Attach 5 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)_28 Feb 22.docx

KEESLER AFB

BASE OPERATING SUPPORT (BOS)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Contract TBD

28 Feb 22

81 TRAINING WING (TRW), KEESLER AFB MS

FA300221R0012

Attachment 5 28 Feb 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Scope

1.1. Purpose

1.2. Scope

Chapter 2 – Performance Assessment Planning & Preparation

2.1. Planning and Preparation

2.2. Roles and Responsibilities

2.3 Combat Trafficking in Persons

Chapter 3 – Performance Assessment

3.1. Performance Assessment

3.2. Surveillance Methods

3.3. Surveillance Schedule

3.4. Surveillance Ratings

3.5. Assessment of Service Provider Quality Control Programs

3.6. Assessment of Non-Services Summary Items

3.7. Assessment of Service Provider Training Programs

3.8. Remedies for Unacceptable Performance

Chapter 4 – Performance Assessment Analysis

4.1. Data Review

4.2. Trend Analysis

Chapter 5 - Documentation of Service Provider Performance

5.1. Documenting Performance

5.2. Discrepancy Documentation

5.3. Repeat Write Up

5.4. Corrective Action Report (CAR) Purpose

5.5. Performance Assessment Follow-Up

Chapter 6 – Performance Assessment Reporting

6.1. Scheduled Inspections and Observation Reports

6.2. Additional Reporting Requirements

6.3. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

6.4. Management Oversight System

Chapter 7 – Certification of Services

7.1. Certification of Services

Appendix

1. Section 2 – All Services Performance Work Statement (PWS) Services Summary

2. Section 10 – Installation Management PWS Services Summary

3. Section 11 – Operations Management PWS Services Summary

4. Section 12 – Installation Engineering PWS Services Summary

5. Section 13 – Grounds PWS Services Summary

6. Section 14 – Emergency Management PWS Services Summary

7. Section 15 – Vertical Transportation Equipment (VTE) PWS Services Summary

8. Section 23 – Supply/Logistics PWS Services Summary

9. Section 28 – Community Services PWS Services Summary

10. Section 30 – Human Resources PWS Services Summary

11. Section 32 – Weather Services’ PWS Services Summary

Chapter 1 Purpose and Scope

1.1. Purpose. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed and will be implemented IAW FAR 46.401, DFARS 246.401, PGI 237.172, AFFARS MP 5346.103, AFFARS MP 5301.602-2(d), Performance-Based Services Acquisition (PBSA) guidelines and AFI 63-138. It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring Service Provider (SP) performance for each listed objective on the Services Summary (SS) in the contract as well as all contract requirements. This QASP provides a systematic method for observing and documenting the services that the SP is required to furnish and not the details of how the SP accomplishes the work.

1.2. Scope. This plan covers the Base Operating Support (BOS) functional areas for the Keesler AFB BOS contract.

1.2.1. This QASP is based on the premise that the SP, not the Government, is responsible for performance management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract.

Chapter 2 Performance Assessment Planning & Preparation

2.1. Planning and Preparation. The planning and preparation phase of SP performance management should be a standard process conducted by the Chief Contracting Officer Representatives (C-COR), Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) and Functional Service Managers (FSMs), over the course of the contract execution. There are several tools and resources available to the Government to aid in the management of the SP’s performance. The first stop in the planning and preparation phase for the Chief CORs, CORs, and FSMs should be the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This document will provide the guidelines of what services have been contracted by the Government and more importantly what levels of service are expected and acceptable. The guidelines by which to manage the execution of these services are outlined within this QASP. In addition to these documents, the Chief CORs, CORs, and FSMs should familiarize themselves with the SP’s policies and procedures in order to obtain a solid understanding of how the SP manages their people and programs. The best way to obtain this information is through regular partnering meetings with the SP.

2.1.1. Partnering. Partnering is the creation of a government/SP relationship that promotes achievement of mutually beneficial goals during a government contract period or project. Partnering involves people who believe cooperation is the most effective and efficient way to achieve their goals. The ultimate goal of partnering is to change the “us vs. them” attitude and create the “we” relationship. Nevertheless, partnering shall always operate within the framework of the “arms-length relationship” prescribed in the Guide for the Government-SP Relationship.

2.1.2. The most important step in partnering is for each party to first seek to understand the goals, objectives, and interests of the other party. This will create a “win-win” situation. Efficient partnering has specific attributes that contribute equally to its success. They are common goals, communication, problem solving, and synergies. These attributes seek to accomplish the ultimate goal of cooperation and shared vision.

2.1.3. The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) website offers a Continuous Learning Course (CLC045) called Partnering. It is highly recommended that each FSM and COR at least browse through this course for a better understanding of the concept of partnering and its effects on working relationships.

2.2. Roles and Responsibilities:

2.2.1. Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

2.2.1.1. Warranted government agents authorized to award or administer contracts. The ACO is the only person authorized to contractually obligate the government or direct the SP. The ACO delegates quality assurance responsibilities to CORs, giving them the authority to formally evaluate and accept SP services.

2.2.1.2. Contract Interpretation. The ACO is responsible for contract interpretation and shall serve as the advisor for developing remedies as appropriate tied to performance objectives and performance thresholds set forth in the contract. The ACO shall have final decision authority regarding contract language disputes with the SP.

