Attachment_E_PRS_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Monitoring the performance of multiple contractors and partners with overlapping contributions to the Risk MAP Program presents a technical and administrative challenge. The creation of a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) supports FEMA’s requirement for measurable inspection and acceptance criteria corresponding to established performance standards. An associated Award Fee Plan allows FEMA to align contractor incentives to the achievement of program performance goals and standards. The provider will develop a Program

Management Performance Requirements Matrix (PRM). This Matrix will be the primary tool for

FEMA and the provider to establish performance measures and criteria and to assign award fee criteria for this contract. The intent of this document is to describe the process for developing the

PRM, ongoing surveillance, and for determining Award Fee. The metrics below and their thresholds are notional, and will need to be agreed upon as part of the contract acceptance/award.

PRM Development Approach

The provider will work collaboratively with FEMA to identify Program Management goals that support the achievement of Risk MAP commitments. From these goals, a set of supporting performance measures will be developed that will form the basis for the PRM. In order for this to be an effective tool for monitoring program and contractor performance, the measures must be:

Quantifiable and measurable

Aligned to key program outcomes

Not administratively burdensome to monitor and report

Achievable within the scope of the task order

The PRM, when complete, will contain the agreed upon PM goals, performance measures, acceptable quality levels (AQL)/ targets, surveillance method/ FEMA POC, and weighting for any award fee determination. As part of the contract acceptance/award, the provider will work with FEMA to finalize the PRM.

The PRM will be effective for the period of performance and scope of work awarded. A review of the PRM in effect will be completed for any task order changes, or the execution of proposed options. This may require changes to performance measures, targets, or goals within the PRM. Additionally, program events or changing priorities may require the reevaluation and adjustment of the PRM, to help confirm alignment with program goals. As such, future changes may be made with the mutual agreement of FEMA and the provider.

Surveillance

The surveillance methodology is critical to making the QASP/PRM an effective management tool for FEMA. For each measure, a detailed surveillance approach will be outlined that describes how data will be compiled or how outcomes will be evaluated. A FEMA POC will be assigned for each measure and will be responsible for validating the correct surveillance process has been applied.

The provider will compile and complete a self-assessment report every 6 months. This report will contain the provider’s evaluation of its performance against the measures established in the PRM. Additional supporting material may be provided to FEMA to enable a better review of the self-assessment Report.

Notional Metric Detail/Evaluation Criteria

Metric 1: Transition Management

Metric 2: Common Risk MAP metric - Program Performance

Metric 3: Program level SPI and CPI performance

Metric 4: Customer Satisfaction Survey

The PM contractor will provide a self assessment of its respective performance to the government in accordance with the award fee plan. The award fee evaluation periods will be documented in each task order.

The overall Award Fee determined by the AFRB will be based on the findings for each individual metric and this table as depicted in the FAR:

Metric 1: Transition Management

This measure assesses the successful completion of knowledge transfer and transition from the previous provider.

Surveillance Official: Program Management Contract COR

Standards for Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Good, Very Good, and Excellent performance will be:

The award fee will be pro-rated accordingly

Award-Fee Adjectival

Rating

Award-Fee Pool Available To Be

Earned

Description

Excellent 91%-100% Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Very Good 76%-90% Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Good 51%-75% Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50%

Contractor has met overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Unsatisfactory 0% Contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements of the contract as defined and measured against the criteria in the award-fee plan for the award-fee evaluation period.

Award-Fee Adjectival Rating Award-Fee Pool Available To Be Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100% Thresholds TBD

Very Good 76%-90% Thresholds TBD

Good 51%-75% Thresholds TBD

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50% Thresholds TBD

Unsatisfactory 0% Thresholds TBD

Metric 2: Common Risk MAP Metric -

Risk MAP Program Wide Measures including New, Validated, or Updated Engineering

(NVUE); Deployment; Stakeholder Awareness; and Mitigation Actions

Metric 1 will be a common metric for all Risk MAP Providers. The Metric is tied to the Risk

MAP national goals for NVUE, Deployment, Stakeholder Awareness, and Mitigation Actions.

Progress towards achievement of the Risk MAP goals will be scored at the end of the FEMA fiscal year (e.g. September 30, 2013); therefore, this metric will be measured only. Each of the 4 sub-metrics (deployment, NVUE, Awareness and Action) will be described in the provider’s

PRS summary and thresholds established in the table below.

Surveillance Official: Program Management Contract COR

Metric 3: Program level SPI and CPI performance

This metric measures the achievement of Risk MAP Program cost and schedule performance thresholds. This would include the cumulative Program SPI and CPI for work performed by PM, PTS, and CDS providers during the period of performance. Program SPI/ CPI data represents cumulative non-MIP program performance data for the Risk MAP contracts (PM, CDS, PTS) and is obtained from the Monthly CPR. Both indices are required individually to exceed the threshold levels to achieve the rating.

Corrections for performance impacts (SPI/ CPI) due to significant events outside of Program

Management Control may be considered at the discretion of the Deputy Program Director.

Surveillance Official: A.1 Program Area Manager

Award-Fee Adjectival Rating Award-Fee Pool Available To Be Earned Description

Excellent 91%-100% Thresholds TBD

Very Good 76%-90% Thresholds TBD

Good 51%-75% Thresholds TBD

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50% Thresholds TBD

Unsatisfactory 0% Thresholds TBD

Award-Fee Adjectival Rating

Award-Fee Pool Available To Be Earned

Description

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies greater than .96 SPI and CPI and up to .97 or greater SPI and CPI

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies greater than .95 SPI and CPI and up to and including .96 SPI and CPI

Good 51%-75% A rating of good signifies greater than .94 SPI and CPI and up to and including .95 SPI and CPI

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50% A rating of satisfactory signifies .93 SPI and CPI and up to

Metric 4: Customer Satisfaction Survey

A Customer Satisfaction Survey will be completed at the end of each period of performance and averaged for that period. The standard FEMA survey will be completed by Program Area

Managers, Branch Chiefs, CO, CAC, PCL, PM COR, and Program Deputy Director. Assessment factors will be based on performance with respect to the quality of work products and services provided, per the scope and level of support identified in the PM Task Order, and FEMA priorities.

Weighting of Metrics

Unless noted otherwise in an individual Task Order the weights of the metrics will be 25% for each metric. For Task Orders or evaluation periods in task orders for which a given metric does not apply the weight of that (or those) metric(s) will be 0% and the remaining metrics will be adjusted proportionally to make the total possible award fee 100%.

and including .94 SPI and CPI

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies less than .93 SPI and CPI

Award-Fee Adjectival Rating

Award-Fee Pool Available To Be Earned

Description

Excellent 91%-100% A rating of excellent signifies the average score is greater than 3.8 and up to 4.0 or greater

Very Good 76%-90% A rating of very good signifies the average score is greater than 3.4 and up to and including 3.8

Good 51%-75% A rating of good signifies the average score greater than

3.0 and up to and including 3.4.

Satisfactory No Greater Than 50% A rating of satisfactory signifies the average score is 3.0.

Unsatisfactory 0% A rating of unsatisfactory signifies the average score is less than 3.0.