ATTACHMENT_3_QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

MSC Worldwide Paint Commodities and Technical Representative Services

Issued 09 October 2018

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 Fleet Paint and Related Supplies/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 N712, Engineering Logistics and

Analytics 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

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.

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:

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.

User Survey/Customer

Feedback

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

Progress or Status

Meetings

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

Analysis of Contractor's

Progress Reports

Evaluate cost, schedule, etc. from data reported by contractor’s status and financial reports.

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 ensuring compliance with industrial safety and environmental regulations, State and Federal, 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 worldwide.

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

Deliverable or

Service Requirement

Measurement

/Metric

Performance

Standard

Acceptable

Quality Level

(AQL)

Method of

Surveillance Disincentive

Para 6 of PWS Personnel

Manning

The Contractor shall be capable of providing Field Service Technical

Representatives to simultaneously support up to twelve (12) shipyard availabilities on a full-time basis.

98% Customer Feedback, Direct Observations

Unsatisfactory/Poor Performance will be documented in CPARS.

Para 6.2 of PWS Contractor

Performance and

Deliverables

The Contractor shall conduct service calls and provide reports as required by section 6.2 of the

PWS.

95% Customer Feedback

Analysis of

Contractor’s Progress

Reports

Para 6.3.3 of PWS Contractor

Deliverables and

Performance

The Contractor shall provide a

Field Service Technical

Representative for full time on-site support to MSC Representatives

(e.g. Port Engineer) in availability periods or when painting critical areas like potable water tanks or flight decks. Field Service

Technical Representatives will monitor paint application efforts and advise the MSC

Representative accordingly, regardless of the manufacture type of paint being applied.

98% Customer Feedback

Progress/Status

Meetings

Deliverable or

Service Requirement

Measurement

/Metric

Performance

Standard

Acceptable

Quality Level

(AQL)

Method of

Surveillance Disincentive

Para 10 of PWS Contractor

Performance

The Contractor shall make deliveries worldwide. The required delivery time limits are outlined in Attachment 5 in PWS

98% Customer Feedback

Direct Observations

Progress/Status

Meetings

Analysis of

Contractor’s Progress

Reports

Unsatisfactory/Poor Performance will be documented in CPARS.

A $100 firm fixed price discount per calendar day, up to a maximum of 15 calendar days, for the late delivery of each

DI deliverable. Discounts resulting from the late delivery of DI's shall appear as a credit against the Global DO Credit Memo

Invoice.

If the Contractor fails to deliver the supplies and services within the time specified in Attachment (D) or as mutually agreed upon, the Contractor shall pay to the Government a discount of 2.5% per calendar day of delay up to a maximum of

10 calendar days. Discounts shall appear as a credit against the corresponding

Global DO Credit Memo Invoice.

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: _________________