QASP Draft 03062026.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

Backlog Inspections 03/06/2026

Contents

Vision The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Assessment and Recovery Center (ARC) will:

· Erase its backlog of National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE) inspections and achieve its strategic goals for the fiscal year

· Have insight and accurate, actionable data and information regarding the physical condition of the HUD-assisted properties inspected through this contract 1 Introduction This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) entitled Backlog Inspections. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Program/Project Manager (P/PM) will use to ensure the required performance standards or service levels are achieved by the Contractor.

1.1 Purpose

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 PWS and the Contractor's Quality Control Plan (QCP). It also ensures that the Government pays only for the level of services received.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the Integrated Project Team (IPT), 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

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 Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH), Assessment and Recovery Center (ARC) 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 the 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.

Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional Quality Assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses 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

The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor's own Quality Control (QC) program. QC 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 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. This QASP enables the Government to take advantage of the Contractor's QC program.

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 The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities. 2.1 The Contracting Officer The 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 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Contractor. The CO 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 CO.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The COR is designated in writing by the CO 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 the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the CO 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 Appendix 1, "Surveillance Matrix". If the Contractor meets the required service or performance level, the deliverable can be invoiced and the government will pay the amount reflected in the contract.

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:

· Manual review of documents, reports, and inspections/inspections data.

· Field Inspection Oversight – the government will review the contractor’s schedule and randomly select inspections for field observation by a HUD Quality Assurance (QA) Inspector or Quality Control (QC) Inspector to assess inspector performance throughout an inspection. The scope of the onsite assessment includes:

· Technical: Knowledge and Application of NSPIRE Standards and NSPIRE Software/Application.

· Compliance: Adherence to NSPIRE related protocol, notices, and guiding documents, i.e., requesting certificates; reporting issues to TAC in a timely manner; proper application of rent roll to sampling, etc.

· Conduct: Consistency in respectful and professional communication when interacting with Property Owner/Agent (POA) staff, residents, TAC and HUD personnel. The inspector’s behavior is professional and his/her conduct contributes to a positive atmosphere throughout the inspection.

· HUD may reject an inspection that HUD has determined to be outside its quality standards through either the standard post-inspection review process, a Quality Assurance Field Observation (QAFO) report, a combination of both, or any other method the agency may use to evaluate inspection quality. Comment by Weese, Timothy W: Added to explicitly provide the processes and/or procedures HUD may use to reject an inspection. Comment by Taylor, Ted: Thanks - makes sense.

· 100% Inspection - Monthly; the COR shall review a monthly report submitted by the PM along with the generated quality assurance monitoring documentation. The COR will enter summary results in the Surveillance Activity Checklist.

· Customer Feedback.

4.1.1 Field Inspection Oversight Intervention Protocols

In addition to standard observation, Federal Inspectors (including HUD Quality Assurance and Quality Control Inspectors) are authorized to intervene during a QAFO under the specific conditions outlined below. These interventions are designed to ensure resident safety and the integrity of the NSPIRE inspection data.

A. Authorized Intervention Scenarios Federal Inspectors may communicate with and intervene with NSPIRE inspectors when the following issues are identified:

· Life-Threatening or Severe Deficiencies: If an NSPIRE inspector fails to identify or record a life-threatening or severe health and safety deficiency within the NSPIRE Salesforce system.

· Rationale: Formal mitigation by the Public Housing Authority (PHA) or POA cannot occur unless the deficiency is entered into the system of record. Failure to record these hazards leaves residents exposed to potential injury, illness, or death.

· Profile Issues: Federal inspectors may intervene to prevent ARC from rejecting an inspection due to profile errors.

· Inspectors may caution the NSPIRE inspector to check the profile prior to beginning the inspection.

· Inspectors may remind the NSPIRE inspector to follow the established order process, such as notifying the Technical Assistance Center (TAC) for resolution.

B. Limitations on Intervention (Personal Services Safeguards) In accordance with PWS Section 1.4 (Non-Personal Services), all interventions must be conducted to avoid the perception of "Personal Services":

· No Technical Direction: Federal Inspectors will point out missed deficiencies or profile issues but will not provide specific technical directions or the "correct" profile data.

· No Supervision: The Government will not supervise Contractor employees, control their methods, assign tasks, or prepare work schedules.

· Contractor Responsibility: If a Contractor believes an intervention constitutes personal services, they must notify the Contracting Officer (CO) immediately.

C. Summary of Government Roles The primary objective of intervention is to ensure that the Contractor:

· Records all missed health and safety deficiencies discovered during the inspection.

· Addresses profile issues according to the established order process.

