Attachment_16_Section_E_MHU_Quality_Assurance_Plan.pdf

HSFE70-14-R-0005

Attachment 16 Section E MHU Quality Assurance Plan

5/1/2014

HSFE70-14-R-0005 Section E

E-1

E.5.1 FEMA Quality Assurance Plan

1. Introduction

This Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) has been developed to support the requirements set forth in

Solicitation.

Due to the critical nature of this contract in providing assistance to survivors of a disaster, FEMA must monitor and evaluate performance to ensure that quality services, supplies, and work performed are rendered in an expedited manner with minimal setbacks. The role of the government is to perform quality assurance to ensure that contract and work order requirements are appropriately achieved.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this QAP is to document procedures, guidelines, and evaluation criteria the

Government will use to monitor, evaluate, and ensure the contractor provides appropriate technical performance and quality service in a timely manner consistent with the objectives, mission, and performance requirements in the contract.

2. Overview and Scope

2.1 Overview

The QAP provides details of how the Government intends to monitor, evaluate and measure contractor performance for the base contract (Attachment 16: Appendix 2) and all related task orders (Attachment 16: Appendix 1) in accordance with contract. Government surveillance and oversight of the contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) is to ensure that the delivery of contractor services are timely, effective and achieve the results specified in the contract.

2.2 Performance Requirement QAP Matrix

The Government will use the appropriate Performance Requirement QAP Matrix, along with the technical requirements of the contract for monitoring and evaluation to determine areas of performance relevant to individual task orders and the contract. For this QAP, there are two matrices 1) the Task Order Performance Areas (TOPA) QAP Matrix (Attachment 16: Appendix

1) which will be used to rate the contractors within the period of time required by the FAR after the completion of a task order, and 2) the Contract Performance Areas (CPA) QAP Matrix

(Attachment 16: Appendix 2) which will be used to rate the contractors at the end of each contract year, if options are exercised. FEMA will use information gathered through the surveillance methods and activities to provide the data that is used as the basis of the contractor’s performance rating.

2.3 Methods for Surveillance

E-2

Methods of surveillance identified in this document will be used to provide data that will be used to assess contractor performance in accordance with the technical requirements of the contract.

The QAP Matrix elements and Manufactured Home checklist will be utilized to determine factors for monitoring and evaluation. A variety of surveillance methods (see Section E.4) may be considered for the awarded contract and task orders.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will develop a planned surveillance schedule identifying the work to be observed or monitored. The COR will develop and apply the appropriate checklist(s) to document contractor performance for each observable task.

2.4 Evaluation Procedures

Assessments for contractor performance will be documented using the appropriate Performance

Worksheet (Attachment 16 Appendix 4) and a final contractor rating will be determined using the Performance Evaluation Calculator.

2.5 QAP Implementation

The QAP is designed to focus on the quality, quantity and timeliness of the performance outputs provided by the Contractor. Successful implementation of the QAP is based upon careful planning and targeted use of the following:

1. Surveillance Planning and Scheduling;

2. Data analysis of surveillance results;

3. Consistent performance of QAP requirements; and

4. Frequent QAP updates based on surveillance results or Contractor improvements.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

The Government and Contractor responsibilities for quality assurance are as follows.

3.1 Contracting Officer (CO)

The CO ensures performance of all requirements of the base contract and task orders (TO) to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract and/or TO. The CO safeguards the interests of the government in the contractual relationship. The CO will receive all discrepancy reports and forward them to executive management of the contractor for action upon each noted discrepancy. The CO may monitor, perform surveillance, and evaluate the contractor’s performance at any time during the life of the contract and/or TO.

3.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative

The COR is responsible for the base contract and all related task orders. It is the COR’s responsibility to ensure that contractor performance is in accordance with the technical requirements of the contract and that contractual issues are elevated to the CO. The COR

E-3 develops and applies procedures for performing government quality assurance surveillance actions. The COR shall provide the CO with regular reports and updates on contractor performance. The COR will serve as the government representative for monitoring, surveillance, evaluating and performing quality assurance activities.

The COR responsibilities are contained in the written Letter of Designation from the CO and include the following activities:

Inspection of the product, work, supplies, and/or services.

Recommendation of acceptance or rejection of the product, work, supplies, and/or services.

Assisting the CO in evaluating the contractor's reply to rejection notification.

Maintaining and securing a comprehensive project file until the completion of the task order at which point the file will be forwarded to the CO.

Ensures that contractor quantity, cost effectiveness, timeliness, and performance is monitored, assessed, recorded, and documented.

Establishing and maintaining regular communication with the CO regarding contractor performance including relevant information, reports, and status.

3.3 FEMA Storage and Staging Personnel

The FEMA Storage and Staging Personnel responsibilities are to inspect units upon receipt and conduct scheduled “FEMA preventative maintenance” inspections.