2.2.1.3. Contract Administration. The ACO shall be responsible for overall contract administration overseeing contract modifications and contract file documentation. The ACO shall ensure that all contract documentation is maintained IAW applicable governing directives and AFIs, and copies of Corrective Action Report (CAR) are provided to the Chief COR.

2.2.1.4. Quality Assurance. The ACO is responsible for ensuring appropriate quality assurance has been conducted by reviewing monthly reports and documentation from the CORs.

2.2.1.5. Training. The ACO shall be responsible for ensuring functional area leadership receives tailored training for PBSA and Quality Assurance from the QAPC.

2.2.2. Chief COR, 81st CES.

2.2.2.1. Responsible for enforcing all policies regarding management, execution, and oversight of the contract. Responsible for ensuring that contract surveillance, evaluation and reporting practices are standardized and enforceable across all areas of the Keesler, AFB, BOS Contract. Chief COR serves as the action officer for all contract compliance and service issues that cannot be resolved at the FSM or Group level.

2.2.2.2. Government Program Manager (PM) for the Keesler, AFB BOS Contract. The Chief COR is responsible for management oversight of all contracted activities. Specifically, the Chief COR shall be responsible for monitoring cost, schedule, technical performance, and risk assessment/mitigation on the contract.

2.2.2.3. Chief COR must attend AETC Chief COR Training (Block 3) either at AETC or locally.

2.2.2.4. SP Interface. Serve as the primary point of contact (POC) between the SP PM and the Government. Any issues requiring wing leadership involvement shall first be presented to the Chief, COR for action. However, contract interpretation can only be done by a warranted contracting officer.

2.2.2.5. Technical Performance. Oversee technical performance of the contract IAW the PWS. Responsible for ensuring surveillance and documentation of contract performance and reporting noncompliance or abnormalities to the FSM(s) and the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO). The Chief, COR, with the ACO, shall serve as an advisor to the FSM with respect to acceptable levels of performance by the SP. Unacceptable levels of performance by the SP shall be handled IAW this QASP. Specifically, the Chief COR shall:

2.2.2.5.1. Verify that SP meets contract obligations as specified in the contract.

2.2.2.5.2. Review the SPs quality control program for acceptable quality level and recommends acceptability to the ACO.

2.2.2.6. Ensure that each COR is performing their duties IAW this QASP, AFFARS MP 5301.602-2(d) and PIEE JAM COR Designation Letter.

2.2.2.7. Assist the ACO in managing the applicable government furnished property (GFP) of the contract IAW with each section PWS Section 2, Appendix F, GFP.

2.2.2.8. Ensure a monthly summary of all COR surveillance activities is provided to the ACO, no later than (NLT) the 10th workday of the month.

2.2.2.9. Review of SP proposals. All facets of the proposal, within the technical expertise of CORs, will be evaluated to include number of personnel, skill level of personnel, man-hours proposed, and all associated costs.

2.2.2.10. Assist in determining contract cost estimates, if requested.

2.2.2.11. Coordinates required modifications with AETC functional representatives and the ACO.

2.2.2.12. Perform surveillance activities as required.

2.2.2.13. Review and evaluate SP submitted value engineering change proposals.

2.2.2.14. Ensure a COR is designated to provide assistance to the Wing Safety Office, or equivalent, in mishap and incident reporting.

2.2.2.15. Gather past performance information and provide to ACO as needed.

2.2.2.16. Review SP and governmental strike plan annually. Submit updated/revised governmental strike plan as required to the ACO.

2.2.2.17. Assist the ACO in inspecting and surveilling Section 2 – All Services PWS requirements of the contract, to include managing the applicable GFP. Chief COR may delegate Section 2 – All Services PWS requirements to other CORs as appropriate based on experience and availability.

2.2.2.18. Ensure a monthly summary of all COR surveillance activities is reviewed and signed by the Functional Commander(s) and is provided, to the ACO, no later than the 10th duty day of the month. The Chief COR shall mark whether performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the month.

2.2.2.19. Review of SP proposals. Ensure all facets of the proposal, within the technical expertise of CORs, will be evaluated to include number of personnel, skill level of personnel, man-hours proposed, and all associated costs.

2.2.2.20. Assist HQ AETC/A4PM, FSMs, and/or the ACO in determining contract cost estimates, if requested.

2.2.2.21. Perform surveillance activities as required.

2.2.2.22. Review and evaluate SP-submitted value engineering change proposals.

2.2.2.23. Provide assistance to the Wing Safety Office, or equivalent, in mishap and incident reporting.

2.2.2.24. Risk Assessment. The Chief COR shall work with the FSMs to assess overall program risks for SS items not being met. Once a risk assessment has been made, the Chef COR shall work with the ACO and FSM to establish an appropriate risk mitigation plan to alleviate the non-conformance. NOTE: The FSM retains all responsibility for the success or failure of the contracted function, the same as if the contracted function was a governmental activity. Issues regarding contract requirements not being met should be addressed between the COR and the SP’s director overseeing the activity in question prior to escalation to the Chief COR. However, when circumstances arise that cannot be worked at the COR level, COR should notify the Chief COR and ACO for determination/assistance.

2.2.3. Functional Service Managers (FSMs).

2.2.3.1. FSMs consists of 81st Civil Engineering Services (CES), 81st Logistics Readiness Squadron (LRS), 81st Family Support Squadron (FSS), and 81st Operations Support Flight (OSF) respective to each of their functional areas. The FSM is the government’s functional authority for the contracted function. The FSM retains all responsibility for the success or failure of the contracted function, the same as if the contracted function was a governmental activity. The FSM is responsible for assessing the SP’s performance and managing the requirements over the life of the contract per IAW AFFARS MP 5301.602-2(d) and AFFARS MP 5346.103. Specifically, the FSM shall:

2.2.3.1.1. Receive training within 30 days of commencement of duties IAW AFFARS MP 5301.602-2(d). This training is conducted by the QAPC and will be tailored to the FSMs needs.

2.2.3.1.2. Review all pertinent documents to include, the PWS, QASP, SP quality documents, required regulations/publications, SP and government strike plan annually, and their areas Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPAR) report.

2.2.3.1.3. Communicate expectations to the SPs Program Manager or area director as applicable.

2.2.3.1.4. Work with the ACO, through the Chief COR, in developing or modifying procedures in order to meet governmental expectations and contract standards.

2.2.3.1.5. At a minimum, when serving as the COR Supervisor the FSM must perform the COR Supervisor duties recapped in QASP Para 2.2.4.

2.2.3.2. Identify mission essential services, to include developing the necessary documents in accordance with DFARS 237.76, Continuation of Essential SP Services.

2.2.3.3. Ensure each COR is initially evaluated to determine qualifications, experience, and ability to accomplish scheduled inspections and contract surveillance functions. It is the responsibility of the Chief COR, and coordinated with QAPC, to ensure all required training, is completed by all new CORs. Also ensures refresher training for these courses is attended as required. Chief COR must attend AETC Chief COR Training (Block 3) either at AETC or locally.

2.2.3.4. Ensure that each COR is performing their duties IAW this QASP, AFFARS MP 5301.602-2(d) and PIEE JAM COR Designation Letter .

2.2.3.5. Assist the ACO in inspecting and surveilling Section 2 – All Service PWS requirements of the contract, to include managing the applicable GFP clause of the contract. Chief COR may delegate Section 2 – All Services PWS requirements to other CORs as appropriate based on experience and availability.

2.2.3.6. Review SP and governmental strike plan annually. Submit updated/revised governmental strike plan as required to the ACO.

2.2.4. COR Supervisor.

2.2.4.1. Must have a PIEE WAWF account and be a registered DoD SPM user.

2.2.4.2. Must provide a qualified COR nominee and must review and approve COR nominations in JAM.

2.2.4.3. Must conduct regular review of COR input into SPM and follow up as needed.

2.2.4.4. Ensure performance of COR duties and participation in the pre-award process are addressed in annual performance evaluations.

2.2.4.5. Ensure the COR completes the OGE 450 if required. Ensures there is no personal conflict of interest with performance of COR duties.

2.2.4.6. Ensures adequate resources are provided for performance of COR duties prior to award and throughout contract performance.

2.2.4.7. Ensures the COR attends all required initial and refresher COR training.

2.2.4.8. Ensure each COR is initially evaluated to determine qualifications, experience, and ability to accomplish scheduled inspections and contract surveillance functions. It is the responsibility of the Chief COR, and coordinated with QAPC, to ensure all required training, is completed by all new CORs. Also ensures refresher training for these courses is attended as required. All required training shall be scheduled and coordinated through the QAPC.

2.2.4.9. Ensure that each COR is performing their duties IAW this QASP, MP5301.602-2(d) and the PIEE JAM COR Designation Letter.

2.2.4.10. Process COR’s self-nomination and COR training documents/certificates in the JAM Modules (https://wawf.eb.mil/piee-landing/).

2.2.4.11. Ensure COR QA files are maintained as required.

2.2.4.12. Ensure the COR(s) use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Joint Appointment Module (JAM) and Surveillance and Performance Monitoring (SPM) at https://wawf.eb.mil/piee-landing/ for maintaining documentation and training.

2.2.4.13. Ensure CORs have received full COR training and PIEE JAM COR Designation Letter with the authorized roles and responsibilities signed by the ACO, prior to performing surveillance duties.

2.2.5. Contracting Office Representative (COR).

2.2.5.1. The CORs primary purpose is to observe and document. CORs are the “eyes and ears” of the Wing Commander, FSM, Chief COR, and ACO relative to the actual application of the contract; however, they are not a quality control function. An important part of the CORs responsibilities is to “partner” with the SP regularly to ensure open communications between the Government and SP. The COR is to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating SPs performance against scheduled and regulatory requirements and the terms of the contract. CORs will not direct work or re-accomplishment of work, change the contract, or formally interpret the contract. The ACO resolves these types of issues. CORs are prohibited from training or advising the SP and/or performing contracted tasks or quality control work. However, other government employees may do this under certain circumstances. The SP may request that the FSM, through ACO, under the partnering principle, may direct other government employees to train or advise the SP to help them get to a level of competence required by contract standards or in support of new equipment the government has provided them. Specifically, the COR shall:

2.2.5.1.1. Know the specifications and requirements of the contract.

2.2.5.1.2. Know and maintain proficiency in contract surveillance procedures and requirements. CORs will maintain technical competency in their functional areas, maintain proficiency in contract surveillance techniques, and assist with formulating the PWS and observation area inspection guides. CORs will review/approve SP-developed instructions noting necessary changes/updates in Quality Management Information System (QMIS) or SP’s quality control plan prior to signature and implementation as directed by the ACO or Chief COR. CORs will accomplish contract surveillance by evaluating and documenting SP performance and inform the Chief COR and FSM when SP performance does not meet performance thresholds.

