J.2_Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Template.docx

Attachment J.2 - QASP Template

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) provides a systematic method for USAID to monitor progress on the performance work statement (PWS). The QASP will correspond to overall performance objectives and standards, including the timeliness, accuracy, quantity, and quality of each objective and will ensure quality control mechanisms are in place to deliver results. The purpose of the QASP is to provide the U.S. government and the Contractor with measurable criteria that determines whether required deliverables/outputs have been achieved and is based on the premise that the Contractor is responsible for managing its own quality controls and ensuring that the Contractor’s execution of contract meets the specified terms.

A. Quality Assurance Process Within 90 days of contract award, the Contractor will update the QASP in conjunction with the initial activity monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plan. The Contractor will work with USAID to finalize all monitoring methods, the frequency of measurement, and the method for working with USAID to resolve any issues that may arise.

In addition to the QASP procedures outlined here, the Contractor will measure quality through our internal quality control program, which includes compliance with regulatory standards. The Contractor’s quality control program is subject to regular third-party audit and verification to ensure adherence to international standards.

The contract requirements listed in the PWS summarize the specific scope of work to be performed under this contract. The required performance standards and/or acceptable quality levels are defined in the PWS and the QASP and will be monitored by USAID as delineated in Exhibit 11. If the Contractordoes not meet the required service and performance levels defined, such deficiencies will be identified and documented by USAID based on program impacts and technical severity with either a Corrective Action Plan, Negative Event Report, and/or in the U.S. government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in accordance with contract terms and conditions. Similarly, if the Contractor exceeds the service or performance levels defined, such performance will also be documented in CPARS. The CPARS system allows for USAID to document performance and allows the contractor to respond and comment on the rating. CPARS will be completed on a yearly basis.

B. Roles and Responsibilities The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The USAID Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will use the methods contained in this QASP to undertake surveillance and ensure that the Contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR will maintain a Quality Assurance Tracker and will discuss ongoing monitoring actions and any outstanding or new corrective actions necessary and the steps being taken to address them. As USAID aggregates and analyzes findings, the Contractor will help staff to properly incorporate findings into implementation. During startup, experts from the Contractor’s home-office MEL Department will lead training and capacity building initiatives to equip field staff to conduct effective monitoring and surveillance. This training, conducted with participation from the COR, will reinforce the delineation of duties between USAID and Contractor staff in quality assurance.

C. Performance Standards and Monitoring Methods The Contractor has defined performance standards and acceptable quality levels (AQLs) in Exhibit 11 for key activities outlined in the PWS. The Contractor has defined quality for each aspect through several measures including whether the action was completed, whether it was completed as intended, and whether it was completed on time. Exhibit 9 highlights the Contractor’s proposed monitoring methods, which will guide USAID’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract. The Contractor will use a mix of primary source evidence such as direct observation and stakeholder feedback, and secondary evidence such as document reviews, as appropriate.

Exhibit 9. Monitoring Methods for Performance Standards

Monitoring Methods

Document or Data Review Scheduled and/or unscheduled collection or evaluation of information in existing external records and internal program documents, e.g., progress reports, datasets, and research

Progress or status meetings Internal meetings and meetings with implementing partners and USAID to allow for discussion on progress, challenges, and remedies to current challenges

Stakeholder feedback Scheduled or unscheduled meetings with stakeholders (including USAID) or survey to solicit satisfaction; may combine elements of random inspection

Internal audits Internal audits of activity to reinforce consistent, efficient, and effective service to clients and field offices

Decision tables. Decision tables will guide the COR in identifying whether performance standards were met. The contract’s decision table will be developed during project startup by the Contractor’s team and COR and will include each of the performance standards; space for identifying the likely cause for not meeting the AQL (if applicable); and potential corrective actions. USAID will use the decision table to suggest to the Contractor’s team corrective actions and modifications to current systems to resolve disputes and meet proposed quality standards.

D. Illustrative QASP Matrix Exhibit 11 identifies precisely what activities the COR will be observing or inspecting, and how frequently per monitoring period, and highlights illustrative performance standards to be reviewed and finalized with USAID upon award. These standards are designed to be relevant, measurable, credible, verifiable, sensitive to cultural and social issues, and complementary to the MEL plan. To allow flexibility, the performance standards and AQLs will be revisited and updated as necessary in collaboration with the COR, stakeholders, and partners.

Exhibit 11. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Matrix

PWS Aspect

Perf. Standard

Acceptable Quality Level Monitoring Method (P-primary;

S-secondary)

Freq.

Tasked

IR 1: Local institutions’ understanding of and responsiveness to local economic governance capacity needs improved

Institutions assisted to establish internal HICD working groups that lead planning and implementation of their capacity strengthening plans

Stakeholder engagement level: ≥ 50% of attendees contribute to discussions P: Attend at least 1 working group meeting at each institution each year S: Review of survey report and analysis regarding participatory environment of meetings Annually, Year 1 - Year 4

USAID COR

Participant engagement level:

Year 4

USAID COR

Acceptable Quality Level Monitoring Method (P-primary;

S-secondary)

Freq.

