II_1 RFQ 2032H8-23-R-00008 Attach 1 QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

IRS, Office of Chief Counsel

Vehicle Mileage Study

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 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Form

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

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) for the Vehicle Mileage Study. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the IRS, Office of Chief Counsel, will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

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

1.1.2 This QASP 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

1.2.1 This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by IRS, Office of Chief

Counsel, 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 a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. 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.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance

(QA) concepts in several ways. 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.

1.3.1 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review the deliverables submitted by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make determination 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 (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the contracting officer's representative (COR) and the contractor. The CO will designate one full-time 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 technical representative (COR) is designated in writing by the CO 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 CO 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 Performance Requirements

Summary.

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 method of surveillance is

➢ 100% Inspection of written deliverables, which shall be performed by the COR or CO designated inspector within the Office of Chief Counsel.

4.2 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1 of the QASP, Performance Requirements

Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls.

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 PRS and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1 of the QASP.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the monitoring form in Attachment 2 of the QASP. 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.

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

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/AQLs 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.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 As needed (upon the receipt of each written deliverable described in the PWS), the COR will prepare a written report summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the quality assurance monitoring form

(Attachment 2 of the QASP), 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 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the

CO and other government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. If the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR and CO as often as required or per the contractor’s request.

The agenda of the reviews may include:

➢ Performance assessment data

➢ Issues and concerns of both parties

➢ Projected outlook for upcoming months, including a corrective action plan analysis

➢ Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

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

6.3.3 The COR 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 PCO/ACO.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services

(Tasks)

Performance

Standards

Acceptable

Quality

Levels

Methods of

Surveillance

Incentive

(Positive and/or

Negative)

Task 1

Submit State-by-state vehicle registration data in electronic format

(PWS 2.1)

100% of reports are timely and provide required data

Completeness, timeliness, and accuracy of all deliverables.

Acceptable

Quality

Level no more than five (5) business days late

No deficiencies

100% Inspection

Positive /

Negative Past

Performance

Evaluations

May be factored in to

Government’s decision on whether to exercise options

Task 2

Mid-year Gasoline

Price Report

Time- Deliver no later than May 15th

Quality- Follows methodology in

PWS

Deficiencies – no major or minor

Level no more than five (5) business days late

100% Inspection Positive /

Negative Past

Government’s decision on whether to exercise options.

Task 3

Develop Draft Report

(Includes: Modify systems to incorporate changes, Upload and analyze registration data, model parameters, generate vehicle costs, and quality review of vehicle costs).

Time- Deliver no later than August

15th major and no more than 3 minor deficiencies

Acceptable

Quality

Level no more than seven (7)

Negative Past

Government’s decision on whether to

Task 4

Develop Final Report

Time – Deliver no later than November 10th major deficiencies and no more than 1 minor deficiency

Level no more than three (3)

Negative Past

Government’s decision on whether to

Task 5

Methodology

Improvement Report

(Includes: Kickoff

Meeting/Planning

Discussion, and

Research and recommended improvements).

Time- Deliver May

15th

Quality- Meets standards in the

PWS

Acceptable

Quality

Level no more than seven (7)

Negative Past

Government’s decision on whether to

ATTACHMENT 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

Task: _______________________________________________________________________________

Contract Requirement (Reference PWS):

STANDARD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD: ☒ 100% Inspection

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Service Provider’s Performance (Check): Meets Standards

Does Not Meet Standards

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________