QASP_Mooring Eyes.pdf

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Mooring Eyes KAA & Dirab Airfield

Kingdom Saudi Arabia

Prepared By: MAJ Adam Laurich

OPM-SANG

Engineering and Construction Division

Kingdom Saudi Arabia

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Evaluation Areas & Ratings Criteria Table 2 – Key Deliverables by Evaluation Areas Table 3 – Specific Evaluation Criteria for Established Key Deliverables

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Quality Assurance Monitoring Form Attachment B: Corrective Action Form

LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

DB Design Build DBB Design Bid Build COR Contracting Officer’s Representative KO Contracting Officer PM Project Manager PWS Performance Work Statement POC Point of Contact QAMF Quality Assurance Monitoring Form QAR Quality Assurance Report QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan SME Subject Matter Experts SOW Scope of Work

1.0 OVERVIEW for this task order

1.1 Introduction. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth the procedures and guidance that the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and their designees will use in evaluating the technical and quality performance of the Contractor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scope of work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS).

1.2 Purpose. The purpose of the QASP is to ensure that the performance of specific activities and the completion of final project deliverables are accomplished in accordance with all requirements set forth in the SOW and/or outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This QASP describes the mechanism for documenting noteworthy accomplishments or discrepancies for work performed by the Contractor. Information generated from COR’s surveillance activities will directly feed into performance discussions with the Contractor. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with performance metrics set forth in the contract documents, the Army receives the quality of services called for in the contract, and the Army only pays for acceptable services received.

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

• Define the role and responsibilities of participating Army officials.

• Define the final deliverables and standards that will be assessed.

• Describe the surveillance methodology that will be employed by the Army in assessing the

Contractor’s performance.

• Describe the surveillance documentation process and provide copies of the forms that the Army will use in evaluating the Contractor’s performance.

• Outline quality assurance procedures to be employed by the Government during performance of this task order.

• Define Evaluation Areas, including Quality, Schedule, Management, Regulatory Compliance, and other areas (as applicable).

• Define Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory performance standards for final deliverables and standards.

• Ensure clarity on recent changes to the formulation of contractor evaluations, from an overall/cumulative rating to a recommend/do not recommend.

• Outline corrective action procedures.

• Describe payment procedures.

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ARMY OFFICIALS

2.1 Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer (KO) has overall responsibility for overseeing the Contractor’s performance. The KO is responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the Contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, and contract administration; reviewing the COR’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance; and resolving all differences between the COR’s assessment and the Contractor’s assessment of performance. It is the KO that assures the Contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the Contractor’s performance. The KO for this contract is Linda Matos, at the U.S. Army Contracting Command-Rock Island, GOV Phone +966-55-441-0659, or Linda.a.matos.civ@.army.mil.

2.2 Contracting Officer Representative (COR). The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is responsible for technical administration of the project and assures proper Army surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The COR is responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the Contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COR for this base contract is MAJ Adam Laurich at OPM-SANG, Kingdom Saudi Arabia, GOV Phone/SIGNAL App +966 50 894 1799 or Adam.C.Laurich.mil@army.mil.

2.3 Technical Expertise and Subject Matter Experts. The KO and COR may call upon the technical expertise of other Army Officials and subject matter experts (SME) as required. These Army Officials and SMEs may be called upon to review technical documents and products generated by the Contractor.

3.0 METHODS FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

3.1 Evaluation Areas. The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated by assessing the final deliverables above according to the standards of Quality, Schedule, and Regulatory Compliance. Other Evaluation Areas can be included at the discretion of the COR and PM. Each Evaluation Area is rated as Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory.

