Attachment_1_QASP_12-R-0072_10_Oct_12_Amend_2FINALx.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR

RESILIENCY AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE PROGRAMS SUPPORT

Attachment 1 H92222-12-R-0072

As of Amendment 0002

1. Objective. The objective of this plan is to provide the Primary Contracting Officer Representative (PCOR), all Contracting Officer Representatives (COR(s)) and Technical Representatives (TRs) appointed a formal, effective and systematic surveillance method for monitoring, reporting, evaluating the performance, and providing feedback on the Resiliency and Human Performance Programs Support enterprise contract. Additionally, the objective of this plan is to provide the Contractor with the information that the Government team will use to evaluate performance and contract compliance and provide the Contractor feedback on the services provided. This information is provided to enable the Contractor to be a partner with SOCOM in continuously improving the quality of programs and services offered to customers.

This QASP has been developed to evaluate Contractor performance while implementing the Performance Work Statement (PWS). It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method of monitoring Contractor performance for each listed objective in the Service Delivery Summary (SDS) under this enterprise contract and resultant task orders. The QASP provides a systematic and consistent method to evaluate the services and products the Contractor is required to furnish.

The role of the Government in following the procedures outlined within this QASP is to ensure contract thresholds are achieved by conducting the proper level of oversight required for personal services acquisitions.

1.1 Flow of the Quality Assurance Process. The process for evaluating and reporting Contractor’s performance under this contract will occur as follows:

Process Flow for Performance Assessments POC Task Timeframe COR(s) Monitor Contract and Task Order transition and submit Monthly Update to PCOR As required

Contractor and COR(s)

Send Monthly Reports to the COR via email for the task required per PWS 3.1.1 for each task order and COR will monitor the reported data for accuracy

NLT 10th calendar day of each month

Contractor Send Summary Monthly Reports to the PCO and PCOR via email as required per PWS 3.1.1

Within 5 days of Monthly Report submission

COR(s) Complete Semi-Annual Assessment Survey (QASP Attachment 1) and submit to PCOR and Contractor.

NLT 10th Calendar Day of February and July each year

PCOR Complete annual Contract Level Performance Assessment in CPARS & submit to PCO(s) for review

NLT 15th day in April each year

PCOR Submits annual Contract CPAR to Contractor NLT 30 April each year Contractor Respond (if desired) to CPAR report Within 30 days Government Assesses CPAR reports for the Contract when determining to exercise an option period.

As Required

1.2 Quality Assurance Process Drivers:

Contract Section C, PWS Paragraph 3.1, Monthly Reporting Requirements:

3.1 Monthly Report Requirements. The contractor shall provide a monthly report for each task order awarded to the appropriate Task Order Contracting Officer Representative. In addition, the contractor shall provide a monthly report with a summary of all contract efforts that rolls up the task order information to include a listing of each task order issued under the basic contract to the Contracting Officer (PCO) and Primary COR (PCOR). Monthly reports shall be submitted via e-mail to the required parties no later than the 10th day of each month covering the month preceding the submission date. Monthly reports shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:

3.1.1.1 Brief summary of progress and activities including a monthly aggregate of the number of resumes submitted by labor category, number of credentialing packages submitted and approved, and total task order fill rate (how many personnel included on task order awards vs. the total amount of personnel currently filling those positions)

3.1.1.2 Anticipated difficulties in upcoming tasks and any issues on current tasks.

3.1.1.3 Task order funds expended (by month and to date).

3.1.1.4 Recommended improvements or solution options.

The Summary Monthly Report shall total up the information provided for the specific task order summaries into one overarching report for the PCO and PCOR to use to evaluate overall contract performance as required in the SDS. The Summary Report is due within 5 business days after the individual task order reports are submitted.

2. Service Delivery Summary (SDS). The service requirements are summarized into performance objectives that relate directly to PWS requirements. The performance threshold briefly describes the minimum acceptable levels of service required for each requirement. The thresholds are critical to mission success and the percentages shown indicate the minimum for acceptable (satisfactory) performance.

Service Delivery Summary Category SDS - Objective Metric – Performance

Threshold Method of Evaluation

Quality of Service

• Were there any actions that did not meet standards of practice as defined by the MTF or other source of clinical oversight?

• Was the Contractors’ solution to problems timely and effective?

• Do the health care providers (HCP) employ evidenced based practices as outlined by DoD/VA clinical practice guidelines?

