Tab 19 - ATTACHMENT II - QASP.pdf

1.0

ATTACHMENT II

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

INTRODUCTION

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is developed pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Section 2 of RFQ) for Electronic Security Systems (ESS) Maintenance Access Control Systems Support. The QASP sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Government will use in evaluating the performance of the contractor at providing the aforementioned support. This requirement will be awarded as a firm-fixed price contract. Therefore, performance measures will be used to assess the contractor’s performance under this contract in order to determine whether the contractor is performing at acceptable levels in order to allow for a 100% payment of monthly invoices. The Government will make objective and subjective assessments of the contractor's performance to determine whether contractor performance is acceptable. The Contractor is expected to perform all functions in a professional manner and prepare accurate and timely documentation.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 The purpose of the QASP is to describe the methods that will be used to measure performance and to identify the reports required and the resources to be employed. The QASP provides a means for evaluating whether the contractor is meeting the performance standards identified in the PWS.

1.1.2 This QASP is designed to define roles and responsibilities, identify the performance objectives, define the methodologies used to monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance, describe quality assurance reporting, and describe the analysis of quality assurance monitoring results.

1.2 Performance Management Strategy

1.2.1 The contractor’s internal quality control system will set forth the procedures for self inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will utilize its internal quality control system to assess and report their performance to the designated Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

1.2.2 The COR will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The COR will make decisions 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.

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1. The Contracting Officer is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration and cost control; and resolving any differences between the observations documented by the COR and the contractor’s performance.

2.2 The Contracting Officer will designate one full-time COR as the Government authority for performance management.

2.3 The COR is responsible for monitoring, assessing, and communicating the technical performance of the contractor and assisting the contractor. The COR will have the responsibility for evaluation of the contractor’s work performance.

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED

3.1 The contractor shall provide support in accordance with the PWS. The performance standards are established in the paragraph of the PWS that covers the specific category of work.

4.0 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 In an effort to minimize the contract administration burden, simplified methods of surveillance techniques shall be used by the Government to evaluate contractor performance.

There are various surveillance methods used to monitor contract performance and compliance.

When selecting the appropriate method, the COR will take into consideration task criticality, task complexity, time available, mission requirements. The following are preferred methods of surveillance that may be used to assess contract performance.

a. Customer complaint: Any customer observing unacceptable services, either incomplete or not performed, for any performance objectives. The COR will evaluate the complaints on a case by case basis. If any Government action or lack of action caused the unacceptable performance, the complaint against the Contractor is not valid. The COR will document the invalid complaint and keep for their records. If the complaint is not a result of any Government action, the procedures as detailed in 7.0 will be followed.

b. Periodic Inspection: This type of surveillance is based upon selecting samples for evaluation on other than 100% inspection or on a statistically random basis.

4.2 The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication with DLA Troop Support. The primary objective of professional communications is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the most significant external indicator of the success and effectiveness of all services provided and can be measured through compliments and complaints.

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems.

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTING

Below are the Performance Standards that will be used in evaluating performance on a monthly basis and in determining the amount of the monthly payment owed to the vendor:

Good – Performance meets or exceeds contract requirements in terms of timeliness and quality. The COR recommends and the contracting officer will make a determination to pay the contract 100% of the invoice amount.

Fair – Performance meets contract requirements with either only minor performance issues or minor timeliness issues. The performance and/or timeliness issues do not adversely impact the mission of the Agency. The COR recommends and the contracting officer will make a determination to pay the contractor 90% of the invoice amount.

Poor – Performance narrowly meets contract requirements by at least one of the following:

bordering on unacceptability in terms of or quality of performance, bordering on unacceptability in terms of timeliness, or potentially having an adverse impact on the mission of the Agency. The COR recommends and the contracting officer will make a determination to pay the contractor 80% of the invoice amount.

Unacceptable – Performance has been at a less than acceptable level in terms of timeliness or quality. Possible issues include, but are not limited to: missed milestone, low quality documents requiring multiple reviews and rewrites, significant or serious complaints submitted by the customers, documents that do not comply with acquisition or policy regulations, or one or more cure notices have been issued. Payment will be withheld pending resolution of cure notice(s). Termination for default or cause may result.

