QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

BASE OPERATION SUPPORT SERVICES

AT USCG Base Kodiak, KODIAK, AK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Service Work Surveillance

4.4 Preventive maintenance Surveillance

4.5 Contractor Quality Control Surveillance

4.6 Acceptable Quality Levels

4.7 Maximum Allowable Defect Rate

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Unacceptable Performance

6.4 Reviews and Resolution

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled Base Operation Support Services at Base Kodiak, Kodiak, AK. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines Base Kodiak Facilities Engineering Department (FED) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or service levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance, 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 defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project team (IPT), identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, non compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by FED to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved.

Performance management rests on developing the capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessments. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the contractor.

Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent.

This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control (QC) program. QC is work output and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. The contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make determinations regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and the contractor. The KO will designate one full-time Contracting Officers Representative (COR) as the government authority for performance management.

The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the

CO.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The contracting officer’s representative (COR) is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Appendix E of the PWS, Appendix E (Performance Requirements Summary.) If the contractor meets the required performance standards or performance level, it will be paid the monthly amount agreed on in the contract.

Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction from the monthly amount.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are (include those that apply)

100% Inspection/Reports – Each month a COR, shall review the associated work and/or generated documentation and enter summary results into the Surveillance Activity Checklist.

Periodic Inspection – A COR designated inspector typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

Random Sampling, which shall be performed the COR designated inspector. The random selection process will be carried out in accordance with Appendix 1. To determine an appropriate sample size Table 4.1 should be consulted. Random number generation is typically accomplished using a spreadsheet function. Where general areas of the installation are inspected the COR will select 5 areas at random based on the areas defined in the Base Area Map, Technical Exhibit 1.6.

Table 4-1

Lot Size Sample Size 2-8 2 9-15 3 16-25 5 26-50 8 51-90 13 91-150 20 151-280 32 281-500 50 501-1200 80 1201-3200 125

3201-10,000 200 10,001-35,000 315 35,001-150,000 500 150,001-500,000 800 500,001 and over 1250

Spot Checks – A COR designated inspector will perform a spot check on a once monthly basis

Direct Observation – A COR designated inspector may directly observe any area

4.2 Customer Feedback

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints.

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems. The customer does however have the option to communicate complaints to the KO, ACO, or COR, as opposed to the contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate using the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form – Customer Complaint Investigation, identified in Attachment 2.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

4.3 Service Work Surveillance

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain a competent service work program that delivers timely services in an efficient and effective manner. Surveillance of this task area requires consistent application of the PRS standards to the work being performed. The requisite process has been outlined in Appendix 2.

4.4 Preventive maintenance Surveillance

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain a competent preventive maintenance program that delivers well managed services in an efficient and effective manner. Surveillance of this task area requires consistent application of the PRS standards to the work being performed. The requisite process to accomplish this has been outlined in Appendix 3.

4.5 Contractor Quality Control Surveillance

An integral aspect of Performance management is the contractor’s Quality Control program. The contractor is expected to implement a comprehensive and robust Quality Control process that preempts defects from becoming an issue that the government has to expend resources resolving. The primary COR will be responsible investigating lapses in contractor quality control

4.6 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in PWS Appendix E, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed. The AQL is the expected standard of performance based on the ratio of acceptable observed work performed to total work performed. When the observed Quality level is lower than the AQL it indicates that the contractor’s quality control is unsatisfactory. The AQL is expressed as a percentage of the total population per period of time. Incidents reflect a one to one relationship with defects (i.e. they are the same). For certain critical activities the desired performance level is established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission

4.7 Maximum Allowable Defect Rate

The Maximum Allowable Defect Rate (MADR) included in PWS appendix E, Performance Requirement Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to define clear targets for performance.

The MADR is the defect rate for a population of services which, when exceeded, indicates that the Contractor's quality control is unsatisfactory. The MADR as a number of defects per period of time.

Incidents reflect a one to one relationship with defects (i.e. they are the same)

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes.

Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in PWS Appendix E.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachments 1 and 2. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

The ACO will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs/MADRs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels. Failure to meet the AQL or MADR may result in a deduction from the monthly payment, using the deduction percentages shown in PWS Appendix E.

6.2 Reporting

At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report for the ACO summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes applicable contractor submitted reports and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (Attachment 1), will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

6.3 Unacceptable Performance

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file.

When the KO determines formal written communication is required, the ACO shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the contractor's project manager. The CDR will be prepared on DD Form 2772, SEP 1998 or the most recent version available.

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR 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 CDR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COR. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.

Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

6.4 Reviews and Resolution

The ACO may require the contractor’s project manager or a designated alternate to meet with the KO, COR, and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The ACO will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR or ACO as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

Issues and concerns of both parties

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

The ACO must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The COR, ACO, and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action.

Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels should be clearly documented.

Changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the KO/ACO.

ATTACHMENT 1: QUALITY SURVEILLANCE MONITORING REPORT

CLIN: Service:

Period (M/YY): Performance Measure:

Attachments

Y COR

N

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

Spot Check Report Direct Observation

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (CHECK):

Monthly Quarterly As needed

LOT AND SAMPLE SIZE

Total number of tasks (i.e. LOT size) for this period:

Sample size from QASP Table 4-1:

OBSERVED DEFECTS (ATTACH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AS NEEDED)

01 07 02 08 03 09 04 10 05 11 06 12

LIST CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTS (CHECK IF APPLICABLE)

ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FROM PRS

Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

Lowest Max Allowable Defect (MAD):

SURVEILLANCE RESULTS

Number of Observed Defects:

Observed Quality Level (1-(Defects/Sample Size):

RECOMMENDATION:

The contract work is satisfactory (Equal to or greater than AQL or Less than lowest MAD).

The contract work is NOT satisfactory.

Recommended contract deduction (Ref Attached Calculation Work Sheet)

COR Signature: Date

CONTRACTING OFFICER FINAL ACTION (PRICE REDUCTION ONLY)

Monthly Payment for Satisfactory Work:

Less Approved Price Reduction:

Payment for: (Period/Year)

KO Signature: Date

ATTACHMENT 2: QUALITY SURVEILLANCE CUSTOMER COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

DATE/TIME COMPLAINT RECEIVED: AM/PM

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT: (Name)

(Organization)

(Phone Number)

(E-Mail Address)

NATURE OF COMPLAINT:

RESULTS OF COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION:

DATE/TIME SERVICE PROVIDER INFORMED OF COMPLAINT: AM/PM

CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN BY SERVICE PROVIDER:

PREPARED BY: DATE:

RECEIVED AND VALIDATED BY:

Appendix 1, Random Sampling

Contractor Schedule Contractor Completion Report

Determine lot Size (assign sequential number to entire lot)

Determine Sample Size, QASP Table 4.1

Sequencially number entire Lot

Use Random Number Generator to produce a Qty of random numbers equal to the

Sample Size

Conduct Inspection using the Appropriate Surveillance Processes

Complete QA Monitoring Form

(QASP Attachment 1)

Submit to Primary COR for Monthly QA

Report

CMMS Data

Each Random Number identifies the line item to be

Surveilled

Appendix 2, Service Work Surveillance Method

CMMS Data

Spot Check Method

Random Sampling Method

Review Data Accuracy

Determine Quality Level

(AQL = 98%)

Data Compliant

Certification Process Deduction Process

Yes No

Correct WO Prioritization

Proper Customer Notification

Work Control

Certification ProcessDeduction Process

Yes

No

No

Determine Quality Level

(AQL = 95%)

Yes

Workmanship

Spot Check ongoing work orders

(Note Unresolved Defects)

WO Completion Report

Random Sampling Method

Incorporate Validated Customer

Complaints

Defects?

Certification Process

No

Timliness

Rework <11 Defects

Deduction Process

Yes

Yes

No

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 & 4No No

Determine Quality Level (AQL = 100%)

Determine Quality Level (AQL = 90%)

Determine Quality Level (AQL = 80%)

Timeliness Compliant

Yes Yes Yes

Certification Process Deduction Process

Yes No

Appendix 3, Preventive Maintenance Method

Spot Check Method

Random Sampling Method

Review Data Accuracy

<16 Defects

Deduction Process Certification Process

No Yes

Contractor PM Plan

Completed PM

PM Completion Report

Compare Scheduled vs.

Actual Completion

AQL > 50%

Deduction Process Certification Process

Compliant

Yes

No

No

Category 1 Equipment

Equipment Failure

Lack of Maint or Service?

Certification Process

No

Yes

Deduction Process

No

Yes

Equipment Failure

Lack of Maint or Service?

Certification Process

No

Yes

Deduction Process

No

Category 2 Equipment

Quality Level QL=((AxB)-C)/(AxB)

QL > 90%Yes

Compliant?

No

No

Yes

Yes Determine Quality

Level

CMMS

Data

(A) Qty of Equipment

(B) No. of Days in Period

(C) No. of Days Equipment not in service