RFP - Attachment 2 QASP dated 1-27-2021.docx

Solicitation Attachment 2

Federal Emergency Management Agency Community Engagement and Risk Communication (CERC) Support

1-27-2021

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINTE QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION

The contractor’s performance will be monitored in accordance with the quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) This QASP describes how government personnel will evaluate and assess contractor performance. The QASP is based on the premise that the Contractor, not the Government, is responsible for the day-to-day performance of the work and all the management and quality control actions required to meet the terms of the contract. The role of the Government is quality assurance to ensure task order standards are achieved and maintained.

The QASP is designed to provide an effective surveillance method to monitor the service provider’s performance relative to the requirements listed in the agreement. The QASP illustrates the systematic method the Government will use to evaluate the services the service provider is required to furnish.

2. 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 herein and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of QASP stakeholders, 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.

3. OBJECTIVE

This QASP provides a quality surveillance strategy for the Risk Management Directorate’s (RMD’s) Community Engagement and Risk Communication (CERC) Support Services IDIQ. The primary intent of the plan is to provide a basis for the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) evaluation of performance quality. The plan will also afford the COR and the Contracting Officer a productive mechanism and oversight to preclude major deficiencies in performance, provide input for annual contractor past performance evaluations, and make the determination for exercising of task order options.

4. PERFORMANCE AREAS

Surveillance of contractor performance will be performed by the appointed COR and the Contracting Officer based on the surveillance methodologies identified in the QASP. The performance objectives of the task order will be the basis from which all surveillance will originate.

5. METHOD OF EVALUTATION AND SURVEILLANCE

The COR will perform surveillance and evaluate each of the performance areas described in this plan. The COR will conduct evaluations of all items identified in the QASP. The monitoring methods are identified in the QASP. The COR may also receive input through customer feedback, RMD personnel and other government personnel, as appropriate. The COR and/or Contracting Officer (CO) shall use any information which is readily available or information/data to be produced or made available under the party’s contract to perform any reasonable evaluation, surveillance, or other inquiry to ensure contract requirements are met.

6. INSPECTION OF DELIVERABLES

All deliverables will be inspected for content, completeness, accuracy, and conformance to requirements specified in the PWS. Unless specifically noted and mutually agreed upon, the Government may take up to 15 business days after receipt of the deliverable to inspect and review the deliverable, provide comments and feedback, and accept or reject the deliverable. If necessary, the contractor may take up to 10 business days to address the comments or feedback provided by the Government, unless specifically noted and mutually agreed upon.

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

The absence of any task order requirement from the QASP shall not detract from its enforceability to limit the rights or remedies of the government under any other provisions of the contract, including the clauses entitled “Inspection of Services” and “Default.”

The QASP is organized in accordance with:

· Performance Objective: Lists the performance requirement that the government will survey.

· Performance Standard: Sets forth the required performance levels.

· Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs): AQLs for Contractor performance is structured to allow the Contractor to manage how the work is performed. Levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance.

· Method of Surveillance: Sets forth the surveillance methods the Government will use to evaluate the contractor’s performance for the listed tasks and the level/frequency of surveillance.

· Performance Incentive/Disincentive: The contractor’s performance will be monitored in accordance with the QASP. Deficiencies in contractor performance will be fully and accurately documented to (1) identify the discrepancy, (2) record the steps taken to correct the discrepancy, and (3) detail the outcomes and disposition of the deficiency. Likewise, successful or exceptional performance will be recorded in the COR file and appropriate actions will be taken to recognize the contractor (i.e., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).

8. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT SUMMARY (PRS)

1.1.1, 1.1.8 The NOS works across RMD programs, integrates Regional strategies, and is coordinated with other FIMA programs.

The NOS focuses on empowering stakeholders, partners, and customers, leveraging existing activities and relationships to drive risk reduction.

Minimum score of 3 out of 5 on the Quarterly Satisfaction Survey.

Minimum score of 3 out of 5 on the Quarterly Satisfaction Survey.

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

1.2.5 Partners are empowered with subject matter expertise and materials to assist them to own more communications and drive risk reduction in their communities and with their partners.

Best practices by communities and partner organizations are identified, captured, and shared for replication and inspiration.

Minimum score of 3 out of 5 on the Quarterly Satisfaction Survey.

15 best practices are gathered and shared every contract year.

