J_15 West Coast PRS_QASP 23March2010.doc

RGFSC II Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Regional Garrison Food Service Contracts II (RGFSC II)

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 11.

Purpose

12.

Goals

13.

Authority

14.

Scope

15.

Government Resources

15.1 Contracting Officer

15.2 Regional Contracting Officer’s Representative (RCOR)

15.3 Assistant Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR)

15.4 RGFSC Program Management Office

15.5 RGFSC Technical Lead

25.6 Food Service Officers (FSOs)

25.7 Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAEs)

26.

Responsibilities

26.1 Contracting Officer

26.2 Regional Contracting Officer’s Representatives (RCORs)

26.3 Assistant Contracting Officer’s Representatives (ACORs)

26.4 RGFSC Program Management Office

27.

Methods of QA Surveillance

27.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

27.2

QASP

27.3 Inspections

37.3.1 Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit (NEPMU) Inspections

37.4 Audits and Assessments

47.4.1 Audit Checklists

47.5 Customer Surveys

47.6 Performance Assessment Scale

48.

Procedures

48.1 Customer Survey Procedures

49.

Award Fees and Incentive Fees

49.1 Procedures for Calculating Incentive Fees and Award Fees

410.

Performance Requirement Summaries (PRS)

410.1 Overview

410.2 Performance Assessment Methods

510.3 Acceptable Performance

510.4 Defective Performance

510.5 Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)

510.6 PRS Terms

510.6.1 Performance Requirement

510.6.2 Acceptable Performance Level (APL)

510.6.3 Sample Population

510.6.4 Sample Size

610.6.5 Assessment Period

610.6.6 Method of Performance Assessment

610.6.7 Performance Weight

610.7 Re-Performance of Defective Work

610.8 Re-Performance Requirements

610.9 Performance Requirement Groups

610.10 Performance Requirement Summary Tables (PRS Tables)

710.10.1 Performance Requirements for Management

1210.10.2 Performance Requirements for High Quality Meals (Food Quality)

1310.10.3 Performance Requirements for Food Safety

1410.10.4 Performance Requirements for Provide Meals in a Timely Manner

1410.10.5 Performance Requirements for Clean and Pleasant Dining Environment

List of Tables

Page 3Table 1: Critical Violation Limits by Facility Type

6Table 2: Relationship between Incentive/Award Fee Criteria and Acquisition Goals

11Table 3: Capable and Responsive Management Requirements

13Table 4: Provide High Quality Meals Requirements

13Table 5: Service Quality Performance Requirements

14Table 6: Provide Meals in a Timely Manner

15Table 7: Clean and Pleasant Dining Environment Requirements

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to ensure that systematic Quality Assurance methods are used in the administration of the Marine Corps RGFSC contracts. The intent of this document is to ensure that contractor performance is measured in accordance with contractual performance metrics and that the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contracts. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

2. Goals

There are five primary goals of the RGFSC II contracts: Capable and responsive management; providing high quality meals; effective food safety and sanitation; providing meals in a timely fashion; and, a clean and pleasant dining environment.

3. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation required by the contracts to be executed by the Contracting Officer, or a duly authorized representative.

4. Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between a Quality Control Plan and a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The contractor, and not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contracts. The QASP is emplaced to provide for Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s efforts, in order to assure that they are timely and effective, and are achieving the performance results required by the Contracts.

5. Government Resources

5.1 Contracting Officer

A person with the authority to enter into (Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), administer (Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), or terminate (Terminating Contracting Officer (TCO) contracts and make related determinations and findings. Contracting Officers are appointed via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations on their authority. The PCO for the Marine Corps RGFSC Contracts is Mr. Guy Collins, Code LB. The PCO will assign contract administration responsibilities to the appropriate Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) offices, as set forth in the Federal Directory of Contract Administration Services (CAS).

5.2 Regional Contracting Officer’s Representative (RCOR)

A person appointed in writing by the PCO to assist in administering the contract by acting as his authorized representative. The limitations of authority for the RCORs will be contained in a written letter of appointment. The PCO will appoint a RCOR for each contract.

5.3 Assistant Contracting Officer’s Representative (ACOR)

A person appointed in writing by the PCO, to assist the RCOR in administering contracts, by acting as her/his authorized representative. The limitations of authority for the ACOR will be contained in a written letter of appointment. The PCO will appoint an ACOR for ach contract.