3.4 FEMA Manufactured Home Installation Personnel

The Manufactured Home Installation personnel responsibilities is to report to the COR any issues with unit quality that could not be discovered until the unit has power, water and sewer connections.

3.5 Contractor

The contractor must develop a QCP, subject to CO and COR approval, that sets forth procedures and responsibilities for ensuring high-quality work adequately addressing and supporting the mission requirements, objectives, and schedules in the most cost-efficient manner. The QCP shall indicate the process for ensuring that manufactured home are in compliance with HUD

Code.

4. Methods of Surveillance

4.1 Identifying the Method of Surveillance

The Government will assess the Contractor’s performance using the methods of surveillance identified for each identified task listed in the QAP Matrix. The Government may change time frames and methods of surveillance to measure performance. If one method of surveillance

E-4 identifies potentially unsatisfactory performance, defects, and/or deficiencies having an impact on the task objectives, the COR may determine if a follow-up analysis or a different method of surveillance is appropriate.

4.2 Surveillance Methods

The following surveillance methods shall be applied to monitor contractor performance. The

COR has the authority to monitor, survey, and evaluate the Contractor’s performance at any time. Surveillance and associated activities will be documented, reviewed by the COR, and entered into the Performance Evaluation Worksheets and Calculator.

The COR will perform two essential monitoring functions. One function will focus on monitoring Contractor’s performance regarding the timely execution of the task order and the delivery of the finished product that is completed on schedule. The other function will focus on monitoring the Contractor’s quality control process to ensure the delivery of a high quality product.

4.3 100% Inspection

When this type of surveillance is used, the COR shall assign a site inspection team to monitor, survey, and evaluate the Contractor’s performance each time the Contractor delivers a unit associated with the task order.

This is an inspection method whereby all units of a task order are monitored. This method provides the best indication of Contractor performance and is the most thoroughly documented

4.4 Random Inspection

When this type of surveillance is used, the COR shall assign a site inspection team to monitor, survey, and evaluate the Contractor’s performance at random when the Contractor delivers a unit associated with the task order.

This is an inspection method whereby a select type and number of units of a task order are monitored.

4.5 Documents Analysis

The COR shall perform 100 percent inspections of the documents received. If the documents identify any trends, issues, or information that could negatively impact the mission, the

Contractor may need to perform additional analysis. This method of surveillance allows the

COR to evaluate the outputs or reports through the use of management information systems.

When using generated reports that indicate a possible performance or quality concern, the COR will use other methods to confirm quality, quantity, and/or investigate problem areas.

4.6 Progress and Status Meetings

E-5

Progress or status meetings shall be held as required with the Contractor, determined by the

COR. These meetings will allow the COR and Contractor the opportunity to review and discuss any and all issues related to the execution of the task order.

4.7 Monitoring Techniques

Monitoring techniques to be utilized are:

Direct observation/inspection

Site visits

Conducting meetings

Onsite visits and other personal observations

Phone calls

Reviewing Contractor documents

Reviewing Contractor requests (material change)

Contacting other Government offices

Reviewing tracking and management systems

5. Implementation of the QAP

5.1 Surveillance Intervals (Periods)

The COR shall use the Performance Evaluation Worksheets to identify and monitor Contractor performance on an as-needed basis until the work performed under the task order is completed.

FEMA requires the Contractor to deliver acceptable and quality work. If the Contractor’s performance does not appear to address the requirement as determined by the COR, the COR has the option to increase the level of surveillance to protect the rights of the Government and maintain the desired performance and quality. More frequent evaluations may be warranted when the task order period of performance is very short, the task order volume or scope of work is considered too risky to the Government, or prior work documentation reflected quality and performance concerns.

In Progress Review (IPR) meetings may also be scheduled by the COR to review the

Contractor’s QCP and Contractor provided reports and information resulting from the

Contractor’s quality control efforts in order to assess overall Contractor performance for the task order. If the Contractor anticipates a need for an IPR to address concerns they may request that the COR set up a meeting. The request should be a formal request in writing from the Contractor

Program Manager (PM).

5.2 Performance Criteria

E-6

Results of surveillance activities or events will be documented using the criteria noted in

Appendices 1 and 2 below. Services shall ordinarily not be accepted before completion of

Government contract quality assurance actions (FAR Part 46.5).

Most task orders awarded under the contract shall be evaluated utilizing task order specific criteria including but not limited to the Manufactured Housing Inspection Checklists. These checklists will be used to record what the COR or inspections team has monitored. All ratings assigned by the COR must be supported with formal documentation and entered in the comments section of the activity checklist.

The contract will be analyzed on an annual basis using the criteria outlined in Appendix 2 and the results from each task order evaluation.

5.2.1 Ratings

5.2.1.1 Outstanding Rating (O)

An Outstanding Rating is defined in the matrix below as it relates to the specific Performance

Area.

