Attachment_2_Draft_QASP_TSBMC_II_15_MAR_13.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE

SURVEILLANCE PLAN

For

Turkey/Spain Base Maintenance Contract (TSBMC) II

FA5613-13-R-0005

Incirlik AB, Izmir AS, Ankara ASF, Turkey & Moron Air Base, Spain

31 Jan 2013

MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TEAM REVIEW & ACCEPTANCE.

Multi-Functional Team (MFT) member’s signatures below indicate their review and acceptance of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for the TSBMC II Service Contract. These signatures indicate coordination on this QASP at the time of development and will remain in effect until the plan is changed. The inclusion of alternates and successors to these below-named individuals is effected automatically upon their assumption of duties.

Mr. Wayne Goulet, USAFE/A8Z Date Program Analyst

Ms. Lola Bauch, USAFE CONS Specialized Flight Date Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

Ms. Anna Rusinowski, USAFE CONS Specialized Flight Date Contract Specialist

Paula Hull, 700 CONS/LGCP Date Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC)

Mr. Douglas Chicka, 700 CONS/JA Date Legal Advisor

Ms. Ynuaka Newsome, USAFE/A7KP Date

HQ USAFE/A7K POC

Randal Cummins, 39 CONS/LGCM Date Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)

Julian Bargas, 496 ABS/LGC Date Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject Page

1.0 Overview 4

2.0 Description of Services 4

3.0 Objectives 4

4.0 MFT Results 4

5.0 MFT Roles and Responsibilities 4-5

6.0 MFT Management Approach 6

7.0 Performance Assessment Approach 6-7

8.0 Performance Objectives 7-8

9.0 Performance Assessment Documentation 8-9

10.0 Reporting Requirements 9-10

11.0 Certification of Services 10

12.0 Services Summary 11-27

13.0 Corrective Action Report (CAR) 28-29

14.0 Corrective Action Report (CAR) Log 30

15.0 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Checklist 31-57

16.0 CPARS Definitions 58-59

17.0 Customer Complaint Record and Customer Feedback Log 60-61

18.0 Initial Contract Performance Review 62-64

1.0 OVERVIEW.

1.1 Purpose. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed and will be implemented in accordance with (IAW) Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5346.103, Contracting Office Responsibilities guidelines. This plan will be used by the Multi-Functional Team (MFT) and Contracting Officer Representative (COR) to ensure contractor compliance with the performance requirements of the TSBMC II contract. This plan will focus on the level of performance required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS), not the contractor’s 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 (POs) 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.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

2.1 Scope of Work. The contract will provide contractor non-personal services in support of United States Air Force Europe (USAFE) base facilities in Turkey and Spain. The contractor shall provide all personnel, supervision, equipment, tools, materials, transportation, and other items and services necessary to perform day-to-day base operation and maintenance services. Some of these services are considered to be mission essential; see paragraph 1.14 of the PWS for specifics. The COR’s place of performance is at installations in Turkey, to include Incirlik Air Base (AB), Izmir Air Station (AS), Ankara and Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC-T), and Moron AB, Spain.

SECTION 1 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

3.0 OBJECTIVE. This QASP is designed to provide the COR an effective systematic surveillance method for each item listed on the Services Summary (SS). The goal of Performance Based Service Acquisition (PBSA) is to design mission support strategies that obtain higher levels of contractor performance, foster synergistic partnerships, accommodate changing or unforeseen mission needs, and leverage commercial best practices. These support strategies align mission performance needs with performance-based work statements and acquisition approaches designed to deliver the desired mission support results.

4.0 MFT RESULTS. The results in managing this acquisition through this QASP are to provide internal and external customers with quality customer support and services that are delivered on time in support of the various missions.

5.0 MFT ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES. The following Government officials will participate in performance management of the contractor. Their roles and responsibilities are described as follows:

5.1. Contracting Officer Representative (COR): Individuals designated to perform quality assessment functions, and manage performance IAW the QASP. They serve as on-site technical managers assessing contractor performance against contract performance thresholds. Personnel in this area may have different titles, but most often they will be referred to as a COR. They are responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on contractor compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract. These individuals will have primary responsibility for completing quality assurance checklists that will be used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor's performance. The COR will maintain monthly surveillance documentation, notify the COR Supervisor of any significant performance deficiencies and recommend improvements to the QASP and PWS throughout the life of the acquisition. The COR will provide a report to the COR Supervisor of surveillance performed and results at least monthly. The COR will monitor contractor property control.