2.2.5.1.3. Know and apply the procedures for documenting surveillance.

2.2.5.1.4. Develop surveillance schedules.

2.2.5.1.5. Perform surveillance according to their surveillance schedules.

2.2.5.1.6. Maintain scheduled competency in his/her assigned surveillance areas.

2.2.5.1.7. Maintain awareness and knowledge of any updates/changes to regulations and instructions in his/her assigned surveillance areas.

2.2.5.1.8. Attain qualification in the appropriate areas before performing evaluations, inspections, or surveillance duties unsupervised, as required.

2.2.5.1.9. Review the deficiency and mishap SP reports for accuracy, adverse trends, and mission accomplishment. Additionally, review reports to higher headquarters for possible indicators of performance trends.

2.2.5.1.10. Serve as a member of the source selection team when selected (appointed).

2.2.5.1.11. Review SP regulations and/or instructions prior to acceptance and publication.

2.2.5.1.12. Be familiar with emergency procedures to be implemented if default or strike interrupts SP performance.

2.2.5.1.13. Ensure SP does not answer higher headquarter suspenses and requests without necessary prior approval from COR and/or local leadership.

2.2.5.1.14. Use proper governmental and SP chain of command when elevating issues to upper management.

2.2.5.1.15. Maintain a QA file with all COR training documents/certificates, Contract documentation (such as copy of the Contract, Contract modifications, PWS, QASP, etc…), all surveillance documentation, and any other documents pertinent to this contract.

2.2.5.1.16. Review SP prepared regulations and/or instructions prior to acceptance and publication for government use.

2.2.5.1.17. Verify the statistical information provided by the SP that concerns the standards specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) or appendix of the contract.

2.2.5.1.18. COR(s) must use the DoD PIEE JAM/SPM Tool at https://wawf.eb.mil/piee-landing/. All CORs must be registered in PIEE for any applicable applications, such as JAM/SPM, EDA, WAWF, etc. CORs must self-nominate themselves in JAM for approval for each contract on which they perform COR duties. All COR training documentation/certifications will be uploaded and tracked utilizing the PIEE JAM Tool in order to maintain training records that identify specific responsibilities. Once the self-nomination in PIEE JAM is approved, a PIEE SPM account will be established to maintain individual COR files for post-award action/documentation (surveillance reports, trip reports, etc.)

2.2.5.1.19. Review/document QASP and checklists as required for adequacy. Responsible for the technical adequacy, accuracy and sufficiency of functional area QASP Appendices describing specific technical approach and methodology for surveillance. Submits updated QASP and checklists through Chief, COR to ACO and QAPC as changes occur.

2.2.5.1.20. COR Training Requirements.

22.5.1.20.1. All nominated CORs must coordinate with the ACO for CO specific training and receive a PIEE JAM COR Designation Letter before performing surveillance duties on new or existing contracts IAW MP 5301.602-2(d) and DoDI 5000.72 “DoD Standard for COR Certification”. The ACO will provide or determine any required COR refresher training. Air Force/AFPC directives, Federal Aviation Regulations, PWS, and Technical Manuals will be used as reference materials to complete COR’s knowledge base. Based on the ACO’s determination, all CORs will complete the following COR Supplemental training.

Combat Trafficking in Persons at “General Awareness Course” thru https://lms-jets.cce.af.mil/moodle/ or DAU "DoD 0020 CTIP for Acquisitions and Contracting Professionals" Course (DAU Website: https://icatalog.dau.edu/onlinecatalog/courses.aspx?crs_id=12512)”

2.2.5.1.20.2. COR Refresher Training. Refresher training will be IAW DoDI 5000.72 “DoD Standard for COR Certification”, Enclosure 5 and Enclosure 6 (Table 2). CORs are required to complete refresher ethics training annually and CTIP & refresher COR training every three (3) years; or sooner if necessary.

2.2.6. 81st Contracting Squadron Commander (81st CONS/CC).

2.2.6.1. Ensures a Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC) is appointed to integrate the contract quality requirements into the quality assurance program. Ensures FSMs receive tailored training for PBSA and Quality Assurance (QA).

2.2.6.2. Ensures QAPC individual training plans are tailored to the local mission and local QAPC responsibilities. Ensures the QAPC and other functional areas such as the Acquisition Centers of Excellence or similar offices give consistent guidance to customers.

2.2.7. Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC).

2.2.7.1. Base-level individual, normally from the contracting activity, selected to coordinate the Quality Assurance program.

2.2.7.2. The QAPC is responsible for training the FSMs and CORs on surveillance methods and overseeing the effectiveness of the QASP. The QAPC works with CORs, the ACO, and FSMs to identify, document, and troubleshoot contract compliance issues. Standardizes and evaluates CPARS inputs from COR’s and FSMs. The QAPC shall be responsible for all requirements outlined in AFFARS MP 5346.103 and AFFARS MP 5301.602(d).