5.2.1.2 Excellent Rating (E)

An Excellent Rating is defined in the matrix below as it relates to the specific Performance Area.

5.2.1.3 Satisfactory Rating (S)

A Satisfactory Rating is defined in the matrix below as it relates to the specific Performance

Area.

5.2.1.4 Marginal Rating (M)

A Marginal Rating is defined in the matrix below as it relates to the specific Performance Area.

5.2.1.5 Unsatisfactory Rating (U)

An Unsatisfactory Rating is defined in the matrix below as it relates to the specific Performance

Area.

5.3 Rating Determination

Determination of the contractor’s rating for each task order will involve evaluating performance using the applicable QAP Matrix, Performance Evaluation Sheet and Checklist(s). To the extent possible, the Government has made the individual criteria as quantitative as possible to reduce the level of subjectivity in the evaluation process.

E-7

The COR shall assign a rating for each area in accordance with the performance standards and metrics identified in the applicable QAP Matrix. The COR shall closely review the performance, surveillance data and other available information to make a determination of the rating for the period. The COR will document any impacts, negative or positive on performance of the primary contractor which includes the subcontractors.

Where applicable, the COR will use a specific quality assurance checklist and/or worksheet to monitor contractor performance of associated requirements. During a performance period, multiple checklists may be used to document findings and these will form the basis of the rating the contractor will receive.

5.4 Surveillance Outcomes

The results of surveillance activities will be documented using the Performance Evaluation

Worksheets to determine the contractor’s performance.

5.5 Response to Surveillance Outcomes

5.5.1 Contractor Notification of Surveillance Outcomes

The COR will inform the contractor of potentially unsatisfactory performance by issuing a

Discrepancy Report, (Attachment 16 Appendix 4) as soon as the discrepancy is noted and request the contractor’s initials and date on the Task Order Discrepancy Report form. By initialing and dating the form, the contractor is acknowledging that they have been notified of the potential discrepancy. The representative is not agreeing or disagreeing with the discrepancy report but acknowledging receipt of the form.

If the contractor disputes the results of the evaluation, the COR shall arrange for a meeting with the CO, in person or by telephone conference to attempt to resolve the matter. The COR shall provide the form and written narrative to substantiate the findings to the CO.

5.5.2 Nonconforming Outcomes

When nonconforming supplies or services are identified, the CO shall give the Contractor an opportunity to correct or replace the nonconforming supplies or services when this can be accomplished within the required delivery schedule, see Appendix # 2 – Contract Performance

Requirement QAP Matrix, CPA #4. FEMA will provide the time for repairs to the contractor based on the quantity of units that require repair, the complexity of the repair and the availability of materials or other issues that FEMA deems reasonable to take into consideration. Unless the contract specifies otherwise, correction or replacement shall be made without additional cost to the Government.

If the nonconformance is major or critical, the supplies and/or services will not be accepted.

The CO shall discourage the contractor from offering nonconforming supplies or services.

E-8

For minor nonconformance, the COR within his/her authority and responsibility may recommend the following to the CO:

1. Accept and have the contractor replace at no additional cost.

2. Accept and FEMA will replace or repair and charge the contractor.

3. Accept at price reduction.

4. Reject.

The COR does not have the authority to approve any of the above courses of action and shall not discuss this with the contractor.

For supplies and services with minor nonconformance, the CO can consider identifying the value of the individual work requirements or tasks that may be subject to a price or fee reduction. This value may be used to determine an equitable adjustment for nonconforming services for fixed price work orders.

The CO will provide a notice of rejection promptly to the contractor, which will include the reasons for rejection.

5.5.3 Discrepancy Report (DR)

A DR can be initiated by the COR at any time during the evaluation period when the results of an evaluation show unsatisfactory or marginal performance for the task order period being monitored or when the contractor is performing below the acceptable performance level (APL).

An example of the DR is included in this document as Attachment 16 Appendix 4.

If the performance is below satisfactory excusable circumstances, the following steps will be followed:

1. The COR discusses the potential issue with the contractor PM and provides a DR.

2. The COR notifies the CO of concurrence or non-concurrence.

3. Upon receipt of the contractor’s response, the CO, in consultation with the COR must evaluate the contractor’s response and take appropriate action.

APPENDIX #1: Task Order Performance Requirement QAP Matrix

Task Order

Performance

Area (TOPA)

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT

STANDARD

TOPA#1

First Article

Testing:

Timeliness

The vendor shall complete First Articles

(one of each unit type required by

FEMA in the task order) within the timeframe specified in the contract/task order and have them ready for inspection

Outstanding: The vendor has all

First Articles ready for inspection up to and not more than three weeks after issuance of TO.

E-9

Task Order

Performance at the test facility.

The vendor shall notify FEMA as to the date that the manufactured homes shall be ready for FEMA’s inspection. FEMA shall, at the Agency’s discretion, send an inspector or inspection team on or after the completion date.

