D1_M00681-19-Q-0018_Attachment_(6)_QASP_Revised.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

WASHER AND DRYER PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

FOR THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

MARINE CORPS BASE (MCB), CAMP PENDLETON, CA

1. Purpose. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed to provide the standard of for monitoring the contractor’s performance in preventive maintenance, repair, removal and installation services for the Government owned washers and dryers located throughout MCB Camp Pendleton, CA. The Contracting Officer (KO) will appoint the Quality Assurance Specialist in writing.

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed to provide the standard of surveillance for monitoring the contractor’s performance in preventive maintenance, repair, removal and installation services for the Government owned washers and dryers located throughout MCB Camp Pendleton, CA. The Contracting Officer (KO) will appoint Francisco Gonzalez for Camp Pendleton as the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for this contract.

The KO shall appoint additional CORs as required to monitor and manage day-to-day activities.

All COR’s will be certified in accordance with prescribed policies and directives. Each COR will use this QASP to ensure the standards of the contract being met.

2. Performance Standards. The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate the service the contractor is required to furnish. The COR will assess the Contractor’s performance to ensure the contractor is performing up to the specified standards. The performance standards for this Performance Work Statement (PWS) are stated in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) included in this QASP. The standards are subjective for this requirement.

3. Management and Oversight. The QASP is based on the premise that the contractor and not the Government, is responsible for the management and any quality control action required to meet the terms of the contract. The performance requirements recognize that the contractor is not a perfect manager and that unforeseen requirements and uncontrollable problems do occur. Good management and use of an adequate Quality Control Plan (QCP) will allow the contractor to operate within specific performance requirements. QASPs are designed to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating contractor performance against the provided standards. The contractor’s quality control plan will be reviewed and approved prior to contract award.

4. Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs). AQLs have been established in the PRS and provide performance standards that the contractor will meet in performing the contract. In the event the contractor does not meet the established AQLs, the Contracting Officer has the right to exercise the negative incentives stated in this QASP.

5. Primary Method of Surveillance/Evaluation. The COR will perform evaluation based on using one of the various methods outline in the PRS Table included in this QASP. The following methods may be incorporated into the PRS to monitor contract performance:

100% inspection: Inspection where specific characteristics of every performance unit are examined and tested to determine conformance with requirements.

Random inspection/Contract Discrepancy Inspections (CDI): Sampling method in which each unit of the population has an equal chance of being selected.

Customer Surveys and Feedback: A review method where customers and end users are surveyed to provide input on specific service levels.

6. Substandard Performance. If any of the performance requirements do not meet the AQL set forth in the PRS table, the COR shall document the discrepancy(ies) and shall notify the KO promptly. The KO will then take the appropriate action with the contractor to remedy the substandard performance. When the performance is below the AQL standard, the Government may implement increased surveillance and/or contractor reporting, as well as, documentation in the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

7. Notification. The COR will notify the KO, in writing, of unacceptable quality levels. The CO will promptly provide written notification of discrepancies on a monthly basis, or immediately if the situation significantly affects the well-being of the project. The contractor will be given the opportunity to respond, in writing, to each discrepancy.

8. Response. The contractor shall provide a written response to the cause and the corrective action to prevent recurrence within 45 working days after receipt of KO’s notification. The contractor shall cite specific quality assurance program procedures or new procedures instituted to prevent recurrence.

9. Records. The COR will maintain contract surveillance files as directed by the KO.

Surveillance files will include, at a minimum, the following documentation for this contract:

a. COR designation and appointment letters.

b. A copy of the contract and all contract modifications.

c. QASP, QCP, and any other monitoring tools, checklists, etc.

d. All correspondence including KO notifications and the contractor’s response.

e. Contractor reports, i.e., training plans, course outlines, maintenance training anomalies, etc.

f. Monthly evidence of satisfactory performance provided by BEQ Managers.

g. Evidence of cost/price monitoring: copies of certified invoiced tracked against each contract line item.

h. Surveillance reports and a summary of the surveillance logs prepared by the COR and submitted to the KO annually.

i. Copies of deficiency reports that may be submitted in support of unacceptable performance identified during the performance period by the COR, or when there is a significant change in the assessment in one or more evaluation areas.

j. Annual in-progress reviews conducted and entered into CPARS.