• The contractor shall ensure that HCPs are technically competent and fully qualified prior to presenting them to the Government

• The contractor shall ensure that timely replacement of personnel is ensured to reduce any interruption of the requesting activity’s mission.

• 100% of treatment services meet or exceed standards of practice when such standards exist.

• As indicated the HCPs will use evidence based interventions 100% of the time.

• 100% compliance in recruiting technically qualified personnel

• No more than 10% degradation of baseline capability (as defined by labor category fills) Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) will be stated in each task order for fill rates

• Record reviews and client feedback.

• PCO receives feedback from COR(s) and other end users feedback.

• Interaction with Contractor Management personnel

• Review of Monthly Reports

Schedule • Did the contractor successfully implement the transition/recruitment plans/processes as proposed in the contract level Program Management proposal?

• Did the Contractor provide accurate, current and complete data and reports that met the required timeline?

• All proposed transition and recruitment plans were realized

• Reports and other data requested by the PCO is submitted accurately and on time 100% of the time

• Reviews of reports as required within task orders.

• PCO also evaluates objectives at the contract level through day to day interaction with the prime Contractor

Category SDS - Objective Metric – Performance Threshold

Method of Evaluation

Cost Control • Does the contractor maintain and adequate accounting and purchasing systems?

• Were invoices, current, accurate, and complete per contract Section G?

• For Labor Hour or Cost Reimbursable Task orders; did the Contractor manage task order resources within the task order cost?

• Does the contractor effectively recruit qualified personnel within the proposed labor category ceiling rates?

• Maintains approved identified systems

• Contractor consistently provided accurate pre and post award cost proposals with limited corrections necessary.

• Contractor consistently submitted invoices per contract Section G with minor corrections required Funding allocated for cost reimbursable travel was managed effectively (i.e. no travel occurred without approval, proper funding on task order, and expiring funds were compared to known travel requirements to ensure all funding would be properly utilized prior to the end of the period of performance.

• No more than 10% degradation of baseline capability (as defined by labor category fills) Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) will be stated in each task order for fill rates

• Results of various Audits by DCAA

• Review of approved FPRR/FPRAs

• Review of cost proposals

• Feedback from cognizant DCAA

• Feedback from COR(s) and other end users.

Business Relations

• Is the Contractor’s integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract adequate - specifically the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the Contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management?

• No more than 15 formal customer complaints across all task orders annually.

Formal is defined in the

QASP

• Contractor successfully resolves any customer complaint within the time specified by the COR(s)

• PCO also evaluates objectives at the contract level through day to day interaction with the prime Contractor

• PCO receives feedback from COR(s) and other end users feedback

• For Example;

• Is the Contractor customer oriented?

• Is interaction between the Contractor and the Government satisfactory or does it need improvement?

• Is the Contractor responsive to the PCO?

• What degree of Government technical direction was required to solve problems that arise during performance?

• Was the quality of problem identification and corrective action plans, if applicable, focused on customer satisfaction?

Did the Contractor personnel exhibit reasonable and cooperative behavior?

• Formal Customer Complaints

Category SDS - Objective Metric – Performance Threshold

Method of Evaluation

Management of Personnel

• How effective was the Contractor Program Management team in managing all contract and task order level personnel?

• The Contractor shall demonstrate understanding of all MTF standards, rules, and procedures including requirements for any licensure, credentialing and quality assurance requirements.

• How well did the Contractor recruit, retain, manage, and ensure continuous training of employees, and replace, when necessary, task order personnel throughout the task order period of performance as required?

For example:

• The contractor shall ensure that all personnel have met all pre-employment requirements and are prepared to begin performance at the location, time, and date stated in the task order.

• Did the contractor proactively monitor personnel fill rates and vacancies and ensure timely replacement of personnel to reduce any interruption of the requesting activities mission?

• Did the contractor provide an efficient process for Government review of candidate qualification and resume screening?

• Did the contractor facilitate efficient and timely coordination for personal interviews of candidates as required by the Government?

• Was the contractor aware of any performance related issues and were the appropriate actions taken to ensure quick resolution?

• The Contractor has 100% compliance on all TOs for credentialing and licensure procedures

• Candidates are identified and presented for government review and screening within two weeks of an identified vacancy. If market availability prohibits this, a detailed resourcing strategy will be provided within the two week time period.

