Attachment 8_TE-5 QASP - BASEOPS 88th PMCM MultiSite-c.docx

Performance Work Statement BASEOPS 88th RSC PM/CM MultiSite

TECHNICAL EXHIBIT TE-7.0

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables

Table 1: Performance Objectives

Table 2: Assessment Items

Table 3: Performance Assessment Report (PAR) with Findings Process

Table 4: Evaluation Rating Definitions

Attachments

Attachment 1: Periodic Surveillance Checklist

Attachment 2: Performance Assessment Report (PAR)

1.0. OVERVIEW. .The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the Performance Work Statement for maintenance and facility management support tasks at facilities of the Army 88th Regional Support Command (RSC) indicated in PWS Technical Exhibit TE-1. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines to be enlisted by the Quality Assurance (QA) Team to ensure that performance standards and service levels required by the PWS are achieved by the Contractor’s implementation of their own QCP. This QASP is developed pursuant to the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 37.602 and reflects Performance Objectives.

1.1. INTRODUCTION. This QASP is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) for maintenance services and facility management tasks at various Army 88th RSC facilities. This plan identifies the procedures and guidelines the QA Team will use in ensuring the required performance standards and services are achieved by the Contractor, and to assist the Contractor in successfully fulfilling mission objectives.

1.2. PURPOSE OF THE QASP.

1.2.1. The purpose of this Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is to provide the Contracting Officer (KO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) with systematic and effective surveillance procedures to monitor, evaluate and document the performance by the Contractor of the services they are contracted to provide, as set forth by the requirements and standards within the Performance Work Statement (PWS), including Assessment Items (AI) requirements of QASP Table 2. The intent is that the Contractor, and not the government, is responsible for management of their own Quality Control Plan (QCP) to meet the terms of the contract. The Government role is that of quality assurance - monitoring the Contractor’s management of their QCP and conformance with the contract requirements, to ensure that the rendered services conform to Contract performance standards and quality levels. When nonconforming services are discovered, the prime Contractor shall be held accountable to “self-correct” these services. Nonconforming services discovered that are attributable to subcontractors shall be addressed with the prime Contractor who is responsible for resolution.

1.2.2. This QASP defines the responsibilities of the QA Team with regards to quality assurance, identifies the performance objectives, defines the methodologies used to evaluate Contractor performance, describes quality assurance documentation requirements, and describes the analysis of quality assurance results.

1.3. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT APPROACH.

1.3.1. The PWS for this performance based contract award structures the service or quality level that is required, as opposed to the “how” the Contractor should perform the work, and provides for measured results of the Contractor’s performance in completing the associated work to meet overall mission objectives. This QASP defines the approach taken by the QA Team to monitor the Contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved by the Contractor. Quality assurance rests on developing a capability to compile, review, and then analyze information generated through performance assessment and apply that information to help ensure Contractor success. The ability to make experienced decisions based on the analysis of data collected through on-site field research and systems data acquisition is the cornerstone of Quality Assurance; this data review and analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the Contractor, and what might need implemented or modified to bring about overall mission success.

1.3.2. Performance assessment represents a shift from the more traditional quality assurance management concepts. Performance assessment focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent, and what might be required to enhance performance. A performance assessment based approach enables the Contractor to play a full role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are in line with the stated PWS requirements. Contractor compliance is required concerning all laws and regulations (federal, state, and local) in regards to compelling business situations such as Life Safety and Health. Concerning general overall work assessment, “results” are the primary focus of the QA Team. The Contractor is thereby provided the full flexibility to continuously improve, and be proactive and innovative, over the course of the contract, as long as the expected outcomes are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met. The QASP works hand in hand with the QCP so as to ensure overall success.

1.4. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT STRATEGY.

1.4.1. The Contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The Contractor measures that quality through the Contractor’s own QC Program. QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by prime Contractor employees or by subcontractors. The Contractor’s QCP will set forth the staffing and procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the PWS. The Contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to report its performance to designated government representatives. This QASP enables the Government to fairly assess and assist the Contractor in meeting mission and QC Program objectives.

1.4.2. The Government representatives will assess performance and review performance reports furnished by the Contractor to determine how the Contractor is performing against PWS communicated performance objectives, and provide recommendations to aid the Contractor in making required changes in processes and practices to ensure their performance responsibility effectively meets PWS requirements. . However, the successful performance of the Contractor shall not be considered in any way dependent upon the Government’s performance of its intended QA oversight activities.

