Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan_MRMR_DMO.docx

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for MCB Camp Pendleton

Contract Number: M00681-16-D-0004

Date of Award: 1 Sept 2016

Poway, CA 92064

Installation: MCAS Miramar

Contracting Officer’s Representatives (COR): Louis Rodriguez

Contracting Officer: Melodee Hall

1. INTRODUCTION: This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed to ensure the performance of critical contract elements. The QASP serves as the plan for surveillance of performance and identifies the performance indicators, standards, inspections methods and procedures to be used in monitoring performance. It details thresholds for acceptable and unacceptable performance for specific tasks within the SOW/PWS.

1.1 Overview. This QASP outlines the procedures for surveillance of the contract order. Included are procedures for evaluating the contractor’s performance and how key services will be inspected.

1.2 Purpose and Objectives. The objective of this surveillance plan is to provide a systematic method to evaluate the services the Contractor is required to furnish by the contract. The primary interest is in the final product/service that the Contractor is providing and not in the details of how the contractor is accomplishing the task. The COR may evaluate work at any time during the Contractor’s work performance. This plan documents the methods to be used for measuring each contract requirement, the scheduling of inspections, and the results of the surveillance program.

2. RESPONSIBILITIES: The Contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the terms of the contract. The role of the government is quality assurance to ensure contract services are achieved.

2.1 The contractor, not the Government, is responsible for the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the terms of the contract. It is understood that on rare exceptions unforeseen and uncontrollable problems do occur. This has been recognized and incorporated into thresholds for acceptable and unacceptable performance. Good management and use of an adequate quality control plan will allow the contractor to operate within specified performance requirements. The contractor is responsible for providing all information to the government that is necessary to accurately evaluate performance.

2.2 The government desires to maintain a quality standard for completion of all tasks specified in the PWS/Contract and is responsible for developing measurable standards to evaluate performance against. This contract requires services in the field of Packing and Crating Services. COs / CORs are to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance against the standards.

2.3. Each document provided for analysis by the contractor will be maintained by the contractor for inspection for the period of the contract. Each evaluation made by the CO/COR will also be documented and filed for further reference, audit, and proof of inspection by the CO/COR.

Paragraph

Item 0001 No more than 3% of total number of shipments are incorrectly packed/loaded/containerized per month.

3 percent

Periodic/ Customer Feedback

Item 0001, 0003,0004 No more than 5% per month of the total number of shipments are validated customer complaints for untimely pick-up/delivery.

5 percent

Periodic Inspection/ Customer Feedback

Item 0001, 0003,0004 98% on-time return of completed, accurate, legible documentation to PPSO per month.

96% on-time pick-up of documentation from PPSO per month.

2 percent

Periodic Inspection/ Customer Feedback

Para 4 (a) Item 0001 98% error-free invoice submission rate per month.

2 percent

100 Percent Inspection

Item 0002 Less than three violations per quarter based on inadequate facilities or unserviceable equipment as outlined in DTR, Part IV App D.

> 3 Violations

Periodic Inspection

3. PROCEDURES/METHODS OF ASSESSMENT:

3.1 Contracting Officer Representative Surveillance Schedule. The COR will develop a routine monthly, weekly, and daily surveillance schedule based on the surveillance plan’s requirements. The monthly schedule shall be completed not later than the last workday of the preceding month. Copies of the schedule shall be sent to the Contracting Officer. The schedule shall be marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” and shall not be shown to the Contractor. In addition, periodic unscheduled surveillance will also be conducted.

3.2 Inspection Methods. This plan may use a combination of surveillance methods which adequately assures the Government of the Contractor’s performance.

3.2.1 Periodic Inspection: Periodic inspection is a QA method based on a predetermined plan to evaluate part of the contract outputs using subjective judgment and analysis of agency resources to decide what work to inspect and how frequently to inspects it (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.) as determined by the COR.

3.2.2 100% inspection: 100% inspection is a QA method designed to evaluate all outputs of the contract requirement. This method requires a total inspection of Contractor’s performance.

3.2.3 Validated Customer Complaints: Validated customer complaints is a QA method whereby deficiencies in the outputs of the contract requirement are identified by a person other than the COR/QAE. These persons (customers) are made aware of contract requirements and monitor the services provided by the Contractor. Where there is a case of poor performance or nonperformance, the COR is notified. Then, the COR/QAE investigates the report, and, if found to be valid, documents it. Each complaint should be validated to ensure the service was required, and that the requirement was not fulfilled. . If the COR determines the complaint to be valid, the COR will document the findings and notify the customer and the contractor. The COR will retain the annotated copy of the written complaint for the government’s files. If the complaint is valid, the contractor will be given twenty four hours to correct the defect.

3.2.3.1 The COR should inform the customer the approximate time the defect will be corrected and advise the customer to contact the COR if the defect is not corrected. The COR will consider the customer complaint resolved unless notified otherwise by the customer

3.2.3.2. The contractor shall return the written customer complaint document to the COR, completed with the actions taken to correct the defect. The government will retain this document to ensure the contractor has taken appropriate action(s) to prevent the recurrence of defects. The COR will retain and file the complaint form. At the end of each month, all validated complaints will be counted to determine if performance is satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on the criteria in the Performance Requirements Summary.

3.3 Inspection Method Selection. The depth and detail of observations of work shall be based on the relative importance of the items of work under evaluation. The principal method of surveillance shall be periodic inspection with 100% inspection of key requirements; however, any surveillance method can be used at the Government’s discretion. Certain tasks may be so important that nonperformance or poor performance may significantly impact the mission and warrant 100% inspection. Joint inspections may be made by the COR/QAE and the Contractor. These are beneficial when routinely performed. They are vital when any disagreement or misunderstanding occurs.

3.4 Performing Surveillance. Surveillance results must be able to support action taken by the COR/Contracting Officer when nonperformance or unacceptable performance occurs.

3.4.2 Other Surveillance Records. The COR/QAE at times will need to make other types of records such as MFRs, or Memoranda of Telephone Conversation.

4. SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE AND REMEDIES:

4.1 Performance Evaluation: Performance of a service will be evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the performance threshold. Re-performance is the preferred method of correcting any unacceptable performance. The contractor shall provide the Government written response why the performance threshold was not met, how performance will be returned to acceptable levels, and how recurrence of the cause will be prevented in the future

4.2 Unacceptable Performance. If performance is judged unacceptable, the COR will initiate a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) and obtain the contractor’s representative’s initials on the record of the observation and submit the CDR, along with the Inspection Checklist recording the unacceptable performance, to the Contracting Officer. The seriousness of the situation should govern whether the COR should provide the CDR to the Contracting Officer as soon as unacceptable performance is indicated or wait until not later than the third workday of the month following the surveillance.

4.3 Inform Contract Manager. The COR must always contact the Contractor’s manager or on-site representative and inform them of the unacceptable performance, and have the manager initial the entry on the Inspection Checklist. The COR must note on the back of the checklist where the defect was found, the time and method of notification, and the COR’s initials.

5. EXAMPLE CDR:

Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)

7. MAJOR MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

8. COR

9. CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

10. Contractor's Representative/On-site manager

11. COR Evaluation of Contractor Response

ACCEPTED REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

13. COR/Government Program Manager

6. REVISIONS TO QASP: Revisions to this QASP are the joint responsibility of the requiring activity and the contracting office. However as a result of partnering with the contractor, surveillance checklists may be revised jointly by COR personnel and contractor personnel. The contracting officer must approve the revisions in writing before being used by COR personnel.