5.4 RGFSC Program Management Office

The activity responsible for development and execution of RGFSC Program, LFS-4.

5.5 RGFSC Technical Lead

An individual assigned by the RGFSC PMO to ensure that Food Service Policies, Acquisition and Contract documents meet Technical Requirements and coordinate Data Analysis collection for the RGFSC PMO.

5.6 Food Service Officers (FSOs)

The Installation Food Service Officer (FSO) or designate will continue to function as a special staff officer within the military chain of command, advising the commander and coordinating efforts on all matters pertaining to the RGFSC II.

5.7 Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAEs)

One or more Quality Assurance Evaluators or QAEs shall be assigned to oversee the work effort at each base/installation. QAEs shall accomplish tasks directed by the Letters of Authority provided to each QAE, and the direction of their respective ACORs.

6. Responsibilities

The following Government resources have responsibility for the implementation of this QASP:

6.1 Contracting Officer

– The Contracting Office (PCO) ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contracts and safeguards the interest of the United States in the contractual relationships. The Contracting Officer is responsible for impartial, fair and equitable treatment of contractors under the contracts. The Contracting Officer is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of contractor performance.

6.2 Regional Contracting Officer’s Representatives (RCORs)

RCORs will provide technical monitoring and administration of the contracts at the regional level. Specific responsibilities shall be provided in the RCORs’ letter of appointment.

6.3 Assistant Contracting Officer’s Representatives (ACORs)

ACORs will provide technical monitoring and administration of the contracts at the mess hall and installation levels. Specific ACOR responsibilities shall be provided in each ACORs’ Letter of Appointment.

6.4 RGFSC Program Management Office

The RGFSC Program Office is responsible for execution of the QASP. The RGFSC PMO will coordinate with the RCORs to provide continuous analysis and oversight of contractor efforts through review and analyses of activities documented by the contractor in the Customer Survey Report.

7. Methods of QA Surveillance

The QASP has been designed to provide one or more methods of quality assurance for each acquisition requirement. These methods include surveillance, evaluation and assessment, audits, customer surveys, the payment of award fees and incentive fees, and the contractor’s own Quality Control effort. Each of these methods acts to provide a measure of assurance that the terms and conditions of the contract, and the acquisition goals are met.

7.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is a web-based application used to collect contractor Past Performance Information (PPI) as required by the FAR. The PCO will be responsible for entering contractor evaluations into the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). RCORs shall provide input and recommendations these evaluations. ACORs and QAEs shall provide input and recommendations to the RCORs.

7.2 QASP

This QASP defines the surveillance process, responsibilities and acceptable quality standards that will apply to performance based contractual efforts, and establishes the basic scoring and reporting methodology for surveillance documentation.

7.3 Inspections

The QASP has been designed to oversee, inspect, and audit various elements of the contract in order to validate whether or not the requirements of the contract are being met. To accomplish this, the Marine Corps will conduct periodic inspections of the mess hall facilities, and inspect other aspects of the contractor’s performance. Inspections will normally be accomplished by the ACORs and QAEs; however the Marine Corps may employ other personnel to accomplish this effort, including the Marine Corps Food Team, and third party contractors.

7.3.1 Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit (NEPMU) Inspections

The Marine Corps will use the results of NEPMU inspections to gauge the efficacy of the contractor’s Food Safety program. The APL for these inspections is provided in Table 5. NEPMU inspections shall be carried out in accordance with NAVMED P-5010, Chapter One.

Certain NAVMED P-5010-1 violations are imminent health hazards and require immediate action. Sewage backed up in a food preparation area is an example of an imminent health hazard. Imminent health hazards require immediate intervention and may require closure of the facility. Critical items are NAVMED P-5010-1 violations more likely to contribute to food contamination, illness, or environmental degradation and represent substantial public health hazards. The NAVMED P-5010-1 allows the NEPMU to use professional judgment regarding some of the violations to determine their seriousness based on the likelihood of an event occurring.

7.3.1.1 Scoring Methods

The Food Establishment Inspection Report is based on citing violations in two categories, critical and noncritical. Each of the violations are expected to be corrected within given timeframes. The score, which is the number of items in violation, is significant as an indicator of the overall control of the causes of food borne illness; however, there is no defined point at which a score translates into a significant health hazard. It is possible to have only one critical violation which has the potential for causing a food borne illness outbreak. Fixed Categorization will be utilized to score establishments by using critical and non critical categories.

