Attachment_1__QASP.docx
DOCX document 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DISA Ogden High Density (HD) Computer Room Air Handler (CRAH) & Power Distribution Units (PDU) Install
- Solicitation number
- HC1028-17-R-0186
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
Attachment 1_ Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 17R0186__AMD0005.docx | DOCX document | |
| 17R0186__AMD0006.docx | DOCX document | |
| 17R0186__AMD0004.docx | DOCX document | |
| DHQCAP17MP60014__QA__ROUND_2.pdf | ||
| DHQCAP17MP60014__QA.pdf | ||
| 17R0186__AMD0003.docx | DOCX document | |
| 17R0186_AMD0002.docx | DOCX document | |
| 17R0186__AMD0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_2__Pricing_sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC1028-17-R-0186__RFP.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)
1. Contract or Task Order Title: Ogden HD CRAH & PDU Upgrade
2. Purpose:
This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following:
· What will be monitored?
· How monitoring will take place.
· Who will conduct the monitoring?
· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.
This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.
This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.
3. Roles and Responsibilities:
The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.
Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides program oversight and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities.
Contracting Officer (KO) – The KO 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 KO shall also ensure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the contractor’s performance.
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): Rodney Placzek
Other Key Government Personnel (COR’s Technical POC): Ryan Franz
4. Primary Method of Surveillance: 100% inspection of delivery and installation schedules and work completed
· 100 Percent Inspection. There will be a 100% inspection of delivery and installation schedules and work completed.
· Customer Input. Site managers will monitor installation to insure cooperation with the ongoing operations and compliance with any agreements and schedules for the site.
Surveillance Matrix
The Surveillance Matrix (Appendix 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 performance surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The AQL performance Standard Table should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist.
5. Performance Standards
| Performance Standard |
| Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) |
| Method of Surveillance |
| Submittals, Shop Drawings, and Schedule |
| 100% of the documents were submitted and approved in compliance with contract requirements. |
| Submitted and approved documentation. |
| 6.1 Configuration Tasks |
| Performance occurs with little to no required re-work 97% of the time. |
| Routine inspection during installation; 100% completion inspection prior to acceptance. |
| 6.2 Mechanical Tasks |
| Performance occurs with little to no required re-work 97% of the time. |
| Routine inspection during installation; 100% completion inspection prior to acceptance. |
| 6.3 Electrical Tasks |
| Performance occurs with little to no required re-work 100% of the time. |
| Routine inspection during installation; 100% completion inspection prior to acceptance. |
| 6.4 Control Tasks |
| Performance occurs with little to no required re-work 100% of the time. |
| Routine inspection during installation; 100% completion inspection prior to acceptance. |
| 6.5.1 Raised Floor RM 146 |
| Performance occurs with little to no required re-work 100% of the time. |
| Routine inspection during installation; 100% completion inspection prior to acceptance. |
| 6.5.2 Inventory Tasks |
| 99% Compliance with Contract Requirements. |
| Submitted and Facility Manager approved documentation. |
| 6.16 Red-line Drawings |
| 100% Compliance with Contract Requirements. |
| 100% inspection and validation. |
| 6.17 Commissioning |
| Successful Pre-functional and Functional Testing (PFT & FT) to include all testing of control sequences and failure methods |
| 100% review and validation. |
| 6.21 Project Close-Out Documents |
| Material submissions, drawings, plans, etc. require only minor modifications to comply with the TO. Revisions that occur are minor and are resolved in a satisfactory manner. |
| Technical compliance review by TM and Facility Personnel. |
6. Documenting Performance:
Acceptable Performance.
The Government shall document positive performance. A Performance Assessment Report (PAR) template is attached (Appendix 2). Any report may become part of the supporting documentation for fixed price payments, award/incentive fee payments, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) entries, or other actions. Government acceptance of services permits the contractor to invoice for the service fee.
Unacceptable performance.
Unacceptable contractor performance can be identified by customer complaints (Appendix 3) or upon schedule surveillance evaluations. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. The COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file and provide a copy to the KO.
When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Corrective Action Report (CAR). The CAR is forwarded to the KO for dissemination to the contractor. A CAR template is attached to this QASP (Appendix 4).