2.2.8. Performance Management Council (PMC).

2.2.8.1. The purpose of the PMC is for the Government and the SP to collectively review the SP’s performance on a quarterly basis. Areas addressed are SS performance, surveillance results, contract administration and current issues. The areas addressed may change depending on current leadership concerns/issues. The slides for this meeting are created by the Chief COR and are coordinated with the SP and ACO. Slides are presented to the PMC quarterly.

2.2.8.2. The Chief COR will notify PMC members and other desired attendees of scheduled meeting dates, times and location.

2.2.8.3. The meetings are scheduled on the wing’s master meeting schedule and therefore all responsible parties are aware of their frequency. Chief COR may send courtesy meeting reminders to council members.

2.2.8.4. The PMC is chaired by 81st MSG/CC and members include, but are not limited to Group CCs, FSMs, Chief COR, ACO and the SP.

2.2.9. Multi-Functional Team (MFT) Roles and Responsibilities.

2.2.9.1. The MFT is a customer-focused team instituted under the authority of MSG/CC. The purpose of the MFT is to create an environment that shapes and executes an acquisition. The emphasis is on teamwork, trust, common sense, and agility. The goal is to obtain efficiencies, improved performance, and cost saving throughout the acquisition life cycle. The MFT is composed of stakeholders in the acquisition. These stakeholders are responsible for this acquisition throughout the life of the requirement. For a list of the stakeholders for this acquisition, see the attached signature page. See MFT Member Appointment letter for MFT role and responsibilities in contract file and as stated within the QASP, which is IAW AFI 63-138, Acquisition of Services, Chapter 2 and 6 and DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System.

2.3. Combating Trafficking in Persons. DoD has a zero tolerance policy for human trafficking. CORs are the first line of defense in the battle against human trafficking and must complete Combating Trafficking in Persons training annually. As the COR monitors the SP and its employees, Combating Trafficking in Persons should rank among the COR’s chief priorities. CORs must be diligent in ensuring that SPs and SP personnel are not trafficking in persons. During surveillance, the COR will monitor the SP’s performance regarding trafficking in persons for compliance with all that is required IAW FAR clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons. The COR must inform the Contracting Officer if the SP, SP personnel, subcontractor, or subcontractor personnel have failed to comply with the requirements of the clause at FAR 52.222-50. After receiving this information, the Contracting Officer shall provide information for any investigation and enforcement to:

Program Manager DoD CTIP Law Enforcement and Support OUSD (P&R) DHRA 4800 Mark Center Dr Suite 06J25-01 Alexandria, VA 22350-4000

Reports may also be made:

On-line at http://ctip.defense.gov/;

On-line via the National CTIP Hotline website at http://www.polarisproject.org/;

By e-mail to CTIPReports@OSD.Pentagon.mil; or By phone to the National CTIP Hotline at 1-888-373-7888.

Note: The COR must report any suspected violations or activities to the Contracting Officer (See FAR Subpart 22.17 and DFARS Subpart 222.17).

Note: CORs should not personally investigate suspected incidents of Trafficking in Persons but should forward all reported or suspected violations to the Contracting Officer immediately.

Note: The SP must take appropriate action should a violation occur. For corrective procedures and remedies for non-compliance, see FAR 52.222-50.

Chapter 3

Performance Assessment

3.1. Performance Assessment.

3.1.1. Performance assessment is evaluating, assessing, and documenting the SP’s performance IAW the contract. The premise behind performance assessment is that the SP, not the government, is responsible for managing and ensuring that performance meets the terms of the contract. It is the government’s responsibility to monitor performance and hold the SP accountable for performance. All areas of the contract shall be surveilled and the performance of the SP shall be assessed and reported in accordance with this QASP.

3.1.2. Services Summary (SS). The SS identifies the major service requirements the Government is acquiring and provides a basis for measurement between actual SP performance and specific contract requirements. The COR in partnership with the SP, will verify adequacy of performance for the critical or major requirements using any of the quality assurance methods identified in QASP paragraph 3.2. The Government has the right to inspect all services, not just SS items. Appendix 1 through 11 – Services Summaries, shows the Performance Thresholds and frequency of surveillance.

3.2. Surveillance Methods. The COR will ensure contract compliance through various surveillance methods. These methods may include but are not limited to periodic inspections, random sampling, customer feedbacks/complaints, SP metrics, 100% surveillance and quality third party audits. The results of any of these surveillance methods may be used as the basis for actions towards the SP. In such cases, the Inspection of Services clause becomes the basis for the contracting officer’s actions.

3.2.1. Periodic Inspections. These items are inspected using periodic surveillance (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.) as determined by the COR. Periodic inspections may be conducted via over the shoulder inspections, spot sampling, or review of the SP reports and other deliverable documents.

3.2.2. Random Sampling. Random sampling is an appropriate method for frequently recurring tasks. A typical use of this surveillance method is lot size sampling. Initially, the COR will evaluate randomly selected samples of the activity to determine the acceptability of the entire requirement. This method reduces the time the COR must spend on surveillance duties, and yet still gives a reasonably accurate picture of a service’s overall acceptability.