Excellent: The vendor has all

First Articles ready for inspection between three weeks and one day and not more than three and a half weeks after issuance of TO.

Satisfactory The vendor has all

First Articles ready for inspection between three and a half weeks and one day and not more than four weeks after issuance of TO.

Marginal: The vendor has all

First Articles ready for inspection between four weeks and one day and not more than five weeks after issuance of TO.

Unsatisfactory: The vendor has all First Articles ready for inspection more than five weeks after issuance of TO.

TOPA #2

First Article

Testing: Quality

The Contractor shall produce one of each MHU type for the Government for first article inspection at the test facility.

Units shall meet all of the requirements of the contract and the first article inspection checklist (Section J:

Attachment 4).

Outstanding: Unit is ready for immediate shipment/deployment.

Excellent: Unit is ready for shipment/deployment within one business day of inspection.

Satisfactory: Unit is ready for shipment/deployment within two business days of inspection.

Marginal: Unit is ready for shipment/deployment within four business days of inspection.

Unsatisfactory: Unit is ready for shipment/deployment in more

E-10

Task Order

Performance than four business days of inspection.

TOPA #3

Unit Production:

Quality

The Contractor shall deliver units to a specific location where the MHU’s will be inspected using the “Manufacturing

Home Inspection Checklist” (Section J:

Attachment 4). After inspection, units shall be barcoded and ready for dispatch to the disaster area of operation.

Outstanding: 100% of the units are ready for dispatch after inspection.

Excellent: 95% to less than

100% of the units are ready for dispatch after inspection.

Satisfactory: 90% to less than

95% of the units are ready for dispatch after inspection.

Marginal: 80% to less than 90% of the units are ready for dispatch after inspection.

Unsatisfactory: less than 80% of the units are ready for dispatch after inspection.

TOPA #4

Unit Delivery:

Acceptance Rate

The Contractor shall deliver a unit to be inspected by the receiving location, after successfully passing inspection the unit will be barcoded by FEMA.

The Unit Delivery Acceptance Rate is defined by how many delivered units are received and barcoded per week at receiving locations for all applicable delivery sites identified in the task order.

To meet the performance requirement, units shall be received and barcoded

Outstanding: 100% of units delivered in a week are accepted.

Excellent: Less than 100% but more than 95% of units delivered in a week are accepted.

Satisfactory: Less than 95% but more than 90% of units delivered in a week are accepted.

Marginal: Less than 90% but more than 80% of units delivered

E-11

Task Order

Performance

(checked in) during the hours of operation for each receiving location. If a unit is delivered after the hours of operations or the check in process extends beyond the hours of operation, the delivery date will recorded as the next business day.

Receiving hours: 8:00am to 2:00pm

(Local/Receiving location Time Zone)

Operational day: Monday to Friday excluding Federal Holidays in a week are accepted.

Unsatisfactory: Less than 80% of units delivered in a week are accepted.

TOPA #5

Failed Unit Re-

Inspection:

Timeliness

The contractor shall repair and return units that fail inspection. Failed units shall meet the contract requirements upon re-inspection within1 business day.

Outstanding: no rating

Excellent: no rating

Satisfactory: All units that fail inspection are returned to FEMA for re-inspection and acceptance within 1 business day.

Marginal: 10% or less of the units are returned to FEMA for re-inspection and acceptance in less than 2 business days. The remaining units are returned and accepted within 1 business day.

Unsatisfactory: Anything below marginal.

TOPA #6

Failed Unit Re-

Inspection:

Quality

The contractor shall repair and return units that fail inspection. Failed units shall meet the contract requirements upon re-inspection.

Outstanding: no rating

Excellent: no rating

Satisfactory: Upon re-inspection, all units pass inspection.

E-12

Task Order

Performance

Marginal: Any unit has to be re-inspected a second time.

Unsatisfactory: Any unit has to be re-inspected more than twice.

TOPA #7

Repair (Direct

Delivery):

Timeliness

Repair timeliness is the time that the manufacturer takes to perform a repair in order to make direct delivered MHUs compliant with the Contract and/or task order requirements and RFD.

Repair is defined as any correction to an item that is discovered not to be incompliance with the acceptance checklist.

Note: The vendor will not be scored on work that is not performed by them or their personnel. For example, if the vendor cannot meet the FEMA required timeframe, FEMA has the option to proceed and hire services for repair at the vendor’s expense.

However, the vendor will be evaluated under communication per this QAP, if the vendor does not communicate their inability to perform a timely repair as required it will be reflected in the communications evaluation scoring.

Outstanding: 98% or more of the units where repaired in less than

1 business day. No unit takes more than 2 business days to repair.

Excellent: 95% to less than 98% of the units where repaired in less than 1 business day. No unit takes more than 2 business days to repair.

