J3._C2F_FFO_QASP_Draft.docx

FA4600-15-R-0013

Attachment 3

C2F FFO

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan 20 July 2015

Multi-Functional Team Members:

____________________________________ Date: ______________ Functional Commander/Director

____________________________________ Date: ______________ Contracting Officer Representative

____________________________________ Date: ______________ Contract Administrator

___________________________________ Date: ______________ Quality Assurance Program Coordinator

___________________________________ Date: ______________ Contracting Officer

___________________________________ Date: ______________ Contractor (After Award)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject Page

1. Overview 3

2. Description of Services 3

3. Organizational Structure 4

4. Contract Quality Requirements 4

5. Performance Assessment Approach 4

6. Performance Assessment Documentation 7

7. Duties and Responsibilities 8

8. Performance Objectives 10

9. Performance Metrics 11

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is to identify the methods and procedures the Government will use to insure it receives the services under contract as identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This plan will focus on the level of performance required by the PWS, not the methodology or process.

1.2 Intent. The intent of this plan is to rely on the Contractor’s quality control, thus changing the Government’s role from “oversight” to “insight”. Performance Objectives (PO) will be periodically monitored and the quality program evaluated but the Contractor is left as free as possible to develop the most efficient methodology to meet and exceed the required thresholds of service.

1.3 Compliance with AFI 63-138, AFFARS MP 5301.602-2(d):

1.3.1. A Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan is an evolving document whose development begins with acquisition planning, and finalized as the acquisition progresses. The members of the multi-functional team sign the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. This plan identifies:

1.3.2 Objective(s) in having the service provided.

1.3.3. Results the multi-functional team is striving to achieve in managing the acquisition.

1.3.4. A distribution of the roles and responsibilities among the multi-functional team members.

1.3.5. A strategy, methods and tools the multi-functional team will use to assess the contractor’s performance against the performance thresholds, measurements, metrics, and incentives identified in the contract. Performance thresholds must be measurable in terms of quality and timeliness of performance. (see paragraph 5)

1.3.6. A management approach, methods and tools the multi-functional team will routinely use to validate the objectives and goals identified as part of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, i.e. benchmarking, etc. (see paragraph 5)

2. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

2.1 Scope of Work. The contractor shall, except as specified in this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) as Government furnished property or services, provide all personnel, supervision, equipment, tools, vehicles and any supplies and services necessary to provide new furnishing procurement and installation and/or to reconfigure/relocate existing furnishings at Offutt AFB as defined in the PWS. The contractor shall submit reports and documentation as identified throughout the PWS. Requests for such reports and documentation and responses shall be coordinated through the COR as outlined in the PWS.

3. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Not Used

4. CONTRACT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Quality Program. The Contractor shall develop, maintain, enforce and document a Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QCP shall ensure the Government receives the level of quality that is consistent with the requirements specified in the contract and/or each task order if applicable. The QCP shall be provided within 30 days, after receipt of award, for the Quality Assurance Program Coordinator and Contracting Officer’s review, feedback if necessary, and Contracting Officer’s approval.

5. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT APPROACH

5.1 Purpose. This section details the method(s) used to verify Contractor compliance with PWS requirements. The key elements of this process are the Contractor's quality program and Government identified Performance Objectives. The Performance Objectives from Paragraph 8.0 of this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) dictate the minimum assessment requirements Contracting Officer Representative (COR) must accomplish on a periodic basis. This (QASP) provides the procedures on how to conduct the evaluations for Performance Objectives and how to document them in a correct and effective manner.

5.2 Performance Assessment Approach. To facilitate the Performance assessment of the Contractor's quality program, Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will verify Contractor compliance with designated Performance Objectives. The intent of the Performance Assessment approach is to gain confidence in the Contractor’s ability to provide satisfactory services and then adjusting the level of Performance Assessment to a point that maintains confidence. This Performance Assessment approach is subject to change based on the Contractor’s performance.

5.3 Annual Review. The COR must review the Performance Objectives, assess their applicability and recommend the addition or subtraction of Performance Objectives as conditions warrant. This review must be accomplished annually as a minimum and documentation shall be provided to the CO.

5.4 Special Audits. The COR must be alert to conditions that would warrant a special quality audit. Any time the COR observes that a functional area is out of acceptable tolerance or that the technical expertise is not available, a request for a functional area quality audit should be addressed to the Contracting Officer.

