QASP - Patrol Officer Response.pdf
PDF 256 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RCTA Patrol Officer Response Course
- Solicitation number
- W9127Q26QA011
About this file
This document contains technical exhibits and a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for Interview & Interrogation and Detecting Danger training courses. The contract deliverables include offeror and instructor qualifications (submitted with the RFP), AT/OPSEC training certificates including AT Level 1 Information Awareness, Threat Awareness, and OSPEC training (evaluated each course), and course instruction evaluated each course iteration.
Performance standards are measured through student course evaluations with an Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) of 75% average or above for each class across six evaluation criteria: instructor presentation of information, instructor knowledge of subject matter, hands-on training of materials, textbook and handout materials, instructor's strong points, and overall course rating. The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) is 2d Lt Zachary Clay (601-387-5488, zachary.a.clay.mil@army.mil), who monitors performance monthly through DOD CORT and completes Quality Assurance Rating Sheets using a three-tier rating system: Green (AQL met), Yellow (minimum AQL with attention needed), and Red (below AQL requiring immediate resolution). Student evaluations are administered by the Government Facilitator at the end of each course, and COR observations combined with evaluation results determine course quality and contract compliance.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| PWS - Patrol Officer Reponse.pdf | ||
| CLAUSES W9127Q26QA011.pdf | ||
| WAGE DETERMINATION (2).pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1
Performance Requirements Summary
This Performance Requirements Summary indicates the performance standards the Government will use to determine contractor performance. The Government COR will compare the course evaluation for each iteration to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) indicated below.
Deliverable Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Method Used/Frequency
1. Instructor presentation of information
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
2. Instructor knowledge of subject matter
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
3. Hands on training of materials 75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
4. Textbook & handout materials presented to the students
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
5. Instruction’s strong points of course
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
6. Overall course rating 75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 2
Deliverables Schedule
This Performance Requirements Summary indicates the performance standards the Government will use to determine contractor performance. The Government COR will compare the course evaluation for each iteration to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) indicated below.
PWS
Paragraph(s)
DELIVERABLE FREQUENCY
1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, 1.6.5
Offeror/Instructor Qualifications (Resumes/Evidence that the Offeror and Instructors meet the minimum qualification requirements)
Included with the Request for
Proposal (RFP)
1.5.1 AT/OPSEC Training Certificates to include AT Level 1
Information Awareness, Threat Awareness, OSPEC
Training
Course Evaluation / Each Course
Technical Exhibit 3
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)
Interview & Interrogation and Detecting Danger Courses
The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will monitor contractor performance and complete the status report in DOD CORT monthly. The COR for this acquisition is 2d Lt Zachary Clay, 601-387-5488, zachary.a.clay.mil@army.mil.
The Government Facilitator for each course iteration will provide students with an end of course evaluation. The completed evaluations, along with the COR observations, will be used to evaluate the quality of the course presentation/deliverable.
Deliverable Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) Method Used/Frequency
1. Instructor presentation of information
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
2. Instructor knowledge of subject matter
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
3. Hands on training of materials
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
4. Textbook & handout materials presented to the students
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
5. Instruction’s strong points of course
75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
6. Overall course rating 75% average or above on each class’s evaluation
Course Evaluation / Each Course
*Student Course Evaluations will be completed by each student attending the course, and will ask students to rate the following:
1. Instructor presentation of information
2. Instructor knowledge of subject matter
3. Hands on training of materials
4. Textbook & handout materials presented to the students
5. Instruction’s strong points of course
6. Overall course rating
Rating Description Green Performance and technical specifications are being met at an acceptable quality level (AQL).
Yellow Performance and technical specifications are currently being met at the minimum AQL, but the following service/ deliverable needs contractor attention (see comments).
The COR must identify what component of the deliverable and/or service requires attention.
Red Performance and technical specifications are not being met at AQL and the following service/ deliverable needs immediate contractor resolutions (see comments).
The COR must identify what component of the deliverable and/or service is below the minimum AQL.
Vendor Name:
Contract number:
Course title:
Month: Year:
DELIVERABLE GREEN YELLOW RED
1. Instructor presentation of information
2. Instructor knowledge of subject matter
3. Hands on training of materials
4. Textbook & handout materials presented to the students
5. Instruction’s strong points of course
6. Overall course rating
Iterations This Period (Location/Dates):
Comments (Required for Yellow or Red ratings):
I certify that this report is in accordance with the Inspection of Services Clause FAR Part 52.246-4 or the inspections for commercial contracts FAR Part 52.212-4(a), the monthly surveillance schedule, and the QASP. I hereby certify that services have been received and accepted.
COR Name/Phone/Email:
COR Signature:
Quality Assurance Rating Sheet
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .