and one full-time COR (technical evaluator). The number of additional representatives serving as COR’s depends upon the complexity of the services measured and Contractor performance.

Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) – The ACO provides administrative oversight of the Contractor’s performance to ensure effective contracting which is in compliance with the terms of the contract and maintains cost controls to safeguard the interests of the United States. The ACO assures the Contractor receives equitable treatment under the contract and is responsible for the final determination of Contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officers Representative (COR) – The COR, typically the Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) or the Facility Engineer (FE), provides technical oversight of the Contractor’s performance and reports the findings to the CO/ACO. While the COR provides guidance and feedback to the CO/ACO; they are not empowered to make contractual commitments or authorize contractual changes on the Government’s behalf.

5. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The COR will monitor the Contractor’s work to determine conformance to the PWS.

Additionally, the Contractor’s monthly QC report and responses to Observation Reports will be used to assess the Contractor’s level of performance for each objective measured in this QASP. The ACO will accept, partially accept, or reject a discrepancy in PWS performance.

5.1 GOVERNMENT QAS SCHEDULE

The Government’s QAS will continuously complete surveillance activities and submit the results to the ACO, FE, and the Safety Manager for their review.

5.2 QASP – ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

The QASP review of PWS Administrative Services will assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e.g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety and health standards). The following points are guidelines used in rating the Contractor:

Are reports/data accurate?

Does the product or service provided meet the specifications of the contract?

Does the contractor’s work measure up to commonly accepted technical or professional standards?

What degree of Government technical direction was required to solve problems that arise during performance?

5.3 QASP – OPERATIONS AND FACILITY SUPPORT

For PWS Operations and Facility Support, the Government will assess how successfully the contractor meets program quality objectives such as producibility, reliability, maintainability and inspect ability. The AO has discretion in how contractor success is measured; e.g., using data from field reliability and maintainability and failure reports, user comments and acceptance rates, and scrap and rework rates. These quantitative indicators may be useful later, for example, in source selection evaluations, in demonstrating continuous improvement, quality and reliability leadership that reflects progress in total quality management. Additionally, the Government will assess the contractor’s control of the overall production process to include material control, shop planning and control, and scheduling.

5.4 QASP – BUSINESS RELATIONS

For Contractor business relations, the Government will assess the 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. If the contract has a small business subcontracting plan, the evaluation addresses whether the contractor met its small business subcontracting plan goals. The Government will review the adequacy of the Contractor’s accounting, billing, and estimating systems and the contractor’s management of Government Property (GFP) if a substantial amount of GFP has been provided to the contractor under the contract. The following points are guidelines used in rating the Contractor:

Is the Contractor oriented toward the customer?

Is interaction between the Contractor and the Government satisfactory or does it need improvement?

What percentage of the contract work was represented by subcontracted efforts?

Are the Contractor awards to subcontractors and management of subcontractors, satisfactory and timely?

6. METHODS OF GOVERNMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE

The primary methods of Government surveillance are: random sampling, periodic sampling, 100% sampling, customer feedback, and review of those records and files that are required to be maintained and delivered under this PWS. These observations will be at the Government’s convenience. The Government will complete a minimum review of the PWS at 5% per year.

Customer Feedback – Customer feedback is solicited and unsolicited from employees and visitors.

100% Sampling – Performance is evaluated at each occurrence and is suitable for infrequent tasks or tasks with stringent performance requirements, i.e. safety or health matter, additional tasks, and time and material projects. Typically, this performance is evaluated by the COR job shadowing the Contractor.

Periodic Sampling – Periodic or scheduled sampling consists of evaluations which require neither 100% nor random sampling. It is suitable for tasks that occur infrequently and is established using subjective judgment and analysis of agency resources.

Random Sampling – Random sampling is the most frequent methodology of service contract surveillance and requires a statistically valid sample.

Work Management System – Sampling of the Government’s Work Management System (WMS) to collate and compare information for 100% of the activities described within PWS to ensure a complete historical contract performance record.

7.0 RECORDING OBSERVATIONS

The Surveillance Activity Log is used for the purpose of collating information from the scheduled observations and defects noted. Each observation in the sample is recorded which become a formal Government record.

1) When sampling is performed, the tally of observations and defects at the end of each month are analyzed for any trends.

2) The Contractor’s key point of contact, as identified on their QCP, will be informed of defect(s) found during QAS sampling and asked to sign the Observation Report.

3) Defects found in services will be brought to the Contractor’s attention for further action.

The QAS will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and actions related to the Government’ s performance of the quality assurance function, including the originals of all Observation Reports. All such records will be retained for the life of this contract. The QAS will forward these records to the ACO at termination or completion of the contract.

The Government Quality Assurance file records all Contractor PWS efforts in the following documents:

Surveillance Activity Log Quality Assurance Monitoring Form Customer Feedback Form Observation Report

8. PERFORMANCE BELOW MINIMUM CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

When the sampling guide or Surveillance Activity Log indicates ratings below satisfactory, the COR will document the specific service found defective as a formal record. The Observation Report will be used to identify the probable causes and suggest investigative questions for the ACO. The COR’s completed Observation Report is sent it to the ACO; the ACO will send it to the Contractor. The Contractor is required to respond to the Observation Report. When compiled and signed, the report along with the Surveillance Activity Log becomes the documentation supporting other necessary action to be retained by the ACO.

As an example, if the contract specifies the Contractor paint exterior concrete curbing and the outdoor temperatures were below the manufacturer’s recommended application temperatures. The Contractor’s delay would be excusable. In such a situation, the Contractor may not be responsible for failing to complete a work order within the specified time in the PWS.

However, if the investigation demonstrates the painting work could have been scheduled within the specified times stated in the PWS during the summer or during moderate temperatures, the Contractors performance will be found defective.

The response actions listed below are guidelines; and unique events may require an appropriate, timely, and thorough Contractor response.

1) The QAS informs the Contractor’s key point of contact, or a designated alternate, that a QASP evaluation has identified discrepancies and asks the Contractor to correct the problem. The QAS makes a notation on the Surveillance Activity Log and creates and Observation Report.

2) When the Contractor has not responded to the Observation Report by the specified due date, the ACO will formally note the rating as a matter of record for the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). When the Government surveillance has been completed in good faith: the performance, whether at, above, or below Satisfactory is considered the Contractor performance of record.

3) The CO may issue Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, and Delinquency Notices at any time during the performance of the PWS.

9. O&M Meetings

The ACO will require the Contractor’s Project Manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the Government QAS and COR to discuss performance evaluations. The ACO will define the frequency of these meetings with the Contractor. Example agenda items:

Monthly performance measured by the metrics and trends Issues and concerns of both parties Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends Recommendations made by the COR based on Contractor Observation Report responses Issues arising from independent reviews

The ACO, COR, and the 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 Government’s ACO.

RATINGS FOR THE OBSERVATION REPORT AND THE CONTRACTOR

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORTING SYSTEM (CPARS)

Note: A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

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 action taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Notes for Exceptional Rating:

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been no significant weakness identified.

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 minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor was effective.

Notes for Very Good Rating:

To justify a Very Good rating, identify significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. Also, there should have been no significant weakness identified.

SATISFACTORY:

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor appear satisfactory.

Notes for Satisfactory Rating:

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been no significant weakness identified.

MARGINAL:

Performance does 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.

Notes for Marginal Rating:

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g. management quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

UNSATISFACTORY:

Performance does meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear or were ineffective.

Notes for Unsatisfactory Rating:

To justify an Unsatisfactory performance, identify a multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g. management quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports or letters).