The ratings, as described in the table above, will be based on the performance of the contractor on the timeliness and quality of the services provided using the rating scale for each criterion as shown below:

Timeliness

Good Meets or exceeds contract requirements in terms of timeliness of delivery.

Fair Minor timeliness issues that do not adversely impact the mission of the Agency.

Poor Timeliness issues that are not minor and/or borders on unacceptability.

Adverse impact on the mission of the Agency is possible.

Unacceptable

Contractor failed to meet the timeliness requirements. Possible issues include, but are not limited to; one or more deliverables not submitted on time or missed milestones. One or more cure notices may have been issued by the Contracting Officer.

Quality

Good

Meets or exceeds contract requirements in terms of quality of work performed. No unacceptability in terms of timeliness, or potentially having an adverse impact on the mission of the Agency. The COR recommends and the contracting officer will make a determination to pay the contractor 80% of the invoice amount.

Fair Performance meets contract requirements with only minor issues and the issues do not adversely impact the mission of the Agency.

Poor Performance narrowly meets contract requirements and either borders on unacceptability in terms of quality, or adverse impact on the mission of the Agency is possible.

Unacceptable

Quality of performance has been at a less than acceptable level.

Possible issues include, but are not limited to: low quality documents requiring multiple reviews and rewrites, significant or serious complaints submitted by the customers, documents that did not comply with acquisition or policy regulations or one or more cure notices have been issued by the Contracting Officer.

6.0 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING RESULTS

6.1 At the end of each month, the COR may prepare a written report for the Contracting Officer summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance monitoring of the contractor’s performance.

6.2 The Contracting Officer or COR may require the Contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the Contracting Officer and other Government personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The COR will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, however if the need arises, the contractor may meet with the Contracting Officer as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may discuss:

• Monthly performance measured by the metrics and trends

• Issues and concerns of both parties

• Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trend

• Recommendations made by the COR based on contractor information

• Issues arising from independent reviews and inspections

6.3 In addition to QA monitoring, the COR will use the information contained in the contractor’s monthly status report to assess the contractor’s level of performance for each objective measured in this QASP. The COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns of marginal or unacceptable performance. The contractor will discuss with the Contracting Officer/COR satisfaction ratings receiving a “less than acceptable” rating. For such cases, the contractor should highlight its perspective and present plans to adjust service levels accordingly to bring the satisfaction rating up to an acceptable level.

6.4 The Contracting Officer/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 Contracting Officer.

7.0 FAILURE TO PERFORM

7.1 The contractor may receive deductions or even termination based on failure to perform. The following criteria apply for determining appropriate action:

1. Notifications. Pursuant with FAR Part 52.212-4, the Contracting Officer shall notify the contractor of their failure to meet standards through various means of communications (e.g.:

phone, email, etc.) cure notices, or show cause notices and shall inform the contractor’s project manager or designated alternate of such notices.

2. Deductions. The Government has the right to withhold a percentage of payment of the monthly cost for performing particular services based on failure to meet performance standards.

The percentage of such withholding is identified in Section 2.0, herein.

3. Termination. If the Contracting Officer determines that the contractor has failed to perform to the extent that a termination for default is justified, the Contracting Officer shall consider a notice of termination, consistent with FAR Part 52.212-4(m).

7.2. Procedures. The COR will perform inspections to ensure contractor compliance with the appropriate paragraphs in the PWS, other government requirements, and the contractor’s own procedures, and will record the results of the inspections, noting the date and time. If inspection indicates a performance level is not met, the Contracting Officer will notify the contractor of the deficiency for correction. The contractor will be given a reasonable time after notification to correct the unacceptable performance. The length of time allowed to correct the problem will depend upon the requirement, complexity of corrective action(s) and the deficiency. The contractor will notify the Contracting Officer if the time allowed for correction is not adequate.

The COR will not consider the correction action(s) until all deficiencies have been corrected and determined by the COR to be adequate. Contractor non-responsiveness, deficiencies not adequately addressed or corrected after notification of such, or estimated dates of completion that are not acceptable to the COR will be forwarded to the Contracting Officer for action.