• 100% compliance in Government review of candidate qualifications and resumes

• 100% compliance of candidate personal interviews as required by the Government

• Interaction with Contractor Management personnel

• PCO receives feedback from COR(s) and other end users feedback.

• Formal Customer Complaints reports

Other, Meeting Small Business Subcontracting Requirements.

• Did the Contractor meet the requirements for subcontracting in Section H?

• Were efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime Contractor performance

• Were the prime Contractor's demonstrated efforts devoted to developing and managing subcontracts effective?

• Were the subcontractors integrated as part of the prime Contractor’s team?

• Is the prime Contractor growing its small business partners to become more capable (processes, financial capability, etc)

• Meets requirements in Section H (30%)

• Any subcontracting issues addressed to the prime are handled by the prime and same issues are not recurring

• Meets reporting requirements under contract clauses Subcontracting plans, exclusive agreements, implementation processes, etc., do not impede the Government’s ability to obtain critical support

• Review of annual report via eSRS

• Feedback from SOCOM Director of Small Business

3. Methods of Surveillance/Metrics of Measurement Definitions and Descriptions. SDS items and the thresholds at which the Government expects them to be performed in support of the contract will be utilized in measuring the contractor performance as it relates to the performance categories in CPARS. Some of the methods that may be utilized by the COR(S) to determine whether the thresholds have been met are as follows:

a. Customer Complaints. Any customer receiving unacceptable service or sub-standard products/services should immediately submit notification to the TR(s) or COR(s). If complaints are received by TR(s), they should be sent to the respective COR(s) immediately. The COR(s) will conduct an investigation to determine the validity of the complaint upon receipt. If the COR(s) determines the complaint as invalid, he/she will document the findings and notify the customer. If the complaint is validated, the COR(s) shall notify the Contractor’s Point of Contact (POC) of the complaint. The Contractor shall be given an appropriate time frame (depending on the issue identified) after notification to correct the unacceptable performance. The COR(s) will inform the customer of the approximate time the issue will be resolved.

Any issue not resolved at the COR(s) level that necessitates elevation to the PCO level or above for resolution shall constitute a formal customer complaint and will be counted against the Performance Metrics described in the SDS Quality of Service Category and/or Business Relations Category.

b. Review of Monthly Report Data and Other Methods. COR(s) may utilize several methods to document and assess the Contractor’s performance that may include but are not limited to; review of monthly reports, notifications of security (either via End of Day (EOD) checks or reported by the Security management office (SMO)) violations, interactions with Contractor employees, feedback from appointed TRs/Leadership/SMEs, etc. As with CPARs, the performance assessment is subjective, however, negative performance issues will require documentation and adequately justify the ratings provided.

4. Performance Assessment Process.

4.1 Once annually, the PCOR will submit an assessment in CPARS to capture the quality of performance for the preceding year. In assessing the overall performance ratings the COR(s) may utilize the various methods outlined within the SDS and this QASP and all assessments will be based upon the specific objectives and thresholds contained in the PWS/SDS. Additionally, on-going feedback by the COR(s) and Contractor personnel should be done at the lowest levels.

The basic premise is that on-going performance feedback and addressing issues at the task order levels between the COR(s) and the Contractor is essential to providing quality performance.

COR(s) should not wait until it is time to submit an assessment to address concerns with performance.

4.2 Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). CPARS will be completed at least annually documenting Contractor performance for this contract as previously addressed above via http://www.cpars.csd.disa.mil/cparsmain.htm. More frequent updates may be made as required to document a significant improvement or degradation of the level of contract performance. The Assessing Official (AO) will be the assigned PCOR; the PCO will serve as an Assessing Official Representative (AOR) and will review the report prior to submission to the contractor representative; and the Reviewing Official will be appointed in the event of a disagreement between the AO and the Contractor evaluations for final resolution.

Normally the reviewing official will be the SORDAC MDAE. In circumstances when the disagreements are resolved at the contractor COR-level (i.e. disputes that do not require higher level resolution), the PCO can serve as the Reviewing Official. The CPAR system allows for all Contractors' to provide input on their assessment within 30 days after it is input.

4.3 Contract and Task Order Option Exercises. Prior to exercising the basic contract level option (after 3 yr base) period, the Government will review the Contractor’s performance based upon information obtained from all the annual CPARS; including meeting the contractual subcontracting requirements. At the time of review, if the PCO determines that the Contractor's performance is an overall unsatisfactory, the Government will not exercise the option period for the contract. If at the time of review the PCO determines that the Contractor's performance to that point is satisfactory or above, the Government may unilaterally exercise the option period on the contract if all other FAR requirements concerning exercise of options are met. Task Order level option period exercises will be determined on a task by task basis dependent upon performance by the contractor and the needs of the Government. The final determination will be made by the PCO after receiving feedback from and coordinating with the specific task order COR(s) and Requiring Activity.

