2_N00189-07-R-0022-Atch13-QASP.doc

FISC NORFOLK

ATTACHMENT #13

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

HUSBANDING SERVICE PROVIDER (HSP) FOR NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

1. PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of this Performance Based Service Contract (PBSC) standards included in this contract and in subsequent task orders issued thereunder. The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with performance metrics set forth in the contract documents, that the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract and that the Government only pays a reasonable price for the acceptable level of services received.

2. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided in the Statement of Work (SOW).

3. SCOPE

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s quality and price control efforts to assure that they are reasonable, timely, and effective in delivering the results specified in the contract or task order.

4. GOVERNMENT RESOURCES

The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this plan:

Contracting Officer - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government.

Contracting Officer’s Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) - An individual designated in writing by the Contracting Officer to act as his authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. The source and authority for a TPOC is the Contracting Officer. TPOC limitations are contained in the contract.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES

The Government resources shall have responsibilities for the implementation of this QASP as follows:

Contracting Officer – The Contracting Officer ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the Contracting Officer that assures the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract. The Contracting Officer is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

Contracting Officer’s Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) - The TPOC is responsible for technical administration of the project and assures proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The TPOC is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract, price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

6. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE

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

Customer Feedback – Customer feedback may be obtained from random customer complaints. Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be documented and must be forwarded to the contracting officer.

Periodic Inspection – The contracting officer shall conduct periodic inspections by reviewing information from the Port Visit Cost Report (PVERT), Port Visit Cost Reports, and in-house reports from the husbanding contractor. For the potential tasks identified in the Statement of Work, the contracting officer or the TPOC typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

Random Monitoring - The contracting officer or TPOC will conduct random monitoring by reviewing information from the Port Visit Cost Report (PVERT), Port Visit Cost Reports and in-house reports from the husbanding contractor.

7. IDENTIFIED QA SURVEILLANCE ITEMS

The following PBSC items, identified within the SOW of the solicitation, are to be monitored under this QASP.

SOW: I (1)(b): Husbanding Services

Measurement/Metric:

Quality and timeliness

Performance Standard:

Quality – no customer complaints

Timeliness – provision of supplies or services according to agreed to schedule between ship or ordering activity and contractor

Maximum Error Rate:

Quality- 2%

Timeliness – 2%

RFP: I (2.1): Port Visit Cost Reporting Program Measurement/Metric:

Accuracy and timeliness

Performance Standard:

Accuracy – no mandatory fields omitted and content correct

Timeliness – (i) Initial price report: 48 after receipt of LOGREQ

· (ii) In port price report: update once per day

· (iii) Final price reports: known prices 48 hours after departure, known prices 7 calendar days after departure, any changes 1 calendar day

· (iv) Late / Supplemental price report: 30 days after departure

Maximum Error Rate:

Accuracy – 5%

Timeliness – 5% RFP: II (6)(a): Pricing Control Measurement/Metric:

Consistency and Reasonableness Performance Standard:

Consistency – historical pricing over a period of time to be determined by the contracting officer is consistent, predictable, and verifiable as a competitive commercial price. Pricing can be charted over this period of performance as a flat curve, a slightly downward curve, or a curve with an occasional upward or downward change due to explainable and unpredictable market forces that impact positively or negatively commercial industry competitive pricing available.

Reasonableness – the contracting officer can determine that prices are fair and reasonable based on competition, historical pricing from previous visits based on ship class and port visit scenario, statutory or regulated pricing including but not limited to port tariffs, and any other method available to the contracting office to validate the government is paying market prices for a given period of performance

Maximum Error Rate:

Stability – 2 port visits with unsubstantiated analysis of pricing control over a specific period of performance as determined by an individual delivery order issued. Cost differences due to quantities and different Class of ship is not the issue here, price stability is impacted by unit prices, not quantities, except to demonstrate reduced costs as a result of bulk discounts ect.

Reasonableness – 2 port visits with unsubstantiated analysis of pricing control over a specific period of performance as determined by an individual delivery order issued. Fair and reasonable pricing is defined as being established through competition.

8. DOCUMENTATION

The contracting officer shall maintain a complete QA file. All such records will be retained for the life of this contract. Information in the QA file will be considered when completing the annual CPARS report and when deciding if it is in the best interest of the government to exercise an option to extend the term of the contract.

9. QASP MATRIX

HUSBANDING SERVICE PROVIDER (HSP) FOR NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA QASP

ATTACHMENT A – QASP MATRIX

Standard

Surveillance Procedures to be taken when performance standards are not met

SOW: I (1)(b)

Husbanding

Services Quality

Timeliness

No customer complaints

Provision of supplies or services according to agreed to schedule between ship (logreq), TPOC & KTR 2%

2% Direct inspection; Customer feedback

Direct inspection; Customer feedback Seek resolution with contractor. Denote any lack of quality performance in contract file for past performance evaluation.

Seek resolution with contractor. Denote any lack of quality performance in contract file for past performance evaluation.

RFP: I (2.1)

Port Visit Cost

Reporting Accuracy

Timeliness No info omitted and content correct

(i) Initial: 48 hrs

(ii) In port: update daily

(iii) Final:

- prior departure 24 hrs

- after departure 48 hrs

- after departure 7 days

- changes 1 day

(iv) Late / Supplemental price report: 30 days after departure

5%

5% Periodic inspection; Customer feedback

Periodic inspection; Customer feedback Seek corrections with contractor. Denote any lack of quality performance in contract file for past performance evaluation.

Seek corrections with contractor. Denote any lack of quality performance in contract file for past performance evaluation.

RFP: II (6)(a)

Pricing Control Consistency Reasonable Historic Competition 2 port visits in the same port with unstable pricing 2 port visits with unsub-stantiated pricing

Random review of PVCR reports, audits Random review of PVCR reports, audits

Seek resolution with contractor. Denote any lack of quality performance in contract file for past performance evaluation.

Seek resolution with contractor. Denote any lack of quality performance in contract file for past performance evaluation.

End of Table