Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

TEMPLATE

[Engineering Maintenance Management Systems]

Issued [Insert Date]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled Shipboard Automated Maintenance Management System (SAMM) Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines MSC will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated task order. The QASP explains the following:

• What will be monitored

• How monitoring will take place

• Who will conduct the monitoring

• How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work; rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

The QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the Government shall coordinate changes with the contractor. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

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 Engineering Maintenance Systems to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. 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 project 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 all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own Quality Control Program (QCP). The QCP measures 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 PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. 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 PWS. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QCP.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and notify the contractor of those decisions. The contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively.

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

The contracting officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)and the contractor. The KO will designate in writing 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 KO.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project 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 KO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document 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 in the PWS and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary Table.” If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be rated as SATISFACTORY on the annual Contractor Performance Assessment (CPAR) report. If the contractor exceeds the service or performance level, it is eligible to receive an EXCELLENT on the annual CPAR report. Failure to meet the required level of quality, will result in an UNSATISFACTORY rating in the annual

CPARS.

Each Performance Standard in Attachment 1 incudes a negative, monetary incentive. For each task order issued under the contract, the Government will hold back 10% of the total value (excluding travel costs) until performance is complete. Of this hold back amount, the Government reserves the right to decrease the total order value by 5% of the hold back amount up to 100% of the total hold back amount (i.e. the total order is decreased by 10% of total value (excluding travel costs)) for a failure to reach the required level of quality for each performance standard.

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 direct observation, validated user/customer feedback, and analysis of contractor’s progress reports.

Surveillance Method Description Direct Observation Observation of direct services and/or products is used to survey the requirements. Performed periodically or through 100% surveillance. The observations are documented in a Surveillance Log.

Management Information Systems (MIS)

Outputs through the use of management information reports are evaluated.

Used for general surveillance and augmented with periodic inspections.

Periodic Inspection Comprehensive evaluation of selected outputs. Applicable to interim outputs whose quality is also measured in final outputs. Inspections may be scheduled or unscheduled, as required.

User Survey/Customer Feedback

Combines elements of validated user complaints and random sampling. A random survey is conducted to solicit user satisfaction.

Validated User/Customer Complaints

Relies on the user of the service to identify deficiencies. Complaints are investigated and validated. Highly applicable to services provided in quantity and where quality is highly subjective.

100% Inspection Evaluates all outputs of the award requirement. Most applicable to small quantity, but highly important products and/services.

Periodic Sampling Variation of random sampling, however, sample is only taken when a deficiency is suspected. Good follow-up to MIS analysis. Sample results are applicable only for the specific work inspected. Since sample is not entirely random, it cannot be applied to total activity performance.

Random Sampling Designed to evaluate the outputs of the award requirement by randomly selecting and inspecting a statistically significant sample. Highly recommended for large quantity repetitive activities with objective and measurable quality attributes.

Progress or Status Meetings Ascertain contractor’s performance from information presented at progress reviews or project status meetings.

Analysis of Contractor's Evaluate cost, schedule, etc. from data reported by contractor’s status and

Progress Reports financial reports.

Performance Reporting Evaluate metrics for a specific time period. Develop metrics or use metrics found in MIS.

4.2 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 external indicator of the 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 PCO and/or COR/TOM, 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.

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

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. For certain critical activities such as those involving system installation and sustainment services, the desired performance level is established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance at [insert location receiving services].

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachments 2, Sample Quality Assurance Surveillance Form. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results, or service or quality levels, are being achieved.

5.2.1 The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels. Failure to meet the AQL may result in an UNSATISFACTORY CPARS rating. Likewise, if the contractor exceeds the performance standards, an EXCELLENT CPARS rating can be awarded.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each month, the COR will prepare a written report summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (Attachment 2), will become part of the QA documentation. It will enable the government to demonstrate whether the contractor is meeting the stated objectives and/or performance standards, including cost/technical/scheduling objectives.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the KO, and other government requirements personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The KO 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 KO, 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

• Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

• Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

6.3.2 The KO must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The KO, COR, and the 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 will be incorporated as a contract modification issued by KO as soon as practicable.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Task or Deliverable

Performance Standard* Performance Indicator

Surveillance Method Incentive (Negative)

Helpdesk Support

(PWS 3.2.3)

3.2.3. The Contractor shall

triage each help call and respond to the submitter within twenty-four (24) hours with an initial plan to correct the help call.

