ATTACHMENT_02,_QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

For

Travel Pay System Solicitation Number: HQ042319R0014

Date Issued: March 11, 2019

Page 2 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02 QASP, dated Februray 21, 2019

DOCUMENT CHANGE CONTROL

Version Primary Author(s) Description of Change Date Completed

1.0 N/A 20190221

The following Government personnel have approved the implementation of this plan:

Page 3 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Scope

1.2 Purpose of QASP

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3.0 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

3.1 Surveillance Approach/Methods

3.1.1 Acceptability

3.1.2 Performance Assessment/Surveillance Matrix

4.0 QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

4.1 Customer Feedback/ Survey

5.0 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

5.1 COR Records Review

5.2 Performance Feedback…

5.3 Performance Ratings

6.0 CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTIVE ACTION

7.0 CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT

8.0 PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE

Page 4 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

Reference: Contract Number: TBD, Travel Pay System.

Solicitation Number: HQ042319R0014 Performance Work Statement (PWS), dated January 25, 2019.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) seeks an end-to-end technological solution for processing federal travel entitlements and payments. DFAS seeks a solution, which includes receiving, computing, and transmitting travel vouchers within the travel claim package for military (Active, Reserve, and Guard) and civilian permanent change of station (PCS)/permanent duty travel (PDT), personally procured moves (PPMs), temporary change of station (TCS), contingency operations, evacuation entitlements, casualty/Wounded Warrior travel, funeral travel, invitational travel, and temporary duty (TDY) for the Department of Defense (DoD).

1.1 Project Scope

The end-to-end commercial technological solution for processing federal travel entitlements and payments will have the ability to customize technology specific to DoD requirements and the travel pay mission. The number of annual transactions range between 85,000 to 95,000 TDY transactions, and between 300,000 to upwards of 550,000 PCS transactions, which includes the orders, vouchers, and all supporting documentation (e.g. electronically scanned and stored orders, forms, and receipts in a variety of file formats such as PDF or JPEG).

1.2 Purpose of QASP

This document was developed pursuant to the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS) for Travel pay System. Guidance is derived from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 37, Service Contracting. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth the performance assurance methodology, practices, and resources which will be employed in evaluating the Travel Pay System-related performance.

This QASP defines the responsibilities of the multi-functional team (MFT) personnel, describes the performance assurance methods to be used in assessing contractor performance, and the assessment results that determine product acceptance or non-acceptance. This plan shall be reviewed annually by the MFT, and modified as circumstances warrant throughout the life of the contract to that ensure adequate oversight of contractor performance is maintained.

In managing the Travel Pay System acquisition, the MFT will strive to achieve efficiencies, improved customer service, contractor performance, and cost savings, while encouraging innovation and promoting performance-based services. This QASP was created on 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.

Page 5 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following table illustrates the roles and responsibilities of each member of the MFT:

Table A

Member Responsibilities

KO

DFAS/CSD

• Co-lead the MFT

• Ensure all parties maintain open communication

• Delegate authority for inspection and acceptance toCOR

• Ensure contract- specific training isscheduled and provided

• Inform the contractor of the names, authority and limitations of COR

• Issue contract modifications as necessary

• Takeappropriateaction to protect the Government’s interest, shouldunacceptable performance occur

• Review COR monthly reports for completeness/accomplishment

• Periodically assesses the COR’s performance, at least once a year, and advises the

COR Management onanyproblems. Documents annual review in the WAWF CORT Tool

• Assistin developing QASP and PWS incoordination with the Customer PoC

• Reviewandcoordinatechanges tothe PWS and QASP

• Conduct QAPC training

DFAS Customer PoC

DFAS/ZTDBB

• Co-lead theMFT.

• Provide management oversight of programcost,scheduleand performance toensure

DFAS/ ZTBDD goals andobjectives are met.

• Ensuretechnical requirements and costestimates meetmission needs.

• Ensure MFT-developed documents satisfy mission requirements.

• Serveasthe designated assessing official for annual CPAR inputs.

• Lead thedevelopment of the acquisition strategy.

COR Supervisor

DFAS/ZTBDD

• Create and maintain a COR Supervisor role in the WAWF CORT Tool.

• Nominate qualified individual(s) toserveas COR.

• Incorporate performance of COR responsibilitiesintoCOR's performance objectives for performance evaluation.

• Evaluate COR performanceanddocument in COR'sperformance evaluation.

