QASP_Lifeguard and Pool Maintenance 2.docx

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

Lifeguard and Pool Maintenance Bronx VAMC i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

INTRODUCTION

This QASP is developed pursuant to the PWS for Lifeguard & Pool Maintenance at Bronx VAMC. It outlines VA surveillance to ensure compliance with lifeguard staffing, pool maintenance, chemical testing, filtration management, safety compliance, and all other requirements described in the PWS.

Key PWS Summary:

1. General: The Contractor agrees to manage the Therapeutic Pool at the James J Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx NY.

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 SOW/PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure 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.

Performance Management Approach The SOW/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 VA 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.

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.

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 SOW/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 SOW/PWS. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC 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 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 is managed effectively.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Contracting Officer The CO (CLIFFORD S. HARRISON) oversees compliance with lifeguard certification, pool operations, filtration maintenance, and general performance outlined in the PWS.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative The COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) monitors lifeguard attendance, chemical logs, filtration system functionality, daily cleaning, safety compliance, and quarterly contractor meetings as required in the PWS.

IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

Performance requirements include:

• 100% lifeguard coverage M–F, 8:00–4:30

• Daily pool cleaning

• Chemical testing 3× daily

• Weekly chemical adjustments

• Filtration system checks and backwashing

• Compliance with health regulations

• Quarterly contractor meetings

METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

Surveillance Techniques Surveillance includes random inspections, daily log reviews, quarterly site visits, customer feedback, and documentation review.

· Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR/COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) designated inspector.

· Periodic Inspection – Independent Contractor shall perform the periodic inspection on an annual basis and report findings to CO (CLIFFORD S. HARRISON) and COR (TIFFANY MAZCK).

Customer Feedback Customer complaints may be submitted to CO (CLIFFORD S. HARRISON) /COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) and resolved using the CDR process.

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 CO and/or 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 CO/COR. The CO/COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate and then document by using the Contract Discrepancy Report –CDR (Attachment 3) which is also attached to the COR designation letter.

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

Acceptable Quality Levels AQLs:

• Lifeguard staffing: 100% coverage

• Daily cleaning tasks: 95% completion

• Chemical log accuracy: 98%

• Filtration compliance: 100% with health regulations

QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

The Performance Management Feedback Loop The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS/SOW and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

Monitoring Forms COR uses QA monitoring forms to document lifeguard presence, safety practices, chemical logs, and filtration checks.

The COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms and CDR forms.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

Determining Performance 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.

Reporting At the end of each quarter, the COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) will prepare a written report for the CO (CLIFFORD S. HARRISON) summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted quarterly 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.

Reviews and Resolution The COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) and/or CO (CLIFFORD S. HARRISON) and/or other government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) 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 CO (CLIFFORD S. HARRISON and/or COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

· Monthly/Quarterly 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

· Any other issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

The COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

The COR (TIFFANY MAZCK) 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 CO (CLIFFORD S. HARRISON).

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Required Services (Tasks) Performance Standards Acceptable Quality Levels Methods of Surveillance Incentive (Positive and/or Negative)

Conformance Standards

Personnel

Scope

General Information

Hours of Operation

Meet PWS

Meet PWS (1.5.2)

(1.4)

(1.6)

(1.6.4) 100% (no deviation)

98% (slight deviation)

100% (no deviation)

COR random review

COR random review

Failure affects performance evaluations

Failure affects performance evaluations

ATTACHMENT 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

Random Sampling 100% Inspection Periodic Inspection Customer Complaint LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: ______%

Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:

PREPARED BY: ___________________________________ DATE: _________________

Contract Discrepancy Report (Attachment 3)

Contract No.

Report No. for this Discrepancy:

Contractor/Manager’s Name:

From: (Name of Project Officer)

Dates

Prepared:

Returned by Contractor:

Action Complete:

Discrepancy or Problem:

Signature of Contracting Officer:

To: (Contracting Officer)

From: (Contractor)

Contractor Response as to Cause, Corrective Action and Actions to Prevent Recurrence (Attach Continuation Sheet if Necessary)

Signature of Contractor Representative:

Date:

Government Evaluation:

Government Actions:

Close Out

Contractor Notified

Project Officer

Contracting Officer