4.1.2 Customer Feedback

The Contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers (HUD, PHAs, POAs, and residents). 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 initially drives the Contractor to be customer focused by internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems. The customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the CO and/or COR as opposed to the Contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must be 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.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) included in Appendix 1, "Surveillance Matrix", for Contractor performance are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed. For certain critical activities, such as those involving inspection requirements, the desired performance level is established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to overall mission performance.

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 Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The Government's QA surveillance, accomplished by Federal QA and QC Inspectors and the COR, may be reported using the following monitoring forms: Appendix 2 - "Corrective Action Report (CAR)", Appendix 3 - "Customer Complaint Record", and Appendix 4 "Performance Assessment Report" (PAR). The 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. The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

6 Analysis of Quality Assurance Assessment

6.1 Determining Performance

The Government will 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.

6.2 Reporting

At the end of each month, the Program/Project Manager will prepare a written report for the Contracting Officer Representative (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, 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

The COR may require the Contractor's project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO, PM, and/or 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 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

· Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness, The CO and COR must coordinate and communicate with the Contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

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 discretion of the CO.

6.4 Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix (Appendix 1) is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the Contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the Contractor's performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The PRS should be used to form the foundation of the COR's inspection checklist. In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used.

7 Quality Assurance Remedies and Incentive Implementation

7.1 Purpose

This section establishes the Government’s procedures for documenting, escalating, and implementing contractual remedies and performance incentives associated with NSPIRE inspection services.

The QASP does not create contractual remedies. All remedies, withholds, deductions, incentives, and award fee determinations shall be executed strictly in accordance with the awarded contract, applicable FAR clauses, and Section H provisions.

7.2 Performance Thresholds and Enforcement Linkage

Failure to meet the Performance Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) defined in Section 5.0 of the PWS may result in contractual remedies.

Performance areas subject to enforcement include, but are not limited to:

· Written products (reports, documents, spreadsheets, etc.) Timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and grammar

· Timely submission of inspection data Comment by Weese, Timothy W: Rewritten to match the items for which we have AQLs in the PWS.

· Inspection report data integrity, accuracy, and completeness in accordance with the PWS (sections 5.2 and 6.2 et al. (e.g., complete inspection, deficiencies identified correctly, e-signatures on health and safety reports, all discrepancies have photos)

· Rework rates

· System upload timeliness When surveillance identifies performance below AQL thresholds, enforcement and other actions may be initiated and may include those actions noted in sections 7.3, 7.4., 7.5 and/or 7.6 below.

7.3 Graduated Escalation Framework

To ensure fairness, consistency, and documentation integrity, the following graduated enforcement structure shall apply unless immediate action is warranted due to risk severity.

7.3.1 Level I – Notice of Deficiency

Trigger:

· Isolated or minor deviation below AQL.

Action:

· Written notification from COR.

· Entry into Performance Surveillance Log.

· Contractor response required within three (3) business days.

7.3.2 Level II – Corrective Action Plan (CAP)

Trigger:

· Repeated failure.

· Trend indicating systemic weakness.

· Issuance of one of the monitoring forms below.

Action:

· Formal CAP required within five (5) business days.

· Root cause analysis mandatory.

· Preventive controls required.

· CAP approval required prior to closure.

Failure to submit an adequate CAP may result in elevation to Level III.

7.3.3 Level III – Enhanced Surveillance and Financial Review

Trigger:

· Continued noncompliance after CAP implementation.

· Material impact to inspection integrity, reliability, and quality.

Action:

· Increased sampling up to 100% review.

· Invoice review and potential withholding pending CO determination.

· Formal meeting with Contractor senior leadership.

Costs associated with additional Government review caused by Contractor error may be subject to contractual remedies if authorized by the contract.

7.3.4 Level IV – Contractual Remedies

Trigger:

· Persistent systemic failure.

· Significant deficiencies in inspection quality affecting resident safety. Comment by Weese, Timothy W: See note above. Comment by Taylor, Ted: Sam comment as above. It seems it should be a program decision.

· Chronic on-time performance failure.

· Failure to correct deficiencies after written notice.

At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, remedies authorized under the contract may include:

· Payment deductions

· Withholding of invoice amounts

· Disallowance of reinspection billing

· Reduction in award fee (if applicable)

· Negative CPARS rating

· Termination for cause Only the Contracting Officer may implement monetary or termination remedies.

7.4 Rework and Reinspection Controls

When inspection errors exceed AQL thresholds:

· Re-inspections attributable to Contractor error shall be performed at no additional cost to the Government.

