RFP_Attachment_C_-_Quality_Assurance_Surveillance_Plan.pdf

RFP QMAC-CY-140001-N

Attachment C – QASP – Page 1

ATTACHMENT C - QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

With SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) with service level agreements is pursuant to the requirements listed in the TMIS 2.0 statement of work (SOW). This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines GSA will use with {AWARDED CONTRACTOR} in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the Contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the systematic methods used to monitor performance, define the acceptable quality levels, and to identify the required documentation and resources to be employed to assess performance. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the Contractor is meeting the performance standards/quality levels identified in the contract. It is intended that this QASP will be finalized by the Government within 30 days of award based on the vendor’s proposal / quality assurance plan, and may be modified based on the performance of the vendor over the life of the contract. Within 60 days prior to option renewal determination, the Government will provide notification of any anticipated QASP changes applicable to the option period, and negotiation of these changes should be completed prior to initiating performance of the new option period.

1.2 Performance Management Strategy

1.2.1 The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed and achieving the objectives outlined in the contract. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own quality control program, which will be documented in its proposal as quality assurance plan. The plan will include a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated Government representative. The Contractor’s quality assurance plan will set forth procedures for self-inspecting the best value rates, quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the SOW. This QASP describes what the Government’s performance review priorities will be during the contract period of performance.

1.2.2 The Government Contracting Officer Representative (COR) 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 whether the vendor is meeting acceptable performance levels. The Contractor will be responsible for making required changes in processes and practices to ensure performance is managed effectively. Note - while the QASP intends to document the performance review priorities, other contract performance factors may be considered in reviewing the vendor’s performance for the period.

2 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the solicitation in Section 6 of this QASP. Failure to meet the required service or performance level may result in a Government request for consideration or other performance impact (e.g., creating a corrective action plan, exercise of future options and/or consideration for terminating the contract for cause).

3 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

Attachment C – QASP – Page 2

3.1 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:

Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR designated inspector.

100% Inspection – Each month, the COR, shall review the generated documentation and enter findings into the performance record for the period.

Periodic Inspection – COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a pre-determined basis – typically monthly or quarterly.

3.2 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Section 6 of this QASP, for Contractor performance are structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed while clarifying methods that the Government will use to evaluate performance. Some performance measure AQLs are determined by requirement, other performance measure AQLs are based on the vendor’s commercial capability and will be evaluated as part of their proposal.

4 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

4.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes.

Performance standards are expressed in the solicitation and assessed using the performance monitoring techniques described in Section 6.

4.2 Feedback Format

The Government’s QA surveillance feedback, documented by the COR, will be provided on a periodic basis established based on the final QASP post-award. It is expected to be no less than semi-annually and likely quarterly in the base period. When completed, the Contractor will acknowledge the Government’s assessment of the Contractor’s performance under the contract and take appropriate corrective actions, where necessary.

5 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

5.1 Determining Performance

5.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the service levels/performance standards/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.

5.2 Reporting

5.2.1 At least semi-annually, the Government’s Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will prepare a written report for the Contracting Officer summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the Contractor’s submitted monthly reports and COR performance assessments, will become part of the contract performance record. It will enable the Government to demonstrate whether the Contractor is meeting the stated performance objectives and/or standards.

Attachment C – QASP – Page 3

5.3 Reviews and Resolution

5.3.1 The COR may require the Contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO and other Government 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 analysis

Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

Address any issues arising from the performance monitoring processes; Contractor will be required to prepare a corrective action plan for any issues deemed as marginal or unacceptable performance.

5.3.2 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 convenience of the CO.

6 SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Table 1 represents required service level performance measures where the acceptable quality level (AQL) is determined by Government requirement based on prior service performance and/or other established commercial capabilities. These will be included in the initial post-award QASP.

Table 1: Required Service Level Performance Measures with AQLs determined by SOW requirement

Item Performance Measure

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Levels

Methods / Frequency of

Surveillance

SOW Requirement Reference

1 Data processing is completed on time as established in the Data Management Plan

100% on-time based on schedule outlined in Data Management Plan

100% on-time Data Management Plan, Data Quality Scorecard, Data Availability and Other Report Output Reviews

C.4.7.1 #13

2 Data Quality Scorecard completed on time and accurately reflects data quality received from data source

100% on-time, accurate scorecards

100% on-time, accurate scorecards

Data Quality Scorecard, and Report Output Reviews

C.4.7.1 #15

3 Any report and/or data output of the TMIS 2.0 solution, matches or exceeds the level of quality

Completeness and accuracy greater than or equal to raw data received

Completeness and accuracy greater than or equal to raw data received

Data Glossary, Data Quality Scorecard, and Report Output Reviews

C.4.7.1 #16

Attachment C – QASP – Page 4

(both in terms of completeness and accuracy) of the raw data as it was originally received from the data source

4 Help Desk Calls with ring only / no voice mail reached

No calls result in ring only response

No calls result in ring only response

Help Desk Call tracking C.4.10 #3

5 Help Desk response by email within 48 hours of initial inquiry (excluding non-business days)

100% of help desk requests receive response within 48 hours of initial inquiry

95% Help Desk Call tracking C.4.10 #2

Table 2 represents future service level measures or types of measures that Government requires the offeror to propose specific measures and related performance standards and acceptable quality levels for Government evaluation. The final negotiated acceptable quality levels established in the offeror’s final proposal will be included in the initial post-award QASP.

Table 2: Service Level Performance Measures to be proposed by the Offeror for evaluation by Government

Item Performance Measure

Performance Standards

Acceptable Quality Levels

Methods / Frequency of

Surveillance

Requirement Reference

6 Ability to deliver reports that fulfill the minimum capabilities specified in Attachment B.

To be proposed To be proposed To be proposed To be proposed

7 Customer Satisfaction with the entire solution/service to include data quality factors, use of reporting tools, structured report outputs, and responsiveness

To be proposed To be proposed To be proposed To be proposed

8 Speed and quality for resolving ad hoc reporting needs

To be proposed To be proposed To be proposed To be proposed