Attachment_3.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT SERVICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

1. Introduction and Purpose

2. Performance Management Approach

2.1 QASP Roles and Responsibilities

2.2 Review Process

2.3 Methods of Surveillance

3. Performance Measurements

Attachment 3

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

1. Introduction and Purpose The Performance Work Statement (PWS) in conjunction with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is designed to guide administrative and reporting requirements, project administration needs, general requirements, and task order requirements throughout the life of the project. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) defines the methodology for continuously monitoring and periodically evaluating the contractor’ performance against the objectives for Enterprise Architecture Support Services project. The goals of this QASP are to:

• Provide an effective plan that can be successfully implemented

• Clearly communicate collection and evaluation procedures to which the contractor and the

PBGC agree

• Focus the contractor on the functional areas of greatest importance to the PBGC mission and motivate innovative use of company resources to improve performance

This QASP defines the overall approach and strategy for managing and monitoring performance measures, identifies the roles and responsibilities of all members of the team, and defines methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the performance objectives. Performance monitoring and reporting is integral to the contractor’ Quality Management (QM) approach.

The QASP focuses on the level of performance, rather than on the methodology used by the contractor to achieve that level of performance. The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance and to identify required documentation and resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting performance standards and that the planned results are achieved. Additionally, this QASP identifies the method and approach for monitoring measures during the performance period and where needed, implementing corrective actions when quality levels are in jeopardy of being met.

2. Performance Management Approach This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a method to evaluate performance.

This 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 approach features a thorough review process with surveillance documentation, review methods, and defined roles and responsibilities for the contractor and PBGC.

2.1 QASP Roles and Responsibilities

The PBGC Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control; and resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the performance of the contractor. The CO will designate a full time COR as the PBGC authority for performance management.

The COR will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, and communicating the technical performance of the contractor and providing feedback to the contractor on ways to improve. The COR will have the responsibility for completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’ work performance.

2.2 Review Process

The contractor shall to continuously review the quality of the products and services generated in the tasks and control delivery to ensure that only acceptable products are received by PBGC. The contractor shall continuously monitor performance through daily and weekly reviews and monthly performance reports to establish baselines, provide current and historic reports, and measure progress. If events have occurred outside the contractor’ scope of work, the contractor will submit valid justification for exemption or removal from the performance measure.

The contractor shall disseminate quality data across the team and to PBGC in meetings, monthly program reviews, status reports, in required Integrated Project Team (IPT) meetings, and via the PBGC Portal enabling PBGC to efficiently monitor our performance on a continuing basis.

The contractor shall utilize a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to record all Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) required activities. The contractor shall develop, maintain, and execute all the procedures to collect and analyze metrics for project tasks, deliverables, and services. At a minimum, the contractor shall report progress against the activities listed in this Performance Work Statement (PWS). All metrics are tracked and reported in the QCP and presented to the COR for signature approval.

If the COR does not agree with the contractor’ assessment of the quality levels and metrics, the COR will modify the report accordingly. As a general practice, the contractor develops the QCP for COR approval according to the agreed upon schedule and at a minimum during the following milestone points (additional dates and inspections may occur, as required).

• When final deliverables are completed and presented for signature.

• Quarterly to assess the schedule and content of standard contract deliverables (e.g., meeting minutes, status reports, monthly reports, and other PWS deliverables).

• At the request of COR, CO, or other appropriate stakeholder for period inspection on specific activities.

A completed report will clearly delineate the evidence as to how the COR and the contractor have reached the quality of the deliverable or service. The COR or designee reviews deliverables as they are received, assess the assigned task areas, and incorporate any additional feedback into the performance evaluation. A self-evaluation by the contractor shall enable both parties to compare data and resolve any inconsistencies to ensure a complete evaluation.

Accurate and thorough surveillance documentation will be necessary for an effective performance evaluation program. Easy-to-use and complete documents will be required, and the contractor and PBGC personnel responsible for performance management and surveillance must be disciplined in completing these documents. The inspection and acceptance of the contractor provided products and services cannot be based on opinion and anecdotal evidence.

Completeness, currency, and accuracy will be required to document both satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance.

2.3 Methods of Surveillance

Effective surveillance methods are transparent, meaning that all elements of measurement, data collection, metrics determination, and reporting are objective, understood, documented, and auditable. The list of methods of surveillance below shall be used in the administration of this

QASP.

Quality Audit or Inspection – includes inspection of deliverables identified within the PWS.

Inspection will be performed by the identified deliverable approvers with the results to be reported to PBGC Management and the contractor’ Enterprise Architect Lead.

Reporting Analysis – Review and evaluation of reports furnished by the contractor as to overall performance against the objectives identified herein. These reports include the Monthly Status Reports.

Periodic Inspection or Random Sampling – Performed on a monthly basis or by selecting a sampling of the deliverables submitted that are of similar type, e.g. status reports.

Customer Input – May be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from customer issues. Customer issues must set forth clearly and in writing and detail the nature of the issue. They must be signed and must be forwarded to the Enterprise Architect Lead. The Enterprise Architect Lead will maintain a summary log of all formally received customer issues as well as a copy of each issue in a documentation file. The Enterprise Architect Lead shall also keep the tabulated results of all customer satisfaction surveys on file and shall present them in the final performance review.

3. Performance Measurements The contractor’s performance management approach shall align with the contractor’s Quality Assurance (QA) methodology that implements the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process and begins with communication of expected outcomes. The table below shows a high level summary of the performance management activities that maps to the PDCA process.

