Att_2_QASP.doc

Packing, Containerization and Local Drayage of DPM Personal Property Shipments QASP

FA4803-14-R-0001

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

PACKING, CONTAINERIZATION AND LOCAL DRAYAGE OF DIRECT PROCUREMENT METHOD PERSONAL PROPERTY SHIPMENTS 20 Fighter Wing/Logistics Readiness Squadron

Shaw Air Force Base

27 September 2013

Functional Commander Contracting Officer

Contracting Squadron Commander Contract Specialist

Director of Business Operations Contracting Officer’s Representative

Quality Assurance Program Coordinator Contracting Officer’s Representative

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 ensure 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, thereby changing the Government’s role from “oversight” to “insight”. Performance Objectives and other inspections will be periodically checked as required by this plan but the Contractor is left as free as possible to develop the most efficient methodology to meet and exceed the required thresholds of service.

2. SURVEILLANCE ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 Multi-Functional Team (MFT) Roles and Responsibilities. A MFT is established for each acquisition; together, the team members work to ensure success. The MFT is responsible for acquisition planning, development, and performance management for new and follow-on service contracts. When the individuals leave these positions, due to PCS, retirements, etc., their replacement will assume the same responsibilities throughout the acquisition life cycle for this requirement. The working group members within the MFT are annotated below with an asterisk (*) beside the position.

2.1.1 MFT Key Members

Functional Commander/Functional Director, Maj Jamie M. Wade Contracting Officer’s Representative Supervisor,

* Contracting Officer’s Representative, Ms Roselyn Ginn Contracting Squadron Commander, Maj John W. Kendall

* Contracting Officer, Mr. Randall E. May

* Contract Administrator/Specialist, Ms Stella Schoenberg

* Quality Assurance Program Coordinator, Ms Sonia Taylor Environmental, Legal, Manpower, Finance, Small Business Representative, and Safety (Optional – These members may be called to help research or provide guidance during the acquisition process.)

Contractor (Member after award of contract)

2.2 Functional Commander/Functional Director (FC/FD)/COR Supervisor (COR Management): Will be responsible to assign competent and capable functional experts to the Multi-functional Team who will be available full time or as warranted by the procurement cycle. The COR Management will nominate, as a minimum, a primary and an alternate COR and notify the CO of any changes. COR Management will review contractor performance documentation, prepared by the COR on a regular basis to ensure performance is compatible with contract and mission objectives.

2.2.1 The FC/FD is responsible for identifying mission essential services and developing the necessary documents to identify services determined to be essential for performance during crisis according to DODI 1100.2 and DFARS subpart 237.76.

2.2.2 Delegated authority by the Services Designated Official (SDO) to execute specified management, oversight responsibilities for delivery of acquired services. The FC/FD will conduct an annual assessment of the health of the organizations acquisition and management of services to include a review of any risk mitigation actions.

2.3 Contracting Squadron Commander/Director of Business Operations (DBO):

The Contracting Squadron Commander and Director of Business Operations serve as the Installation Business Advisors to senior leadership. They ensure services are being obtained at the most cost effective and efficient means and in accordance with Air Force policy and monitor the progress of the MFT.

2.4 Contracting Officer (CO): Delegates authority for inspection and/or acceptance in accordance with terms of the contract.

2.4.1 Informs the Contractor of the names, duties, and limitations of authority for all Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)/Quality Assurance Personnel (QAE/QAI) assigned to the contract.

2.5 Contracting Officer’s Representative

2.5.1 Evaluate and document Contractor performance in accordance with the QASP or Performance Plan.

2.5.2 Notify the CO of any significant performance deficiencies.

2.5.3 Maintain surveillance documentation.

2.5.4 Recommend improvements to the QASP throughout the life of the contract.

2.5.5 Inspect and evaluate Contractor performance on site. Advise Contractor of deficiencies and procedures to take to correct on the spot.

2.5.6 Accomplish quarterly inspections of Contractor’s warehouse for Government Owned Containers (GOCs), shipments on hand, and facilities/vehicle compliance with the PWS.