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

Monitored annually by the Program Manager

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

2.1.6 The Regional Outreach Strategies work across Risk Analysis Branch programs, support the NOS, and are coordinated with other Mitigation Division programs.

The Regional Outreach Strategies focus on empowering stakeholders, partners, and customers, leveraging existing activities and relationships to drive risk reduction.

Minimum score of 3 out of 5 on the Quarterly Satisfaction Survey.

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

3.1.1

3.1.1 Mitigation Plan Reviews are completed in accordance with required timelines and prescribed guidance.

Stakeholders receive effective training and on Mitigation Planning including the development of mitigation plans, and other topics such as integrating mitigation into other local plans and other relevant topics.

Technical assistance is provided to SLTT stakeholders to build capabilities in mitigation plan development, planning process, risk assessment, strategy development, plan integration, implementation and other mitigation planning topics that reduce risk and build community resilience.

Minimum score of 3 out of 5 on the Quarterly Satisfaction Survey.

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

Quarterly Satisfaction Survey

10.1 A contract transition in plan is developed and concurred upon by the Government and the incumbent within 10 calendar days of award to ensure smooth transition of services with clear timelines for engagements and assumption of duties.

The contractor assumes all contract duties and responsibilities, has signed all Knowledge Transfer Forms, and is providing full operations of services within the prescribed timeframe.

Zero deviation

Zero deviation Monitored by the Program Manager

Monitored by the Program Manager

9. MONITORING FORMS

The government’s quality assurance surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using a monitoring form (Attachment 1). The form, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the task order to ensure that the required results are being achieved.

The government will also use a quarterly satisfaction survey (Attachment 2).

10. REPORTING

At the end of each month, the COR will prepare and deliver a written report to the CO 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 (Attachment 1), will become part of the quality assurance 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.

11. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Performance of a service will be evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the performance requirements of the task order. When the performance requirement is not met, the Contracting Officer will issue a Discrepancy Report (DR) to the Contractor. The Discrepancy Report is drafted by the COR, who forwards it to the Contracting Officer; this follows the program’s task order monitoring procedures. The Contractor shall respond to the DR by completing the appropriate blocks of the form and returning it to the Contracting Officer within 15 calendar days of receipt. In the case of DRs issued as the result of other methods of surveillance, the Contracting Officer shall take appropriate measures according to the clause entitled “Inspection of Services.” Deficiencies in contractor performance will be fully and accurately documented to (1) identify the discrepancy, (2) record the steps taken to correct the discrepancy, and (3) detail the outcomes and disposition of the deficiency. Performance will be recorded in the COR file and appropriate ratings will be documented to memorialize the contractor’s performance in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).

ATTACHMENT 1: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

SERVICE or STANDARD:

SURVEY PERIOD:

SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):

☐Random Sampling ☐1 1100% Inspection ☐Periodic Inspection ☐Customer Complaint

LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check):

☐Monthly ☐Quarterly ☐As needed

PERCENTAGE OF ITEMS SAMPLED DURING SURVEY PERIOD: %

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:

Observed Service Provider Performance Measurement Rate: % Service Provider’s Performance (Check): ☐Meets Standards ☐Does Not Meet Standards Narrative of Performance during Survey Period:

PREPARED BY:

DATE:

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE QUARTERLY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

ATAAttac Quarterly Customer Satisfaction Survey

Instructions: Please provide your name and title above. Then, using the pull-down menu in each blue cell in Column C, rate each question using a five-point scale where “5=exceeded my expectations”; "3=satisfactory"; and “1=sorely under-delivered.” For each question, please provide a succinct explanation of your rating in Column D. The average ratings and the narratives provided on this sheet will be provided to the CERC Team.

image1.png image2.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet.xlsx Sheet1

If the question does not apply, please leave the Rating blank. Explanation and comments should be specific and help the CERC Team improve for the next reporting period.

Question Rating Explanation

a) How well has the CERC staff integrated into program delivery, adding value and insight into program execution, specifically within your Region/Program area?

b) How well has CERC anticipated and proactively addressed the critical issues within your Region/Program area?

c) How well has CERC managed the delivery of quality work products and deliverables within your Region/Program area?

d) How well has the provider team partnered with other contractors and stakeholders to ensure seamless program delivery within your Region/Program area?

e) What overall rating would you give CERC's team performance for the evaluation period?

f) How well has the FEMA staff supported (and partnered with) the CERC team on the delivery of the program priorities in your Region/Program area?