Satisfactory: 95% to less than

98% of the units where repaired in less than 2 business days. No unit takes more than 3 business days to repair.

Marginal: 90% to less than 95% of the units where repaired in less than 2 business days. No unit takes more than 4 business days to repair.

Unsatisfactory: More than 10% the units where repaired in more than 2 business days. Any unit takes more than 4 business days to repair.

E-13

Task Order

Performance

TOPA#8

Quality of Units

Delivered (Initial

Installation)

Quality of Units Delivered: Is a measurement that considers and evaluate all units delivered and any issues that prevent the unit from being occupied during the initial installation. These units may or may not be delivered directly to a

FEMA Manufactured Housing Unit mission. Issues evaluated by this performance factor cannot be discovered during FEMA’s acceptance inspection as they only become apparent when a unit is connected to the utility grid (water, sewer, and electric) and all systems are energized, powered up, pressurized or otherwise tested. Units delivered to

FEMA are required to be built with high quality standards and free from such hidden defects.

Items, including, but not limited to, those on the Warranty Repairs in the

Field list (Attachment 12), are defined as a Hidden Defects

*Hidden Defect: A defect that is found during the initial install of the MHU.

These defects are defects that cannot be found while performing the Acceptance

Inspection (Visual Scan).

Outstanding: 100% of the units installed the first time in a disaster did not require perform a repair/replacement using the

Warranty Repairs in the Field program

Excellent: 98% to less than

100% of the units installed the first time in a disaster area require a repair/replacement using the Warranty Repairs in the

Field program

Satisfactory: 95% to less than

98% of the units installed the first time in a disaster area require a repair/replacement using the

Warranty Repairs in the Field program

Marginal: 90% to less than 95% of the units installed the first time in a disaster area require a repair/replacement using the

Warranty Repairs in the Field program.

Unsatisfactory: Less than 90% of the units installed the first time in a disaster area require a repair/replacement using the

Warranty Repairs in the Field program

E-14

Task Order

Performance

TOPA #9

Repair: Quality

Repairs shall be made so that the unit is compliant with the contract requirements after repairs.

Outstanding No rating

Excellent: No Rating

Satisfactory: 100% of the units did not require rework.

Marginal: No more than 3% but less than 5% of the units require rework.

Unsatisfactory: No more than

5% but less than 10% of the units require rework.

TOPA #10

Repair (Storage and Staging ):

Timeliness

Repair (Storage and Staging): Storage and Staging timeliness refers to the time that takes the contractor to repair a Unit that has been accepted by FEMA and it is in Storage or Staging.

This includes all warranty items, except for Warranty Repairs in the Field items.

Performance Timeline:

1. The contractor shall have no more than three (3) calendar days to have a representative arrive at designated

FEMA location (e.g., FEMA Storage

– Cumberland, MD, Selma, AL, or a

FEMA staging area location within a disaster recovery/response operating area).

2. The vendor shall have no more than five (5) calendar days after the date of inspection to provide FEMA with a proposed course of action to make any and all required repairs or provide replacement items. This plan

Outstanding: 98% or more of the units where fully repaired (with no follow on repairs) in timeframe agreed between

FEMA and the contractor.

Excellent: 95% to less than 98% units where fully repaired (with no follow on repairs) in timeframe agreed between

FEMA and the contractor.

Satisfactory: 90% to less than

95% units where fully repaired

(with no follow on repairs) in timeframe agreed between

FEMA and the contractor.

Marginal: 85% to less than 90% units where fully repaired (with no follow on repairs) in timeframe agreed between

FEMA and the contractor.

Unsatisfactory: less than 85%

E-15

Task Order

Performance shall include a proposed timeline.

3. The COR shall review and negotiate with the contractor an acceptable timeline for the repairs. (Note: The

CO becomes the final arbiter of the repair timeline if the contractor and

COR cannot agree.)

4. The contractor shall perform all repair/replacement work within the agreed upon timeline.

*NOTE: The contractor will be evaluated per repair instance; however, if the contractor has to perform another repair in a same unit where the same repair was previously performed, it will receive an unsatisfactory rating.

units where fully repaired (with no follow on repairs) in timeframe agreed between

FEMA and the contractor.

TOPA #11:

Communication:

Timeliness

FEMA will rate the vendor on the ability to communicate required information that is not scheduled.

For example: advance notification of production delays or a timely request for a change in materials used.

Proactive communication: FEMA will rate the vendor in the ability to communicate anticipated issues and conflicts ahead of time. For example, If there are anticipated issues (i.e.

Production delay), the Vendor shall communicate with the COR and maintain communication with the COR informed while the issue is resolved.

Outstanding: There are no instances where slow or no notification impact production or quality.

Excellent: no rating

Satisfactory: There is no more than one (1) instance where show or no notification impacts production or quality.

Marginal: There are no more than two (2) instances where show or no notification impacts production or quality.

