Attachment_5_-QASP_Template.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

1. Contract or Task Order Title Defense Enterprise Office Solutions (DEOS)

2. Purpose:

The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

This QASP will correspond to the DEOS Request for Proposal (RFP), Statement of Objective (SOO), and Design Capability Document (CDD). The objective of this QASP is to evaluate the Vendor’s performance requirements of the SOO as well as other performance standards contained in the CDD. The Vendor will develop a QASP to meet the detailed standards in the CDD as well as less critical requirements of the SOO.

The Government is responsible for a Quality Assurance (QA) plan to measure compliance with overall final standards.

The primary purpose of the QASP is the acceptability of the services and/or final product provided by the Vendor, rather than the detailed operational procedures utilized to provide the service.

This QASP does not detail how the Vendor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the Vendor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. The QASP focuses on the quality of the products and/or services received from the Vendor rather than on the procedures used to provide them. The QASP details the following:

· The methods for surveillance of each award requirement

· The evaluation procedures to be used for each surveillance method

· The approaches for implementation of the QASP

Note: All information in italics is provided for the purpose of definition and may be deleted by the vendor in the submitted response to the RFP.

3. Key Terms:

The following terms and acronyms are provided to facilitate understanding of the QASP.

Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR) This report is the official form for documenting unsatisfactory performance requiring resolution by the contractor (see sample CDR).

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) A written Vendor document that identifies to the contractor the techniques and procedures the Government will utilize to perform quality assurance and acceptance of Vendor’s products and/or services.

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 Vendor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. Determine the final assessment of the Vendor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the Vendor’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 Vendor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the Vendor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide an annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance. The QASP is the primary tool for documenting Vendor performance.

4. Primary Method of Surveillance:

· 100 Percent Inspection. This is usually only the most appropriate method for infrequent tasks or tasks with stringent performance requirements, e.g., where safety or health is a concern. With this method, performance is inspected/evaluated at each occurrence. One hundred percent inspection is too expensive to be used in most cases.

· Random Sampling. This is usually the most appropriate method for recurring tasks. With random sampling, services are sampled to determine if the level of performance is acceptable. Random sampling works best when the number of instances of the services being performed is very large and a statistically valid sample can be obtained. Computer programs may be available to assist in establishing sampling procedures.

· Periodic Inspection: These services are monitored weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annually, etc. Periodic types of activities are perfect for periodic inspection because not only are they infrequent, but there is normally a predetermined, specified time frame within which the tasks must be accomplished. Therefore, you know exactly when to conduct the evaluations. Periodic inspections automatically become 100 percent evaluations or "100 percent checks." Inspections should be divided and scheduled by frequency: annual, semiannual, quarterly, monthly, weekly and as required. Sometimes services are required for which the time or frequency cannot be predicted, such as accident investigations, one-time special tasking by higher headquarters, etc. These would be labeled "as required inspections." Others are known and predictable such as the quarterly status report or the monthly travel report currently included in some DISA service contracts.

· Customer Input. Although usually not a primary method, this is a valuable supplement to more systematic methods. For example, in a case where random sampling indicates unsatisfactory service, customer complaints can be used as substantiating evidence. In certain situations where customers can be relied upon to complain consistently when the quality of performance is poor, e.g., dining facilities, building services, customer surveys and customer complaints may be a primary surveillance method, and customer satisfaction an appropriate performance standard. In all cases, complaints should be documented, preferably on a standard form.

Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (Table - 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 Standards define the level of service required under the contract and subsequent task orders to successfully meet the performance objectives. The performance standards specified in the table below represent the baseline for the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) for task orders issued under the DEOS contract.

The offeror may propose AQLs in their proposed PWS/QASP that the Government has not indicated in the table below. However, at a minimum, all of the AQLs listed in the Table 1 shall be included and addressed within the PWS/QASP. Based upon their proposed technical and management solution, the offeror shall provide any additional performance standards, measures and values, comparable to or better than industry best practices, that enable the Government to verify satisfactory performance of each proposed task as applicable.

Table - 1

Surveillance

System Wide Provide 99.9% availability of services.

NOTE: The 99.9% availability is limited to the service provided by the CSP, not the underlying transport, or delivery to the end user.