· Rework percentages exceeding contract limits may trigger invoice review. Comment by Weese, Timothy W: Have we outlined any? Comment by Taylor, Ted: Again no established metrics.

· Systemic error trends may result in expanded file review across geographic regions or inspector cohorts.

The Government reserves the right to validate corrected inspections through independent sampling.

7.5 Incentive Monitoring and Award Fee Support Comment by Weese, Timothy W: Rewrote this to be more in line with the current incentives portion of the NIC. Comment by Weese, Timothy W: Do we want to use this or what we have as incentives in the current contract? If the latter, can we just pull that in whole over to here? That may be easier as I am not sure all of these will apply. Comment by Taylor, Ted: I’m for the easiest clearest approach if it means using the same in the current contract.

The government will assess incentives when the contractor submits a proper monthly invoice through the Invoice Processing Platform (IPP). The Contracting Officer Representative (COR), Subject Matter Expert (SME), and the Program/Project Manager (P/PM) will conduct a performance assessment and review the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) according to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to determine if an incentive is applicable.

7.5.1 Types of Incentives

There are two types of incentives:

· Positive (Incentive): The contractor exceeds the specified performance requirement percentage required during an invoice period.

· Negative (Disincentive): The contractor does not meet the specified performance standard required during an invoice period.

7.5.2 Application of Incentives

1. Positive incentives are credit incentives and will not be monetary. The government will use the credit incentive to offset future negative incentives.

a. The government will apply the positive incentive credit to the invoice affected under the PRS credit. For example, if the contractor earned a positive incentive under PRS 5.2. the contractor can only apply the credit to the invoice covered under PRS 5.2.

2. Negative incentives are monetary. HUD will apply a negative incentive to the invoice affected under the line item.

3. The positive credit(s) will expire at the end of the current call order period. The credit(s) will not carry over through option periods.

4. The government will not assess positive or negative incentives for the first two (2) full monthly billing cycles of the call order. This allows the contractor time to fully implement contractual requirements.

7.5.3 Surveillance Method

The COR, SME, and the P/PM will monitor submittals by the inspector for compliance of the performance requirement standards. The government will measure the following performance standards, based on a project-by-project evaluation.

7.5.3.1 Program and Project Management Plan (PMP) and Sample of Master Schedule (PRS) 5.1.1:

Standard: The contractor must submit the PMP, Sample Master Schedule, and Sample Invoice Tracker Workbook 30 calendar days after kickoff meeting.

AQL: 1 Day Deviation AQL: No more than three (3) routine errors in the content. A routine error is a grammatical or spelling error that has no substantial effort on the document.

AQL: No more than one (1) critical error in the content. A critical error is anything that has a substantial effect on the comprehensibility or accuracy of the document.

Positive Incentive: None Negative Incentive: Failure to achieve standards will result in a one-time 6.5 percent reduction in payment.

7.5.3.2 Monthly Performance Report (PRS) 5.1.2

Standard: Monthly Performance Report submitted within the first five (5) business days of the month end.

AQL: 1 Day Deviation AQL: No more than three (3) routine errors in the content. A routine error is a grammatical or spelling error that has no substantial effort on the document.

AQL: No more than one (1) critical error in the content. A critical error is anything that has a substantial effect on the comprehensibility or accuracy of the document.

Positive Incentive: None.

Negative Incentive: Any deviation below the performance standard will result in a 2% reduction in payment based on the monthly invoice for the line item.

7.5.3.3 Scheduling Communications (PRS) 5.2.1 Comment by Weese, Timothy W: Currently marked as “N/A” in the PWS. We can delete this section if we agree to leave it that way. If we did add them, that means we would have to review every communication for an inspection to see if the contractor meet the incentive definition. That would be a lot of work for which we do not have the capacity.

7.5.3.4 Raw Data From Inspection Conclusion (PRS) 5.2.2 Comment by Weese, Timothy W: Do we want any type of incentives for inspections or do we address them in the payment terms like we do for the current NIC call orders? I’d recommend the latter as it will be very hard to keep track of positive/negative incentives plus any type of payment terms we may use.

Same question for H&S reports and the QCP., We currently do not have incentives for inspections, H&S reports, or the QCP.

7.6 Performance Documentation and CPARS Integration

All performance deficiencies, CAPs, corrective actions, and remedy determinations shall be:

· Logged in the official contract file

· Maintained in HUD records systems

· Considered during CPARS evaluations Chronic performance deficiencies may result in ratings of “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory” in Quality, Schedule, or Management categories.