Unsatisfactory: There are more than two (2) instances where show or no notification impacts

E-16

Task Order

Performance production or quality.

TOPA #12:

Communication:

Scheduled

FEMA will rate the vendor on the ability to communicate scheduled information in a timely manner.

For example: the vendor is required to notify FEMA 15 days prior to the completion of units for First Article testing.

Outstanding 100% of the scheduled communication is provided within the specified timelines.

Excellent 99% to less than 100% of the scheduled communication is provided within the specified timelines.

Satisfactory 98% to less than

99% of the scheduled communication is provided within the specified timelines.

Marginal: 95% to less than 98% of the scheduled communication is provided within the specified timelines.

Unsatisfactory: less than 95% of

E-17

Task Order

Performance the scheduled communication is provided within the specified timelines.

TOPA #13:

Document

Accuracy

(Certificates of

Origin and

Invoices)

Submitted documents must be reviewed by the vendor as to be devoid of discrepancies or incorrect information.

For example: invoices must contain accurate and correct pricing, an accurate unit description and an accurate

Certificates of Origin (COO)

Outstanding: There are no discrepancies or inaccurate information contained in the document.

Excellent: no rating

Satisfactory: There is no more than one (1) discrepancy contained in the document.

Marginal: There are no more than two (2) discrepancies contained in the document.

Unsatisfactory: There are more than two (2) discrepancies contained the document.

TOPA #14

Task Order

Management

Performance task order management for quality is defined as the number of instances where the COR must intervene to correct the vendor. This can be done by issuing a formal written notice or by involving the Contracting Officer.

Outstanding There are no performance quality issues during the period of performance.

Excellent There are quality issues during the period of performance; however, none of the quality issues rise to a level that requires a formal memorandum or contracting officer intervention.

Satisfactory There is no more than one (1) formal memorandum

E-18

Task Order

Performance or contracting officer intervention.

Marginal There is more than one

(1) and less than five (5) quality issues that require either a formal memorandum or contracting officer intervention.

Unsatisfactory There are more than five (5) quality issues that require either a formal memorandum or contracting officer intervention.

E-19

APPENDIX #2: Contract Performance Requirement QAP Matrix

Contract

Performance

Area (CPA)

CPA#1

Long Term Unit

Quality

The Contractor shall deliver units to a specific location where the MHU’s will be inspected using the “Manufactured Home inspection checklist”. After inspection and acceptance, units shall be stored at manufactured housing storage site or ready for dispatch to the disaster area of operation.

Outstanding: 100% of the units are ready for dispatch after 12 months in storage

Excellent: 95% to less than

100% of the units are ready for dispatch after 12 months in storage

Satisfactory: 90% to less than

95% of the units are ready for dispatch after 12 months in storage

Marginal: 80% to less than

90% of the units are ready for dispatch after 12 months in storage

Unsatisfactory: less than 80% of the units are ready for dispatch after 12 months

CPA#2

Communication

Timely

FEMA will rate the vendor on the ability to communicate required information that is not scheduled.

For example: advance notification of production delays or a timely request for a change in materials used.

Proactive communication: FEMA will rate the vendor in the ability to communicate anticipated issues and conflicts ahead of time. For example, If there are anticipated issues (i.e. Production delay), the Vendor shall communicate with the COR and maintain communication with the COR

Outstanding: There are no instances where slow or no notification impact production or quality.

Excellent: no rating

Satisfactory: There is no more than one (1) instance where show or no notification impacts production or quality.

Marginal: There are no more

E-20

Contract

Performance informed while the issue is resolved. than two (2) instances where show or no notification impacts production or quality.

Unsatisfactory: There are more than two (2) instances where show or no notification impacts production or quality.

CPA#3

Quality of Units

Delivered

(Initial

Installation)

Quality of Units Delivered: Is a measurement that considers and evaluate all units delivered and any issues that prevent the unit from being occupied during the initial installation.

These units may or may not be delivered directly to a FEMA Manufactured Housing

Unit mission. Issues evaluated by this performance factor cannot be discovered during FEMA’s acceptance inspection as they only become apparent when a unit is connected to the utility grid (water, sewer, and electric) and all systems are energized, powered up, pressurized or otherwise tested.

Units delivered to FEMA are required to be built with high quality standards and free from such hidden defects.

Items, including, but not limited to, those on the Warranty Repairs in the Field list

(Attachment 12), are defined as a Hidden

Defects

*Hidden Defect: A defect that is found during the initial install of the MHU. These defects are defects that cannot be found while performing the Acceptance Inspection

(Visual Scan).

Outstanding: 100% of the units installed the first time in a disaster did not require perform a repair/replacement using the Warranty Repairs in the Field program

Excellent: 98% to less than

100% of the units installed the first time in a disaster area require a repair/replacement using the Warranty Repairs in the Field program

Satisfactory: 95% to less than

98% of the units installed the first time in a disaster area require a repair/replacement using the Warranty Repairs in the Field program

Marginal: 90% to less than

95% of the units installed the first time in a disaster area require a repair/replacement using the Warranty Repairs in the Field program.