The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CAR in writing. The CAR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CAR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the KO and COR. The Government may withhold payment for services until corrective action is taken. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. Upon Government acceptance of the corrected services the contractor will be permitted to invoice for the service fee.
Any CAR may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, CPARS or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.
7. Mandatory or regulatory compliance items:
The contractor will provide initial proof of compliance with regulatory and compliance items contained in the contract. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and the Contracting Officer (KO) will evaluate the initial submission and will conduct ad hoc reviews of the contractor's compliance throughout the remainder of the contract. The contractor will monitor compliance as required by FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, and report any issues to the KO.
8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):
The AQL for this project is 100% due to the critical support provided by mainframe operations.
9. Evaluation Method:
The COR will monitor the contract and document any changes as well as provide communication from the contractor to the POCs. The Site POC and/or Technical POC will review the project work each day to ensure the contractor is working according to proper codes and standards.
10. Performance Rating
In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used (same as CPAR ratings).
Performance Rating Criteria
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefits. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no problems and contractor actions were highly effective. |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government benefits. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory. |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear marginally effective or were not fully implemented. |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix
Performance Standards Acceptable Quality Levels Methods of Calculation
| Surveillance |
| Results/Ratings |
Information Technology (IT) Service Integration and Delivery Performance Management
High level of (xyz) satisfaction with Contractor delivery management of IT Services (includes the Service Desk services and the SITEC).
Target Criteria:
90% of all survey respondents are Satisfied, More Than Satisfied, or very Satisfied
Minimum Acceptable:
> 85% of all survey respondents are Satisfied, More Than Satisfied, or Very Satisfied with Contractor delivery management of all SITEC IT Services Calculation:
The number of users who were Satisfied, More Than Satisfied, or Very Satisfied divided by the total number of completed surveys returned.
At least XX(insert number) Government personnel must complete and return surveys for the results to have at least a 90% confidence factor with a 5% error rate.
Measurement Interval – The Measurement Interval is three (3) months for the first year and then every six (6) months thereafter.
Measurement Period – The Measurement Period begins at 00:01 on the first day of the month and ends at 24:00on the last day of the month.
Source of Measurement Data – Data will be collected from management surveys containing satisfaction criteria specified by (xyz) that are either developed internally by (xyz) personnel or by a (xyz) selected impartial 3rd party.
Method of Surveillance – Customer feedback. The Government will issue customer satisfaction surveys to designated Government SITEC management representatives from (xyz) (Contractors cannot participate), , and survey responses will be tabulated to determine overall satisfaction with Contractor delivery management of IT Services using a five (5) category scale. The scale is: Dissatisfied, Less than Satisfied, Satisfied, More than Satisfied, Very Satisfied.
Timing of Measurement – Measurements are taken within five (5) days of the end of the Measurement Period.
Reporting Frequency: - Reporting to commence upon Contract Award and continue throughout the Period of Performance.
Monthly reporting of Service Level Agreement (SLA) and / or QASP attainment to periods survey. Quarterly survey reporting from (xyz) during the first year, semi-annual thereafter.
(Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory)
(A rollup of assessment of the Surveillance Inspection Results to develop an overall rating for this objective)
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)
(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)
| 1. CONTRACT/TASK ORDER NUMBER |
| 2. CONTRACTOR |
| 3. TYPE OF SERVICES |
4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE
| 5. COR PHONE |
| 6. SUSPENSE DATE |
I. PERFORMANCE
7. |_| DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)
|_| NEW
|_| REPEAT
|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED
8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED
| 9. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY (IF DEFICIENCY BOX WAS CHECKED) |
| 10. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT |
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
Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report
Appendix 3 – Customer Complaint Record
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
Appendix 4 – 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. DEFICIENCY |_| 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 Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.
8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)
TYPED NAME AND GRADE
SIGNATURE AND DATE
9. ISSUING AUTHORITY
TYPED NAME AND GRADE
SIGNATURE AND DATE
10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE
11. COR DETERMINATION
|_| ACCEPTED |_| REJECTED
12. CLOSE DATE
Enclosure 6, Page 1 of 2 Pages 17Jul2013/Version 2
HC1028-17-R-0186
Attachment 1
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .