Attachment_4_QASP.doc

PAGE

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

NSWCCD DoD PLATFORMS MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS OF HM&E SYSTEMS SERVICES CONTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

11.1 Purpose

11.2 Performance Management Approach

11.3 Performance Management Strategy

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

22.1 The Procuring Contracting Officer

22.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

23.1 Surveillance Techniques

33.2 Customer Feedback

33.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

34.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

34.2 Monitoring Forms

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

35.1 Determining Performance

5.2 Reviews and Resolution …………………………………………………………………………4

5ATTACHMENT 1: 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 NSWCCD-SSES Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E) Equipment Installation Contract (commonly referred to as “Little Blue 2”). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines NSWCCD-SSES will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.

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/quality levels identified in the Contract and the contractor’s quality assurance plan (QAP).

1.1.2 This 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 This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by NSWCCD-SSES C/918 to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the Contract 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. Quality control 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 QAP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the Contract. 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 QAP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the Contract. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QA program.

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 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 Procuring Contracting Officer

The Procuring Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the COR and the contractor. The PCO will designate one full-time 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 PCO.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the PCO 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 PCO 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 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

3.1 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, which shall be performed by the project manager (PM) designated inspector.

· 100% Inspection – Each month, the PM, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the Surveillance Activity Checklist.

· Shipboard Industrial Work Inspection – During each tasked shipboard installation or facility fabrication, NSWCCD-SSES Code 918 will assign a government On-Site Installation Coordinator (OSIC) to oversee all production efforts. While performing the oversight function, the OSIC will be monitoring the contractor’s QA Workbook, Process Control Procedures (PCPs), qualifications, certifications and reviewing various inspection points. In addition, the OSIC will be performing Surveillances on the various work areas that the contractor is performing. The OSIC will determine the periodicity for the work Surveillances. These requirements are detailed in NAVSEA Technical Specification 9090-310 (revision) and is standard oversight requirements that are performed by NSWCCD-SSES.

· Periodic Inspection – PM typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

· ODC Conformance – COR shall review all new task order proposals for ODC compliance against the overall contract requirements. The COR, along with the SME, shall review contractor invoices for compliance. The COR shall also review contractor’s monthly financial report for contractor’s ODC expenditures. The COR inputs and maintains all labor and ODC monthly expenditures for each contract ask order in the D/90 Contract Tracking database. This database serves as Objective Quality Evidence (OQE) for all contractor expenditure reports and/or invoices.

3.2 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 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.

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

3.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

For certain critical activities 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 the government activity receiving services.

4 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

4.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

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

4.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the Program Manager (PM) will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachment 1. In addition, the OSIC will be conducting Surveillances on shipboard production work and will submit the completed forms to the PM. These forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

4.2.1 The PM will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

5 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

5.1 Determining Performance

5.1.1 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.

5.1.2 At the end of each month, the PM will prepare a written report for the COR 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 1), 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.

5.2 Reviews and Resolution

5.2.1 The COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the PCO, ACO, COR, or PM or OSIC and other government IPT 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 PCO, COR, ACO, PM or OSIC 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

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

5.2.3 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 will be incorporated as a contract modification at the convenience of the PCO/ACO.

ATTACHMENT 1: 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: _________________

PAGE

i