· Random Sampling

· Trend Analysis

· Trend Analysis

· Third-party Audits

Access Management

· Customer Feedback

Business Continuity

FRD –

System Wide

· Third-party Audits

Disaster Recovery

FRD –

System Wide

· Third-party Audits

System-Wide

Service Desk Response

FRD –

Service Desk

· Customer Feedback

D-DIL

Reconnection

FRD -

D-DIL

· Customer Feedback

Event Management

Incident Management

· Third-party Audits

· Third-party Audits

Incident Management

· Customer Feedback

· Customer Feedback

Email Retention

Surveillance

System Wide Provide 99.9% availability of services.

NOTE: The 99.9% availability is limited to the service provided by the CSP, not the underlying transport, or delivery to the end user.

· Random Sampling

· Trend Analysis

· Trend Analysis

· Third-party Audits

Access Management

· Customer Feedback

Business Continuity

FRD –

System Wide

· Third-party Audits

Disaster Recovery

FRD –

System Wide

· Third-party Audits

System-Wide

Service Desk Response

FRD –

Service Desk

· Customer Feedback

D-DIL

Reconnection

FRD -

D-DIL

· Customer Feedback

Event Management

Incident Management

· Third-party Audits

· Third-party Audits

Incident Management

· Customer Feedback

· Customer Feedback

Email Retention

Incentives Comment by Gray, Christopher A CIV DISA PLD (US): Missing numbering

The Government will positively and/or negatively assess the offeror’s performance in the Offeror’s Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) based on the success or failure in meeting the established performance standards and timely delivery of required services and deliverables. The offeror is incentivized to earn favorable Government reviews to support continuation of DISA requirements and support contract awards with other Government agencies seeking DISA’s input on the offeror’s past performance. Failure to meet the acceptable quality levels specified or to submit deliverables in a relevant and timely manner may result in an unsatisfactory past performance report by the Government. Additionally, the Government will determine the level of performance as a factor in the determination to exercise additional options for continuity of services or addition of capacity or capabilities.

Where a functional interruption occurs for any users as a consequence of failure to meet applicable Operational Availability Performance Standards credits for outage (interruption) of service will be provided to the Government by the offeror in accordance with the following schedule. The schedule shall be used to determine the credit (one day equals 1/30th of the Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC)) due the Government during each monthly billing period:

SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS OF 24 HOURS OR LESS

SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS OVER 24 HOURS

Credit of 1/30th of the MRC (or the US dollar equivalent) for each day of outage until service is restored.

Outage credits do not apply for the following:

a) Interruptions caused by the negligence of the Government or others authorized by the Government to use the Government's service.

b) Interruptions due to the failure of power, equipment, systems or connections not provided by Offeror or subofferors.

c) Interruptions during any period when the Government has released the service environment for maintenance or rearrangement purposes or for the implementation of a Government order.

d) Interruptions that continue because of the Government's failure to authorize replacement of any element of special construction. The period for which credit is not allowed begins on the seventh day after the Government receives the offeror’s written notification of the need for such replacement. It ends on the day after receipt of the Government's written authorization for such replacement.

e) Interruptions during periods when the Government elects not to release the private service environment for testing and/or repair.

f) An interruption or group of interruptions, resulting from a common cause, for amounts less than $1.00.

Outage credits will be due no later than the next Billing Cycle/Month following the outage. Each credit will identify the associated trouble ticket, time, date and duration of the outage/outages.

Minimum Service Level accepted will be 99.9% Operational Availability Rate calculated monthly. All proposals will provide the Offeror service level agreement to include incentives and exclusions for evaluation.

6. Documenting Performance:

Acceptable Performance.

The Government shall document positive performance. A Performance Assessment Report (PAR) template is attached (Appendix 1). 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 2) 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 3).

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’s for this effort are outlines in the table in section 5.

9. Evaluation Method:

The COR will document the time of verbal notification to the contractor. The COR will document the official time and date of notification on the Maintenance Call Record. The COR will review self-diagnostic systems logs, conduct a comparison with actual maintenance performance and otherwise verify and validate contractor performance. The contractor shall enter in the record the official time the system is restored to full operational status. The COR will confirm the date and time of problem resolution in the record.

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

Appendix 1 – Performance Assessment Report

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

Appendix 2 – 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 3 – 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