QASP

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) SERVICES

OF THE BASE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (BTS)

Ellsworth AFB SD

28 JUNE 2011

*The signatures above signify cognizance of this QASP. This document is not contractually binding.

1.0 Vision.

The Government’s vision is to gain confidence in the contractor’s way of doing business and rely on the contractor’s internal quality control (QC) processes. Then, we adjust the level of oversight to a point that maintains that confidence. By virtue of this QASP, it is the Government’s vision to effectively manage the O&M contract through achieved efficiencies, improved customer service and contractor performance, and cost savings.

2.0 Mission.

The Government’s mission is to manage the acquisition by encouraging innovation; promoting performance-based services; and increasing awareness that performance-based services require participation from all team members. The O&M contract’s mission is for the contractor to be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and properly perform O&M services of the BTS at Ellsworth AFB SD.

3.0 Purpose.

This QASP is a government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

· What will be monitored

· How monitoring will take place

· Who will be conduct the monitoring

· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards. It is the government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

The QASP is not part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the contractor’s QCP. This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance. The Contracting Officer (CO) will revise or modify the QASP as circumstances warrant, throughout the life of the contract, to ensure adequate oversight of contractor performance is maintained.

The Government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances might occur that are outside the control of the contractor.

Bottom line, the QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance

4.0 Authority.

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, an “Inspection of Services” clause, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract or order. This acceptance is to be executed by the CO or a duly authorized representative.

5.0 Roles and Responsibilities.

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities:

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides primary program oversight and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. While the PM may serve as a direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the contractor on technical matters, they are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or any contract changes on the Government’s behalf.

Contracting Officer (CO) – The CO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The CO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract and shall determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) -- The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance (QA) file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the CO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the CO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

Other Key Government Personnel This may include performance monitors, inspectors, technical experts, or others who provide information that helps the COR monitor contractor performance.

Contractor Representatives. The contractor shall comply with the terms and conditions of the contract; participate in the post-award management phase; maintain and implement a QCP that compliments the performance plan IAW the PWS; tender to the Government for acceptance only those supplies or services that conform to contract requirements (see also FAR clauses 52.246-4 and 52.246-6 of the contract); and recommend any changes to the contract that will promote efficiency or eliminate unnecessary costs.

6.0 Performance Requirements.

6.1 Contract Surveillance.

The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR’s contribution is their professional, non-adversarial relationships with the CO, PM and the contractor, which enables positive, open and timely communications. The foundation of this relationship is built upon objective, fair, and consistent COR evaluations of contractor performance against contract requirements. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance. Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and QC/QA actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

6.2 Performance Elements and Rating Definitions.

The COR is required to document, evaluate, and report contractor’s performance. On an annual basis, the COR will complete a narrative summary of contractor’s performance in CPARS and notify the CO. The CPARS website is: https://cpars.navy.mil/cparsmain.htm. The COR will accomplish Out-of-Cycle CPARS for any significant change in performance.

6.2.1 Performance Elements.

6.2.2 Performance Ratings. Contractor ratings and criteria are described below. NOTE: The COR should basically start at the “Satisfactory” level and then revise their rating upward or downward based upon specific performance that either exceeded or failed to meet the contractual requirements. Just “meeting” the requirement is Satisfactory. To rate higher or lower, SPECIFICS are required, such as: “Contractor exceeded the time for accomplishing work order by completing routine work orders 85% of the time in four days or less – contract requires 10 days.” In addition, the Government must receive some associated benefit.

7.0 Performance Assessment/Reporting.

In conducting assessment, the CORs are to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating contractor performance against the performance standards. The CORs shall base their evaluation on the end result, not the frequency or method of performance. The contractor must perform all services IAW the prescribed performance objectives stated in the Services Summary. This QASP identifies assessment procedures in concert with active application of the contractor’s QC procedures, to ensure acceptable contractor performance.

7.1 Services Summary Matrix.

The Services Summary Matrix (Attachment 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The Services Summary Matrix should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.

7.2 Methods Used to Assess Contractor’s Performance.

The COR will use the following methods to evaluate contractor-provided services.

7.2.1 Periodic Surveillance.

The COR will use this type of assessment by selecting samples (tasks) for evaluation on other than 100% inspections or on a statistically random basis. An example of periodic surveillance is weekly inspections, and COR chooses the location and time in other than a random basis (i.e., reviewing PMIs performed).

7.2.2 100% Inspection.

The COR will use this method of inspecting a requirement every time it occurs. Use of this technique is appropriate when contract requirements have critical impact on mission of safety, occur infrequently or have stringent requirements (i.e., outside plant installations or manhole installations, or anything affecting flight or personnel safety).