5.5 Performance Assessment File. A Performance assessment file must be developed and maintained by each COR. The file will be maintained electronically in the CORT-Tool as prescribed in accordance with DFARS PGI 201.602-2(d)(vi). This file must include, as a minimum –

a. A copy of the contracting officer’s letter of designation and other documentation describing the COR’s duties and responsibilities (uploaded by the Contract Officer) signed by the Contracting Officer, COR and Contractor; and

b. Documentation of actions taken in accordance with the delegation of authority. (such as Performance Assessment Reports, Corrective Action Reports, and Customer Complaint Reports)

c. Approved Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) signed by members of the Multi-Functional Team (re-para 7.1.6)

5.5.1 APPROVED QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP).

5.5.2 CONTRACTOR’S QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (QCP).

5.5.3 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORTS (PAR). Actions taken in the accomplishment of Quality Assurance assigned Performance Requirements. The purpose of this report is to provide a brief synopsis of an inspection of Contractor provided services or a meeting/conversation with the contractor regarding PWS performance in a given functional area.

5.5.4 CONTRACT. The portion of the contract that applies to the functional area(s) of the Performance assessment folder (e.g., PWS paragraphs, directive document references, pertinent terms defined by the contract, etc.). Alternatively, the contract and all modifications may be filed in the Electronic Document Access (EDA) system.

5.5.5 APPOINTMENT LETTERS. This section must include:

1. COR Supervisors Appointment Letter and the COR and CO shall utilize the Contracting Officer Representative Tracking Tool (CORT-Tool).

1. COR Primary and Alternate appointment letter and contract specific training certificates.

1. Three in one Letter of Appointment.

5.5.6 RECORDS. A section used for filing all documentation associated with QA (e.g., Performance Assessment Log, customer complaint reports (both active and resolved), corrective action reports, correspondence, and contractual letters of interpretation from the CO). These documents should also be uploaded into the CORT-Tool.

5.6 Deficiency Identification. Effective contract Performance assessment relies on two methods for identification of unacceptable performance – Contractor Identified Discrepancies (CIDs) and Government Identified Discrepancies (GIDs).

5.6.1 Contractor Identified Discrepancies (CIDs). CIDs are generated when contract employees detect discrepancies during performance of routine daily services or through the contractor’s Quality Control Program. When CIDs are reviewed by the applicable COR, that person will take the following actions:

5.6.1.1 Review corrective actions taken by the contractor to resolve a discrepancy.

5.6.1.2 Determine whether the discrepancy has been corrected. If the discrepancy has been resolved, review the corrective action taken and any applicable procedures the contractor has established to preclude recurrence of the problem.

5.6.1.3 If a CID has not been resolved and the Contractor has established an Estimated Completion Date (ECD) for resolution of the discrepancy, the COR will monitor the Contractor’s efforts in resolving the discrepancy. If the COR determines the estimated completion date for resolution of the discrepancy is excessive based on the nature of the discrepancy, the CO will be notified. The CO can then evaluate the recommendation to determine the appropriate course of action.

5.6.1.4 If a CID has not been resolved and the COR determines that the Contractor has not established an ECD for resolution of the discrepancy or has failed to perform a follow-up action for resolution of a discrepancy, the COR will issue a Corrective Action Report (CAR); see paragraph 6.1. The Contractor will be given a suspense date to provide corrective action to the Government’s findings and describe the Contractor’s plan to preclude repeat deficiencies.

5.7 Government Identified Discrepancies (GIDs). GIDs are generated as a result of COR’s inspection of contractor performance that identifies noncompliance with contractual requirements (Customer Complaint). The COR will record a GID on a Customer Complaint Record (CCR) and Corrective Action Report (CAR); see para 6.1. Before a CCR and CAR are generated, the Contractor will be given the opportunity to show whether the discrepancy has already been identified. If documentation exists which substantiates that the contractors quality program has identified the discrepancy and timely corrective action is being taken to address the discrepancy, a CCR and CAR will not be initiated.

5.8 Customer Complaints. When customer complaints are to be used as the method of performance assessment, the following must be accomplished:

a. The COR will educate customers of the service being provided by the contractor.

b. The customer feedback form shall include clear and simple instructions to the customer on recording their comments. The form should allow for both positive and negative comments.

c. If immediate response to a complaint is needed, the COR will provide the customer with instructions on how to proceed.

d. The COR will gather all completed customer feedback forms.

e. The COR will conduct an investigation to determine the validity of any negative comments received.

f. If the COR determines that the negative comment is not valid, the customer will be informed of the reason(s) why and carry on further correspondence if necessary.

For validated negative comments, coordinated with the Contracting Officer, the COR will notify the Contractor to allow the opportunity for investigation and comment. The COR will refer to the procedure in QASP paragraph 6 to determine whether it is necessary to initiate a CAR.

g. The COR will also notify the customer of the corrective action taken by the contractor, if applicable.

h. The COR, with assistance from the Contracting Officer (CO), will conduct trend analysis of validated negative comments.

6. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION

6.1 Corrective Action Report (CAR) Used by COR to document contract requirement findings and subsequent corrective actions to be taken. A computer-generated CAR may be used to provide the information on the CAR remains the same. See attached CAR and instructions for filling it out.

6.1.1 The COR identifying the discrepancy is responsible for completing the CAR utilizing the instructions attached. If there are other questions as to how the CAR is completed, that individual should consult the CO.

6.1.2 Consult the assigned Contract Administrator to give them the opportunity to assist and advise how the CAR is to be worded. Forward a copy of the initiated CAR to the Contracting Officer for their signature in Block 9 as the Issuing Authority. The Contracting Officer will forward the CAR to the contractor requesting a written corrective action plan within 10 days.

6.1.3 The COR will elevate any CARs that cannot be resolved with the contractor to the Contracting Officer for resolution.

6.1.4 Categories of Findings. A finding is any Government-identified noncompliance with contract requirements that specifies that an activity or action did not take place or was not performed to the quality or timeliness standard required by the contract. A finding can be categorized as either Major or Minor. Findings will be documented on a CAR and must also be tracked in the activity log; see paragraph 5.5.3 regarding Section 3 of the Performance Assessment folder. Major/Minor Findings are defined as follows:

6.1.4.1 Major Finding. A conclusion that identifies a condition having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the activity under review such as:

a. Failure to meet a Performance Threshold.

b. Significant mission degradation in any Contractor operated function.

c. A situation that is likely to result in hazardous or unsafe conditions for individuals (or any other Government resource) coming into contact with the work.

d. Failure to provide adequate corrective action to preclude reoccurrence of government identified findings.

e. Failure to provide corrective action to deficiencies identified by the Contractor within a prescribed suspense period

f. Any failure to adhere to security regulations that results in a security incident.

6.1.4.2 Minor Finding. A departure from established standards having little bearing on service provided. However, if the same minor finding is repeatedly identified, it may be an indication that Major Finding (d) above is occurring or has occurred because the contractor quality system has not acted to prevent recurrence. In this case, the Minor Finding should be elevated to the level of a Major Finding and a new CAR initiated.

6.2 Performance Assessment Report. COR must document Performance assessment as it is accomplished. The Performance Assessment Report is an official government record of inspections of the performance objectives and other inspection items contained in this QASP.

6.2.1 The Performance Assessment Report is attached to this QASP

6.2.2 Completed Performance Assessment Reports will be uploaded and maintained in the CORT Tool. On a q uarterly basis for general contract performance and by installation wave, or other distinct work effort as determined by the COR, submission to the contracting officer requires them to be stored in the contract file. At the completion of the contract, disposition instructions of the performance assessment reports will be in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8.

7. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBLILITIES:

7.1.1 Reporting Requirements

COR Inputs to the FC/D. The COR is required to report detailed results of Performance Objective verifications to the FC/D on an as needed basis. The FC/D will compile COR inputs in a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) that includes an overall performance rating (satisfactory or unsatisfactory), identified deficiencies (regardless of who identified the deficiency- see para 5.6 and 5.7) and COR comments.

7.1.2 COR Supervisor

Identifying mission essential services, to include developing the necessary documents in accordance with DoDI 3020.37, Continuation of Essential DoD Contractor Services During Crisis.

Assigning primary and alternate COR.

Reviewing contractor performance documentation, prepared by the COR, on a regular basis to ensure performance is compatible with contract and mission objectives while supporting a higher level of contractor performance, and fostering synergistic partnerships.

7.1.3 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

Individuals designated to perform quality assessment functions, and manage performance in accordance with the QASP. They serve as on-site technical managers assessing contractor performance against contract performance using the service delivery summary.

Evaluating and documenting contractor’s performance in accordance with the QASP.

Notify the Contracting Officer of any significant performance deficiencies, Maintain surveillance documentation, Recommend improvements to the QASP and PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Monitor the contractor’s performance regarding trafficking in persons such that non-compliance with FAR Clause 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, is brought to the immediate attention of the Contracting Officer. Examples of awareness programs can be found at http://www.state.gov/g/tip

7.1.4 Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator

Responsible for contract management. Implementation of the QASP after contract award by the multi-functional team. Integrates the goals and objectives identified by the multi-functional team, oversight, performance management and performance measurement in accordance with the QASP.

Delegates authority for inspection and/or acceptance in accordance with terms of the contract and informs the contractor of the names, duties, and limitations of authority for all contracting officer representatives assigned to the contract.

7.1.5 Quality Assurance Program Coordinator

Mission support group or AFMC/AFSPC Center-level individual, normally from the contracting activity, selected to coordinate and manage the Performance Management Assessment Program (Quality Assurance Program).

7.1.6 Multi-Functional Team

The MFT is a customer-focused team instituted under the authority of senior leadership and responsible for assessing contractor performance and managing the requirement over the life of the contract. The emphasis is on teamwork, trust, common sense and agility. Membership may include as few members as the contracting officer, program manager, quality assurance/COR, and functional/technical representative(s). Upon contract award, the contractor(s) is included in the MFT.

