Attch 2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan_SEWAGE LAB ANALYSIS_CN.doc

ATTACHMENT 2

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

For

G-5 SEWAGE LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES

1. Objective. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) serves as the principal basis for assessing overall performance quality associated with G-5’s contracted support services. This document will be used by the Government to assess the effectiveness of the Contractor’s quality with respect to management and technical services provided. This QASP provides the methodology by which the Contractor's performance will be monitored to determine compliance with established performance objectives and to establish performance benchmarks that ensure a quantifiable basis for measuring effectiveness. The plan is designed so that surveillance is limited to that which is necessary to verify the Contractor is performing management and technical services satisfactorily and relates directly to the objectives of the Statement of Work (SOW).

2. Government Surveillance. The G-5 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will serve as the administering authority for this contract, and his authority will be limited to administering specific technical aspects of the contract. The COR will not provide direction that is outside the scope of responsibilities delineated under this contract and will defer any conditional interpretations to the Contracting Officer. The COR will:

· Maintain a detailed knowledge of the technical requirements of the contract;

· Document Contractor performance in accordance with the QASP;

· Identify and immediately forward notifications of deficient, or non-compliant performance to the Contracting Officer;

· Approve priorities of support, resources, and associated schedules.

3. Surveillance Methods. Surveillance of Contractor performance is the method used by the Government to determine whether the contractor is effectively and efficiently complying with all terms and conditions of the contract. In addition to statistical analysis, the functional expertise of the COR plays a critical role in adequately evaluating contractor performance.

The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used in the administration of this QASP:

Demonstration - A qualification method that is carried out by operation and relies on observable functional operation. It does not require the use of instrumentation or special test equipment;

Inspections: A qualitative inspections can be accomplished through one of the following techniques:

· Random/Stratified Sampling: With random sampling, services are sampled to determine if the level of performance is acceptable. Random sampling works best when the number of instances of the services being performed is very large and a statistically valid sample can be obtained. Stratified sampling focuses on selected parts of total contractor output for sampling. Computer programs may be available to assist in establishing sampling procedures.

· Periodic Inspection, Judgmental Inspection or Planned Sampling: This method, sometimes called "planned sampling”, consists of the evaluation of tasks selected on other than a 100% or random basis.

4. Performance Requirements. The performance requirements set forth in this section correspond to the material content cited in the SOW and the evaluation factors. Corresponding ratings will be generated for each of the weighted performance areas and aggregated monthly. The COR will track performance using a moving average and reconcile performance with the Contractor. This information will also be shared with the Contracting Officer and included in CPARs reports and any past performance assistance requests:

Quality of Performance. The Contractor shall adhere to quality standards throughout performance. The COR shall assess the quality status of performance monthly.

Acceptable / Meets: .85 - .94

Unacceptable: <.85

Acceptable / Meets: .85 - .94

Unacceptable: <.85

Acceptable / Meets: .85 - .94

Unacceptable: <.85

Acceptable / Meets: .85 - .94

Unacceptable: <.85

The criteria that will be used to accomplish the evaluation ratings is derived from the RFP and from the elements of performance determined to be most influential to performance.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SURVEY (PRS)

Quality of Work Performed: Use of resources to provide acceptable or better results through the following:

· Appropriateness of resources (manpower, responsiveness to sample pickup; delivery of sampling supplies on site (i.e. sample bottles, coolers, trip blanks, equipment rinses, etc.) to achieve results.

· Effective processing of Lab test results/reports (i.e.timely; accurate and professional)

· Appropriateness of resources (people, computers, money, time) applied to achieve results.

< 5% rejection rate of all formal deliverables submitted under the performance provisions of the task order; and

<10% rejection rate of draft (Preliminary) submissions.

Sampling supplies are readily available.

Abnormalities are immediately identified and reported

Inaccurate or anomalous sampling results are are resampled at Contractor expense EPA compliant

- Reconciled monthly by COR / CPM and tracked as a 3-mos. moving average.

Consequence of Non-compliance

- Not exercise

Options

- Contractor

Consideration

Responsiveness: Effective use of contractor resources to meet ongoing requirements, including:

· Providing effective deliverables to requirements;

· Effective balancing of resources to accomplish work requirements without sacrificing priorities, or creating unstable performance; and

· Using suitable benchmarking to establish staff allocations of work within the WBS.

Informal (Preliminary) deliverables provided to COR daily;

All formal (certified) deliverables submitted under the performance provisions of the task order;

- Daily/Periodic assessment by the COR as to the thoroughness of the response;

- Reconciled monthly by COR / CPM and tracked as a 3-mos.

moving average.

Consequence of Non-compliance

- Not exercise

Options

- Contractor

Consideration

Staffing: Includes selection of qualified staff to meet requirements:

· Adequacy of skills, experience of staff to meet program requirements;

· Use of staff to ensure qualified capabilities are applied; and

· Responsiveness and use of staff within the WBS framework for workload management.

Staff stability maintained at 90% of target WBS allocation;

New hires within 30-days of notification of vacancy; Subcontractor staffing pulls <10-days from notification of vacancy; and

<14-days backfill for unscheduled staff departures.

Assessment by the COR;

Reconciled monthly by COR / CPM and tracked as a 3-mos. moving average.

Consequence of Non-compliance

– Extended periods of vacancy for staff, or consequential impacts to performance may warrant financial consideration

- Termination

Management and Administration:

Includes the following measures of performance and compliance:

· Deliverables shall be complete, accurate, and prepared to a professional standard;

· Ability to identify and preclude problems, or resolve issues; and

· Effectiveness of their use corporate quality practices, SOW compliance, and effectiveness of their overall contract management.

· Maintain all certifications/ accreditations to conduct testing in compliance with EPA, state and federal laws and regulations.

Aggregation of subordinated areas assessed using progressively more objective criteria – ratings considered:

Excellent – Exceeded performance expectations and abated, or immediately mitigated known problems; Certifications/accreditations are current.

Acceptable – Met performance expectations and generally responded to problems in a satisfactory manner; Certifications/ accreditations are current’ and;

Unacceptable – Areas of inconsistent performance, prolific problems remain unresolved, and two (2), or more performance areas are noted as substandard. Certifications/accreditations are not current.

Assessment by the COR.

Reconciled monthly by COR / CPM and tracked as a 3-mos. moving average.

Consequence of Non-compliance

– Irresponsible management with consequential impacts to performance may warrant financial consideration

- Termination

� Numerical values for the adjectival ratings are: >.95 – Excellent – Exceeds standard compliance; .85 - .94 standard compliance – Acceptable; and <.85 – unacceptable.

3 Attachment 2