7.3.1.2 Fixed Categorization

In this method, a fixed number of maximum critical violations is selected for each category of establishments. The Table of Critical Violations (Table 1) illustrates one application of this method. The number of violations used may be adjusted to accommodate current levels of resources in the agency and varying levels of compliance at the command. When a food establishment exceeds one of the critical violation limits the NEPMU must promptly notify the commanding officer and the NEPMU will increase the frequency of inspections for the food establishment until compliance history significantly improves.

Table 1: Critical Violation Limits by Facility Type

7.3.1.3 Closure Criteria

If the NEPMU considers any violation to be a significant danger to health, the NEPMU will promptly notify the Commanding Officer and recommend the facility immediately cease food service until the danger has been eliminated.

7.4 Audits and Assessments

The Marine Corps will conduct periodic audits of the contractor’s records to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract. Audits will normally be accomplished by the ACORs and QAEs; however the Marine Corps may employ other personnel to accomplish this effort, including third party contractors.

ACORs and QAEs will also be tasked with assessing elements of the contractor’s performance, including the contractor’s effectiveness in managing mess hall meal schedules, equipment maintenance, mess hall cleanliness, food quality, and service quality.

As is the case with inspections and surveillance, a primary focus of the audits and assessments will be the efficacy of the contractor’s Quality Control Program.

7.4.1 Audit Checklists

Audits of the contractor’s records will be guided by one or more audit checklists. The Marine Corps may add, delete, change or modify these checklists as the Marine Corps deems necessary. Notice of such changes will be provided to the contractor.

7.5 Customer Surveys

The Marine Corps will conduct regular customer surveys to assess customer satisfaction, and the customer’s assessment of the quality of the food and the quality of the services provided. Headquarters Marine Corps (Code LFX) has established a Customer Survey Plan designed to assess the contract performance requirements through statistical methods.

Customer surveys will normally be accomplished by the ACORs and QAEs; however the Marine Corps may employ other personnel to accomplish this effort, including third party contractors. The Marine Corps may change its customer surveys and customer survey approach at any time, with or without notice to the contractor.

7.6 Performance Assessment Scale

For the purpose of conducting customer surveys and evaluating other aspects of the contractor’s performance, the Marine Corps will rate the contractor’s performance, using a yes or no decision determination, a satisfactory or unsatisfactory decision determination, or an assessment within a range of five assessment criteria comprised of Unsatisfactory, Marginal, Satisfactory, Above Average, or Outstanding.

The Marine Corps may choose to employ other assessment scales or methods, with or without notice to the contractor.

8. Procedures

The inspection and assessment of the contractor’s products and services will be guided by Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and surveillance and inspection checklists designed to evaluate specific aspects of the contractor’s performance. These SOPS and checklists will be distributed to the RCOR, ACORs, and QAEs. The PM may add, delete, change, or modify these checklists as necessary. Notice of such changes will be provided to the contractor.

8.1 Customer Survey Procedures

Customer surveys shall be managed and maintained by the RCORs in accordance with the Customer Survey Plan. The RCOR will forward the customer survey results to the PCO, Regional ACOs, ACORs and other parties, as directed by the PM.

9. Award Fees and Incentive Fees

Customer surveys shall be used to compute earned Incentive Fee, in accordance with the RGFSC Incentive/Award Fee Plan. Customer surveys shall also be considered by the RGFSC Award Fee Review Boards (AFRBs) as part of board evaluations for payment of Award Fees.

9.1 Procedures for Calculating Incentive Fees and Award Fees

Procedures for calculating Incentive Fee and Award Fee are provided in the RGFSC Incentive/Award Fee Plan.

10. Performance Requirement Summaries (PRS)

10.1 Overview

The Performance Requirements Summaries (PRS) provided in this document provide performance standards for key performance requirements.

10.2 Performance Assessment Methods

The Marine Corps will assess the contractor’s performance using a variety of methods, including physical inspections of the mess hall facilities and equipment, sampling and tasting of meals, audits of contract records, and customer surveys.

Inspections and audits may be planned or random, announced or unannounced.

The assessment method, sample population, sample size, and assessment period used to assess elements of the contractor’s performance are provided in Tables 3 through 6.

The PCO may change the assessment method, sample population, sample size, or the assessment period used to assess any element of the contractors’ performance. The contractor will be notified of such changes.

10.3 Acceptable Performance

The contractor’s performance shall be rated acceptable when it meets or exceeds the contract APLs, and all other contract performance requirements.