2.0. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The Government enlists a variety of representatives with roles in assessment of the Contractor’s performance who work in concert as a virtual ‘QA Team’ in providing for performance monitoring and feedback regarding this contract. Their roles in regard to the QA process are outlined in the following paragraphs of this section.

2.1. CONTRACTING OFFICER. In addition to authorizing Notice to Proceed (NTP) for all work, the Contracting Officer (KO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the government authorities for performance assessment, to include: Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), Quality Assurance Evaluator (QAE), and the Contractor. The KO will designate one full-time COR as the government authority for performance management. The number of additional representatives serving as technical inspectors depends on the complexity of the services measured, as well as the Contractor’s performance, and must be identified and designated by the KO.

2.2. CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE. The COR is designated in writing by the KO to act as his or her authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. COR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The COR is responsible for administration of the project and ensures appropriate government interaction concerning the Contractor’s performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Contractor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the KO for action. The COR will have the responsibility for completion of monitoring activities and documentation, or may arrange for a local Quality Assurance Evaluator, to accomplish inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s preventative Contractor’s work performance. COR surveillance may occur as deemed appropriate under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

2.3. QUALITY ASSURANCE EVALUATOR. The QAE is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. The QAE will have the responsibility for inspecting work, completing QA assessment forms, and evaluating the Contractor’s work performance. The QAE responsibilities may include equipment related to PM, corrective service order work, mission critical systems, complex systems, life safety apparatus, as well as corrections for The Joint Commission (TJC) accreditation compliance, training compliance, environmental compliance, and other areas. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

2.4. ORDERING OFFICER. An on-site Ordering Officer (OO) may be appointed to authorize NTP up to his/her limitations for the issuance of service orders at the facility under the contract/task order. The ordering officer is designated in writing by the Contracting Officer’s Director of Contracting and his/her limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The OO is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf above the limitations stated in the appointment letter. The OO may assist the COR for completing QA monitoring of the Contractor’s work performance but the primary responsibility for this lies with the COR. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

3.0. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.

3.1. STRATEGY. To rely to the maximum extent on the Contractor’s quality efforts to ensure requirements are met. COR/QAE will assess Contractor performance in a manner to sufficiently validate the delivery of services.

3.2. ASSESSMENT METHODS. The COR/QAE will perform periodic checklist inspections, not less than once per month. The frequency of checklist inspections may increase at the discretion of the Government, as determined necessary to assure task order compliance and to protect the Army 88th RSC facilities infrastructure assets.

3.2.1. Surveillance. It is essential for the Government’s benefit that a checklist inspection be done for an effective quality assurance system; however the Contractor’s performance shall not be considered in any way dependent upon accomplishment of such Governmental QA activities.

3.2.1.1. Checklist Inspection. Record the results of the inspection on the applicable Periodic Surveillance Checklist. This document becomes an official government record of the Contractor's performance. If a surveillance observation results in a defect, the COR/QAE must document the specific reason for the unacceptable performance on the QA surveillance checklist. The COR/QAE must provide a copy to the Contractor and evaluate if the nonconformity require the submission of a Performance Assessment Report (PAR).

3.2.1.2. Corrective Actions on Discrepancies. The Contractor will immediately correct any discrepancies identified during the COR/QAE inspection. If a discrepancy cannot be corrected at the time of inspection the Contractor will provide a “make well” date that is reasonable and acceptable to the COR/QAE. The Contractor will document on the checklist all corrective actions taken to resolve the discrepancies or an acceptable “make well” date.

3.2.1.2.1. If the number of defects recorded on the checklist exceeds the Acceptable Performance Objectives (Section 3.3), the COR will make an initial determination of the possible cause of unsatisfactory performance. If any government action or lack of action caused unacceptable performance, these defects are not counted against the Contractor’s performance. The COR will share with the Contractor and document on the Surveillance Checklist the reasons for the defects. The Contractor must manage the corrective actions deemed necessary to deliver the task order requirements.

3.2.1.2.2. If performance is judged unacceptable, the COR will initiate a PAR with findings and submit it to the FC/FOS for review. If the Contractor is found in default the PAR will be forwarded to the KO and BaseOps PM for corrective action. The COR will determine if a PAR is initiated in any given situation depending on the circumstances and seriousness of the situation.

3.2.1.3. The COR will maintain file copies of the PARs and reports submitted. File copies are kept for a minimum of six (6) years regardless if the contract is in force or turnover in Contractors has occurred.

3.2.2. Business Relations. Defined as efficient and effective quality communication with the government. This includes but is not limited to After-Action Reports from surveys, requested information/reports in support of the PWS, technical instruction processing/documentation, etc.