4.4 Performance Rating Definitions. Definitions of performance ratings that will be utilized by all COR(s), PCOR, and PCO are as follows:

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. To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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 was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

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. To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the Contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DoD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractor will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

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. To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the Contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter).

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 a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An Unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the Contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental).

5. Disputes. Attempts will be made to resolve all disputes arising under this plan using the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) as outlined in FAR 33.214. The objective is to increase the opportunity mutually agreeable resolutions to disputes that are relatively inexpensive and expeditious. If no resolution can be made under ADR, the PCO shall be notified for a final decision. If there is a dispute with an annual CPAR report the Reviewing Official (SORDAC MDAE) will be the final dispute authority. In circumstances when the disagreements are resolved at the contractor COR-level (i.e. disputes that do not require higher level resolution), the PCO can serve as the Reviewing Official.

6. COR(S) and TR training and appointments. All COR(s) and TRs will be properly trained prior to being formally appointed in accordance with DFARS, DOD policy, SOCOM policy, and Section G of this contract. Every task order will identify the officially appointed COR(S) for that requirement within the task orders.

7. Revisions to this QASP. Revisions to this Plan are the joint responsibility of the PCOR and PCO. The PCO will consider the feedback and recommendations from the Contractor. This is a living document that can be changed at any time. It is recommended that yearly, the PCO, PCOR, COR(S)s of primary customers and the Contractor review this document in tandem in order to update the surveillance requirements, any enhancements or changes within the reporting processes, and suggestions of measures to further ensure quality services are being delivered by all parties.

8. The following organizational structure is established for administering the QASP processes for this contract.

8.1. Primary Contracting Officer Representative (PCOR). The primary responsibilities include but are not limited to:

(1) Assist all Requiring Activities and COR(s) in the development of all task order requirements documents and provide to the PCO for RFP release

(2) Track and review the submission of all assessments.

(3) Act as an Assessing Official Representative in the CPAR system.

(4) Provides and tracks training (COR/Evaluation) of all appointed CORs, and TRs.

(6) The PCOR will act as the COR in their absence and assists in the performance of those COR duties outlined within the COR appointment letters; such as performance assessments approving CAC and Badge requests, and resolving complaints.

8.2. Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The primary responsibilities of the PCO outlined within this QASP include but are not limited to:

(1) Maintaining official contract files and performance evaluations.

(2) Review Summary Monthly Reports.

(3) Adjudicate disputes or complaints not resolved at the COR level.

(4) Acts as the Assessing Official Representative in the CPAR system.

8.3. Contracting Officer's Representative(s) (COR). The COR(s) responsibilities outlined within this QASP include but are not limited to:

(1) Develop and submit complete Task Order documents

(2) Monitoring, evaluating and assessing Contractor performance in assigned areas in order to provide performance assessments on their respective task order as outlined in paragraph 1.1.

(3) Train and officially appoint any Technical Representatives (TRs) that will be delegated any of the official duties and responsibilities outlined within the COR appointment letter. The PCO will be notified of all officially trained and appointed TRs for each task order.

(4) Review all monthly reports submitted and notify the PCO and Contract Task Lead of any noted discrepancies.

ASSESSMENT SURVEY

QASP Attachment 1

CONTRACT/TASK ORDER #:________________ SERVICE: _________________________

MONTH/YEAR: ____________________________

CONTRACTOR: _________________________________________________________

NUMBER OF VALID CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RECEIVED: _________________

NUMBER OF TR/COR DIRECTED RE-PERFORMANCE ITEMS: ___________________

General Contractor Satisfaction Quality of the Service 5 4 3 2 1 0 Schedule 5 4 3 2 1 0 Cost Control 5 4 3 2 1 0 Business Relations (working relationship) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Management of Personnel 5 4 3 2 1 0 Overall Satisfaction with the Service Received 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOTE: 5=Exceptional, 4=Very Good, 3=Satisfactory, 2=Marginal, 1=Unsatisfactory, 0=Neutral

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :

Contracting Officer Representative

Primary Contracting Officer Representative