7.1.6.1. Senior Leadership. Senior leaders are responsible for developing, implementing and executing service acquisitions. This responsibility includes the RAD, acquisition strategy, source selection, and performance/contract management of the service throughout the life of the acquisition. Duties are delegable and include:

7.1.6.2. Developing, implementing and executing a performance management assessment program that satisfies mission requirements, fosters innovation, and includes defined metrics. To be effective, metrics must provide meaningful objective measurements of contractor progress aimed at attaining desired outcomes.

Ensuring performance management focuses on risk management, cost, schedule and performance baselines. A dedicated program/project management officer is a proven method for managing all assigned service acquisitions.

7.1.6.3. Appointing a MFT of key stakeholders possessing the necessary set of skills to ensure that all service acquisitions integrate the needs of the mission with the requirement to procure performance-based services. Fostering the environment needed to successfully operate, convey business objectives, monitor progress, and correct/elevate delays or problems not resolvable by the MFT. Ensuring personnel on the MFT receive the appropriate training, tailored to meet local needs.

8. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

8.1 Performance Objectives. The following is a list of the contractual Performance Objectives to be validated by the COR. Each Performance Objective includes a government-determined Performance Threshold and the COR that is used to perform the verification. The Performance Objectives are arranged according to the functional area they are associated with. Functional areas not listed were omitted because they did not have Performance Objectives identified as critical. The performance objectives in this paragraph represent the minimum items that must have Performance assessment accomplished on a periodic basis. Any performance assessment of PWS requirements not required by the QASP must still be documented in the Performance Assessment Log as described in paragraph 6.2.

The contractor service requirements are summarized into performance objectives that relate directly to mission essential items. The performance threshold briefly describes the minimum acceptable levels of service required for each requirement. These thresholds are critical to mission success.

Furnishings Break/Fix:

Repair broken furnishing items within the specified timelines.

Furnishing Alteration Projects:

Successfully execute the scope of the project, within the schedule.

Submittals:

Submittals are easily interpreted, clearly showing all information required by PWS, and submitted without negative impact to overall project schedule.

Submittals Register is accurately maintained 2.2

2.2.2

2.2.2 90% of submittals are not rejected by Gov due to lack of information, conflicting information, illegible, etc.

99% of submittals are provided such that risk to negative schedule impact is mitigated.

The submittal register shall be accurately reflect the status to 90% of actual activity to date at all times.

100% of submittals containing deviations from specifications clearly identify such, in addition to the above requirements.

100% of submittals containing deviations from specifications follow all requirements outlined in 2.2.2 Customer Complaint

Customer Complaint

Creation, provision, and maintenance of a project schedule. Adjustment of schedule based on coordination with Gov and Gov-contractors.

The project schedule shall be accurate to 90% of actual timelines, requested changes from Gov, and forcasted future activities at any point the Gov requests a schedule.

Customer Complaint

Meetings with Government

2.4 2.5 100% Contractor successfully integrates into program team

100% Contractor acts on direction/requests of CO and COR only.

100% Contractor holds FFO dedicated meetings at intervals and with attendees acceptable to the Gov

85% Contractor's Project Manager attends planned and unplanned coordination meetings Customer Complaint

100% notice of CID specs unobtainable via FCC programs and the preparation Customer Complaint

95% self-performance of access credential process after initial Gov guidance Customer Complaint Customer Complaint

Minimizing Storage - Just in time delivery and trash removal

3.5 5.3

5.2 5.3 100% compliance with material moving equipment.

99% soiling and/or damage repaired Customer Complaint

Customer Complaint

95% successful implementation of CQCP plan Customer Complaint

8.2 METHOD OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

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:

· Random Sampling – Designed to evaluate the outputs of the award requirement by randomly selecting and inspecting a statistically significant sample. Highly recommended for large quantity repetitive activities with objective and measurable quality attributes.

· 100% Inspection – Evaluates all outputs. Most applicable to small quantity, but highly important services. May be used where there are written deliverables and stringent requirements such as tasks required by law, safety, or security.

· Periodic Inspection – Uses a comprehensive evaluation of selected outputs. Inspections may be scheduled; daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annually, OR unscheduled.

· Customer Complaint – Relies on the user of the service to identify deficiencies. Complaints are then investigated and validated by the COR against the PWS.

· Direct Observation – COR can perform this periodically or through 100% surveillance

9. PERFORMANCE METRICS. Tracks contractor progress towards meeting stated performance objectives. The multi-functional team in assessing contractor performance validates that the performance metrics align with the performance-based work statement and overall mission support objectives.

The COR will keep an excel program that tracks contractor progress and provide feedback in the PAR when it’s submitted to the Contracting Officer.

ATTACHMENTS BELOW WILL BE EMAILED DUE TO ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES:

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)