Unsatisfactory: Less than

90% of the units installed the

E-21

Contract

Performance first time in a disaster area require a repair/replacement using the Warranty Repairs in the Field program.

CPA #4

Repair (Storage and Staging ):

Timeliness

Repair (Storage and Staging): Storage and

Staging timeliness refers to the time that takes the contractor to repair a Unit that has been accepted by FEMA and it is in Storage or Staging.

This includes all warranty items, except for

Warranty Repairs in the Field items.

Performance Timeline:

1. The contractor shall have no more than three (3) calendar days to have a representative arrive at designated FEMA location (e.g., FEMA Storage –

Cumberland, MD, Selma, AL, or a

FEMA staging area location within a disaster recovery/response operating area).

2. The vendor shall have no more than five

(5) calendar days after the date of inspection to provide FEMA with a proposed course of action to make any and all required repairs or provide replacement items. This plan shall include a proposed timeline.

3. The COR shall review and negotiate with the contractor an acceptable timeline for the repairs. (Note: The CO becomes the final arbiter of the repair timeline if the contractor and COR cannot agree.)

4. The contractor shall perform all repair/replacement work within the

Outstanding: 98% or more of the units where fully repaired

(with no follow on repairs) in time period agreed between

FEMA and the contractor.

Excellent: 95% to less than

98% units where fully repaired (with no follow on repairs) in time period agreed between FEMA and the contractor.

Satisfactory: 90% to less than

95% units where fully repaired (with no follow on repairs) in time period agreed between FEMA and the contractor.

Marginal: 85% to less than

90% units where fully repaired (with no follow on repairs) in time period agreed between FEMA and the contractor.

Unsatisfactory: less than 85% units where fully repaired

(with no follow on repairs) in time period agreed between

FEMA and the contractor.

E-22

Contract

Performance agreed upon timeline.

*NOTE: The contractor will be evaluated per repair instance; however, if the contractor has to perform another repair in a repair previously performed, it will receive an unsatisfactory rating.

CPA #5

Repair: Quality

Repairs shall be made so that the unit is compliant with the contract requirements after repairs.

Outstanding No rating

Excellent: No Rating

Satisfactory: 100% of the units did not require rework.

Marginal: No more than

3% but less than 5% of the units require rework.

Unsatisfactory: No more than 5% but less than 10% of the units require rework.

CPA#6

Contract

Management

Performance contract management for quality is defined as the number of instances where the COR must intervene to correct the vendor. This can be done by issuing a formal written notice or by involving the

Contracting Officer.

Outstanding There are no performance quality issues during the period of performance.

Excellent There are quality issues during the period of performance; however, none of the quality issues rise to a level that requires a formal memorandum or contracting officer intervention.

Satisfactory There is no more than one (1) formal

E-23

Contract

Performance memorandum or contracting officer intervention.

Marginal There is more than one (1) and less than five (5) quality issues that require either a formal memorandum or contracting officer intervention.

Unsatisfactory There are more than five (5) quality issues that require either a formal memorandum or contracting officer intervention.

CPA #7

Overall Task

Order’s

Performance

This criterion includes an average of their score of all task orders completed during the contract year.

Outstanding: The net average score is 4.

Excellent: The net average score is 3 to less than 4.

Satisfactory: The net average score is 2 to less than 3.

Marginal: The net average score is 1 to less than 2.

Unsatisfactory. The net average score is less than 1.

E-24

APPENDIX #3: Performance Requirements Rating Calculation

Vendors will have performance calculated for each task order awarded. In addition, vendors will have an annual score calculated for the contract. Task order scores will be calculated during task order closeout and will be based on all applicable task order performance areas. Contract annual scores will be calculated based on a calculation that includes the contract performance areas and the task order scores. Scores will be calculated in accordance with the methodologies described below.

General Calculation Guidelines

For each performance standard the following point system applies to the listed rating. Should a performance area not apply, it will not be used as part of the overall rating calculation. The point system will be used to calculate the contractors performance using the methodology listed below.

Each rating has the following number of points:

Outstanding – 4 points

Excellent – 3 points

Satisfactory – 2 points

Marginal – 1 point

Unsatisfactory – 0 points

During all calculations the following arithmetic rule will apply:

Point value calculations resulting in a number less than .5 will be rounded down to the next whole number; point value calculations resulting in a number equal to or greater than .5 will be rounded up to the next whole number.

Individual performance area scores will be calculated periodically as well as at the conclusion of the period of performance.