• Ensures that the COR will be afforded necessary resources (time, equipment, opportunity)toperformdesignatedCOR responsibilities.

FD

DFAS/ZTBD

• Identify requirementneedswithinhis/her functionalarea.

• Review contractor performance documentation.

• Review COR CPAR inputs.

Page 6 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

COR

DFAS/ZTBDD

• Evaluate and document contractorperformance perthe QASP.

• Notify the KOof significant performance deficiencies.

• Maintain surveillance assessment documentation.

• Recommend changes to improve performance.

• Submit monthlyreportsoncontractor performance.

• Submit semi-annual and annual CPAR inputs to the customer PoC.

• Completesall required CORtraining orrefresher training.

• Certifiesacceptanceofservices.

• Recommendsanychangestothecontract, PWS, performance plan,orother requirementstoprovidemore effective operationsoreliminate unnecessary costs.

Contractor

(TBD)

• Comply fullywiththeterms andconditions ofthecontract.

• Participateasa member ofthe MFT inthe post-award management phase.

• Maintainandimplement aqualitycontrol plan(QCP).

• Identify and correct nonconforming services/products.

• Only tender to the Government services/products that meet contract requirements.

• Recommend contract changes to provide more effective operations or eliminate unnecessary costs.

3.0 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

This process measures the contractor’s success inachieving thedefined performance objectives in theService Summary (SS).The resultsofthese inspections are documented. Shouldadiscrepancy beobserved, the Customer PoC and the KO will benotified prior to issuing the contractor a formal Corrective Action Report (CAR).

3.1 Surveillane Approach/Methods.

This plan leverages the contractor's internal quality control processes in conjunction with COR oversight. The Governments' evaluation of the contractor results is the basis for the Quality Assurance. The COR will accomplish surveillane using the methods described in Table B below, as applicable/required. The Government evaluators will periodically update the surveillance approach when necessary.

Table B

Letter Method Description A Document Review Areviewofinformation anditssupportingmedium infinal documents or deliverables.

B Mandatory Government Inspection

A compulsory inspection of contractor products, processes, or services locally imposed or requested bythe Customer PoC or KO.

Page 7 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

C Process Evaluation An assessment ofcontractorworkactivities,in addition to in-depth requirements analysis and specifications flow down review to ultimately ensure appropriate documentation and processcontrolsareinplace.

D Walk-down A visual inspection of facility structures, systems and components to identify the as-found physical configuration and any discrepancies using currently approved documentation.

3.1.1 Acceptability

All services performed must meet the prescribed performance objectives stated in the Surveillance Matrix tobe considered asacceptable. The COR will verify theperformance objectives are contracturally compliant. Each perfonnance objective includes a Government determined performance threshold.

3.1.2 Performance Assessment/Surveillance Matrix.

The COR will perform surveillance for each performance objective primarily using the matrix listed below, and may use other methods needed to verify contractor performance.

Table C

PWS

Ref.

Performance Objective

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Surveillance

Method

3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8

Software Development and Maintenenace

Satisfactory performance of this task will result in the following deliverables:

• System Problem Report

• Project Status Report

• System Change Request

(SCR)

• Software Enhancements and Modifications

Meet quality and delivery schedule ninety-eight percent (98%) of the time.

A – Document Review B – Mandatory Government Inspection

Page 8 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

3.9 Documentation Satisfactory performance of

this task will result in the following deliverables upon request by the Government:

• User Manuals

• Help Screens

• Training Materials

• Database definitions and schemas

• Software Releases

No more than one (1) late document per month, and no more than five (5) workdays late (due to improper coordination effort by contractor). No more than two (2) sets of corrections (attributed to mistakes made by the contractor) required on any product. Also, all corrections must be submitted within 1 working day of the contract specified suspense.

Deliverables will be measured in terms of quality (e.g., using rigor, standard Systems Engineering best practices/lessons learned, etc.) completeness, and impact to the Government mission. A minimum of three recommendations/inputs are implemented by DFAS/ZTB leadership during the contract or contract base year period of performance. This will be reset for each subsequent exercised option periods of performance.

