Actuarial Services - IPVFB QASP 1-20-12.doc

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Integrated Present Value of Future Benefits (IPVFB) Services for the

Actuarial Services Division (ASD), within the Benefit Administration Payment Department (BAPD) of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in Washington, DC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iiTABLE OF CONTENTS

11.0 Introduction

11.1 Purpose

11.2 Performance Management Approach

11.3 Performance Management Strategy

22.0 Roles And Responsibilities

23.0 Identification of Services To Be Performed

24.0 Methodologies To Monitor Performance

35.0 Quality Assurance Reporting

36.0 Analysis of Quality Assurance Monitoring Results

47.0 Failure To Perform

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1.0 Introduction

PBGC bases this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) on requirements listed in the performance-based Performance Work Statement (PWS). This performance-based plan explains the procedures and guidelines PBGC will use in evaluating the technical performance of the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe on a high level the methods and identify the resources that PBGC will use to measure contractor performance. The QASP provides a means for evaluating how well the contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the PWS.

1.1.2 PBGC designed this QASP to define on a high level - roles and responsibilities; identify overall performance objectives; define methodologies PBGC will use to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance and deliverables; describe quality assurance reporting, and the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.1.3 The performance-based PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service is required as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work. This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by the PBGC to monitor, manage, and take appropriate action on the contractor’s performance against expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS. Performance management rests upon developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance metrics. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the basis of performance management. The data generated in a performance management approach provides information that indicates whether the contractor adequately achieves expected outcomes for required services.

1.1.4 Performance management also represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether or not the contractor achieves outcomes and migrates away from scrutiny on compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (Federal, State, and local), compelling business situations such as safety and health, and compliance with Agency policies and procedures. An outcome focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the contractor achieves the critical outcomes at the desired levels of performance.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.1.5 The contractor’s Quality Control Plan (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 their performance to the designated Government representative.

1.1.6 The Government representative will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against documented performance objectives. The Government will make decisions 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 they effectively manage performance.

2.0 Roles And Responsibilities

2.1 The Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control; and resolving any differences between the observations documented by the COR and the contractor’s performance.

2.2 The CO will designate a Contracting Officer Representative (COR) as the Government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as Technical Inspectors depends upon the complexity of the services measured as well as the contractor’s performance.

2.3 The COR is responsible for monitoring, assessing, and communicating the technical performance of the contractor and assisting the contractor. The COR will provide communications and documentation in a timely fashion so as not impede the contractor performing the work. Government surveillance may occur under the Inspection of Services clause for any service relating to the contract.

3.0 Identification of Services To Be Performed

The contractor shall perform detailed Alternatives Analysis and Comparative Benefit Cost Analysis in support of the IPVFB services planning and decision making process, as required in OMB Circulars A-11 and A-94, and in accordance with the PWS. The contract establishes the performance standards in the PWS that covers the specific category of work related to this activity. The acceptable level of performance is set in the acceptable quality level related to that paragraph.

4.0 Methodologies To Monitor Performance

4.1 In an effort to minimize the contract administration burden, the Government shall use simplified methods of surveillance techniques to evaluate contractor performance. COR review or Contractor self-reviewing and reporting are the generally conducted methods of surveillance for this contract. In addition to the methods discussed below, additional methods such as random checks, observations, inspections, complaints and review of files that staff are required maintain and deliver under this performance work statement may be included. The Government will use appointed representatives, as well as reports and input from agency federal and contractor employees as sources of comments on the contractor’s performance.

4.2 PBGC expects the contractor to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of professional communication between employees and customers is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and PBGC can measure this through customer complaints. Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems.

NOTE: The customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the COR as opposed to the contractor. The COR will accept the customer complaints and will investigate and communicate any findings with the contractor to ensure the opportunity to address any valid performance issues.

4.3 The acceptable quality levels (AQL) are located in Attachment 1, Required Performance Metrics. PBGC structured the AQL attachment for contractor performance allowing the contractor to manage how they perform the work.

5.0 Quality Assurance Reporting

5.1 The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. PBGC expresses performance standards in the PWS and measures the standards by the required performance metrics in Attachment 1.

6.0 Analysis of Quality Assurance Monitoring Results

6.1 The Government shall use the observation methods cited to determine whether the contractor has met the AQLs.

6.2 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, 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 discuss:

Monthly performance measured by the metrics and trends

Issues and concerns of both parties

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends Recommendations made by the Project Manager or System User based on contractor information

Issues arising from independent reviews and inspections

6.3 The contractor will discuss with the COR satisfaction ratings receiving a “less than acceptable” rating. For such cases, the contractor should highlight its perspective on factors driving customer satisfaction and present plans to adjust service levels accordingly to bring the satisfaction rating up to an acceptable level.

6.4 The COR and contractor should jointly formulate tactical and long–term courses of action. The COR and contractor should clearly document decisions regarding changes to metrics, thresholds, or service levels. The COR will incorporate the agreed upon changes to service levels, procedures, and metrics as a contract modification at the earliest convenience of the COR.

7.0 Failure To Perform

7.1 Notifications. Consistent with FAR Part 49, the COR shall notify the service provider of failure to meet standards through documented feedback, cure notices, or show cause notices and shall inform the service provider manager or designated alternate of such notices.

7.2 Termination. If the COR determines that the contractor has failed to perform to the extent that a termination for default is justified, the CO shall issue a notice of termination, consistent with FAR Part 49.

DME and Operations & Maintenance Performance Measures

Below is a list of tasks, performance standards, monitoring methods, and acceptable quality level for evaluating contractor performance. PBGC may add additional performance measures in future Task Orders

SURVEILLANCE

(QASP)/MONITORING METHOD

ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL (AQL)

Assurance (PPQA) audits that measure compliance with ITSLCM as determined by third party PPQA audit reports.

Approval signatures on 100% of all ITSLCM documents.

Tailoring compliance assessment as per PPQA assessment and an overall score of 98% across all audits is acceptable.

Measure CPI and SPI scores in Primavera for each applicable project. Review Primavera reports comparing the baseline schedule and costs with the actual schedule and costs.

Maintain a CPI score between 0.9-1.10.

Maintain a SPI score between 0.9-1.10.

· No Priority 1 (Emergency)

Release

· No more than one postproduction release/change for bugs introduced in current release

· One Priority 1 (Emergency) Release

· No more than one post-production release/change, including one

Emergency release

Actuarial Support and Studies

Below is a list of tasks, performance standards, monitoring methods, and acceptable quality level for evaluating contractor performance. PBGC may add additional performance measures in future task orders.

SURVEILLANCE

(QASP)/MONITORING METHOD

ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL (AQL)

Resolve any IPVFB system issues that come up during the valuation process in a timely manner so that PBGC meets valuation schedules.

Review by ASD

Review by ASD Project Manager/ management

100% of all questions and requests addressed in timeframe agreed upon with ASD.

100% of any IPVFB system issues are addressed in timeframe agreed upon with ASD

No deviations permitted without acceptable documented explanation

Resolve any audit, security issues Complete miscellaneous actuarial requests as assigned and agreed to with ASD.

Review by ASD management

Review by ASD management / Project Manager Review by ASD Final reports provided within agreed upon timeframe between contractor and ASD.

Audit and security issues resolved within agreed upon timeframe by contractor and ASD.

Miscellaneous actuarial requests resolved within agreed upon timeframe by contractor and ASD.

No deviations permitted without acceptable documented explanation