5.2. The Contracting Officer (CO): The CO has overall responsibility for oversight of the contractor's performance. The CO will also be responsible for the monitoring of the contractor's performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control; reviewing the COR assessment of the contractor's performance; and resolving all differences between the COR version and the contractor's version of events. The CO is the only person with the authority to direct the contractor in the performance of their duties under the contract and to make interpretations of and changes to the contract.

5.3. COR Supervisor duties include:

5.3.1 Identifying mission essential services, to include developing the necessary documents IAW DODI 1100.22, Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix.

5.3.2. Assigning primary and alternate CORs unless another Quality Assurance organization or method can satisfy performance assessment requirements (e.g., Program Management Office).

5.3.3. Reviewing contractor performance documentation, prepared by CORs, 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.

5.3.4. Reviewing the PWS and QASP annually and coordinating any changes with the contracting squadron.

5.4. The Contracting Squadron Commander’s duties include:

5.4.1. Serving as the Business Advisor to senior leadership.

5.4.2. Providing the health of services acquisition to senior leadership; providing annual execution review reports on services acquisitions to the MAJCOM for consolidation. Subjects may include the effectiveness of the performance assessment and performance management of the service acquisition; the effectiveness of POs, contract cost changes, acquisition planning, strategic sourcing issues, and the centralized MFT; and the effectiveness of the MFT and senior leadership business objectives.

5.4.3. Making sure the MFT exercises acquisition authorities and responsibilities according to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS).

5.5. The Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC): The QAPC develops, manages and implements the base Quality Assurance Program; supports the MFT in the development of contract requirements ensuring requirements are clearly stated and enforceable; aids in development of the SS and QASP and provides training to COR Supervisors, CORs, and others that interact with this contract as needed.

5.6. The Contract Specialist (CS): The CS is the contracting office’s focal point for issues regarding the contract. The CS prepares and processes modifications to the contract, assists the CO in ensuring contractor performance meets contract standards, and records and transcribes minutes for meetings. The CS shall inspect the CORs files at least yearly to ensure documentation is maintained.

6.0 MFT MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO VALIDATE THE OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN.

6.1. Program reviews with MFT members will address funding status, contract progress, rationale for any contemplated changes, COR oversight, contract compliance, and overall customer satisfaction. MFT meetings will be held annually and when required thereafter.

6.2 Annual execution review reports and annual briefings to the commander on the health of services contracts will also be used as a management tool to assess and validate the objectives and goals identified as part of the QASP.

6.3. The actions listed in 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 will assist the MFT in assessing contractor performance and validating that the performance metrics align with the performance-based work statement and overall mission support objectives. The MFT meets at least quarterly with contractor counterparts to review and discuss performance. Monthly updates may be provided to the contractor to keep them aware of performance data.

SECTION 2. CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT – PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

7.0 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT APPROACH

7.1. 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 of this QASP dictate the minimum inspection requirements 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.

7.2. Performance Assessment Approach. To facilitate the performance assessment of the contractor's quality program, 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.

7.2.1. Review of the Contractor's Quality Control Plan and quality control records will ensure contractor compliance with the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan in pursuit and fulfillment of the contract's quality requirements.

7.2.2. Review of all deliverables for accuracy, quality and timeliness IAW the SS will be accomplished. Specific deliverables are listed in Appendix B, Required Reports.

7.2.3. Daily interaction with the Contractor will serve to ensure understanding of the internal and external customer initiatives outlined in the PWS.

7.3 Customer Complaints. When customer complaints are to be used as a method of Performance assessment, the COR will conduct an investigation to determine the validity of any negative comments received.

7.3.1. 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. The complaint will be closed on the feedback log.

7.3.2. For validated negative comments, the COR will notify the contractor to allow the opportunity for investigation, comment and any corrective action. The COR will refer to the procedures in paragraph 9 to determine whether it is necessary to initiate a Corrective Action Report (CAR) and coordinate with the COR Supervisor and CO on any CAR. If acceptable action is taken by the contractor, the complaint is closed on the log. If unacceptable action is taken or the complaint cannot be resolved at the COR level, it will be elevated to the CO for final resolution

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

7.3.4. The COR, with assistance from the COR Supervisor, will conduct trend analysis, as required, of validated negative comments.

7.4 Annual Review. The COR must review QASP performance objectives, assess their applicability and recommend the addition or subtraction of performance objectives as conditions warrant to the MFT or CO through the COR Supervisor. This review must be accomplished annually as a minimum.

7.5 Combating Trafficking In Persons (CTIP): The COR will ensure the contractor complies with FAR Clause 52.222-50, “Combating Trafficking in Persons (Feb 2009)”, Alternate 1, and any future updates to this clause and report any violations to the Contracting Officer.