2.6 Contract Specialists/Administrators: The focal point for issues regarding the contract; prepares and processes modifications to the contract; assists the CO in ensuring contractor performance meets contract standards. They ensure minutes are taken and maintain a written record of all MFT meetings to include action items and milestones. The contract administrator (CA) will perform COR assessments on a periodic basis as determined by the CO. If deficiencies are discovered in the COR surveillance procedures, the CO will notify the COR Management to provide any assistance upon request, such as additional training for COR

2.7 Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC): Develops, manages and implements the Shaw AFB Quality Assurance Program; supports the Multi-Functional Team in the development of contract requirements, ensuring requirements are clearly stated and enforceable; aids in development of the PWS and QASP and provides training to all CORs and COR Management (e.g. COR Supervisor, FC/FD) that interact with this contract as needed, in accordance with MP5301.602-2(d) and any MAJCOM/DRU procedures.

2.8 Contractor: Will ensure that a government acceptable quality control system is provided and maintained. The contractor is required to provide all services identified in the PWS. Provide innovative ideas that promote best value business decisions on this service contract to meet customer requirements. Recommend changes to the contract that will provide more effective operations or eliminate unnecessary costs.

3. Description of Services

3.1 Scope of Work. Provide packing, containerization and local drayage of direct procurement method (DPM) personal property shipments. This contract contains three separate packing, containerization and drayage schedules. Schedule I is for Outbound moves; Schedule II is for Inbound moves; and Schedule III is for Local Moves. Each schedule requires performance of specific services. Although there may be more than one Contractor needed to perform the total requirement for each schedule, the portion awarded each Contractor represents 100% effort for that particular Contractor.

3.2 Contract. The contract type is a Firm Fixed Price, Requirements, see FAR Clause 52.212-4.

4. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Performance Objective Area Evaluator Section 1. Description of Services PO #1. Packing/Loading/Containerization of Personal

Property for Onward Movement.

COR

PO #2. Pick-up/Delivery of Personal Property

COR

PO #3. Prepare/Return Documentation

COR

PO #4. Invoicing of charges

COR

PO #5. Maintain adequate facilities and serviceable Equipment

COR

PO #6. Protection and Accountability of Government Owned Containers (GOCs).

COR

5. CONTRACT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Commercial or Operational Contracts

Develop and maintain a quality program to ensure contracted services are performed in accordance with the PWS. Implement procedures to identify, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services.

The Contractor’s inspection instructions, auditing, and testing must be prescribed by clear, complete, and current instructions. The inspection instructions must include the specific criteria for approval and rejection of services that will be used in each inspection or audit; checklists may be used for this purpose.

Maintain records of all audits and inspections. The records must indicate the nature and number of observations made the number and type of deficiencies found and the nature of corrective action taken as appropriate. Reference the Defense Transportation Regulation, Appendix P - Guidelines for the Quality Control Inspector.

5.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative Tracking Tool (CORT). This system is used to nominate, appoint, track, and revoke an individual as a COR against a DoD contract. This system allows a Contracting Officer Representative (COR) to create a profile and process a nomination for one or multiple contracts and/or orders. It provides contracting personnel a web based portal for all relevant COR actions. The COR shall register and input a monthly report .

5.3 Initial Contract Performance Review. The initial evaluation of contractor performance is a joint determination by the multi-functional team that the contractor has successfully started performance, completed transition, is fully operational, and is within the estimated cost, schedule, and performance parameters of the contract. The Services Designated Official may waive the initial evaluation for contractors that have continued performance under a successor contract award (prior incumbent), or for contractors which have otherwise demonstrated full compliance with contract start-up. The initial performance review criteria shall be included in the QASP and the review shall take place within 30 days after the contractor assumes full performance responsibilities. Assessment values will be reported as follows:

(1) Green--No issues.

(2) Yellow--Issue(s) but contractor has an adequate mitigation or corrective action plan in place.

(3) Red--Issue(s) with inadequate or no contractor‘s mitigation or corrective action plan.

Any ―red assessment shall include the government proposed actions with respect to the failing contractor.

