Attachment_2_Creative_Consultant_QASP.docx

Attachment 2

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

1. Objective. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) serves as the principal basis for assessing overall performance quality associated with this 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 performance objectives of the performance objectives delineated in the PWS.

2. Government Surveillance. The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will serve as the administering authority for this task order, 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;

Analysis. A qualification method that is carried out by examining and assessing the application of techniques in order to determine if they are appropriate and sufficient. The quality of performance can be determined from government or contractor task-based or Management Information System (MIS) reports, contractor ISO 9000 techniques and procedures, or from government observation of completed tasks. In some instances, reports may be available in the form of information on a contractor's performance against contract requirements. Reports generally provide information regarding various characteristics of tasks and can, therefore, be used to determine acceptability of a contractor's performance.

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 PWS 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 Contractors Program Manager and Task Leads. This information will also be shared with the Contracting Officer and included in CPARs reports and any past performance assistance requests:

Acceptable / Meets: .85 - .94 Unacceptable: <.85

Technical Capability Excellent / Exceeds: >.95 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:

· Graphic file meet NMMC Style Guide standards

· Renderings clearly portray the intended Marine Crops story points

· Model is accurate clearly demonstrates position of F-18A

· Gallery plans provide sufficient basic information to allow further development to occur

· Storyboards and treatments clearly indicate the media content and it is aligned with the gallery storyline

· Tableau designs accurately portray the agreed upon location and time period < 10% of work is rejected

Complete information included where specifications are required

Historical information is accurately shown

Elements convey the proper mood, emotion and story points

- Reviews by curators, historians, vetting groups and COR

- Monthly critique of deliverables by COR and project team

- Spot checks by COR on work performed

Consequence of Non-compliance

- Must replace inadequate labor -Termination of contract if adequate labor cannot be provided

- Not exercise Options

Responsiveness: Effective use of contractor resources to meet ongoing work requirements specified in the PWS including:

· Providing effective responses to requirements and

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

Response provided to COR within 10 working days, rejected work corrected without multiple iterations.

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

- Reconciled monthly by COR.

Consequence of Non-compliance

- Not exercise Options

- Contractor Consideration

Planning: Includes the effective use of the critical milestone document as a management tool, assignment of staff to work tasks, and effectively managed across contract levels, including:

· Coordination with COR; and

· Thoroughness of resources Critical milestone document stability and forecast use of labor resources to meet quality standards without increasing current performance scope

-Reconciled monthly by COR and tracked in regular project team meetings and status reports.

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 requirements;

· Use of team members, to ensure most qualified capabilities are applied; and

· Responsiveness and use of staff relative the critical path document for workload management.

Staff stability maintained at 100% of resources listed in solicitation.

-Assessment by the

COR;

-Reconciled monthly by COR.

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, resolution of invoice anomalies, WBS compliance.

· Maintaining all necessary certifications /permits necessary to handle and transport waste generated by the use of the weapons cleaning system Aggregation of subordinated areas assessed using progressively more objective criteria – ratings considered:

Excellent – Exceeded performance expectations and abated, or immediately mitigated known problems;

Acceptable – Met performance expectations and generally responded to problems in a satisfactory manner; and Unacceptable – Areas of inconsistent performance, prolific problems remain unresolved, and two (2), or more performance areas are noted as substandard.

-Assessment by the COR. Performance evaluation at TBD milestones;

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

Consequence of Non-compliance

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

- Termination