3.2.3. Customer Feedbacks/Complaints. Customer inputs will be registered in QMIS allowing FSMs to review as required. The Chief COR, or designated COR, should review all customer feedbacks.

3.2.3.1. When a Customer Feedback SS is present, the COR must collect and review the feedbacks prior to the SP, unless the feedbacks are directly entered into QMIS by the customer. This may be accomplished by placing a lock box in each facility that offers hard-copy customer feedbacks. The COR will maintain the key to this lock box. As a courtesy, before removing the customer feedbacks, the COR will notify the SP that he/she is removing them. Feedback may also be received by CORs by alternate methods, such as e-mail, fax, or verbal/written comment submitted directly to the COR. All feedback will be documented and tracked for resolution by the COR. After COR review, the feedbacks will be submitted to the SP for review/action. The COR should review and return the feedbacks to the SP within three (3) business days of receipt. The SP will be expected to provide a response to the COR within three (3) business days from the time the SP receives the feedback from the COR If the SP has a contractual requirement to answer negative feedbacks within a certain amount of time, that time will not begin until the SP receives the feedback from the COR.

3.2.3.2. If there is a requirement for negative feedback follow-up, the COR must monitor that follow- up. The COR will validate the actual occurrence and/or the results if the situation requires further investigation. The COR will consider the actions taken by the SP and will determine if the response is expected to resolve the customer’s complaint. If the action fails to address the problem or is inadequate, the Chief COR, COR and FSMs shall contact the ACO for further action.

3.2.3.3. If a SS requiring a performance threshold on customer feedbacks is in the PWS and minimal feedbacks are received, on a monthly basis, each COR will contact government customers for their feedback on the SP’s performance. The number of feedbacks received will be determined by the need in each department.

3.2.3.4. Customer Complaints Resolution. Actions taken in support of a specific SP or Government concern or problem that impacts operations. Usually results in Government-to-SP or SP-to-SP process deficiency resolution (feedback). NOTE: Customer complaints, once validated, are a means of surveillance and are alternative to formal surveillance methods. The COR is the point of contact and must collect all customer complaints. The Customer Complaint Record IAW AFFARS 5346.401, or a similar locally devised form, may be used for this purpose. All complaints are validated and any resulting resolution of such complaints must be documented with the information required on the customer complaint form. Customer complaint forms become a permanent part of the COR surveillance records. The COR will contact customers involved with this contract, periodically to assure there is an understanding of the contract requirement by all appropriate personnel and they have a sufficient number of complaint forms.

3.2.4. SP Metrics. Each department or functional area has SSs, which are part of the PWS. They are the major areas of concern for each functional area. However, these are not the only requirements that are measured. Every “shall” statement within the PWS should be measured. This includes Section 2 of the PWS, which is applicable to all areas. SSs are found in a table at the end of each PWS section; categorized by Performance Objective, PWS Reference, and Performance Thresholds. This table details what and how often each requirement is inspected or surveilled. Changes to SSs can only occur with a modification to the contract.

3.2.5. One-Hundred Percent Inspection. When this type of surveillance is used, the COR must inspect and evaluate the SP’s performance each time it is performed. The result of the SP’s overall performance is then evaluated to determine acceptability of the lot.

3.2.6. . Third Party Audits or Assessments: Third party audits or assessments refer to contractor evaluation by a third party organization that is independent of the government and the contractor. All documentation supplied to, and produced by, the third party should be made available to the government by the contractor.

3.2.7. Other Surveillance Methods. The following are types of surveillances that may be used throughout the contract period to evaluate SP performance when structured surveillances do not exist.

3.2.7.1. Exercise/Contingency Surveillance. The service provider’s participation in exercises/contingencies will be surveilled by a COR whenever possible. As a minimum, service area related exercises will be surveilled using appropriate checklists.

3.2.7.2. PWS Section 2 Surveillance. This section should be surveilled at least annually by each functional area. The FC/FD and PMO Chief will determine the frequency of these inspections. Inspections of Section 2 will be documented just as all other inspections are documented. These inspections can be conducted with other inspections but should include verbiage of what specific requirements from Section 2 were covered during the inspection.

3.2.8. Budget Monitoring. The Chief COR will monitor SP’s compliance and advise him/her of budgetary trends when needed. CORs will review and validate invoices to ensure supplies ordered are those needed to perform the mission. The COR will ensure the SP includes the COR on routing for all purchases requiring ACO approval. The COR. will surveil financial plans and unfunded requirements developed by the SP. The COR will be included on prioritization of unfunded requirements.

3.2.9. Exercise/Contingency Surveillance. The SP’s participation in exercises/ contingencies will be surveilled by a COR assigned to the Wing Inspection Team (WIT). CORs may be appointed to the WIT. As a minimum, service area related exercises will be surveilled using appropriate checklists.

3.2.10. PWS Section 2 Surveillance. This section should be surveilled at least annually by each functional area. The COR will determine the frequency of these inspections. Inspections of Section 2 will be documented; just as all other inspections are documented and maintained in PIEE. These inspections can be conducted with other inspections but should include verbiage of what specific requirements from Section 2 were covered during the inspection.