10.4 Defective Performance

A product or service delivered under this contract will be rated as defective or nonconforming when the contractor’s work effort is insufficient to meet APLs stated herein, or the contractor’s performance fails to meet a term or condition of the contract.

Defective performance will be documented by the mess hall ACOR using a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR).

10.5 Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)

A Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) shall be issued by the ACOR, or other designated representative of the PCO, whenever performance is assessed at a level below the requisite APL, or when the contractor’s performance does not meet any other requirement of the contract.

A copy of the CDR form is provided in Appendix A.

The CDR will explain why the contractor’s performance was rated defective.

The contractor shall submit a written response to all CDRs received, in accordance with the direction provided within the CDR. The response shall explain how the defective performance will be corrected and prevented in the future.

The Regional ACO will evaluate CDRs according to the severity of the non-compliance, whether the area of performance cited as non-compliant has been assessed as defective in the past, and the contractor’s explanation, and decide whether other remedies are needed to correct the performance deficiency.

The PCO may initiate additional corrective action, in addition to the CDR, if the performance deficiencies noted are repetitive, or the contractor fails to take appropriate action to correct the deficiency. Such actions may include:

· By contract or otherwise, performing the services, and charging to the contractor any cost incurred by the Marine Corps for the performance of the service;

· Terminating the contract for default.

10.6 PRS Terms

The following terms are used within the PRS summary tables.

10.6.1 Performance Requirement

The Performance Requirement summarizes the contract performance obligations of the contractor.

10.6.2 Acceptable Performance Level (APL)

The Acceptable Performance Level (APL) stipulates the assessed level of performance that the contractor must attain in order to meet the requirements of the PWS.

10.6.3 Sample Population

The Sample Population is the group of meals, meal events, or other contract product or service that is under assessment.

10.6.4 Sample Size

The Sample Size defines the proportion of the Sample Population that will be measured as part of the assessment.

10.6.5 Assessment Period

The Assessment Period defines the timeframe under which the Sample Population will be assessed.

10.6.6 Method of Performance Assessment

The Method of Performance Assessment states the manner in which the performance requirement will normally be assessed.

10.6.7 Performance Weight

Performance Weight represents the relative weighting of each Performance Requirement Group for the purpose of calculating Incentive Fees and Award Fees.

10.7 Re-Performance of Defective Work

The products and services required under the contract are of such a nature that defective or incomplete performance of work normally cannot be re-performed, or performed late, since it normally will not be possible to assess and re-perform the work within the required delivery timeframes of the products and services required. The contractor shall not be entitled to re-perform work, or perform work after the stipulated date and time that the work is required, unless specifically authorized by the ACOR responsible for the mess hall that the work is required at.

10.8 Re-Performance Requirements

The ACOR may, at her/his discretion, direct the contractor to re-perform substandard or incomplete work, or perform work that was not initiated. The ACOR shall stipulate in the CDR whether the defective work can be re-performed or performed late. The requirement for the contractor to re-perform defective work will not alleviate the contractor from the requirement to continue to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. The Regional ACO may charge the contractor for the direct and indirect costs incurred by the Marine Corps that result from re-performance of the work, such as the cost associated with re-inspecting the work.

10.9 Performance Requirement Groups

The PRSs have been organized into groups aligned with each acquisition goal. The relationships between the Acquisition Goals, Performance Requirement Groups, and Incentive/Award Fee Structure is depicted in Table 2.

Table 2: Relationship between Incentive/Award Fee Criteria and Acquisition Goals

10.10 Performance Requirement Summary Tables (PRS Tables)

The Performance Requirement Summary Tables (Tables 3 through 7) provide the APL, Sample Population, Sample Size, Assessment Period, and Method(s) of Performance Assessment for each Performance Requirement within each Performance Requirement Group.

A blank space (e.g., __ %) indicates that the APL performance parameters will be set in accordance with the contractor’s proposal.

10.10.1 Performance Requirements for Management

Table 3 summarizes the contract Management requirements.

PG-1 Capable and Responsive Management

20% of Fee Pool

· __ percent (__%) of critical information requests are sufficiently addressed in one working day or less, and ninety-eight percent (__%) of critical requests are sufficiently addressed in three working days, or less.

Accomplishment of Small Business Goals

· Subcontracts with Small Businesses total __% or more of contract revenue.

· Subcontracts with Veteran-Owned Small Business total __% or more of contract revenue.