A – Document Review

3.10 Product/Customer

Service Support

C – Process Evaluation

3.11 Software Testing Satisfactory performance of

this task will result in the following deliverables upon request by the Government:

• Software Enhancements and Modifications

• Software Releases

• Software Testing

Documentation

A – Document Review

B – Mandatory

Page 9 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

3.13 Rates/Updates/

Manuals

Satisfactory compliance with the task will result in the Contractor providing the following deliverables:

• Software releases with

User’s Manual

• Software Releases

Milestones

A – Document Review

B – Mandatory

Inspection

5.3.6 Installation Procedures Accepted if during testing

they accurately and successfully install the release. Accurately and successfully are defined as being able to start the software and fully utilize all aspects after the installation of the release.

B – Mandatory Government Inspection

5.3.7 User manuals/User manual

updates

Accepted if they document system operation, to include procedures and computation for any and all software changes.

A – Document Review

5.3.8 Documented SCRs and

PIRs

Accepted if, when receiving a software update, any programmed SCRs or fixed PIRs are documented as being in the update.

A – Document Review

5.3.9 Automated Computation

Results

Accepted when the Government POC has verified the accuracy of the computation.

B – Mandatory

Page 10 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

5.3.10 Per Diem Rates Accepted if they are in

agreement with the Per Diem Committee's published CONUS and OCONUS monthly rates and executable for accurate computations.

B – Mandatory

4.0 QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

The contractor shall utilize its own internal Quality Control processes in the performance of this contract. In order to supplement the contractor's quality control program, Government personnel will verify contractor compliance with mission essential performance requirements. The COR will verify the key performance objectives. It is the responsibility of the Customer PoC and COR to review these key objectives to assess their applicability and recommend to the KO, any addition or subtraction as conditions warrant.

4.1 Customer Feedback/Survey Program

The Customer Feedback (CF) process provides a method to document and communicate customer feedback, including perceived nonconformities with contractor provided services. The COR will follow-up on and validate all CFs received. Nonconformities are resolved using the normal CAR process (see Section 6 below). All CARs will be entered and tracked using locally generated database. The CF process is described below:

Customer Feedback forms will be provided to Travel Pay System customers (e.g. program operators etc.). Customer Surveys may be conducted quarterly to assess customer satisfaction with contractor performance.

Validated Negative CFs will be weighed against contractor's performance. Customers who encounter poor or unacceptable service can also contact the COR by telephone, email, or letter.

If the COR identifies recurring instances of unsatisfactory performance, they may request to review the contractor's internal quality control processes to ensure they are sufficient.

Customer complaints will be tracked and if the performance threshold is exceeded, action will be taken by the KO in accordance with the applicable Inspection/Acceptance and/or Remedies for Unacceptable Performance clauses.

Page 11 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

5.0 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

This section identifies the use of performance measurement information to effect positive change in organizational culture, systems, and processes, by helping to set agreed upon performance goals, allocating and prioritizing resources, informing managers to either confirm or change current policy or program directions to meet those goals, and sharing results of performance in pursuing those goals.

5.1 COR Records Review

The KO will review the COR's surveillance files in the DoD CORT Tool annually (initially on the anniversary of COR appointment) to ensure surveillance is properly conducted and documented, and contractor performance is within acceptable levels. The results of these annual reviews will be documented in the DoD CORT Tool database and feedback of COR performance will be provided to the COR Supervisor.

5.2 Performance Feedback

Documentation is required to record, evaluate, and report contractor's performance.

Within 10 business days following the end of each month, the COR will complete a narrative summary of contractor performance, the COR Supervisor will review and then the COR will upload it into the DoD CORT Tool database for CO approval. The COR will also keep the FD informed of all performance assessments. This information is strictly a tool to provide the contractor a snapshot view of their performance. The Performance Standards in Table D will be used.

5.3 Performance Ratings

Table D

Performance Ratings

Criteria

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government's benefit. The contractual performance of the standard being assessed was accomplishe d with almost no minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor, and the corrective actions were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government's benefit. The contractual performance standard being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the standard contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Page 12 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the standard 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 full implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the standard contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions don't appear or were ineffective.

Note: If the contractor meets all requirements of the performance objectives they will be rated as "Satisfactory".

Any rating above or below a satisfactory rating will need to be justified with specific facts to support the rating.

6. CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTIVE ACTION

The corrective action process provides for the documentation, communication, investigation, and resolution of nonconformities affecting contractor processes, systems and products. When nonconformities or potential nonconformities are identified concurrently with contractor personnel, the COR will allow the contractor to utilize their internal corrective and preventive action process to document and resolve the nonconformity. When nonconformities are independently identified, the COR validates the nonconformit y with the MFT and initiates a CAR.

