Attachment_2_-_Sample_Task_QASP_CBARR.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR

Support of Remediation Effort

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose. The role of the Government in quality assurance is to ensure contract standards are achieved. The purpose of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is to identify the methods and procedures the Government will use to evaluate contractor actions while performing the requirements in 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 (Section 7).

1.1.1. The QASP provides a systematic method to evaluate the services the contractor is required to perform as specified in the Performance Work Statement (PSW) and the Proposal.

1.1.2. The QASP has been developed by the requiring activity. It is designed to provide direction to personnel performing contract 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. Contracting Officer Representative. The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) is responsible for quality assurance guidance and to ensure that contract quality requirements, provisions, standards, and thresholds are defined, practical, enforceable, necessary, and verifiable.

2.1.1. The COR evaluates and documents contractor performance in accordance with the QASP and PWS.

2.1.2. The COR notifies the Contracting Officer of any significant performance deficiencies using a Contractor Discrepancy Report with supporting documentation.

2.1.3. The COR maintains surveillance documentation.

2.1.4. The COR recommends improvements to the QASP and PWS throughout the life of the contract.

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

2.2.1. The Contracting Officer delegates authority for inspection and/or acceptance in accordance with the terms of the contract.

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

3.0. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

3.1. Scope of Work. The scope of this contract is to obtain laboratory, project management, and health and safety support for the U.S.

Army Combat Capabilities Command Chemical Biological Center activities at a remediation site. Laboratory support shall be in the form of sample collection and analysis using Government instrumentation in fixed and mobile laboratories, as well as Quality Control and information/data management. Project management support will be in the form of cost, schedule, and performance management establishment tracking and reporting for various chemical/biological destruction projects. Safety and health support shall be in the form of site inspections at workplaces using chemical agents and other hazardous materials. Other areas of support will include Government equipment transportation.

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.

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.

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 inform the contracting officer for resolution. Significant performance deficiencies must be submitted to the Contracting Officer using a Contractor Discrepancy Report and include supporting documentation.

6.0 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

6.1 Monthly Progress Reports

6.2 Final Comprehensive Report

6.3 Start of Work Meeting Minutes

6.4 EML Quality Control Program Recommendations

6.5 Integrated Project Schedules

6.6 Survey Plans

6.7 Plan of Actions and Milestones

7.0 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY (PRS)

7.1 Overview. This PRS summary identifies the services required by the PWS over which the Government will exercise surveillance.

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 service required for each requirement. These thresholds are critical to mission success.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Performance Objective Performance Indicator Performance Threshold Method of Surveillance

PRS # 1. Progress Reports

(PWS Para 3.11;

Exhibit Line Item Number

(ELIN) A001)

Progress Report is accurate, complete, and accepted in accordance with the Data Item Description (DID) and the

Government schedule.

95% accuracy and completeness with first draft

100% accuracy and completeness with one correction/rewrite.

100% inspection of deliverables

PRS # 2 Final Report

(PWS Para 3.11;

ELIN A002)

Final Report is accurate, complete and accepted in accordance with the DID and the Government schedule.

PRS # 3 Start of Work Meeting Minutes

(PWS Para 3.12.3;

ELIN A003)

Meeting Minutes are accurate, complete and accepted in accordance with the DID and the Government schedule.

PRS # 4 EML Quality Control Program Recommendations &

Knowledge Management

(PWS Para 3.10.2;

ELIN A004)

QC Recommendations are accurate, complete and accepted in

PRS # 5 Integrated Project

Schedules

(PWS Para 3.5.3.1.1;

ELIN A005)

Project Schedules are accurate, complete and accepted in

PRS # 6 Survey Plans

(PWS Para 3.5.4.1;

ELIN A006)

Survey Plans are accurate, complete and accepted in

PRS # 7 Plan of Actions and

Milestones

(PWS Para 3.5.4.2;

ELIN A007)

Plan of Actions and Milestones are accurate, complete and accepted in

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

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.

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.

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.

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.