PDCA

Process

Activities

Plan ● Provide detailed supporting information, as requested

● Hold reviews to discuss the contractor’ performance, as needed

● Perform corrective actions as needed in response to customer complaint investigations or performance reports Do ● Track and report performance monthly in Status Reports

● Report requested exemptions in Status Report

● Remedy cause of failure and resume meeting performance levels

● Implement corrective actions and notify PBGC of measures taken

Check ● Investigate performance failures

● Assess and respond to valid customer complaints related to the contractor’ performance Act ● Determine corrective actions (as appropriate)

● Make written recommendations for improvements in procedures

The table below represents requirements by which PBGC assesses the contractor’ performance based on the PBGC objectives for this project. Additionally, the method of surveillance within each service area and the source data that will monitor progress against performance has been included. Within 15 business days after the contract is awarded, the contractor will meet with PBGC post award to review, clarify, and finalize the proposed performance measures and this proposed QASP. At such time, future changes for any reason (scope, levels, process, incentives, etc.) will be mutually agreed upon and documented in an incrementally adjusted versioned of the

QASP.

Performance Requirements Summary (PRS)

Performance Standards for IDIQ Deliverables. These standards apply to all analyses, reports, support and other deliverables for all requirements unless otherwise stated.

PWS Task Metric Type Performance Standard Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Surveillance Method 2.7.10, 2.7.10.1.1,

2.7.10.1.2 and 2.7.10.1.3

Timeliness Deliverables are submitted in a timely manner as per the Deliverables schedule at the TO Level.

100% of all reports are submitted on time unless there is a strong justification with COR consensus.

COR records the date each report is received and reviews for accuracy, clarity, specification validity and completeness.

*Note: Reports are not counted as late when, on a case-by-case basis, the COR approves later report submission.

Performance Standards for Operations and Maintenance Support and Other Deliverables. These standards apply to all analyses, reports and other deliverables for all analyses-related task orders unless otherwise stated.

PWS Task Metric Type Performance Standard Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Surveillance Method

2.7 Timeliness Deliverables are

submitted in a timely manner as per the Deliverables schedule at the TO Level.

100% of all reports are submitted on time unless there is a strong justification with Federal Program/Project Manager and COR consensus.

Reported from Federal Architect.

Observed and recorded by Chief Architect and COR.

2.7 Accuracy Deliverables are

accurate in technical content.

100% of all deliverables are submitted on the accuracy with no major error that agreed upon Federal Architect.

Reported from Federal Architect.

2.7 Clarity Deliverables are clear

and concise;

engineering or software development terms are used as appropriate;

diagrams are easy to understand and relevant to the supporting narrative.

100% Reported from Federal Architect.

2.7 Specification

Validity

All deliverables satisfy the Government's requirements specified herein, including performance metrics, where applicable.

100% meet requirement/scope defined to the project

Reported from Federal Architect.

2.7 Completeness Deliverables are

submitted with all the required information.

100% of all deliverables contain all required information that agreed upon Federal Architect.

Reported from Federal Architect.

*Note: Reports are not counted as late when, on a case-by-case basis, the COR approves later report submission.

Performance Standards for Analyses, Reports and Other Deliverables. These standards apply to all analyses, reports and other deliverables for all analyses-related task orders unless otherwise stated.

PWS Task Metric Type Performance Standard Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Surveillance Method

PWS 2.1 / 2.6

Analyses and Other Deliverables

Timeliness Deliverables are submitted in a timely manner as per the Deliverables schedule at the TO Level.

100% of all reports are submitted on time unless there is a strong justification with Federal Program/Project Manager and COR consensus.

COR records the date each report is received and reviews for accuracy, clarity, specification validity and completeness.

PWS 2.1 / 2.6

Analyses and Other Deliverables

Accuracy Deliverables are accurate in technical content.

100% of all reports are submitted on accuracy with no major error that agreed upon Federal Program/Project.

Based on the Federal program/project manager comments and feedback on the deliverable reviewed and signed.

PWS 2.1 / 2.6

Analyses and Other Deliverables

Clarity Deliverables are clear and concise;

engineering or software development terms are used as appropriate; diagrams are easy to understand and relevant to the supporting narrative.

100% Based on the Federal program/project manager comments and feedback on the deliverable reviewed and signed.

PWS 2.1 / 2.6

Analyses and Other Deliverables

Specification Validity

All deliverables satisfy the Government's requirements specified herein, including performance metrics, where applicable.

100% meet requirement/scope defined to the project

Based on the Federal program/project manager comments and feedback on the deliverable reviewed and signed.

PWS 2.1 / 2.6

Analyses and Other Deliverables

Completeness Deliverables are submitted with all the required information.

100% of all deliverables contain all required information that agreed upon Federal Program/Project Manager and/or COR signed off.

Based on the Federal program/project manager comments and feedback on the deliverable reviewed and signed.

PWS 3.

Status Report(s)

Timeliness Deliverables are submitted in a timely manner as per the Deliverables schedule at the TO Level.

100% of all reports are submitted on time unless there is a strong justification with Federal Program/Project Manager and COR consensus.

COR records the date each report is received and reviews for accuracy, clarity, specification validity and completeness.

*Note: Reports are not counted as late when, on a case-by-case basis, the COR approves later report submission.

PWS Attachment 1 - Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) Tables