· Subcontracts with Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business total __% or more of contract revenue.

· Subcontracts with Small Disadvantaged Business total __% or more of contract revenue.

· Subcontracts with Hub-Zone Small Business total __% or more of contract revenue.

· Subcontracts with Women-Owned Small Business total __% or more of contract revenue.

Provide services in a timely manner, according to established service schedules.

Effectively respond to schedule changes requested by the Marine Corps.

· Mess halls are opened and ready to serve meals in accordance with posted schedules __% of the time.

· Marine Corps requests for schedule changes are managed in a proactive and service-oriented manner.

Meal Events

Schedule Change Requests 10% 100% One Month One Month ACOR/QAE Assessment

· Hot and Cold Beverage Rations issued reported is accurate to a standard of __% or above.

· Degraded/OOC FPSE reported is accurate to a standard of __%.

· Degraded/OOC Expendable Property reported is accurate to a standard of __%.

· Accuracy of menu changes reported is __% or above.

· Major/minor mess hall operations schedule changes or disruptions reported to a standard of __% or higher.

· Accuracy of NEPMU inspection results reported is 100%.

· Accuracy of Food Safety and Sanitation Training reported is __% or above.

· Report is submitted not later than the 7th day after the last day of the report month.

· __ percent (__ %) corrective actions cited in response to discrepancies are corrected in __ days.

· Repeat discrepancies are __ percent (__ %) or below, as measured over any twelve month period.

· Documentation of contractor follow-up to QC discrepancies is in accordance with Contractor’s QC Plan.

Table 3: Capable and Responsive Management Requirements

10.10.2 Performance Requirements for High Quality Meals (Food Quality) Table 4 summarizes the performance requirements, performance weights, sampling parameters, assessment periods, APLs, and Performance Assessment Methods for High Quality Meals.

PG-2 Provide High Quality Meals

45%

· __ percent (__ %) of ACORs/QAEs evaluate the meal requirement as “Satisfactory” or higher, and __ percent (__ %) evaluate the meal requirement as “Above Average” or “Outstanding”.

Cycle Meals Served

Cycle Meal Events Per Customer Survey Plan 10% One Month

One Month QAE customer survey;

ACOR/QAE assessment

· __ percent (__ %) of ACORs/QAEs evaluate the meal as “Satisfactory” or higher, and __ percent (__ %) evaluate the meal as “Above Average”, or “Outstanding”.

Special Meals Served

Special Meal Events Per Customer Survey Plan 100% One Month

One Month QAE customer survey;

· __ percent (__ %) of ACORs and QAEs evaluate food service quality as “Satisfactory” or higher, and __ percent (__ %) evaluate food service quality as either “Above Average,” or “Outstanding.”

Cycle Menu Meals Served

Cycle Menu Meals Served Per Customer Survey Plan 10% One Month

One Month QAE customer survey;

Table 4: Provide High Quality Meals Requirements

10.10.3 Performance Requirements for Food Safety

Table 5 summarizes the performance requirement for Food Safety, along with the methods and parameters the Marine Corps plans to use to assess this requirement.

PG-3 Food Safety

20%

Table 5: Service Quality Performance Requirements

10.10.4 Performance Requirements for Provide Meals in a Timely Manner Table 6 summarizes the performance requirements for Provide Meals in a Timely Manner, along with the methods and parameters the Marine Corps plans to use to assess these requirements.

PG-4 Provide Meals in a Timely Manner

30%

· Customer Waiting Time for an Officer Candidate or Recruit Platoon is __ minutes or less __ % of the time.

Table 6: Provide Meals in a Timely Manner

10.10.5 Performance Requirements for Clean and Pleasant Dining Environment

Table 7 summarizes the performance requirements for Clean and Pleasant Dining Environment, along with the methods and parameters the Marine Corps plans to use to assess these requirements.

PG-5 Clean and Pleasant Dining Environment

30%

· __ percent (__ %) or more of ACORS/QAEs evaluate mess hall cleanliness as “Satisfactory” or higher, and __ percent (__ %) evaluate mess hall cleanliness as “Above Average,” or “Outstanding.”

Cycle Menu Meals Served

Cycle Menu Meals Events Per Customer Survey Plan

10% One Month

One Month QAE customer survey

Table 7: Clean and Pleasant Dining Environment Requirements

APPENDIX A: CDR Form

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104

PAGE

i