1.17 QASP--KM 11-3.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

Navy Public Affairs/Visual Information, Knowledge Management & Multimedia Services Commander Naval Surface Forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet

1. INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to monitor and evaluate contractor performance in connection with the Commander Naval Surface Forces (CNSP) subject matter expert contract support. The QASP establishes the methodology for measuring key performance in the stated performance work areas and establishes the standard of performance for each.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify the required documentation and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the QASP to ensure that the Government receives the required level of services in accordance with the Performance Work Statement.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all the members associated with the QASP, identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor's performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements and describes the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PWS structures the acquisition around "what" service or quality level is required, as opposed to "how" the contractor should perform the work (i.e. results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the COR to monitor and manage the contractor's performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the QASP are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessments. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the contract are being achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A "results" focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of the work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor's own quality control (QC) program. The QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by contractor employees or by subcontractors. The contractor's QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction and other performance requirements in the QASP. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the COR. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the contractor's QC program.

1.3.2 The COR will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against performance objectives. The Government will notify the contractor when performance is less than satisfactory. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 Contracting Officer

The Contracting Officer is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations by the COR and the contractor. The Contracting Officer has designated the COR as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the contractor's performance, and must be identified and designated by the Contracting Officer.

2.2 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the Contracting Officer to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the Contract Administration Plan (CAP). The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and ensures proper Government surveillance of the contractor's performance. The COR 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. The COR will be responsible for documenting the inspection and evaluation of the contractor's work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

3. IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/ QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included herein in the QASP, as specified in Performance Requirements Summary Table. The critical areas items defined herein are also identified within the Performance Work Statement as subject to monitoring under this QASP. l. The "Performance Requirements Summary Table" identifies each of the areas in more detail and includes the specific method of surveillance, inspection cycle, performance requirements, performance standard/AQL, sampling procedure and inspection procedure.

4. METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the Government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are:

- Random Monitoring - Random monitoring shall be conducted if and when specified in the Contract or periodically as defined by the COR. The random monitoring shall be performed by the COR.

- 100% Inspection - This surveillance type is preferred for those tasks that occur infrequently. It is also used frequently for those tasks having very stringent performance requirements. When this type surveillance is used, the COR must inspect and evaluate the contractor's performance each time it is performed. The results of the contractor's overall performance are then evaluated to determine the acceptability of the lot.

- Periodic Inspection - Periodic inspections shall be conducted if and when specified in the Contract. The COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

4.2 Observing Contractor Performance

The COR must inspect task performance by either watching actual task performance, physically checking an attribute of the completed task, checking a management report, or otherwise inspecting the task or its results to determine whether or not the performance meets the standards contained in the contract. The COR should become familiar with the standards and requirements of compliance documentation set forth in the contract and incorporate surveillance of such requirements onto the overall plan. It is suggested that technical experts, who are most familiar with compliance requirements, be utilized as an extension of the COR.

4.3 Customer Feedback

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant indicator of success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through customer complaints. Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR, as opposed to the contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate further.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

4.4 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in "Performance Requirements Summary Table", are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed.

5. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards/AQLs are expressed in the QASP.

Items such as system documentation, reports, and user feedback are examples of deliverables that the Contractor might provide to the Government for review and acceptance. Examples of Government deliverables are items such as review comments, marked-up documents returned to the Contractor, reference material, or other Government Furnished Information/Equipment (GFI/E). Deliverable Acceptance provides an opportunity for the receiving party to formally review a product and assess whether or not it conforms to specifications or will satisfy the requirements for its intended use. Some products are complete as is when delivered while others will be work product inputs into the creation of other deliverables or form part of the baseline for subsequent work to be performed. For example GFI such as statistical data would be a work product input to a content creation/presentation process and a design specification would become part of the baseline. Aspects of the Deliverable Acceptance process are detailed in the remainder of this section.