3.2 Evaluation Areas and Ratings Criteria.

TABLE 1 – Evaluation Areas & Ratings Criteria

EVALUATION AREAS & EXAMPLE INDICATORS

Quality • Product performance relative to contract’s performance parameters

• Performance in terms of contract’s quality objectives

• Use quantitative indicators wherever possible

• Contractor’s management of the quality control program

• Quality of the work or service

Schedule • Timeliness of the Contractor against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements

• Contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule, that contributes to or affects the scheduled variance

• Adverse actions such as the assessment of liquidated damages or issuance of Cure Notices, Show Cause, and Delinquency Notices are indicators of problems which may have resulted in variance to the contract schedule and should, therefore, be noted in the evaluation

• Adequacy of Initial Progress Schedule

• Submission of Required Documentation

• Adherence to Approved Schedule

• Submission of Updated & Revised Progress Schedules

• Resolution of Delays

Management • Integration and coordination of activity

• Problem identification

• Corrective action plans

• Reasonable and cooperative behavior

• Customer satisfaction

• Subcontract management

• Program management

• Management of key personnel

Regulatory Compliance • Compliance with regulations and codes

• Financial

• Environmental

• Labor o Correction of Noted Deficiencies o Compliance with Labor Laws and Regulations with Specific Attention Pay o Equal Opportunity Requirements o Payrolls Properly Completed and Submitted

• Safety o Adequacy of Safety Plan o Correction of Noted Deficiencies o Implementation of Safety Plan

• Other Reporting requirements in the contract

EVALUATION AREA RATINGS DEFINITIONS*

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many 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 was highly effective. To justify an exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective. To justify a very good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. To justify a satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD Policy, a fundamental principle assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. To justify marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety or environmental deficiency report or letter).

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recover is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. To justify an unsatisfactory rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone would constitute an unsatisfactory rating. An unsatisfactory rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety or environmental deficiency report or letter).

*The guidelines provided for issuing ratings are subjective in nature, and these ratings will be supported by the weight of evidence documented during the government’s surveillance efforts.

3.3 Performance Assessment Process. If a deliverable is rated as being unsatisfactory for Quality or Regulatory Compliance at the time that the approved SOW/PWS deadline for the deliverable expires, the Contractor may receive an unsatisfactory rating for Schedule, unless there is an Army approved delay that extends the SOW/PWS deliverable. This will only take place during the rating period, and will not necessarily influence future/later ratings.

3.3.1 Army Approved Delays. At the discretion of the COR, the performance standard of Schedule outlined in Table 3, may not be monitored due to Army-Approved delays. QAMFs will track and report this based on Contractor monthly reports to the COR.

3.4 Recommendation. In lieu of an overall rating, the Contractor will either be recommended/not recommended for similar future requirements.

3.5 Key Deliverables to be assessed. The following deliverables will be evaluated in accordance with this

QASP:

3.5.1 Final Deliverables

• Mooring Eye Installation per SOW

• Grounding Point Installation per SOW

• MB-1 Chain Adjuster Delivery (NSN 160-00-212-1149 or equivalent) per SOW

• Type 1 3M Chain (NSN 1670-00-516-8405 or equivalent) per SOW

• Ground Paint Receptacles per SOW

• Tow Lead Lines Paint per SOW

• Final As-Built Drawings per SOW

3.5.2 Monitoring Method

• 100% Inspection: All project deliverables will be evaluated through 100% inspection by onsite inspection or document review. The OPM-SANG Project Manager will document performance for each completed deliverable prior to payment, as described in Section 5.0 Payment.

• Periodic Inspection: At the COR discretion, periodic inspections will be conducted to evaluate progress toward deliverables. This will include QA Inspections (safety, geophysics, chemical data packages, etc.) by a government representative. The COR may also complete a periodic progress inspection if he/she believes that deficiencies exist that must be addressed prior to deliverable completion. While corrective action or re-performance will be required if necessary, the Contractor will not be financially penalized for unacceptable performance recorded in periodic progress reports, provided that final performance evaluation of the deliverable is deemed acceptable.