TASK ORDER PERFORMANCE

Task order performance is calculated based on all applicable task order performance areas (TOPA). The following are the TOPAs:

1. First Article Testing: Timeliness

2. First Article Testing: Quality

3. Unit Production: Quality

4. Unit Delivery: Acceptance Rate

5. Failed Unit Re-Inspection – Timeliness

6. Failed Unit Re-Inspection – Quality

7. Repair (Direct delivery) – Timeliness

8. Quality of Units Delivered

9. Repair Quality

E-25

10. Repair (Storage and Staging) Timeliness

11. Communication Timeliness

12. Communication Scheduled

13. Document Accuracy

14. Task Order Management

A TOPA is considered applicable when it has been used to calculate a rating. For example if a contractor if no delivered units fail inspection then TOPA Failed Unit Re-Inspection – Timeliness and Failed Unit

Re-Inspection – Quality would not be used as part of the calculations.

TOPA #1 First Article Testing: Timeliness

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 First Article Test inspections records are reviewed for the timeliness and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, = 36

36 total points divided by 10 samples = 3.6

Then the score for the month will be Outstanding based on a rounded rating of 4 points.

First Article Testing Timeliness sub-score will be averaged within the other TOPA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA #2 First Article Testing: Quality

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 First Article Test inspections are reviewed for the survey quality and accuracy and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, = 36

36 total points divided by 10 samples = 3.6

Then the score for the month will be Outstanding based on a rounded rating of 4 points.

First Article Testing Quality sub-score will be averaged within the other TOPA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#3 Unit Production: Quality

E-26

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Unit Production: Quality and records are reviewed for the survey timeframe and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 0, 1, 4, = 27

27 total points divided by 10 samples = 2.7

Then the score for the month will be Excellent based on a rounded rating of 3 points.

This Unit Production: Quality sub-score will be averaged within the other TOPA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#4 Unit Delivery: Acceptance Rate

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Unit Delivery: Acceptance Rate samples are reviewed for the survey quality and accuracy and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, = 36

36 total points divided by 10 samples = 3.6

Then the score for the month will be Outstanding based on a rounded rating of 4 points.

This Unit Delivery: Acceptance Rate sub-score will be averaged within the other TOPA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#5 Failed Unit Re-Inspection - Timeliness

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Failed Inspection: Timeliness samples are reviewed to review timeframe and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 0, 1, 4, = 27

27 total points divided by 10 samples = 2.7

Then the score for the month will be Excellent based on a rounded rating of 3 points.

E-27

This Failed Re-Inspection – Timeliness sub-score will be averaged within the other TOPA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#6: Failed Unit Re-Inspection: Quality

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Failed Re-Inspection: Samples are reviewed to review the quality and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 4, = 31

31 total points divided by 10 samples = 3.1

Then the score for the month will be Excellent based on a rounded rating of 3 points.

This Failed Re-Inspection: Quality sub-score will be averaged within the other TOPA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#7 Repair (Direct Delivery) Timeliness

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Repair (Direct Delivery) Timeliness- Samples and records are reviewed for the survey timeframe and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, = 36

36 total points divided by 10 samples = 3.6

Then the score for the month will be Outstanding based on a rounded rating of 4 points.

This Repair (Direct Delivery) Timeliness: sub-score will be averaged within the other TOPA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#8 Quality of Units Delivered

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Quality of Unit Delivered records are inspected to evaluate the quality of units delivered and the contractor receives the following point scores:

E-28

4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 4, = 31

31 total points divided by 10 samples = 3.1

Then the score for the month will be Excellent based on a rounded rating of 3 points.

This Quality of Units Delivered sub-score will be averaged within the other PA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#9 Repair - Quality

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Repair Quality records and samples are reviewed for the survey the repair quality, contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 0, 1, 4, = 27

27 total points divided by 10 samples = 2.7

Then the score for the month will be Excellent based on a rounded rating of 3 points.

This Repair Quality sub-score will be averaged within the other PA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#10 Repair (Storage and Staging) Timeliness

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Repair (Storage and Staging) samples are reviewed for the survey timeframe and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 0, 1, 4, = 27

27 total points divided by 10 samples = 2.7

TOPA#11 Communications - Timeliness

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

E-29

Example: if 10 Communication: Timeliness: Records are reviewed for the survey timeframe and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 0, 1, 4, = 27

27 total points divided by 10 samples = 2.7

Then the score for the month will be Excellent based on a rounded rating of 3 points.

This Communication: Timeliness sub-score will be averaged within the other PA sub-scores as described below to arrive at one Overall Performance score.

TOPA#12 Communication: Scheduled

Calculation formula: Each appropriate performance record reviewed will be assigned the corresponding number of points based on the performance standard.

The assigned points will be totaled and then averaged for the number of records in the sample group.

Example: if 10 Communication: Scheduled- Records are reviewed for the survey timeliness and the contractor receives the following point scores:

4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 4, = 31

31 total points divided by 10 samples = 3.1

Then the score for the month will be Excellent…