A07_Attachment_3_-_QASP.pdf

11/27/13 Page 1

Army Response Team

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a government-developed document used to determine if the contractor’s performance meets the performance standards contained in the contract.

The QASP establishes procedures on how this assessment/inspection process will be conducted. It provides the detailed process for a continuous oversight process:

• What will be monitored

• How monitoring will take place

• Who will be conduct the monitoring

• How monitoring efforts and results will be documented

The contractor is responsible for implementing and delivering performance that meets contract standards using its Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QASP provides the structure for the government’s surveillance of the contractor’s performance to assure that it meets contract standards. It is the government’s responsibility to be objective, fair and consistent in evaluating contractor performance.

This QASP is a living document. Flexibility in the QASP is required to allow for an increase or decrease in the level of surveillance necessary based on contractor performance.

The government may provide a copy of the QASP to the contractor to facilitate open communication. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances might occur that are outside the control of the contractor.

The QASP should ensure early identification and resolution of performance issues to minimize impact on mission performance.

Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Part 46 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Inspection of Services clauses, which provides for inspection, acceptance and documentation of the service called for in the contract or order. This acceptance is to be executed by the contracting officer or a duly authorized representative.

Roles and Responsibilities

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

11/27/13 Page 2

Program/Project Manager (PM) – The PM provides primary program oversight, nominates the COR, ensures the COR is trained before performing any COR duties and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. While the PM may serve as a direct conduit to provide Government guidance and feedback to the Contractor on technical matters, they are not empowered to make any contractual commitments or any contract changes on the government’s behalf.

Assigned PM: Mary Ann Cox

Organization or Agency:

Enterprise Business Systems Directorate

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Procurement) - (SAAL-PE)

Telephone: (703) 617-0355

Email: maryann.g.cox.civ@mail.mil

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR is responsible for providing continuous technical oversight of the contractor’s performance. The COR uses the QASP to conduct the oversight and surveillance process. The COR shall keep a Quality Assurance file that accurately documents the contractor’s actual performance. The purpose is to ensure that the contractor meets the performance standards contained in the contract. The COR is responsible for reporting early identification of performance problems to the KO. The COR is required to provide monthly and annual performance assessment to the KO which will be used in documenting past performance, and reporting in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The QASP is the primary tool for documenting contractor performance. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual change on the Government’s behalf.

Performance Requirements and Method of Surveillance

Contract Surveillance

11/27/13 Page 3

The goal of the QASP is to ensure that contractor performance is effectively monitored and documented. The COR’s contribution is their professional, non-adversarial relationships with the KO, PM and the contractor, which enables positive, open and timely communications. The foundation of this relationship is built upon objective, fair, and consistent COR evaluations of contractor performance against contract requirements. The COR uses the methods contained in this QASP to ensure the contractor is in compliance with contract requirements. The COR function is responsible for a wide range of surveillance requirements that effectively measure and evaluate the contractor’s performance.

Additionally, this QASP is based on the premise that the contractor, not the government, is responsible for management and QC/QA actions to successfully meet the terms of the contract.

Surveillance Matrix

The Surveillance Matrix is the list of performance objectives and standards that must be performed by the contractor. This matrix details the method of surveillance the COR will use to validate and inspect these performance elements. Inspection of each element will be documented in the COR file.

Performance objectives define the desired outcomes. Performance Standards define the level of service required under the contract to successfully meet the performance objective. The inspection methodology defines how, when, and what will be assessed in measuring performance. The Government performs surveillance, using this QASP, to determine the quality of the contractor’s performance as it relates to the performance element standards. The PRS should be used to form the foundation of the COR’s inspection checklist

Figure 5-1. Performance Requirements Summary (PRS)

Task Area Performance Requirement

Performance Standard

Performance Metric/Desired Outcome Monitoring Method

Paragraph 4.2.1.1

Project Plan and Status Report

The contractor will provide monthly updates to the plan for the tasks that they are responsible for, along with a Project Status

90% of the monthly updates to the Government are met

Review timelines of contract deliverables and routine coordination with the Army PM

Paragraph 4.2.1.13

Transition Planning

The contractor will provide the Government with a transition plan

The transition plan at the end of the performance period shall be delivered within 60 days of contract award.

Review by the COR and coordination with the Army PM

11/27/13 Page 4

Paragraph 4.2.2.4

ART Operational Support

The contractor shall strive for satisfactory resolution of all issues

Success will be judged solely on COR/Army PM satisfaction with a 90% satisfaction rating as the minimum acceptable level

Routine feedback and coordination with the Army PM

Paragraph 4.2.2.4

ART Operational Support

The Contractor will adhere to the set of Operations and Maintenance SOP that contains the recommended administration procedures for use by functional and technical support personnel.

95% of the operation and maintenance shall be in accordance with the SOP

Routine feedback and coordination with the Army Desk Officer

Performance Rating Definitions

In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used.

Performance Rating Criteria

Excellent / Outstanding Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefits. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no problems and contractor actions were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government benefits. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Good Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

11/27/13 Page 5

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear 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 contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.