Final inspection and acceptance of all deliverables shall be performed at the place of delivery. The government requires a period not to exceed 30 days after receipt of the final deliverable item(s) for inspection and acceptance or rejection. The COR will monitor the contractor efforts to ensure technical suitability. If the deliverable does not meet the specified criteria, it will be returned by the government. After notification that the deliverable did not meet the acceptance criteria, the contractor shall re submit the deliverable. Upon re-submission by the contractor, the government will reapply the same acceptance criteria. If the deliverable does not meet the acceptance criteria a second time the government might consider the Contractor as having deficient performance. The Contractor shall permit the Contracting Officer or designated representatives' access at any reasonable time to all records, data, and facilities used in the performance of contemplated services.

6. ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Reporting

The Government will use the QASP to determine whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards/AQLs. The COR will, in addition to providing documentation to the Contracting Officer, maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the Government's performance of the quality assurance function. All such records will be retained for the life of this contract. The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

6.2 Reviews and Resolution

The COR may require the contractor's project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the COR or other Government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor. However, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR as often as required or per the contractor's request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

- Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

- Issues and concerns of both parties.

- Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis.

- Recommendation for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness.

- Issues arising from performance monitoring processes.

The COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance in any critical area. The COR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long-term courses of action. Decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds or service levels should be clearly documented. Changes to service levels, procedures and metrics may be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the Contracting Officer.

7. Notification of Deficient Performance Contractor performance deficiencies identified throughout the period of performance will be brought to the immediate attention of the COR. When contractor performance in any area approaches or reaches below the performance standard, or is not fully compliant with the requirements of the contract, the COR will notify the Program manager of the discrepancy in writing. The contractor will then have no more than one week to implement corrective action and to explain the corrective action in writing to the COR. If the contractor's response resolves the problem, no further action will be taken. If the problem continues after implementation of corrective action, the COR will submit a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) to the contractor. Unsatisfactory contractor performance that causes significant injury or damage to personnel or equipment, which puts personnel, or equipment unnecessarily at risk, or which results from gross negligence or inattention to standing procedures may result in an immediate Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR) with no advance notification by the COR. When the COR submits a CDR, the contractor is required to prepare a formal reply delineating corrective action. If the reply satisfies the COR, no further action will be taken. If replies are unsatisfactory and resolution cannot be obtained, the COR will forward the contractor's reply along with the recommended action to the Contracting Officer to initiate formal action against the contractor for unsatisfactory contract performance.

Table 1. Performance Requirements Summary Table

*The Government will use the QASP to assess performance trends and determine the appropriate level of surveillance. The QASP does not waive any individual PWS, CDRL, security, approval, or delivery requirement. Each late, incomplete, or deficient deliverable may be documented and addressed by the COR regardless of whether the contractor meets the overall 95-percent AQL.

8. CPARS Evaluation Process

While the Contractor is fully expected to comply with all requirements, the Government’s assessment of performance will primarily focus on the performance objectives detailed above and evaluation ratings are to be assigned for each ranging from one (1) to five (5) in accordance with Table 2. below.

Ratings of “4 or 5” may be assigned if the Contractor performed a single or multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government, and there were NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than three (3) solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the Order.

If the Contractor's overall performance is unsatisfactory, as documented within the evaluations, the PCO and COR will provide in writing a report identifying the issues that have resulted in the performance being evaluated as “unsatisfactory”. In response, the Contractor shall provide the below information to the PCO and COR, in writing within five (5) calendar days of receipt of the report:

Based upon the Contractor’s past performance and their response to the aforementioned information, the PCO will determine if any further action(s) need to be taken.

Annually, or as required, the Government will input performance evaluations into the Department of Defense (DoD) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Table 2. Evaluation Rating Definitions

Exceptional Performance meets Contract terms and condition requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO severe issues identified.

Very Good

Performance meets Contract terms and condition requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor was effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no severe issues identified.

Satisfactory

Performance meets Contract terms and condition requirements. The performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were appropriate or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the Contract/Order. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that Contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the Contract/Order. Vendors that meet acceptable performance will receive a rating of satisfactory.

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most Contract term and condition requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.