8.0 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

8.1. Performance Objectives. Attachment #2 lists the contractual performance objectives to be validated by COR. Each performance objective includes a Government-determined performance threshold and the method that is used to perform the verification. The performance objectives in this Attachment 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 QASP Checklist as described in paragraph 9.1.

8.2 Services Summary: See Attachment 2

8.3. Assessment Method. The methods of surveillance identified in the “Assessment Method” column indicate the Government’s primary approach to quality assurance and assessment for the given performance objectives. Each of these methods is subject to unilateral change by the Government, without notice to the contractor and without the necessity of a contract modification. The contractor’s performance may be monitored using any of the following methods: periodic assessment/inspection (PI), customer complaint (CC), third party audits or assessments (3rd), trend analysis (TA) or other.

8.4. Re-Performance. If any of the services performed do not conform to contract requirements, the Government may require the contractor to perform the services again in conformity with the contract requirements at no additional cost to the Government. The COR will document the conformity and forward it to the CO. When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government will:

8.4.1. Require the contractor to take all avenues of corrective action(s) to ensure adherence to the contract.

8.4.2. Reduce contract price to reflect the value of sub-standard performance.

9.0 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION.

9.1. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Checklist. COR must document performance as it is accomplished IAW the assessment method and frequency as it relates to the performance thresholds set forth in the QASP. The COR will document results on the QASP Checklist. Both the COR and the COR Supervisor will sign and date the document. The COR will forward the completed documentation to the CS and CO within seven business days of the following month to document the previous month’s performance. A performance assessment will be documented at least monthly on a bilateral checklist, signed by the COR and the contractor Site Lead Manager. The QASP Checklist is an official Government record of inspections of the performance objectives and other inspection items contained in this QASP.

9.1.1. The QASP Checklist is locally developed; seeAttachment #2.

9.1.2. Completed QASP Checklists will be maintained in the COR’s performance assessment folder until such time as they are stored in the contract performance assessment file. At the completion of the contract, the COR will contact the CO for disposition instructions of the performance assessment records. The QASP Checklists can be maintained in soft-copy form as long as there is ample backup to preclude loss of data.

9.2. Deficiency Reporting. When performance is determined less than satisfactory, the COR must inform the contractor's on-site representative that performance is unacceptable and document the finding on a Corrective Action Report (CAR). If evidence is shown where the contractor's quality control program has already documented the deficiency and timely corrective action is working the problem, a CAR may not need to be issued. The COR would then evaluate and document the contractor's action in correcting the cited deficiency and assure effective and timely corrective action is being obtained. The COR will also coordinate the deficiency report through the COR supervisor to the ACO and retain a copy in the official file.

9.2.1. A Corrective Action Report (CAR) is used by the COR to document findings observed during checklist completion; see paragraph 13 for sample. A finding is any SS or non-SS item that has less than satisfactory performance. A CAR can also be used by the CO for any discrepancies on a contract issue.

9.2.2. The COR is responsible for initiating the CAR. If there are other questions as to how the CAR is completed, the COR should consult the CS or CO. The COR must forward a copy of the initiated CAR to the CS and CO. For a contractual discrepancy, the CO will initiate the CAR.

9.2.3. The COR will elevate any CAR that cannot be resolved with the contractor to the CO for resolution.

9.2.4. If the contractor receives a CAR over the course of the CPARs rating period, a determination will be made by the CO whether to include the negative performance data in that year’s CPAR.

9.2.5. 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 an activity log. Major/minor Findings are defined as follows:

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

9.2.5.1.1. Failure to meet a Performance Threshold.

9.2.5.1.2. Significant mission degradation in any contracted function.

9.2.5.1.3. 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.

9.2.5.1.4. Failure to provide adequate corrective action to preclude reoccurrence of Government identified findings.

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

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

9.2.5.2. Minor Finding. A departure from established standards which has little bearing on service provided. However, if the same minor finding is repeatedly identified, it may be an indication that a major finding 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.

9.3 The COR is required to upload all documentation required (training certificates, monthly reports, etc.) into the Department of Defense (DoD) Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool. The CORT Tool manages COR nominations and approvals and provides monthly status report tracking.

9.4 Timely Feedback to the Contractor. CORs will provide timely feedback regarding any deficiencies or substandard work for contractor corrective action. In addition, any correspondence with regard to deficiencies identified during contract performance shall be identified in the QASP Checklist and forwarded to the CS and CO.