Tasked deeper understanding of performance gaps identified in assessments

Analysis report produced identifying key factors and potential solutions S: Review of RCA report-outs

Support institutions in designing tailored MEL system to assess outcomes of capacity improvement activities and effect on provincial officials’ performance

Data collected and analyzed on a quarterly basis to make adaptive management decisions P: Review of survey reports and analyses on successes and challenges of new MEL system P: Periodic inspection of institutions’ data S: Review of summary of evidence-based changes to course design and delivery

Deviation from target: +/- 3% % of provincial officials providing feedback on impact of services: ≥ 75% P: Data quality analysis (DQA) of provincial government staff post-training survey records P: Conduct site visits where hands- on mentoring has been implemented at least once a year Annually, Year 1 -

USAID COR

# of mentors providing services to provincial officials:

≥ 7; Year 1: 4; Year 2: 5; Year 3: 6; Year 4: 7 P: Site visits of SVF mentoring locations to verify mentor roster

needs % of client feedback surveys indicating capacity building services were responsive to needs: ≥ 80% Deviation from target: +/- 3% % clients surveyed: ≥ 75%

USAID COR

Year 4

USAID COR

IR 2: Local institutions’ ability to design and deliver high quality capacity development opportunities improved

Learning summit frequency: Annually, Year 1 - Year 4 Pause and reflect sessions frequency per institution: Quarterly P: Direct COR participation in the annual learning summit P: Attend at least one institution- specific pause and reflect quarterly session per year Annually, Year 1 -

USAID COR

Acceptable Quality Level Monitoring Method (P-primary;

S-secondary)

Freq.

Tasked

% training staff using gender and vulnerable populations* sensitivity while providing capacity development services to provincial officials: ≥ 80% Deviation from target: +/- 3% P: Audit at least 1 SVF capacity building offering S: Review of provincial officials’ post-training survey reports and analysis Annually, Year 1 - Year 4

USAID COR

executive leadership program Year over year increase in number of provincial officials who successfully complete the Executive Leadership Program annually: Year 1: 400; Year 2:

500; Year 3: 650; Year 4: 800 P: Attend training sessions of the executive leadership program at least once per year S: DQA of SOG/UEH participant completion records Annually, Year 1 - Year 4

USAID COR

SOG/UEH

trainers’ certificate program designed

Certificate program exposes trainers to a variety of adult learning teaching methodologies, e.g.

experiential learning P: Attend at least 1 certificate program class per year S: Review of certificate program curriculum Annually, Year 1 - Year 4

USAID COR

P: Periodic inspection of updated NAPA training curricula Annually, Year 1 - Year 4

USAID COR

IR 3: Local institutions’ ability to generate demand and establish revenue streams for capacity development opportunities improved

development opportunities Analysis methodologies used in initial market survey incorporated Assessment includes analysis of needs of women and other marginalized groups S: Review of initial market survey report S: Review of market analysis of target provinces

Year 4

USAID COR

support

USAID COR

Acceptable Quality Level Monitoring Method (P-primary;

S-secondary)

Freq.

Tasked sustainability

Deviation from target: +/- 3%

USAID COR

# of provinces using capacity building offerings: Year 1: 4;

Year 2: 5; Year 3: 6; Year 4: 8 P: DQA of SOG/UEH finance and operations records Annually, Year 1 -

USAID COR

# of short courses developed by NAPA: ≥ 10: Year 1: 1;

Year 2: 3; Year 3: 3; Year 4: 3

Year 4

USAID COR

HSOG-PSU and SOG-UEH Partnership

Workshops agenda includes quality assurance of training, applied research, and consulting services P: Attend annual review and planning workshop S: Review of workshop agenda Annually, Year 2 - Year 4

USAID COR

Institutions assisted to conduct annual workshop on provincial governance reforms for Vietnamese and American executives

% of executives demonstrating increased knowledge of provincial governance reforms P: Conduct pre- /post- assessments after workshops

S: Review of workshop agendas Annually, Year 2 - Year 4

USAID COR

Exchange visits conducted to facilitate partnership between HSOG-PSU and SOG-UEH and develop a course or case study

Course material submitted to USAID electronically within +/- 10 days of specified delivery date.

P: Attend 1 exchange visit meeting S: Review course material Annually, Year 1 - Year 4

USAID COR

Crosscutting Requirements

Gender and social inclusion (GESI) assessments conducted

S: Review of annual reports Annually, Year 1 - Year 4

USAID COR

HICD

assessment scores increased Institutions’ HICD assessment scores analyzed to calculate change Overall HICD assessment scores increase year over year: Year 1: 5% over baseline; Year 2: 10% over baseline; Year 3: 15% over P: Evaluation of HICD assessment data S: DQA of Annually, Year 1 -

USAID COR

Acceptable Quality Level Monitoring Method (P-primary;

S-secondary)

Freq.

Tasked

Operations and Management

executed Office lease signed and move- in date established within 3 months of contract signing % of SPC operational setup achieved by end of Year 1: 100%

Bi-annual progress report submitted highlighting key activities Bi-annual progress reports submitted on time and up to quality standards # of reports submitted within +/- 10 days of end of reporting period: 4 over LOP

Year 4

USAID COR,

Annual progress report submitted highlighting key SPC activities

+/- 10 days of end of fiscal year: 4 over LOP

Year 4

USAID COR,

item financing requirements, and inputs: 4 over LOP

Year 4

USAID COR,

plan: ≥ 1

Year 4 (as needed)

USAID COR,

+/- 10 days of end of project: 1

days after award completion