5.4 Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). At the completion of each delivery period, the COR is required to complete a narrative summary of contractor past performance. The data will be input annually by the COR into the CPAR system, within thirty days after the performance period. The COR will forward their CPAR assessment electronically to the CO who will review, add comments and forward to the contractor. The contractor has 30 days to concur, non-concur and/or make comments. All questions, to include userid and password issues, will be addressed to the 20 CONS, CPAR focal point. The CPAR assessment will address all of following elements:

(1) Quality of Service. Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements, specifications and standards of good workmanship (e. g., commonly accepted technical, professional, environmental, or safety health standards).

(2) Schedule. Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedule or administrative requirements (e. g., efforts that contribute to or effect the schedule variance).

(3) Cost Control. Assess the contractor’s performance in helping the government save money by improving processes, submitting value engineering change proposals and seeking the best value on cost reimbursement items. (not required for fixed price line items)

(4) Business Relations. 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, customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts.

(5) Management of Key Personnel. Assess the contractor’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting and replacing, when necessary, key personnel.

5.4.1 Performance Ratings. The ratings used for the CPAR Past Performance Assessment Report are described by one of the following five adjectives: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal and Unsatisfactory. These terms are subjective and are not derived through use of any mathematical computations or formulas. The COR will rate each of the above assessment elements using one of the following ratings. The COR will support each rating with a written narrative summary. The past performance narrative report will be submitted to the CA on a quarterly basis. The criteria for each rating are reflected below:

(1) 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 actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

(2) 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 some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

(3) Satisfactory. Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

(4) Marginal. Performance does not 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.

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

6. SURVEILLANCE APPROACH

6.1 Purpose. This section details the method(s) used to verify Contractor compliance with the PWS requirements. The key elements of this process are the Contractor’s quality control program and the government identified Performance Objectives. The Performance Objectives from paragraph 8 dictate the minimum inspection requirements a COR must accomplish on a periodic basis. This plan provides the procedures on how to conduct the evaluations for Performance Objectives and how to document them in a correct and effective manner.

6.2 Surveillance Approach. To facilitate the surveillance of the Contractor’s quality program, the COR will verify Contractor compliance with designated Performance Objectives. The intent of the surveillance approach is to gain confidence in the Contractor’s ability to provide satisfactory services and then adjust the level of oversight to a point that maintains that confidence. This surveillance approach is subject to change based on Contractor’s performance.

6.3 Annual Review. COR must review QASP Performance Objectives, assess their applicability and recommend the addition/subtraction of Performance Objectives as conditions warrant. This review must be accomplished annually as a minimum.

6.4 Special Audits. 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 at the site, a request for a functional area audit should be addressed to the Contracting Officer.

6.5 Discrepancy Identification. Effective contract surveillance relies on two methods for identification of unacceptable performance – Contractor Identified Deficiencies (CIDS) and Government Identified Deficiencies (GIDs).

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

6.5.1.1 Review corrective actions taken by the Contractor to resolve a discrepancy.

6.5.1.2 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.

6.5.1.3 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 that the ECD for resolution of the discrepancy is excessive based on the nature of the discrepancy, the Contracting Officer will be notified. The Contracting Officer can then evaluate the recommendation to determine the appropriate course of action.

6.5.1.4 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 Contract Discrepancy Report using DD Form 2772, 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.

6.5.2 Government Identified Deficiencies (GIDs). GIDS are generated as a result of COR’s inspection of Contractor performance that identifies noncompliance with contractual requirements. The COR will record a GID on a Contract Discrepancy Report, DD Form 2772, Before a DD Form 2772 is generated, the Contractor should be given the opportunity to discuss the discrepancy and show any cause why the DD Form 2772 should not be generated for that particular discrepancy.

6.6 Customer Complaints. When Customer Complaints are to be used as a method of surveillance, the following must be accomplished:

a. COR will attempt to educate customers of the services being provided by the Contractor by telephone or on site inspections.

b. If immediate response to a complaint is needed, the COR will interface with the Customer with instructions on how to proceed.

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

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

e. For validated negative comments, the COR will notify the Contractor’s Quality Control Inspector (QC) to allow the opportunity for investigation and comments. The COR will determine whether it is necessary to initiate a discrepancy report (DD Form 2772).

f.

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

g. The COR will conduct trend analysis of validated negative comments.

