CHP QASP.pdf

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

(Ver. APR 2025)

The Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG) Surface Maintenance Manager’s Office (SMMO) is responsible for the management and oversight of the OHARNG ground equipment maintenance program and meeting Department of the Army (DA) and National Guard Bureau (NGB) key readiness goals. The contractor shall provide

CHAP services to UTES/CJAG, FMS 8, FMS 11, and FMS 13 in order to maintain acceptable CHAP for routine services.

(Ver APR 2025)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

4.2 Customer Feedback

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

5.2 Monitoring Forms

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.2 Reporting

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

ATTACHMENT 2: COR DESIGNATED INSPECTOR SERVICE REPORT

ATTACHMENT 3: COR MONTHLY REPORT

ii

(Ver. Jun 2014) 1

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

(QASP)

1 INTRODUCTION

This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Surface Maintenance Manager’s Office (SMMO) will use in ensuring the required performance standards and service levels are achieved by the contractor.

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 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 in the PWS and the contractor’s quality control plan (QCP), and to ensure that the government pays only for the level of services received.

1.1.2 This QASP defines the roles and responsibilities of all members of the integrated project team (IPT), 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.

1.2 Performance Management Approach

1.2.1 The PWS structures the acquisition around “what” service or quality level is required, as opposed to “how” the contractor should perform the work (i.e., results, not compliance). This QASP will define the performance management approach taken by SMMO to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS are achieved. Performance management rests on developing a capability to review and analyze information generated through performance assessment. The ability to make decisions based on the analysis of performance data is the cornerstone of performance management; this analysis yields information that indicates whether expected outcomes for the project are being achieved by the contractor.

1.2.2 Performance management represents a significant shift from the more traditional quality assurance (QA) concepts in several ways. Performance management focuses on assessing whether outcomes are being achieved and to what extent. This approach migrates away from scrutiny of compliance with the processes and practices used to achieve the outcome. A performance-based approach enables the contractor to play a large role in how the work is performed, as long as the proposed processes are within the stated constraints. The only exceptions to process reviews are those required by law (federal, state, and local) and compelling business situations, such as safety and health. A “results” focus provides the contractor flexibility to continuously improve and innovate over the course of the contract as long as the critical outcomes expected are being achieved and/or the desired performance levels are being met.

1.3 Performance Management Strategy

1.3.1 The contractor is responsible for the quality of all work performed. The contractor measures that quality through the contractor’s own quality control (QC) program (QCP). QC is work output, not workers, and therefore includes all work performed under this contract regardless of whether the work is performed by 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

(Ver. Jun 2014) 2 performance requirements in the PWS. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. 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. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program.

1.3.2 The government representative(s) will monitor performance and review performance reports furnished by the contractor to determine how the contractor is performing against communicated performance objectives. The government will make determination regarding incentives 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 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1 The Contracting Officer

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 appointed contracting officer's representative (COR), 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 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

The contracting officer’s representative (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 technical administration of the project and ensures proper government surveillance of 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 completing QA monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance. Government surveillance may occur under the inspection of services clause for any service relating to the contract.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS and in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.” If the contractor meets the required service or performance level, it will be paid as per the contractual payment schedule. Failure to meet the required service or performance level may result in a deduction from the contractual payment schedule or other administrative actions determined by the KO.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

In an effort to minimize the performance management burden, simplified surveillance methods shall be used by the government to evaluate contractor performance when appropriate. The primary methods of surveillance are:

Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR designated inspector at each shop.

(Ver. Jun 2014) 3

100% Inspection – Each service the COR designated inspector at the designated facilities will visually inventory services preformed. If insufficient services are performed, the inspector will notify the COR.

Periodic Inspection – Upon delivery, the COR designated inspector will complete the checklist in Attachment 2 and forward to the COR. The COR designated inspector shall monitor the contractor during delivery to annotate quantity delivered.

Monthly Report – NLT the end of the first full week of each month, the COR will complete a monthly report for the previous month and submit to the KO. Attachment 3.

4.2 Customer Feedback

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and customers. The primary objective of this communication 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 customer complaints.

Performance management drives the contractor to be customer focused through initially and internally addressing customer complaints and investigating the issues and/or problems but the customer always has the option to communicate complaints to the KO, as opposed to the contractor.

Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed, and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR will accept those customer complaints and investigate using the Quality Assurance Monitoring Form – Customer Complaint Investigation, identified in Attachment 3.

Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The acceptable quality levels (AQLs) included in Attachment 1, Performance Requirements Summary Table, for contractor performance are structured to allow the contractor to manage how the work is performed while providing negative incentives for performance shortfalls. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance of the SMMO.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop

The performance management feedback loop begins with the communication of expected outcomes.

Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and are assessed using the performance monitoring techniques shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the COR, will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachments 2 and 3. The COR Designated Inspector completes Attachment 2 after each delivery, and the COR completes Attachment 3 monthly. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results OSS quality levels are being achieved.

5.2.1 The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.

(Ver. Jun 2014) 4

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/AQLs have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it may be asked to develop a corrective action plan to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 NLT the end of the first full business week of each month, the appointed COR will prepare a written report for the contracting officer summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance during the previous month. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring form (Attachment 2), will become part of the QA 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.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The contracting officer may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the COR and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The contracting officer will define a frequency of in-depth reviews with the contractor, including appropriate self-assessments by the contractor; however, if the need arises, the contractor will meet with the COR as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:

Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis

Issues and concerns of both parties

Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis

Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness

6.3.2 The KO must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.

6.3.3 The KO, 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 KO.

(Ver. Jun 2014) 5

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Performance Requirements Summary

This Performance Requirements Summary includes performance standards. The Government will use these standards to determine contractor performance and will compare contractor performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

PWS Paragraph Task Performance

Standard Acceptable Quality

Levels (AQL) Surveillance Method

/ By Whom

1.3 Perform specified

services to all designated maintenance shops

Provide deliveries monthly of required quantities.

Requested delivery monthly. Standards met 100% of the time.

Periodic Inspection - COR will review service reports after each service.

facilities will provide escort during all performed serviecs

(Ver. Jun 2014) 6

ATTACHMENT 2: COR DESIGNATED INSPECTOR SERVICE REPORT

Service Date: Name:

1. Service conducted at following location: “0” if nothing is conducted.

FMS 8:

FMS 11:

FMS 13:

UTES:

2. Did contractor provide service to CHP equipment completed? YES / NO

3. Any issues, complaints, or discrepancies? YES / NO Describe:

(Ver. Jun 2014) 7

ATTACHMENT 3: COR MONTHLY REPORT

(Submit to KO monthly NLT end of the first week of the month for the previous month)

Report Month/Year:

COR Name:

Contract Number:

Contract Period of Performance: From: To:

Contractor’s Quality of Work:

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

Comments:

1. Is the Contractor up-to-date in submitting or performing the following:

a. Monthly Invoices or Cost Vouchers YES NO N/A Comments:

b. Sub-Contractor Information YES NO N/A Comments:

c. Required Deliverables YES NO N/A Comments:

d. Contract Manpower Reporting (CMRA) YES NO N/A Comments:

e. Status Reports YES NO N/A Comments:

2. Number of employees currently on contract?

Comments:

3. Has the contractor conducted duties in a timely manner? YES NO N/A Comments:

4. Were all items in the QASP inspected? YES NO N/A Comments:

5. Is the contract progressing on schedule? YES NO N/A Comments:

6. Are there any significant issues to report? YES NO N/A Comments:

7. Are there any discrepancies to report? YES NO N/A Comments:

8. Are there any customer complaints this month? YES NO N/A If so, how many:

Comments:

9. Are there any issues for the KO to be aware of? YES NO N/A Comments:

10. Monthly COR certification regarding personal services statement (Ref PARC Tasker 12-30 and DoD COR Handbook). In the past month as the COR, have you observed any of the following situations?

If “Yes”, describe what occurred, the date of the occurrence, and other pertinent facts in the corresponding comment field below.

a. A government employee asking the contractor to hire or fire an employee: YES NO N/A Comments:

(Ver. Jun 2014) 8

b. A government employee asking the contractor to reassign or discipline an employee:

government employee asking the contractor to grant or deny leave to a contractor employee:

YES NO N/A Comments:

c. A government employee asking the contractor to grant or deny leave to a contractor employee: YES NO N/A Comments:

d. A government employee changing a contractor’s personnel duty hours: government employee asking the contractor to grant or deny leave to a contractor employee: YES NO N/A Comments:

e. A government employee asking the contractor perform work outside the scope of the current contract without an official modification or direction by the KO: government employee asking the contractor to grant or deny leave to a contractor employee: YES NO N/A Comments:

f. Contractor personnel appear to be under relatively continuous supervision and control by a government employee: government employee asking the contractor to grant or deny leave to a contractor employee: YES NO N/A Comments:

g. Contractor personnel performing inherently governmental work functions (i.e. serving in a decision-making capacity, making budget decisions, supervising or rating government employees, etc.) FA 7.503: government employee asking the contractor to grant or deny leave to a contractor employee: YES NO N/A Comments:

11. Contract-specific:

a. Were the required services conducted: YES NO N/A Comments:

12. Service conducted at following location: “0” if none delivered.

FMS 8:

FMS 11:

FMS 13:

UTES:

a. Any issues, complaints, or discrepancies? YES NO N/A

Comments:

COR Signature:

I certify that this report is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract in conjunction with the QASP and the monthly surveillance schedule.