3.3. Surveillance Schedule. The COR will develop a schedule of surveillance based on the requirements of FAR Part 46, AFFARS MP 5346.103 and AFFARS MP5301.602, each PWS Section, checklist Air Force Instructions (AFIs), Air Force Pamphlets (AFPAMs), and this QASP. Surveillance schedules should specify all work requiring surveillance and should specify the method of surveillance. They should be prepared in conjunction with the preparation of the statement of work. The surveillance schedule will be completed NLT seven (7) calendar days prior to the beginning of the contract year, (period it covers) and a copy will be sent to the ACO. The FSM should sign the schedule prior to submitting. The schedule is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” and is not releasable to anyone other than authorized government personnel.

3.3.1. Surveillance Schedule Changes. The COR will forward changes to annual (monthly) surveillance schedules to the ACO and the Chief COR, as changes occur.

3.3.2. Determining Surveillance Frequency. During performance assessment planning, the CORs shall consider using operational risk, service complexity and criticality as factors in deciding the annual performance assessment plan and schedule. If a particular function of the SP’s performance has a continuing record of acceptable performance, and unacceptable performance would not likely result in loss of life to AF personnel or damage to government property, surveillance of that function may be reduced. If SP performance of a function is less than satisfactory, surveillance of that function should be increased.

3.3.3. Monthly Surveillance Shortfall. If monthly surveillance requirements cannot be accomplished due to equipment non-availability or special circumstances, the reason(s) for missing inspection will be documented on the end of the month’s summary report.

3.3.4. Monitoring Surveillance. The Chief COR will monitor surveillance results to ensure no particular work areas/sites and/or office areas are being disproportionately inspected. The Chief COR may, however, deviate from random selection to ensure a broad cross-section of the service area is being inspected to investigate potential problems or if trends indicate a need. It is essential that CORs accomplish sufficient in-depth inspections in all areas to measure the quality of SP performance and provide an effective measurement/assessment to ensure overall performance meets contract requirements. Compliance with applicable directives prescribed by the PWS, SP-developed Quality Control Program (QCP), Contract Sections, and plans/instructions will be part of the surveillance.

3.4. Surveillance Ratings. A discrepancy is any validated inspection finding or observation. Each COR, in coordination with the ACO, will determine on what constitutes a major versus a minor discrepancy for their areas, then partner with the SP on resolutions as necessary. Many of the SS items in our PWS describe the type of discrepancies that constitute a failure to comply with contractual requirements. Any discrepancy already defined in the PWS as a failure is considered a major discrepancy. Additional major discrepancies will be described by the FSM and Chief COR but are primarily defined as any SP actions that could result in a violation of safety, security, protection of resources, or law.

3.4.1. Major discrepancies include but are not limited to: A step serious enough to adversely affect the performance of the equipment involved is omitted or improperly completed; violation of federal, state or local laws; DoD and Air Force environmental protection policies and directives; T.O. violations, to include not using required T.O.s to perform tasks, violations of mandatory directives and supplements when such may cause damage to government property or injury to government personnel; improper use of tools or use of outdated data when such may cause damage to government property or injury to government personnel; or accomplishing procedures without training or qualification on the task.

3.4.2. A minor discrepancy is any failure to comply with the contract that is not already identified as major, does not compromise Keesler’s mission, and is easily correctable.

3.4.3. Baselines for number of minors that constitute a major are determined by the COR in coordination with the ACO. Minor discrepancies that consist of a grouping of like deficiencies may be documented as one or several discrepancies. When grouping deficiencies, CORs will ensure surveillance techniques are applied consistently across inspection areas. Surveillance inspections will be rated as either acceptable or unacceptable.

3.5. Assessment of SP QCP. Each COR will be knowledgeable on the SP’s QCP. All areas of the contract discuss the SP’s quality control, but PWS Section 2 is most specific. It is critical that each COR become knowledgeable with Section 2 because it includes all the miscellaneous “shall” statements that the SP must accomplish.

3.5.1. Each COR will be knowledgeable on the SP’s QCP. The SPs QCP for Keesler AFB is located in QMIS. Each COR should review for individual Quality Document (QD) within their functional area. The COR should ensure any new QDs and QD changes.

3.5.2. The CORs’ primary job is to observe and document the SP’s performance. The COR is responsible for Quality Assurance and must continually be evaluate their role and ensure the contracts is responsible for the quality of services provided. However, it is very easy for a COR organization to become the SP’s quality control without realizing it. The COR organization must continually evaluate their role and ensure the SP is truly responsible for the quality of services provided. Some warning signs that a COR organization has become, or is becoming the SP’s QC include: CORs finding problems that the SP’s QC isn’t, SP management only fixes problems that are identified by the CORs, SP employees are more intimidated by CORs than the SP’s QC, and the SP is not proactive on quality issues.

3.5.3. Inspections are documented into QMIS for COR scheduled inspections of SP Quality Controls. A negative PAR will be documented when findings are observed using either Section 2 – All Services PWS or SP QD reference. QC over-the-shoulder or QC after-the-fact inspections will be accomplished with other scheduled inspections by each COR. The FSM and COR organization will also ensure “Partnering” with the SP and their QC personnel is accomplished. The frequency is determined by the FSM and Chief COR. Partnering is critical to understanding and communication between the Government and SP. It is highly recommended that the FSM attend each partnering meeting.