3.2.3. Management of Key Personnel. Defined as the ability to provide appropriate staffing in management, supervision and employees at all times to include those positions directly identified in the PWS. Note: Staffing for employees refers to the duty day as defined by the PWS to have all the necessary trades’ personnel available for emergency, urgent and routine unscheduled work orders and after hours/weekends.

3.2.4. Cost Control. Defined as Contractor efforts to provide competitive pricing for parts, material, and other reimbursable costs to the Government.

3.2.5. External Assessments. Are accomplished by entities outside of the COR/QAE such as customer complaints, contract management audits, The Joint Commission (TJC) Surveys or internal TJC reviews, OSHA visits, Army DPW inspections, etc. Reports are provided to the COR/QAE for review and necessary action. PARs with Findings may be issued for deficiencies when within the scope of the PWS.

3.3. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT ITEMS. The Performance Objectives (POs) listed in Table 1 identifies the performance assessed. The Assessment Items (AIs) are identified in Table 2.

3.3.1. Each AI has a corresponding performance threshold which is the minimum acceptable performance level.

3.3.2. The Government maintains the right to assess all contract requirements to the extent practicable but will make every attempt not to delay the Contractor's workflow.

3.4. MONTHLY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT. The Performance Assessment Report (PAR) is used to document Contractor discrepancies which may require KO involvement. PAR Section I is used to document monthly assessment results. PAR Section II is used to document nonconformities identified during a COR/QAE assessment. When a PAR Section II is used to document nonconformity, it is known as a PAR with Findings. Table 3 outlines the PAR with Findings process.

3.4.1. Monthly Grading. Grading of services, cost control, business relations and management of key personnel shall be in accordance with the FAR. Table 4 lists the evaluation rating definitions that apply to this task order.

3.5. TYPES OF NONCONFORMITIES. There are two types of nonconformities, Contractor identified or COR/QAE identified.

3.5.1. Contractor Identified Nonconformities. COR/QAE review Contractor identified nonconformities to ensure measures are implemented with necessary actions taken to prevent recurrence.

3.5.1.1. A PAR with Findings is not normally issued in cases when Contractor has established a timely estimated completion date (ECD) for resolution. COR/QAEs monitor the Contractor’s resolution efforts until the nonconformity has been corrected.

3.5.1.2. A PAR with Findings may be issued in cases where the nonconformity is a repeat nonconformity, the ECD becomes excessive, the Contractor fails to follow their Quality Control Plan, or involves safety, mission critical systems, environmental, or security issues.

3.5.2. COR/QAE Identified Nonconformities. COR/QAE documents nonconformities as early as possible upon discovery. Notify the Contractor of the suspected nonconformity. Follow the process in Table 3.

3.5.2.1. A PAR with Findings is not normally issued in cases when Contractor has established a timely estimated completion date (ECD) for resolution. COR/QAE monitor the Contractor’s resolution efforts until the nonconformity has been corrected.

3.5.2.2. A PAR with Findings may be issued in cases where the nonconformity is a repeat nonconformity, the ECD becomes excessive, the Contractor fails to follow their Quality Control Plan, or involves safety, environmental, mission critical systems, or security issues.

3.6. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TYPES. Performance Assessment is accomplished in the following ways:

3.6.1. COR/QAE Assessment. Assess, document and report the results of the POs, AIs and on the monthly checklists.

3.6.2. Contractor Self Assessment. The Contractor assesses their own performance IAW their quality system requirements and maintains documentation of the results IAW the PWS and their QCP.

3.6.3. External Assessment. COR/QAEs review and report on external party assessments to validate performance against PWS requirements. The results of any of these external assessments maybe included in the monthly report.

4.0. MANAGING CONTRACT PERFORMANCE.

4.1. APPROACH. To manage the contract to ensure the Contractor is meeting cost, schedule and performance requirements. The COR/QAE utilizes performance assessment outcomes and/or other applicable indicators to continuously implement improvements wherever possible.

4.2. QA TEAM MEETING. A method used to manage contract performance. The COR, QAE, and BaseOps PM periodically meet to review ongoing issues, requirements, cost, and performance data. The BaseOps PM shall record key decisions and distributed via e-mail to all QA Team members.

5.0. REPORTING PERFORMANCE RESULTS.

5.1. INTERIM PAR. CORs may report performance issues in a PAR to the KO as needed. The BaseOps monthly report may be used in lieu of the PAR if there are no issues. The BaseOps monthly report or PAR records performance data and provides feedback to the Contractor.

5.2. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CPAR). The CPAR is an annual report of Contractor performance used to document past performance data and to provide this data to source selection teams for their use in other acquisitions. Data reported in the Interim PAR or BaseOps monthly report should correlate with the CPAR.

6.0. ASSESSMENT RECORDS. All assessment documentation will be maintained in the COR performance assessment folder. Records are kept a minimum of one (1) year past the end date of the task order Period of Performance (PoP) or as stipulated in the COR appointment letter.

TABLE 1. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

TABLE 2. ASSESSMENT ITEMS

TABLE 3. PAR WITH FINDINGS PROCESS

TABLE 4. EVALUATION RATING DEFINITIONS

Per FAR 42.1503, Table 42-1

NOTE

1: Per FAR 42.1503, Table 42-1 2: N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for evaluation.

ATTACHMENT 1

PERIODIC SURVEILLANCE CHECKLIST

Installation:

Task Order Number:

Date:

Check the appropriate indicator for the metrics measured:

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE COMMENTS

Date Discrepancies Discovered

Date Discrepancies Discussed with Contractor

Additional Comments:

CONTRACTOR RESPONSE

Date Discrepancies Corrected

Additional Comments:

ATTACHMENT 2

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

Section I. Performance Assessment

|_| No Finding |_| Customer Complaint |_| Minor Finding |_| Major Finding

|_| Exceptional |_| Very Good |_|Satisfactory |_| Marginal |_| Unsatisfactory

7. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT—DESCRIBE CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

Section II. Nonconformities Identified

13. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FINDING

14. FINDING IMPACT

15. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRACTOR: Respond with a root cause of the deficiency, a corrective action plan that details how the cited deficiency will be fixed, and actions taken to prevent recurrence.

16. COR/QAE ASSESSMENT TO CONTRACTOR’S CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

|_| Accepted |_| Rejected

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CONTINUATION SHEET)

ENTER CONTROL NUMBER (Same as Block 10) if applicable

INSTRUCTIONS: The PAR is used to document monthly contract performance assessment, and nonconformity with findings. Instructions are included for blocks not self-explanatory.

SECTION I - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. Section I is used to document assessments of contractor performance in compliance with PWS requirements.

Block 4, Finding Category: Check one block only.

No Finding: Performance meets PWS requirements.

Customer Complaint: Documented customer complaint dissatisfied with contractors service or support.

Minor Finding: A departure from established standards having little bearing on service provided. If the same minor finding is repeatedly identified, it may be an indication that a Major Finding has occurred because the Contractor’s quality system has not acted to prevent recurrence. In this case, the Minor Finding may be elevated to the level of a Major Finding and a new PAR initiated.

Major Finding: A conclusion that identifies a condition having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the activity under review such as:

1. Failure to meet a performance threshold.

2. Significant mission degradation in any Contractor operated function.

3. A situation that is likely to result in hazardous or unsafe conditions for

4. Failure to provide adequate corrective action to prevent reoccurrence of government identified findings.

5. Failure of the contractor to provide corrective action to self-identified nonconformities in a reasonable time

6. Any failure to adhere to security regulations resulting in a security incident.

Block 5, PWS Reference: Identify the PWS reference if applicable.

Block 7, Performance Assessment: Enter the details and results of the assessment. Avoid pass/fail descriptions of contract performance when possible. If the assessment results in a finding then document the details of the finding and its impact in section II block 13 and 14 respectively.

SECTION II - NONCONFORMITIES IDENTIFIED. Section II is used to document findings identified during an assessment and to request corrective and preventative action through the contracting officer.

Block 10, Control Number: Assigned by the CO as the issuing authority to track all PAR with findings.

Block 12, Suspense Date: CO enters the date the initial response is due from the contractor. This date is for the initial response from the contractor and not necessarily when the corrective action must be complete.

Block 13, Brief Description of the Finding (Include PWS reference): Clearly and briefly, state the details of the finding including the PWS reference and quote. For example:

PWS PARa 3.4 reads: “The contractor shall maintain an MSDS in the work area for all hazardous materials used in the work center.” The contractor did not have the MSDS for “Simple Green” in Bldg 100 work area.

Block 14, Finding Impact: Enter the impact the finding has, or could reasonably have, on the mission.

Block 16, COR/QAE Assessment to Contractor’s Corrective Action Plan: Indicate if the contractor has corrected the nonconformity and if the preventative actions appear to be sufficient to prevent recurrence.

PAR Continuation Sheet. The PAR continuation sheet may be used to expand upon information in Section I or II.

W912DY-18-C-00XX 17 February 2017