• Customer Feedback: Contractor performance feedback will be obtained through periodic inquiries by the COR with project stakeholders. The purpose of these inquiries would be to supplement the other forms of evaluation and to also provide the Contractor with constructive criticism and/or recognition for the project deliverables completed. Customer feedback received will be thoroughly validated to ensure it relates to the requirements of the SOW/PWS and will be used in a prudent manner by the COR. Customer feedback will also be solicited in the form of a concurrence letter by the Contractor from appropriate stakeholders for final deliverables.

3.5.3 Additional Surveillance Activities

Additional Government surveillance activities may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Review and approval of meeting minutes.

• Review of daily reports.

• Review of data deliverables.

• Oversight of field work activities.

• Review of uploaded electronic deliverables.

• Review of the Contractor’s quality control documentation.

• Review of the Contractor’s safety records.

3.5.4 Indicators and Documentation

• COR acceptance

• Meeting minutes

• Memos

• Worksheets

• Completion of QAMFs

• Correspondence (letters, email)

Table 2 – Key Deliverables by Evaluation Areas.

Deliverable* Quality Schedule Management Regulatory Compliance (incl. Safety)

Mooring Eye Installation X X X X Grounding Point Installation X X X X MB-1 Chain Adjusters X X X X

Type 1 3M Chains X X X X Ground Painting X X X X

* Includes Key Deliverables from PWS

3.6 Performance Standards. The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated by assessing the final deliverables above according to the standards of Quality, Schedule, Management, and Regulatory Compliance (which includes Safety). In addition, the Contractor’s performance will be evaluated for the standard of Safety during any fieldwork. For each of these performance standards, the COR will assign one of five ratings of the Contractor’s performance: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 – Specific Evaluation Criteria for Established Key Deliverables Performance Standard

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Quality Draft and Final deliverables are of excellent quality, approved as submitted, or with no substantive comments limited to grammar, spelling, or terminology.

Army audit finds that the data collect and/or the work performed exceeds the requirement of the SOW/PWS. No deficiencies noted

Draft deliverables are of high quality and comments are mostly minor. Final deliverables are approved after one (1) round of Army comments on the Draft through acceptance of response to comments table and backcheck of Final report against original comments. No further revisions are required.

Army audit of work does not identify any deficiencies that compromise the quality of the data collected or work performed.

Draft deliverables are of acceptable quality with only a few number of comments identifying major weaknesses.

Final deliverables are approved after two (2) rounds of Army comments on Draft. No further revisions are required.

Army audit of work identifies deficiencies that do not compromise the quality of the data collected or work performed, and can be corrected.

Draft deliverables are of poor quality with a significant number of comments identifying major weaknesses or deficiencies.

Final deliverables require more than two (2) rounds of Army comments on Draft before being approved.

(e.g., changes are required to the Final document due to inadequate incorporation of comments).

Army audit of work identifies deficiencies that compromise the quality of the data collected or work performed, but were corrected.

Draft deliverables are of very poor quality and are rejected for resubmittal without comment. Final deliverables did not comply with contract requirements, or one or more document versions required more than three (3) rounds of Army comments before being approved.

Army audit of work identifies deficiencies that compromise the quality of the data collected or work performed, and cannot be corrected.

Schedule

Contractor Achieves milestone more than 90 days ahead of schedule, per criteria established in the SOW/PWS and this QASP.

Contractor Achieves milestone less than 90 days but more than 30 days ahead of schedule, per criteria established in

Contractor achieves milestone according to the schedule, per criteria established in the SOW/PWS and this QASP.

Contractor achieves milestone more than 30 days but less than 90 days behind schedule (unless the COR notes Army delay), per

Contractor achieves milestone more than 90 days behind schedule (unless the COR notes Army delay), per criteria established in the SOW/PWS and this

QASP.

Standard

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory the SOW/PWS and this QASP.

criteria established in the SOW/PWS and this QASP.

Management All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by higher qualified individuals.

Zero (0) instances of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by higher qualified individuals.

No more than one (1) instance of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by equally qualified individuals.