3.5.4. CORs should conduct scheduled inspections of the SP’s QCP. QC over-the-shoulder or QC after-the-fact inspections can be accomplished with other scheduled inspections. Indicators for an issue with the SP’s QC could include the following: CORs finding problems that the SP’s QC isn’t, SP management only fixes problems that are identified by the CORs, SP employees are more intimidated by CORs than the SP’s QC, and the SP is not proactive on quality issues. Findings will be documented and provided to the Chief COR and ACO. The FSM, Chief COR or ACO will ensure “Partner” with the SP and their QC personnel is accomplished. The frequency is determined by the FSM and Chief COR. Partnering is critical to understanding and communication between the Government and SP.

3.6. Assessment of Non-Services Summary Items. All other tasks required under the contract may be inspected at a frequency determined by the FSM, ACO, and/or COR per the Inspection of Services Clause in the contract. These items may be added to the COR’s surveillance schedule as regularly inspected items.

3.7. Assessment of SP Training Programs. The Government has the right to inspect all tasks within this PWS not just the POs) listed in the SS. All other tasks required under the PWS may be inspected on a random or periodic basis at a frequency determined by the Chief COR, ACO, and/or COR per the Inspection of Services Clause in the contract. The COR shall perform Scheduled Inspections to effectively monitor compliance with the SP’s training plan to ensure that training provided meets applicable qualification and training standards as well as remains current.

3.8. Remedies for Unacceptable Performance. IAW the contract inspection of services clause, if any of the services do not conform to contract requirements, the Government may require the SP to perform the services again in conformity with the contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount. This includes, but is not limited to, termination of SP personnel and recruitment of substitute personnel that are equally qualified within established time frames. When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government may:

3.8.1. Require the SP to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements.

3.8.2. Reduce the contract line item price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed.

3.8.3. If the SP fails to promptly perform the services again or to take the necessary action to ensure future performance in conformity with contract requirements, the Government may:

3.8.3.1. By contract or otherwise, perform the services and charge to the SP any cost incurred by the Government that is directly related to the performance of such service; or

3.8.3.2. Terminate the contract

NOTE: All remedies listed above can only be levied by the ACO.

Chapter 4

Performance Assessment Analysis

4.1. Data Review. Chief CORs shall review performance data with COR inputs and coordinate with the FSM on recommendations prior to formalizing a Corrective Action Report (CAR) . Chief CORs should use trend analysis to accurately assess the SP’s performance within each respective area.

4.2. Trend Analysis. Statistical data for COR inspection rates are maintained in QMIS and monitored by each COR. Chief CORs should use this historical data for trend analysis in order to accurately identify negative and positive trends in SP performance. Trend analysis should be used by the COR when making recommendations to increase or decrease surveillances in an individual area and when making determination on closing PARs and CARs. This method of surveillance should be used regularly and continually by COR personnel to monitor the SP’s on-going performance over time. Data for tracking trends can be gathered from all other evaluation sources and methods as well.

4.2.1. Negative Trends. If negative trends in SP performance are noted through trend analysis, the Chief COR shall inform the FSM and consideration should be given to increasing surveillances in these areas until the trend has reversed.

4.2.2. Positive Trends. If positive trends in SP performance are noted, consideration may be given to reducing the number of surveillances in that specific area. Positive trends in findings rates are good indicators that SPs QC programs are healthy or that SP corrective actions are working.

Chapter 5

Documentation of SP Performance

5.1. Documenting Performance. SP performance shall be thoroughly documented by the CORs. All PARs and CARs shall be input into QMIS by the COR for the SP review and response. The SP as opposed to just discrepancies should also use PARs to document exceptional performance.

5.2. Discrepancy Documentation.

5.2.1. Performance Assessment Report (PAR). All discrepancies documented during COR surveillances/inspections shall be documented in QMIS. Due to the automatic notifications in QMIS, the QMIS submission shall serve as the SP acknowledgement of the PAR. However, as a courtesy, the COR should attempt to contact the SP prior to entering the discrepancy into QMIS to inform them of the forthcoming PAR. The COR should notify the SP and ACO of all discrepancies documented. A copy of the PAR shall be forwarded to the ACO, through the Chief COR, with the monthly PAR report. These originals will be maintained by the ACO’s office and will be considered a permanent part of the contract. Monthly reports will be maintained by the COR as part of their documentation and will be considered a permanent part of the contract.

5.2.2. Required Information. Specific PWS and/or AFI paragraph references shall be used when documenting non-conformance as applicable.

5.3. Repeat Write Ups. CORs shall review completed PARs to identify repeat discrepancies. When repeat discrepancies are found, the COR issues another PAR clearly annotating the deficiency as a repeat. The ACO will determine how many repeat findings constitute a CAR. The FSM and Chief COR will determine, based on the functional area, what constitutes a repeat.

5.4. Corrective Action Reports (CARs)

5.4.1. CAR Purpose. CARs document contractual non-compliance issues. CARs are generated to inform the SP of noncompliance issues, request correction of the immediate problem and identification of any process deficiencies that may exist and lead to reoccurrence of the problem.

5.4.2. CAR Procedures. CARs should be initiated by the COR responsible for the service area where a noncompliance issue is identified. CARs should clearly communicate the non-compliance and its impact so the SP and reviewing officials easily understand it. After initiation, CARs shall be coordinated on by the Chief COR or FSM and routed to the ACO.