10. Ratings. The following criteria will be used for performance evaluations: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. Upward or downward arrows may be used to indicate an improving or worsening trend insufficient to change to the assessment status.

a. Exceptional. Indicates performance clearly exceeds contractual requirements. There were no problems requiring corrective action.

b. Very Good. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

c. Satisfactory. Indicates performance clearly meets contractual requirements. The area of evaluation contains some minor problems for which the corrective actions appear satisfactory.

d. Marginal. Indicates performance meets contractual requirements. The area of evaluation contains one or more serious problems for which corrective actions have not yet been identified, appear only marginally effective, or have not been fully implemented.

e. Unsatisfactory. Indicates the contractor is in danger of not being able to satisfy contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The area of evaluation contains one or more serious problems for which the corrective actions appear ineffective.

11. Documentation. Documentation used and referenced to perform surveillance will consist of monthly reports, contractor plans and procedures, schedules, customer feedback and contract data requirements.

a. Recording Observations. Surveillance logs will be used to record information on scheduled observations and deficiencies noted. Each observation is recorded on the log.

The documents then become a formal record for reference. The contractor is to be told each time that a deficiency is found during scheduled observations. The COR makes a notation on the surveillance log of the date and time the deficiency was discovered, then, the COR asks a contractor task leader to initial the notation, documenting notification of the deficiency only.

b. Potential Unacceptable Performance. The COR must identify the specific service that is unacceptable and the possible causes, and ask a number of questions which if answered, are intended to pinpoint the source of the problem.

c. Documenting Unacceptable Performance. The COR should make every attempt to resolve the problem with the contractor. The original log and the attempted solution (along with an evaluation of results) shall be forwarded to the KO through the COR.

Based on the severity of the discrepancy and the success of the solution, the COR will notify the KO. The contractor shall complete a response to the unacceptable condition if requested by the

KO.

12. Taking Action.

a. The COR may evaluate the contractor’s performance and document any non-compliance, and report it to the KO may take action against the contractor for an unacceptable rating.

b. When the contractor’s performance is unacceptable and a formal action is indicated, the

COR will determine what action is appropriate for the specific circumstances and make a recommendation to the KO.

13. Documentation. The COR shall retain a copy of all inspection schedules and surveillance activity logs during the course of the contract, and shall forward them for inclusion in the contract file at the end of the surveillance period. However, when a specific service becomes unsatisfactory during a surveillance period, the inspection documentation supporting the contract discrepancy report shall be forwarded to the KO at the earliest opportunity.

14. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS). The performance standards for this

QASP/PWS are stated in the PRS Below.

Performance Objective

PWS

Paragraph Performance Threshold Remedy

Method of Assessment

Contractor's Personnel 3.2

No more than 1 instance of non-qualified repair technician being dispatched within the performance period.

Contractor shall provide Periodic

Contractor's Quality Control

Plan (post award)

3.7.1 No more than 3 valid defects

per month

Contractor shall provide a written Corrective

Action Report

Periodic Surveillance

Completion of maintenance and repairs

4.2.3 No more than 5 defects per

month Re-performance Within 12 hours of notification

Periodic Surveillance

Perform annual dryer/vent/duct cleaning

4.4.1 No more than 3 valid defects

per month

Re-performance Within 1 day of notification or a mutually acceptable timeframe to the COR and contractor

Periodic Surveillance

Service Work Tickets 4.5.2

95% of all service calls are satisfactorily completed within required timeframes as outlined in the PWS.

Re-performance Within 12 hours of notification

Periodic Surveillance

Install/ Relocation/ Removal of

Washer/Dryer

4.7 No more than 2 instances of

non-compliance

Re-performance Within 1 day of notification or a mutually acceptable timeframe to the COR and contractor

Periodic Surveillance