Informal poor performance feedback on conduct of personnel is provided by the COR but are corrected.

No more than two (2) instances of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by equally qualified individuals.

Formal letter of poor performance feedback on conduct of personnel is provided by the COR but are corrected.

No more than three (3) instances of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

All personnel proposed by the contractor were assigned to the project. Some personnel were substituted by lesser qualified individuals.

Written request from

OPM-SANG

requesting removal of assigned personnel for poor performance or notification of poor performance is provided by the COR and is not corrected.

More than three (3) instances of resource management issues creating a negative impact to the activity.

Regulatory Compliance (includes Safety)

Contractor obtains concurrence on deliverables from stakeholders to include OPM- SANG. This concurrence is obtained independently with little to no involvement and coordination required by the Government.

No significant safety deficiencies are reported during QA inspection of fieldwork. No lost time accidents or injuries are

Contractor obtains concurrence on deliverables from stakeholders to include OPM- SANG. This concurrence is obtained independently with limited involvement and coordination required by the Government.

No more than one (1) serious safety deficiencies are reported during

Contractor obtains concurrence on deliverables from stakeholders to include OPM- SANG. This concurrence is obtained with a moderate level of involvement and coordination required by the Government.

No more than two (2) serious safety deficiencies are reported during QA inspection

Contractor obtains concurrence on deliverables from stakeholders to include OPM- SANG. This concurrence is obtained with a significant level of involvement and coordination required by the Government.

No more than three (3) serious safety deficiencies are reported during QA inspection of fieldwork. If any serious safety

Contractor does not obtain concurrence on deliverables from stakeholders to include OPM-SANG.

More than three (3) serious safety deficiencies are reported during QA inspection of field activities, or a serious safety deficiency is reported but not properly investigated and corrected, or two or more lost time accidents or injuries is recorded during field activities

Standard

Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Regulatory Compliance (includes Safety) Continued… recorded during the fieldwork.

QA inspection of fieldwork. If any serious safety deficiency is noted during the project, appropriate investigation, corrective action, implementation, and written verification of the corrective action are provided to the Army. No lost time accidents or injuries are recorded during the fieldwork.

of fieldwork. If any serious safety deficiency is noted during the project, appropriate investigation, corrective action, implementation, and written verification of the corrective action are provided to the Army. No lost time accidents or injuries are recorded during the fieldwork.

deficiency is noted during the project, appropriate investigation, corrective action, implementation, and written verification of the corrective action are provided to the Army. No more than one lost time accident or injury is recorded during the fieldwork.

4.0 SURVEILLANCE DOCUMENTATION

4.1 Quality Assurance Monitoring Form. The COR or designee will use the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form (QAMF) (Attachment A) to record evaluation of the Contractor’s performance for each final deliverable in accordance with the methodology described in Section 3.0 and Section 4.0. The OPM-SANG Project Manager must substantiate, through narratives on the form, all Exceptional and Unacceptable ratings. Performance at the acceptable level is expected from the Contractor. At a minimum, the evaluation form will indicate actual and scheduled delivery times and number of reviews required to achieve the final product. Other input to surveillance includes Quality Assurance Reports (QARs) generated at various phases of the project by COR.

The OPM-SANG Project Manager will forward copies of all completed QAMFs to the OPM-SANG COR within 7 days of performing the inspection. The OPM-SANG Project Manager will forward all completed quality assurance monitoring forms to the Customer and Contractor within 14 days.

4.2 Corrective Action Process. When a final deliverable receives a marginal or unacceptable rating, the Contractor will explain, within 10 days, in writing to both the OPM-SANG COR and OPM-SANG Project Manager why performance was marginal or unacceptable, how performance will be returned to acceptable levels, and how recurrence of the problem will be prevented in the future. The Contractor shall use the corrective action form as part of this process (Attachment B). The OPM-SANG COR will review the proposed corrective action with the Customer and OPM-SANG Project Manager to determine if it will be accepted.

