Atch_1_QASP.pdf

DISA Data Center, Bldg. 857, Gunter Annex, Montgomery, AL CRAH Unit Electrical Redundancy Project

Encl 4, QASP

05DEC2017

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract or Task Order Title/Overview

Data Center Montgomery Computer Room Air Handler (CRAH) Redundancy Upgrade Project

The objectives of this project are:

• Provide and install 2ea 600A, 480V panelboards. One panelboard will be installed on the 2nd floor in room

202. The second panelboard will be installed on the 4th floor in room in room 410 422.

• Provide and install 2ea 300A sub-distribution panels-One sub-panel will be installed in room 422 and the second will be installed in room 410. See project drawings for details.

• Remove two existing 7-Ton CRAH units and associated piping located in room 122.

• Install two (2) new 7-Ton CRAH units and associated piping located in room 122. See project drawings for details.

• Install four (4) new EPO circuits from the ‘C’ and ‘D’ switchgear located in the first floor mechanical room to the four (4) CRAH unit distribution panels. The EPO circuits will not be connected to the ‘C’ & ‘D’ switchgear until the existing switchgear is replaced later this year.

• Provide and install new 600A feeders from SWGR’C’ and SWGR’D’ to new panel-boards.

• Provide and install two new 600A trip units. One in SWGR ‘C’ & the second in SWGR ‘D’ spare break-ers.

• Provide and install 29 CRAH unit Automatic Transfer Switches (ATS’s) in model CW CRAH units.

• Provide and install new feeders from new panelboards to new CRAH Unit ATS’s.

• Reconfigure and terminate existing CRAH unit feeders on the new CRAH unit ATS’s

• Refeed 4ea of the In Row Coolers (IRC’s) on the 2nd floor from the new newly installed panelboard on the

2nd floor. Move existing feeders.

• Refeed 5ea of the IRC’s on the 4th floor from the newly installed panelboard on the 4th floor. Remove existing feeders.

• Remove Manual Transfer Switches (2ea) and all associated cabling

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.

Encl 4, QASP

05DEC2017

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 as-sessment 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) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical over-sight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight/surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The pur-pose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is respon-sible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an an-nual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the pri-mary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commit-ments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

Other Key Government Personnel- Site Point of Contact (Site POC) The Site POC provides daily monitoring of contractor’s activities and provides feedback to the PM and COR for investigation and follow-up. Examples of ob-servations include: adherence to security procedures, workplace cleanliness, adherence to safety requirements, etc.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance:

100 Percent Inspection. This is the most appropriate method for this project since it includes stringent performance requirements in the areas of safety, mission, and technical standards and guidelines. With this method, performance is inspected/evaluated at each occurrence. One hundred percent inspection is the only method to insure the objectives of the PWS are met.

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 perfor-mance 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)

Methods of Calculation

6.1 Task 1 – Automatic

Transfer Switches

Complies with 100% of minimum technical requirements specified in the PWS and applicable standards

100% review of material submission prior to ordering. 100% inspection upon completion of installation activities.

100% successful completion of perfor-mance verification testing.

Encl 4, QASP

05DEC2017

6.2 Task 2 – Electrical

Panel-boards, Sub-feed pan-els and Cable/conductors

Complies with 100% of minimum technical requirements specified in the PWS and applicable standards

100% review of material submission prior to ordering. Routine inspection dur-ing installation activities, Final inspection to verify 100% compliance upon comple-tion of installation activities.

6.3 Task 3 – CRAH Units

Complies with 100% of minimum technical requirements specified in the PWS and applicable standards

100% review of material submission prior to ordering. Routine inspection dur-ing installation activities, Final inspection to verify 100% compliance upon comple-

6.4 Task 4 – EPO

Complies with 100% of minimum technical requirements specified in the PWS and applicable standards

100% review of material submission prior to ordering. Routine inspection dur-ing installation activities, Final inspection to verify 100% compliance upon comple-

6.5 Task 5 – Submittals

All submittals comply with admin-istrative and technical requirements of the PWS.

100% Government review of all submit-tal items.

6. Documenting Performance:

Acceptable Performance.

The Government shall document positive performance using the Performance Assessment Report (PAR) template attached as 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 sur-veillance evaluations. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will nor-mally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. The COR shall document the discus-sion 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 ac-tion 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 deduc-tions, award fee nonpayment, CPARS or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

7. Mandatory or regulatory compliance items All work shall comply with the technical and life safety codes de-tailed in the PWS. These codes provide specific guidance on safe installation of electrical systems.

8. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

Encl 4, QASP

05DEC2017

The AQL for this project is 100% due to the critical mission support requirements of the Montgomery Data Center and the requirements for a safe working environment for facilities maintenance personnel.

9. Evaluation Method:

The PM and/or the COR shall perform 100% inspection of all deliverables to insure compliance with PWS require-ments. Periodic inspections /observations will be performed by the PM and site POC with interim feedback on the contractor’s progress.

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 govern-ment’s benefits. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no problems and contractor actions were highly ef-fective.

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 con-tains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual perfor-mance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified cor-rective 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

Panelboards are installed and tested IAW technical requirements of the PWS.

CRAH Unit ATS’s in-stalled and fully tested accordance

Target Criteria:

100% of installed equipment and controls meets requirements

Minimum Ac-ceptable:

Contractor cor-rects deficiencies

Calculation:

% is N/A

All work must meet standard 100% of the time.

Measurement Interval – The Measurement Interval is Monthly during non-site contract progress, daily during on-site installation activities.

Measurement Period – 270 Days (POP).

Exceptional- All work completed without cor-rections. Delivered 20 Days or more ahead of schedule.

Very Good-All work completed with minor corrections. Delivered on Schedule.

with (IAW) technical re-quirements of the PWS.

Distribute re-dundant power to all In Row Coolers.

Five of the nine IRC’s will be fed from the ‘C’ bus and four IRC’s will be fed from the ‘D’s bus IAW technical re-quirements of the PWS.

CRAH Units installed and fully tested accordance with (IAW) technical re-quirements of the PWS.

within one week of identification and notification.

Source of Measurement Data – Data will be col-lected from observations and inspections made by the Site POC, PM and

COR.

Method of Surveillance – Direct inspection.

Timing of Measurement Measurements are taken daily as onsite work is complete.

Reporting Frequency: - Upon installation comple-tion or more frequently if required.

Satisfactory- Work completed within PWS technical requirements.

Close monitoring by Govt. required. For-mally identified defi-ciencies corrected within 1 week. Deliv-ered on Schedule.

Marginal- Project delivered in compliance but outside the POP.

Unsatisfactory- Contractor unable to fulfill PWS require-ments

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

Appendix 2 – Performance Assessment Report

Appendix 3 – Customer Complaint Record

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUM-

BER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

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

Encl 4, QASP

05DEC2017

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 defi-ciency, 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