Attachment_0002_QASP_10_March_2017.doc

Attachment 0002

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR: Contractor TBD

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose. This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed to identify the methods and procedures the Government will use to evaluate contractor performance while concurrently determining the contractor is meeting the mission essential elements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). It is designed to provide an effective surveillance method by monitoring contractor performance for each listed performance objective in the Performance Requirements Summary (See Section 7).

1.1.1. This QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate the services the contractor is required to perform as specified in the PWS and the contract proposal.

1.1.2. This QASP was developed by the 316th ESC, Logistics Automation Branch. It was designed to provide direction to personnel performing contractor surveillance activities. Personnel surveying the contract terms and conditions and PWS requirements will periodically review the QASP throughout the life of the contract.

2.0. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

2.1. Government. The role of the Government in quality assurance is to ensure the contractor is performing in accordance with the contract requirements and contract standards are achieved.

2.2. Contracting Officer (KO). The KO is responsible for safeguarding the interests of the United States Government in contractual relationships. Only the KO is authorized to bind the Government and then, only to the extent of the authority entrusted to them through the issuance of a warrant.

2.2.1. The KO designates authority for inspection and/or acceptance responsibilities to the COR, or delegates authority to another certified acquisition professional in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation & Defense (FAR/DFARS). This documented authority allows the COR or other certified acquisition professionals to act on the KO’s behalf.

2.2.2. The KO informs the contractor of the names, duties, and limitations of authority for all quality assurance personnel assigned to the contract.

2.3. Contracting Officer Representative. The COR when designated:

i. develops and creates the QASP

ii. serves as the eyes and ears for the KO at the contractor’s site

iii. monitors contractor performance to ensure contract requirements are met for: Performance, Cost, and Schedule

iv. ensures that contract quality requirements, provisions, standards, and thresholds are defined, practical, enforceable, necessary, and verifiable.

v. evaluates and documents contractor performance in accordance with this QASP and the PWS.

vi. notifies the KO of any significant performance deficiencies using a Contractor Discrepancy Report with supporting documentation.

vii. maintains surveillance documentation.

viii. recommends improvements to the QASP and PWS throughout the life of the contract.

3.0. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

3.1. Scope of Work. The scope of this contract is to provide customer assistance for the Army’s Logistics Information Systems, including software, functional, technical, communications and limited hardware. Also, this contract provides training to unit personnel and staff assistance on the use and implementation of TLS platforms throughout the command. 1st TSC requires contracted support to augment the automated logistical infrastructure and military personnel within the Theater. This requirement is critical for efficient support to Operation Enduring Freedom.

4.0. QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

4.1.

Quality Control Program. The contractor, not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. Details of these controls will be documented (when required) in the contractor’s Quality Control Program document.

5.0 SURVEILLANCE. The COR will perform monthly surveillance based on the quality and effectiveness of the contractor’s data deliverables as well as the services provided. Regardless of the surveillance method, the COR shall always contact the contractor's quality manager or on-site representative when a defect is identified and inform the manager of the specifics of the problem. The COR, when designated, shall be responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in meeting a specific performance standard/acceptable quality level (AQL).

5.1 Unacceptable Performance. If the number of complaints/defects exceeds the performance threshold for any objective, the COR will determine the possible cause of this unacceptable performance. Government-caused complaints/defects will not be counted against the contractor. The same applies to any other requirement of the contract when Government-caused complaints/defects are the cause of unacceptable contractor performance. If the contractor’s performance is judged unacceptable for any requirement by the COR, the COR will document the discrepancy as a non-conformance and inform the KO (if needed) for resolution. Significant (major non-conformance) performance deficiencies must be submitted to the KO using a Contractor Discrepancy Report and include supporting documentation.

6.0

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

6.1 Monthly Reports in the Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool

6.2 First Article / Test / Progress or Procedure Reports - as required (monthly, quarterly, etc.)

6.3 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) documents - as required

6.4 Discrepancy Reports - as required

7.0

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS)

7.1 Overview. The PRS details and identifies the contractor requirements by performance objectives that relate directly to mission essential elements from the PWS. The performance threshold describes the minimum acceptable levels of service required for each contractor requirement. These thresholds define minimum acceptance standards critical to mission success. Various methods of surveillance exist to monitor performance; see note 2 below.

7.2 Performance Evaluation. Performance of a service will be evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the performance threshold. Revising and resubmitting the documentation at no cost to the Government is the preferred method for correcting unacceptable performance. The contractor shall provide the Government a written response as to why the performance threshold was not met, how performance will be returned to acceptable levels, and how recurrence of the cause will be prevented in the future.

7.3 Performance Objectives, Indicators, Thresholds, and Surveillance Methods. The services required by the contractor are summarized into performance objectives and indicators, along with the minimum standards that relate directly to mission essential items. The performance threshold briefly describes the minimum acceptable levels of quality or service required for each requirement. These thresholds are critical to mission success.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

PWS Para:

4.0 – 4.9.5

Random visual inspection.

Conducted monthly IAW COR surveillance schedule.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor.

PWS Para:

4.3.2.2

Random telephonic inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.3.2.3

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.3.2.4

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.3.2.5

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.3.3.1

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.5.1.2/3/4

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.5.3.1

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.5.3.2

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.5.3.6

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.5.4

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.5.5

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.6.1

Visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.6.1.1

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.6.2

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.6.3

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.6.5

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.6.9.1

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.9.1

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.9.3

Random visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.9.4

Visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

PWS Para:

4.9.5

Visual inspection.

Nonconformance report issued to contractor

Note 1. The evaluation ratings are as follows:

a. Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

b. Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

c. Marginal - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task 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.

d. Unsatisfactory – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the task or sub-task contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Note 2. Surveillance methods

The COR must use at least 1 of the surveillance methods listed above in the administration of this QASP.

a. PLANNED - DIRECT OBSERVATION. (Can be performed periodically or through 100% surveillance.)

b. PERIODIC INSPECTION. (Uses a comprehensive evaluation of selected outputs. Inspections may be scheduled [Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, or annually] or unscheduled, as required.)

c. PERIODIC SAMPLING. (Variation of random sampling. However, sample is only taken when a deficiency is suspected. Good follow-up to MIS analysis. Sample results are applicable only for the specific work inspected. Since sample is not entirely random, it cannot be applied to total activity performance.)

d. RANDOM SAMPLING. (Designed to evaluate the outputs of the award requirement by randomly selecting and inspecting a statistically significant sample. Highly recommended for large quantity repetitive activities with objective and measurable quality attributes.)

e. CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. (Relies on the user of the service to identify deficiencies. Complaints are then investigated and validated. Highly applicable to services provided in quantity and where quality is highly subjective.)

f. 100% INSPECTION. (Evaluates all outputs. Most applicable to small quantity, but highly important services. May be used where there are written deliverables and stringent requirements such as tasks required by law, safety, or security.)

Note 3. Performance Threshold ratings are as follows:

The contractor (PM) will be evaluated on each performance measure using the following scale:

a. EXCEPTIONAL (5) = No problems or delays in achieving contract requirements.

b. VERY GOOD (4) = Does not impact achievement of contract requirements.

c. SAT (3) = Requires minor agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements

d. MARGINAL (2) = Requires major agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

e. UNSATISFACTORY (1) = Achievement of contract requirements is compromised.

f. N/A (None) = Not Applicable or do not know.

CDRL

Note(s): Quarterly=NLT the last day of the following months: Dec, Mar, Jun, Sep.

Solicitation W52P1J-16-R-0050 14 March 2017