9.5. Joint Surveillance. Periodically the CS and/or the QAPC may accompany the COR during inspections. This is to ensure the COR is performing surveillance in accordance with this QASP.

10. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

10.1. COR Inputs to the COR Supervisor. The COR is required to report detailed results of performance objective verifications to the COR Supervisor on a monthly basis. The COR will compile inputs in the QASP Checklist that includes an overall performance rating configured to correspond to the ratings used to complete CPARS assessments. The QASP Checklist will also include deficiencies identified during the period, along with COR comments as necessary. In addition, the COR will identify those areas where the contractor has exceeded the minimum requirements of the PWS and their resultant benefit to the government. Both the COR and Contractor Site Lead Manager shall sign the monthly checklist to ensure bilateral understanding of results/rating.

10.2 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Items that are surveyed IAW this QASP should be reviewed and considered as supporting documentation to the CPARS. The COR who is performing the performance assessment should keep in mind that details of the inspections from the QASP Checklist can be used to this purpose. The inclusion of more detailed documentation of inspection results would be very helpful to the MFT that develops the CPARS. CPARS will be accomplished annually on service contracts which exceed $1M.

10.3. Initial Contract Performance Review. Within thirty days after contractor assumes full performance responsibilities an initial performance review will be conducted. Assessment Criteria for the review can be found in the document listed in paragraph 16. The review will result in one of the following assessment values:

Rating

place.

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

11.0 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICES. Certification of services is performed by the PCO office via the Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) system, based on input from the CORs. At the end of each billing period, the contractor inputs invoice information into WAWF. WAWF automatically notifies the PCO office via email of pending invoice. The PCO representative accesses, within 7 calendar days from notification, WAWF in order to verify accuracy of contractor’s data. If data is correct, the services are received and accepted by the PCO office and the invoice is processed for payment by Defense Finance Accounting System (DFAS). If errors are encountered in contractor’s invoice, the PCO office consults with the contractor and COR to mutually rectify data. Additionally, any invoice discrepancy that affects the terms and conditions and /or price of the contract must be brought to the attention of the PCO.

12.0 Services Summary

The Services Summary (SS) performance objectives and associated performance thresholds establish a baseline for the Government’s surveillance program. The Government may unilaterally change the inspection methods or frequencies, based on the contractor’s demonstrated successful or unsuccessful performance.

Chapter 1 General Requirements Chapter 2 Program Management

Chapter 3 – Civil Engineering

3.3

3.5 No more than 2 inaccurate financial documents and/or records per month.

3.11

3.14.2

3.17 3.18 3.19

Monthly

3.21 3.21.1 3.21.2

DSW’s: 100% of emergencies; 90% of urgent; 85% of routines will be completed within prescribed times.

WO’s: 90% of approved work orders are completed within six months after material complete and 25% of the estimated costs.

3.27

3.28.2

3.28.4 3.28.4.1

3.33 3.34

No more than 2 valid customer complaints and/or discrepancies per month.

No more than 2 valid customer complaints and/or discrepancies per month.

100% of the time

No more than 2 valid customer complaints and/or discrepancies per month.

No more than two discrepancies per month.

No more than two valid customer complaints and/or discrepancies per month.

Chapter 4 – Postal Services and Communications Support

Weekly

Monthly

Monthly

Monthly

Weekly

Weekly

Weekly

Chapter 5 -Force Support

Food Service Operations

Golf Course Maintenance Operations (Incirlik Only)

BOWLING CENTER EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (MORÓN ONLY)

Lodging Services

Fitness and Sports (Moron Only)

Life Guard/Pool Services (Moron Only)

Library and Information Services (Moron Only)

Publicity and Computer Data Support (Moron Only)

Chapter 6 – Logistic Support Services

Vehicle Management

Vehicles and equipment are maintained in safe and serviceable condition. Strict accountability of tools and shop equipment as implemented.

6.1

No more than 2 valid customer complaints and/or discrepancies per month.

PI, CC

Monthly

Material Management

Management & Systems

Traffic Management

Customs Border Clearance Agents Program:

Chapter 7 - Safety, Occupational Health & Industrial Hygiene

7.2-7.2.16

Ambulance Services (Moron only)

Chapter 8 – Medical Maintenance Operation Management Services (MOMMS)

Chapter 9 – Turkey Administrative Services

Chapter 10 – Transient Alert

95% of the time.

90% of the time

10.1.6.3.

98% of the time.

13.0 Corrective Action Report:

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If More Space is Needed Use Reverse and Identify By Number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. MAJOR |_|MINOR |_|

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by…