7.2.3 Random Sampling.

The COR will use this method to ensure the Government receives acceptable performance by the contractor if a given percentage or number of scheduled inspections is found to be acceptable. The COR will evaluate randomly selected samples of activity to determine the acceptability of the entire requirement (i.e., a random review of service work orders completed).

7.2.4 Customer Complaints.

The COR will use this method to fully validate information obtained through other sources, as well as performance in any area. Any personnel that observe questionable services, incomplete, not performed, or performed improperly, should immediately contact the COR. The COR will receive, document, and validate or invalidate all complaints. If the complaint is invalid, the COR will contact the complainant and explain why the complaint was invalid. The COR will fully document the resolution for each complaint. The COR will notify the contractor of all valid complaints. If the Contractor challenges the validity of any complaint, and the COR and Contractor cannot come to agreement, the complaint in question shall be forwarded to the CO for resolution. Complaints will be tracked and if the performance standard is exceeded, the COR will notify the CO in writing. In turn, the CO will notify the contractor and take appropriate action. The process shall accommodate and document positive feedback as well.

7.3 Assessment Schedule.

The COR will develop an assessment schedule, based on this QASP and PWS requirements. The schedule will include the method/frequency of assessment.

7.3.1 Schedule Development.

The COR will develop the schedule at contract award and on an annual basis thereafter using the PWS/Services Summary as a guide. The COR will complete the schedule no later than seven calendar days before the beginning of the period it covers (usually annually). The COR will provide the contract administrator (CA) and COR supervisor copies of the schedule. The COR will mark completed assessment schedules “For Official Use Only” and shall not show assessment schedules to the contractor.

7.3.2 Schedule Changes.

The COR will post changes to the assessment schedule promptly and will send copies to the CA. The COR will document the reason(s) for changes of the assessment schedule, and maintain the documentation in the COR files with the corresponding changed assessment schedule.

7.3.3 COR End of Quarter Report.

The COR will submit an assessment report to the CO and the COR’s supervisor no later than the first week of the first month of the next quarter. The report will identify the number of assessments scheduled and conducted in the previous quarter along with the number of unacceptable performances observed, the number of contract deficiency reports (CDRs) issued, and number of valid complaints, any significant contractor performance discrepancies, and a rating of the contractor’s overall performance. The COR will sign, date and provide a copy of the report to the CO and COR supervisor.

7.3.4 Assessment of SDS Items.

The COR will conduct assessments IAW with projected assessment schedule outlined in paragraph 7.3.1 above for an effective QA program. Mission requirements may require deviations from the assessment schedule. The COR shall perform assessment as close to the schedule as possible and document assessment as it is conducted. The COR will conduct assessment of the contractor’s performance by determining whether or not the performance meets the standards contained in the contract. When the COR determines that contractor performance is unacceptable, the specific reason for the unacceptable performance will be recorded. If the discrepancy has been resolved locally, the COR will be annotate and file a Memo for Record. Assessment documentation will include as a minimum, the date and location the assessment was conducted, results of the assessment (acceptable or unacceptable), PWS paragraph number referencing the requirement, a short description of the requirement being surveyed, applicable remarks, and signature of COR conducting the assessment (see Attachment 4 for a sample performance assessment report (PAR). These assessments will serve as the official record of the inspection for auditing purposes and will be retained until the end of the contract period. If a discrepancy is recurring or cannot be resolved locally, the COR will refer it to the CO for action using the CDR process (See 7.4 below). The COR will identify all actions taken on the discrepancy and a recommendation for resolution. The CO will provide disposition instructions.

7.3.5 Assessment of Non-SDS Items.

The Government has the right to inspect all services called for by the contract, to the extent practicable at all times and places during the term of the contract. Therefore, the COR has the right to conduct assessments for Services Summary items and non-Services Summary items as well. When the COR identifies unacceptable performance on non-services summary items, the COR will follow the procedures in section 7.5 of this QASP, entitled Process for Unacceptable Performance.

7.4 Method of Acceptance of Services. The contractor will submit invoices via the Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) system for acceptable services tendered IAW the contract. The COR will act as the “inspector” of services and ensure that all backup documentation is attached. Backup documentation includes invoices for material; work orders and time sheets for time and materials; and certified payroll to support Davis Bacon Work. After the COR inspects, the COR “accepts,” and DFAS will process the invoice.

7.5 Process for Unacceptable Performance. When the contractor’s performance is deemed unacceptable, the COR will determine the cause of the unacceptable performance and forward his/her findings to the CO.

7.5.1 Government-Caused.

If any Government action, or lack of action, caused or contributed to the unacceptable performance, the contractor will not be held responsible for the unacceptable performance. The COR will take action to ensure Government action, or lack of action, does not interfere with the contractor’s performance in the future. The COR will completely document the circumstance.