7. Surveillance Documentation

7.1 Discrepancy Reporting

7.1.1 If performance is determined unacceptable, the COR must inform the Contractor’s on-site representative that performance is unacceptable and why, and request his/her initials on the surveillance form, DD Form 2773, Report of Contractor Services. By initialing and dating the form, the Contractor’s on-site representative is acknowledging they have been told of the unacceptable performance. They are not necessarily agreeing that the performance is unacceptable. If the Contractor wishes to dispute the results of the surveillance the COR will refer them to the Contracting Officer for resolution of the matter.

7.1.2 If at any time during the surveillance period the Contractor does not meet a Performance Threshold, the COR must determine whether the unacceptable performance was within the Contractor’s control. If the unacceptable performance is determined to be attributable to the Contractor, the COR will initiate a DD Form 2772, Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR).

7.2 Completion of the DD Form 2772:

7.2.1 The COR initiates the DD Form 2772 by filling in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, and 6, then forwards the form to the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will insert the Contractor response date in Block 9 by stating “Please respond by (date)”. The Contracting Officer will then present the DD Form 2772 to the Contractor.

7.2.2 The Contractor completes Blocks 9 and 10 with their response to the discrepancy by the due date entered in Block 9 and return it to the Contracting Officer.

7.2.3 Upon receipt from the Contractor, the Contracting Officer reviews the Contractor’s response and determines if any further action is necessary for correction and prevention of recurrence.

7.2.3.1 If the Contracting Officer determines no future action is necessary, the Contracting Officer responds “yes” in Block 5c and completes Block 11. The Contracting Officer will send a copy to the Contractor and a copy to the COR, who will file the DD Form 2772 for future reference.

7.2.3.2 If the Contracting Officer determines the Contractor’s input in Block 9 does not satisfy requirements, the Contracting Officer will respond “No” in Block 5c and complete Block 11. The Contracting Officer will review the DD Form 2772 and all supporting data, gather COR and/or Contractor inputs as necessary, and determines the necessary action needed in Block 12 and signs Block 7. The Contracting Officer will inform both the COR and the Contractor of what action has been decided upon. Once all action has been completed, the Contracting Officer will complete Block 13 and provide a copy to the COR for future reference.

7.3 Surveillance Log The DD Form 2773, Report of Contractor Services comprises the Surveillance Log. CORs must document surveillance as it is accomplished. The Surveillance Log is an official government record of inspections of the Performance Objectives contained in this plan and the Performance Work Statement. The COR will be responsible for maintaining and utilizing the DD Form 2773. A DD Form 2773 shall be filled out by the COR for each inspection performed. Any item(s) not listed in the QASP that was inspected must be documented. Any items inspected that are not contained on the DD Form 2773 must be documented and retained.

7.3.1 Completed DD Form 2773’s and any other surveillance logs/documents will be maintained in a surveillance folder (electronic filing system preferred).

8. Performance Objectives The following is a list of the contractual Performance Objectives to be validated by COR. Each Performance Objective includes a government-predetermined Performance Threshold and the method that is used to perform the verification, i.e. DD Form 2773, Customer Feedback, etc. 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 listed in this paragraph represent the minimum items that must have surveillance accomplished on a periodic basis.

8.1 Any surveillance of PWS requirements not required by the QASP must still be documented in the Surveillance Log as described in paragraph 7.3. Metrics will be used wherever possible to track Contractor progress in meeting stated Performance Objectives. Metrics reports will be obtained by the Contractor, and Customer Complaints/comments will also be used.

8.1.1 Performance Objective: Preparation, Packing, Loading, and Containerization of Personal Property for onward movement (PWS Part 1, paragraphs A.4 and A.7) Performance Threshold: No more than 3% of shipments are incorrectly packed, loaded and containerized per month.

Method of Surveillance: The COR’s goal will be to evaluate 80% of the Contractor’s performance by utilizing the DD Form 2773. If the COR is unable to conduct the evaluation at the member’s residence while the Contractor is there (preferred method) the COR can call the member to conduct the evaluation telephonically. Every attempt should be made to use the preferred method while the job is in progress.

8.1.2 Performance Objective: Pick-up/Delivery of Personal Property (PWS, Part 1, paragraph A3) Performance Threshold: No more than 5% per month of the total number of shipments, or validated Customer Complaints, for untimely pick-up/delivery.