100% Management Information Systems – weekly Report , review of CDRL# 1423-37

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

Helpdesk Support

(PWS 3.2.4)

3.2.4. The Contractor shall

track to conclusion all helpdesk calls. Conclusion shall occur within 30 calendar days of receipt, and shall include confirmation that the problem defined in the help call was corrected, with the exception to help calls containing recommendations for software updates.

90% or greater

Management Information Systems – weekly Report , review of CDRL# 1423-37

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

Training Support

(PWS 3.3.2)

The Contractor shall provide updated CMEO training materials within 30 calendar days of MSC’s acceptance of a SAMM software update.

100% CDRL 1423-12

Software Update Tracker

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

SAMM System Feedback Support

(PWS 3.4.1)

Approved feedback proposals on the first submission to N711.

90% or greater proposal approval rate

Management Information Systems – weekly Report , review of CDRL# 1423-38;

CDRL 1423- 22 SAMM

Feedback Proposal

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

SAMM System Feedback Support

(PWS 3.4.1)

The Contractor is expected to close out/implement, all feedback items within sixty

(60) days from the feedback system date as recorded in the SAMM database.

85% or greater

Management Information Systems – weekly Report , review of CDRL# 1423-38

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

Deliverable

Performance Standard* Performance Indicator

Surveillance Method Incentive (Negative)

Engineering Ashore Support

(PWS 3.5.1)

The delivery of the data collection hardware and training shall be provided no later than seven (7) working days prior to the start of the availability.

95% or greater

Information Systems – monthly report , review of CDRL# 1423-39 Port Engineer Availability Support Monthly Report

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

Engineering Ashore Support

(PWS 3.5.4)

ABS PMP-CM annual report provided to the ship 30 days prior to the start date of the vessel’s Annual Machinery Survey as found in ABS’s Safenet software system.

98% or greater

Information Systems – monthly report , review of CDRL# 1423-40

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

Data Collection Hardware and Software Support

(PWS 3.6.2)

Data collection hardware is replaced prior to the re-calibration due date in accordance with the requirements in section 3.6.2 of the performance work statement

98% or greater

Information Systems – monthly report , review of CDRL# 1423-20

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

Condition Monitoring Support (PWS 3.7.2)

Prepare analyst recommendations to vessels and supporting commands within two business days of receiving the oil test results from the laboratory.

95% or greater

Information Systems – monthly report , review of CDRL# 1423-41

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

Condition Monitoring Support (PWS 3.7.3)

Conduct a manual review and validation of all important and mandatory shipboard EADS fault severities and communicate results of the review. Provide the manual analysis review results to the affected ship’s Chief Engineer, Master, Port Engineer, Program Manager, Life Cycle Manager, and the COR within three (3) business days.

95% or greater

Information Systems – monthly report , review of CDRL# 1423-43

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a

Deliverable

Performance Standard* Performance Indicator

Surveillance Method Incentive (Negative)

Condition Monitoring Support (PWS 3.7.4)

The Contractor shall conduct an analysis of the parameter readings and combustion data taken by the crew and provide recommendations on the condition of the diesel engine system or the accuracy of the data collected. Provide the manual analysis review results to the affected ship’s Chief Engineer, Master, Port Engineer, Program Manager, Life Cycle Manager, and the COR within three (3) business days.

95% or greater

Information Systems – monthly report , review of CDRL# 1423-44

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

First of Class & follow-on ships

SAMM

Development, Installation & Training (PWS 3.11.15)

SAMM installation and Training completed no later than 5 days after ship delivery.

SAMM

installation and Training completed on time.

Information Systems – monthly report , review of CDRL# 1423-19

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a

First of Class & follow-on ships

SAMM

Development, Installation & Training (PWS 3.11.16)

ABS PMP-PM submittal sent to ABS within 30 days after ship delivery.

The PM and CM reports are submitted to ABS on time.

Information Systems – monthly report , review of CDRL# 1423-46

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a maximum of 100% of the hold back.

Substitution of Key Personnel

(PWS 4.3.4)

Any proposed substitution of Key Personnel must have a CONFIDENTIAL security clearance and meet the qualifications specified in Attachment 10 Personnel Qualifications

95% or greater

Resume, review of

CDRL 1423-47

When the contractor fails to meet the performance goal, the government may permanently withhold 5% of the hold back amount associated with the performance period up to a

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

Monthly Quarterly As needed

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: ______ %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Service Provider’s Performance (Check): Meets Standards Does Not Meet Standards

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________