4.3 KO and COR Roles in Surveillance Process. The OPM-SANG Project Manager will provide the COR and KO with copies of all completed QAMFs. When appropriate, the COR and/or KO may investigate further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were considered in the OPM-SANG Project Manager opinions outlined on the form. The COR and/or KO will immediately discuss any unacceptable rating with the Contractor’s Program Manager to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated. At the end of the contract performance period, the OPM-SANG Project Manager will prepare a written report for the COR and KO summarizing the overall results of the surveillance of the Contractor’s performance during the contract. This report will become part of the formal QA documentation. The OPM-SANG Project Manager will maintain a complete QA file. This file will contain copies of all performance evaluation forms and any other related documentation. The Project Manager will forward these records through the COR and to the KO at termination or completion of the contract.

4.4 Technical Quality Assurance Monitoring. In general, all work will be evaluated in terms of how well the requirements of the task order are satisfied, the extent to which the work performed follows the approach found in the contractor’s technical proposal and/or implements the decision of Technical Project Planning, and clarity of documentation. At the discretion of the COR or the Contracting Officer or Specialist, other government officials approved by the Contracting Officer or Specialist may be asked to evaluate a particular deliverable or set of deliverables. The results of all Technical Quality Assurance Monitoring will be documented using a Technical Review Form. Technical Quality Assurance Monitoring Documentation will document technical criteria evaluated.

5.0 PAYMENT

5.1 Acceptable Performance. Estimates are typically made monthly, but can be made other than monthly, of the amount and value of the work and services performed by the Contractor under this contract which meet the standards of quality established under this contract. The estimates, along with any supporting data required by the Contracting Officer, shall be prepared by the Contractor and submitted along with its voucher. After receipt of each substantiated voucher, the Government shall pay the voucher as approved by the Contracting Officer or authorized representative.

5.2 Unsatisfactory Performance. If a deliverable receives an unsatisfactory rating for either the Quality or Regulatory Compliance performance standard, re-performance is required until the deliverable receives an acceptable rating. This re-performance is required regardless of cost or schedule constraints that may result from the unsatisfactory performance, unless the KO has opted to terminate the contract.

QASP Approval:

MAJ Adam Laurich Date Contracting Officer’s Representative

ATTACHMENT A:

QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

Date: Date Customer: Customer Name and POC Milestone, Deliverable &/or Standard: Deliverable Name Survey Period: Date(s) Method of Surveillance:

Prepared By: Project Manager, Phone Number Narrative Discussion of Contractor Performance during Survey Period:

Corrective Action Required: Yes_______ No _______

I certify that I have checked the quantities covered by this bill or estimate: that the work was actually performed; that the quantities are correct and consistent with all previous computations as actually checked; that the quantities and amounts are wholly consistent with the requirements of the contract or other instrument involved.

ATTACHMENT B:

CORRECTIVE ACTION FORM

1) Date:

2) Customer:

3) Milestone, Deliverable &/or Standard:

4) Survey Period:

5) Author’s Name and Phone Number:

6) Description of the Failure/Deficiency that Precipitated the Corrective Action:

7) Description of the Criterion that the Failure/Deficiency was Evaluated Against:

8) Personnel Involved in Identification of the Failure/Deficiency, Determination of the Appropriate Corrective Action, Approval of the Corrective Action, and Implementation of the Corrective Action:

9) Description of the Corrective Action that was Required:

10) Date/Time of Implementation of the Corrective Action: _____________________________

11) Follow-Up Information to Prevent Recurrence of Failure/ Deficiency (i.e., Need For Revision of Procedures or Specifications):

12) Personnel Name/Title Responsible for Follow-Up:

13) Planned Date for Follow Up Surveillance: _____________________________

14) Other Notes:

Signed By Title Date

1.2 Purpose. The purpose of the QASP is to ensure that the performance of specific activities and the completion of final project deliverables are accomplished in accordance with all requirements set forth in the SOW and/or outlined in the Performance...