Method of Surveillance: The COR’s goal will be to evaluate 80% of the Contractor’s performance by utilizing the DD Form 2773. If the COR is unable to conduct the evaluation at the member’s residence while the Contractor is there (preferred method) the COR can call the member to conduct the evaluation telephonically. Every attempt should be made to use the preferred method while the job is in progress.

8.1.3 Performance Objective: Preparation and return of documentation (PWS, Part 1, paragraph A 2b, d, e, i, 4e, 5, and 8).

Performance Threshold: 98% on-time submission of completed, accurate, legible documentation to Joint Personal Property Shipping Office (JPPSO) per month as follows:

a. When a reweigh is ordered, the Contractor will furnish weight tickets to the JPPSO billing department within seven (7) workdays of completion of the service.

b.

Contractor contacts the assigned carrier, as indicated on the Bill of Lading (BL), within one (1) workday after the property is ready for shipment, to arrange for pickup. When shipments are not picked up by the assigned carrier by close of business of the next workday, after Contractor’s notification, the Contractor will notify the ordering officer or the COR of the carrier’s failure to pick up the shipment not later than 9:00 am of the next workday.

c. Contractor must submit BL with pieces, weight, cube and separate weight for pro gear (if applicable) and carrier’s pro number, legible inventories, and weight tickets not later than four (4) workdays after pick up. Bill of Lading must have signature of the freight carrier driver and the date signed.

Method of Surveillance: COR will ensure the following monthly to validate that Performance Threshold is met; divide the total number of documents that are correct by the total number of documents and multiply by 100 to calculate the percentage of correct documents.

a. The billing section will monitor the receipt of weight tickets from the Contractor for reweigh and inform COR of any discrepancies.

b.

On outbound shipments, the booking department will monitor the receipt of the information from the Contractor and inform COR of any discrepancies.

c. CORs will spot check the Contractor’s warehouse for shipments on hand.

8.1.4 Performance Objective: Maintain adequate facilities and serviceable equipment per PWS, Part 1, paragraph A7.4, and 10, Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR), Appendix D - Pre-award Survey Guidelines, and Appendix E - Warehouse Inspections Guide and Instructions for Preparation of the Warehouse Inspection Report (DD Form 1812)).

Performance Threshold: Less than three violations per quarter, based on inadequate facilities, or unserviceable equipment as outlined in Part 4 of the Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR), Appendix G – DPM PWS.

Method of Surveillance: The COR will conduct an initial inspection of the Contractor’s facility for compliance with the PWS using Appendix G of the DTR. Upon approval of the facility after the initial inspection, the COR will conduct quarterly inspections of the Contractor’s facility. The COR will notify the Contracting Officer if the facility is found to be unsatisfactory.

8.1.5 Performance Objective: Protection and Accountability of Government Owned Containers (GOCs) (DTR, Appendix G, Part 1 paragraphs A7a, 7a(1), 7e and 7g).

Performance Threshold: No more than 2% of total number of GOCs improperly protected/constructed during the quarter. No more than one failure per month to re-cooper GOCs within specified time.

Method of Surveillance: CORs will:

a. Spot-check when the Contractor picks-up/delivers HHGS shipments.

b. Check quarterly at the Contractor’s warehouse.

c.

CORs will randomly check to ensure re-coopering of GOCs is performed by the Contractor, only when authorized by JPPSO. All repairs will be done prior to delivery to residence.

d. COR will ensure the Contractor, on an as needed basis, delivers GOCs to the site identified by JPPSO,

e. The CORs will validate that the inspection and disposition schedule of serviceable/unserviceable containers is complied with; serviceable or unserviceable containers have not been co-mingled; and that these two categories of containers are kept segregated.

f. The COR will validate that Contractors have provided JPPSO with a Government Owned Container Report (AF Form 384) fifteen (15) days after the contract start date and thereafter by the 5th of the month and that the Contractor maintains an accurate, up to date count of all Government Owned Containers.

g. The COR as a onetime check will ensure the new outbound DPM Contractor picked up the serviceable empty GOCs from the previous Contractor(s) not later than thirty (30) calendar days after commencement of the contract.

DD Form 2772, Contract Discrepancy Report

DD Form 2773, Report of Contractor Services