7.7 Immediate Risk Exception

Nothing in this graduated framework prevents the Government from initiating immediate contractual remedies where performance failures pose:

· Resident Health & Safety risk

· Data integrity compromise

· Fraud indicators

· Reputational risk to HUD In such cases, the Contracting Officer may bypass progressive steps.

Page 1 | 1

Performance Rating Criteria

Excellent / Outstanding Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds much to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Appendix 1 - Surveillance Matrix

5.1 Program and Project Management Support Services

5.1.1 Program and Project Management Planning

Deliverable: A001 Project Management Plan

A002 Sample of Master Schedule

a) Standard: Submit PMP, Sample Master Schedule, and Sample Invoice Tracker Workbooks 30 calendar days after kickoff meeting.

AQL: 1 Day Deviation AQL: No more than three (3) routine errors in the content. A routine error is a grammatical or spelling error.

AQL: No more than one (1) critical error in the content. A critical error is anything other than a routine error.

What: Project Management Plan Sample Master Schedule How: Review to verify the Project Management Plan meets contract requirements.

Frequency: Once Who: COR and PM Standard(s): a Comment by Weese, Timothy W: What are the a & b referring back to? Comment by Taylor, Ted: Standards in the PWS under the “Performance Standards” on pages 21, 24, 26, & 29. Comment by Taylor, Ted: They were in the PWS. The “error deviation” language should probably come out.

5.1.2 Monthly Performance Report

Deliverable: A003 Monthly Performance

a) Standard: Submit Monthly Performance Report within the first five (5) business days of the month end

AQL: 1 Day Deviation AQL: No more than three (3) routine errors in the content. A routine error is a grammatical or spelling error.

AQL: No more than one (1) critical error in the content. A critical error is anything other than a routine error.

What: Monthly Performance Report

How: Review to verify the Monthly Performance Report meets contract requirements.

Frequency: Monthly

Standard(s): a

5.2 NSPIRE Inspections

Deliverable:

A004 Weekly Master Schedule

a) Standard: Submit a Weekly Master Schedule

AQL: 2 Days Deviation

What: Weekly Master Schedule How: Review to verify the Weekly Master Schedule meets contract requirements.

Frequency: Weekly

5.2.1 Scheduling Communications

A005 Scheduling Communications

a) Standard: The Contractor must send out the 28-day Notice prior to the agreed upon inspection date.

b) Standard: Fourteen days (14) and two (2) days prior to the inspection, the Contractor inspector will call the Multifamily Housing Agency or the Public Housing Agency and/or Property Owner Agent (POA) Communications regarding scheduling shall be maintained by the Contractor during the life of the contract. The communications shall be accessible to HUD, and the schedule of inspections shall be provided through the HUD approved platform.

AQL: Zero Deviation

What: Scheduling Communication How: Notification meets contract requirements.

Frequency: After each event Who: Contractor, COR Standard(s): a,b

5.2.2 Conducting NSPIRE Inspections

A006 Raw Data from Inspection Conclusion

a) Standard: Raw Data from Inspection Conclusion.

AQL: Raw data results uploaded into and submitted through the NSPIRE Federal Inspection Application within twenty-four (24) hours of the conclusion of the inspection.

How: Notification meets contract requirements.

Frequency: After each event Who: Contractor, COR Standard(s): a,b

5.4 Quality Control Plan

A007 Quality Control Plan

a) a) Standard: Quality Control Plan submitted Once (30 Calendar Days After Contract Award).

AQL: 1 Day Deviation

What: Providing a Quality Control Plan How: Review the Quality Control Plan to ensure compliance with contract requirements.

Frequency: Once Who: COR, PM

Appendix 2 - Corrective Action Report (CAR)

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

7. Deficiency Major Minor

FINDING

FINDING IMPACT

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the citied deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Dae in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION ACCEPTED REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

Appendix 3 - Customer Complaint Record

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

Appendix 4 - Performance Assessment Report (PAR)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

I. PERFORMANCE

7.

DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

NEW

REPEAT

NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE

CONCUR NON_CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

NON-

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. CONCUR NON_CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

16. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

Appendix 5 – Acronyms and Abbreviations AQL - Acceptable Quality Levels ARC - Assessment Real Estate Center CAR - Corrective Action Report CO - Contracting Officer COR - Contract Officer Representative HUD - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPT - Integrated Project Team MS – Master Schedule NSPIRE - National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate PAR – Performance Assessment Report POA - Property Owner Agent PWS - Performance Work Statement QA - Quality Assurance QAFO – Quality Assurance Field Observation QASP - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan QC - Quality Control QCP - Quality Control Plan UPCS – Uniform Physical Condition Standards image1.png image2.jpeg image3.jpeg