If any Government action, or lack of action, caused or contributed to the nonconformities, the nonconformities will not be counted against the contractor. The COR will take action to ensure the referenced Government action, or lack of action, does not interfere with the Contractor’s performance in the future. The COR will completely document the circumstance and upload all supporting documents and findings into the CORT Tool database.

When the nonconformity is not as a result of Government action, or lack of action, the COR shall promptly notify the contractor and draft a CAR. The COR provides the draft CAR to the KO for review prior to issuance to the contractor. The contractor has 15 business days to respond a CAR. By initialing and dating the CAR, the contractor is acknowledging that he/she has been informed of the nonconformity and is agreeing with the performance assessment. The COR shall direct the contractor to re-perform the service at no additional cost to the Government. If the contractor challenges the validity of the COR’s nonconformity assessment, and the COR and contractor cannot come to an agreement, the matter shall be referred to the KO for resolution. The contractor shall be required to return all completed CARs to the COR no later than the suspense date indicated on the CAR.

CARs range from Level I to III as shown below:

Page 13 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

Table E

CAR

Level

Nonconformity

I Non-conformance that is usually administrativeinnature, a minor isolated occurrence that usually can be corrected on the spot and where no further corrective action response is necessary.

Iss uing and closingauthority is the COR.

II Non-conformance that may be considered for one or more of the following:

• could affect quality program health, cost, schedule, performance; documents system or process problems or trends identified through repeat ofa Level ICAR;

• Inadequate contractor corrective action taken in response to a Level I CAR. A written response is required from the contractoraddressing root causeandcorrective/preventive action.

Issuingand closing authority is the COR inconcurrence with the MFT.

III Non-conformance that may beconsidered for one or more ofthe following:

• could result in significant degradation of the quality system; lack of confidence in the final product/service; potential or realized damageto Travel Pay Systemhardware and/orDFAS I&T infrastructure;

• Inadequate contractor corrective action taken in response to a Level II CAR; or multiple in stances of the same type of nonconformance which brings the overall acceptability of the contractor's quality system intoquestion. A written responseis required from thecontractoraddressing root cause andcorrective /preventiveaction.

Iss uing and closing authority is the COR in concurrencewiththe MFT.

The COR shall maintain a CAR logof all CARs issued to the Contractor (a locally devised form maybe used). The CAR logshall contain the CAR number, date issued, contractor, description of unacceptable performance, suspense date, and closeout date. All CARs and CAR logs shall be maintained bythe COR for the lifeof the contract or contract and uploaded into the CORT Tool database.

The COR performs follow-up for all MFT-validated nonconformities toensure the root cause of the nonconformity is determined and documented. The COR shall also validate the corrective action is appropriate, implemented, and documented.

7. CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT

Continual Improvement is an on-going effort to refine and enhance contractor processes, systems, and products. When potential improvements are identified, the COR coordinates the improvement withthe MFTand initiatesacontinual improvementopportunity (CIO).

CIOs are provided to the process owner for adoption consideration. Adoption of Government-identified CIOs are solely at the discretion of the contractor and shall not be considered direction by the government. The COR performs follow-up for all CIOs todetermine adoption status, briefs the status of CIOs to the MFT, and closes the CIO as appropriate.

Page 14 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

8. PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE

The COR will certify receipt of acceptable contractor services each month. All services performed must meet the prescribed performance objectives stated in the SS to beregarded as acceptable. The CORwillverifytheperformanceobjectives are must be contractually compliant.Each performanceobjective includes a Government determined performance threshold. The COR will certify receipt of contractorservices viathe Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) website. Certification ofservices shall be accomplished onthe first workdayfollowing thecompletion ofthe contract payment period, toavoid payment of interest penalties.

Page 15 of 15 RFP # HQ042319R0014 Attachment 02

APPENDIX – ACRONYMS

CAR Corrective Action Report

CIO Continual Improvement Opportuinity

CF Customer Feedback

KO Contracting Officer

COR Contracting Officer Represenatative

CORT Contracting Officer Representative Tracking

CPAR Contractor Performance Assessment Report

DoD Department of Defense

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction

FD Functional Director

MIS Management Information System

MFT Multi-functional Team

PM Program Manager

PWS Performance work Statement

QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

QAPC Quality Assurnance Program Coordinator

SS Service Sumarry

WAWF Wide Area Workflow