7.5.2 Not Government-Caused.

When the unacceptable performance is not the result of Government action, or lack of action, the COR will promptly notify the contractor and direct the contractor to re-perform the service, if possible, without additional cost to the Government. If the contractor challenges the validity of the COR’s unacceptable assessment finding, and the COR and contractor cannot come to an agreement, the matter shall be referred to the CO for resolution. The COR may issue a CDR (via the CO) to the contractor to assure corrective action is taken. The contractor shall be required to return all completed CDRs to the CO no later than the suspense date indicated on the CDR. Unacceptable performance re-performed by the contractor shall still count as unacceptable performance.

7.5.3 CO Notification.

7.5.3.1 Major Finding.

If at any time the COR identifies a condition as having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the activity, such as those stated below, the COR will document their findings and notify the CO immediately in writing (Email is acceptable). Any of the following could result in the issuance of a CDR by the COR:

a. Contractor failure to meet a Performance Standard.

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

c. Failure to provide corrective action to deficiencies identified by the COR within a prescribed suspense period.

d. Any failure to comply with to security regulations.

e. Any failure to comply with safety regulations.

7.5.3.2 Minor Finding.

If the COR finds that the contractor has deviated from established standards, but the deviation has little bearing on the service provided, the COR will document the finding in a memorandum for record (MFR). The COR is not required to immediately notify the CO, but will forward the MFR as an attachment to the monthly report. However, if the COR repeatedly identifies the same minor finding, it may be an indication that a major finding is occurring because the Contractor has not taken proper steps to prevent recurrence. In this case, the COR will notify the CO in writing.

7.5.4 Remedies for Unacceptable Performance.

7.5.4.1 If Services Do Not Conform.

In accordance with the contract’s Inspection of Services Clause(s), if any of the services do not conform to the contract requirements, the Government may require the contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount.

7.5.4.2 If Services Cannot Be Corrected by Re-Performance.

When the defects in services cannot be corrected by re-performance, the Government may require the contractor to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements and reduce the contract price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed. This may include a reduction in payment to reflect the total non-performance period.

7.5.4.3 If Contractor Fails to Promptly Perform Services Again.

If the contractor fails to promptly perform services again or to take the necessary action to ensure future performance in conformity with contract requirements, the Government may by contract or otherwise, perform the services and charge to the contractor any cost incurred by the Government that is directly related to the performance of such service; decrement invoice as stated in the PWS related to performance; or terminate the contract.

Attachment 1: Services Summary Attachment 2: Contract Discrepancy Report Attachment 3: Customer Complaint Record Attachment 4: Performance Assessment Report

Services Summary

Performance Objective

PWS

Reference Performance Threshold (Monthly unless otherwise specified)

Method of Assessment

Perform PMI tests of spare conductors

1.3.3.2

Respond to and restore all system and service outages and trouble calls/tickets within the required time constraints specified in the PWS

1.3.4

Emergency – Zero instances exceeding response/restoration times

Priority – One instance exceeding response/restoration times

Routine – One instance exceeding response/restoration times 100% Inspection

Periodic Surveillance

Customer Complaint

Emergency – Zero instances exceeding completion time

Routine – One instance exceeding completion time 100% Inspection

Customer Complaint

Provide Contractor support services IAW the PWS

1.3.13

No more than one instance of failure to provide support/interface

No more than one unexcused meeting absence Periodic Surveillance

Technical Solutions IAW PWS

Periodic Surveillance

No more than two instances exceeding timeframe specified within PWS.

No more than one work-center records update error.

Periodic Surveillance

Comply with established procedures for completion of work orders

1.4.

Emergency – Zero instances exceeding PWS timeframes

Priority – Zero instances exceeding PWS timeframes

Routine – No more than two instances exceeding PWS time frame

100% Inspection

CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT ROUTING SHEET

Instructions: QAP fills in blocks 1, 3, 4, 5 (prepared), and 6. Contractor fills in blocks 9 and 10.

6. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM: (Describe in detail: include applicable SOW/Contract references: attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

7. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

9. CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AS TO CAUSE, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE: ATTACH CONTINUATION SHEET IF NECESSARY. (Cite applicable Q.C. program procedures or new Q.C. procedures.)

10. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE

DATE

11. GOVERNMENT EVALUATION (Acceptance, partial acceptance, rejection; attach continuation sheet if necessary.)

12. GOVERNMENT ACTIONS (Reduced payment, cure notice, show cause, other.)

CLOSE OUT

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. |_| DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

|_| NEW

|_| REPEAT

|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS