DRAFT QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)
GSA 18F Identity Management
Agile BPA Task Order
June 28, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.2 Performance Management Approach
1.3 Performance Management Strategy
3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/QUALITY LEVELS
4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE
5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION
5.1 The Performance Management Feedback Loop
6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX 1: PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
APPENDIX 2: SAMPLE QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM
APPENDIX 3: QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM – CUSTOMER COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION FORM
QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)
This quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) is pursuant to the requirements listed in the performance work statement (PWS) entitled Identity Management Scrum Team. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines GSA 18F Identity Management Project Management Office (PMO) will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor.
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.
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.
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 GSA 18F’s Identity Management PMO 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.
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.
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. 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 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.
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.
All roles and responsibilities are described in the attachment, “Government Roles and Responsibilities.”
The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in Attachment 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.” Meeting or exceeding the required service or performance levels will result in a positive past performance rating. Failure to meet the required service or performance levels will result in a negative past performance rating.
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 (include those that apply)
Ø Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR designated Product Manager (PM).
Ø 100% Inspection – Each month, the PM, shall review the generated documentation and enter summary results into the Surveillance Activity Checklist.
Ø Periodic Inspection – PM typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.
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 COR, 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, attached to the end of the document.
Customer feedback may also be obtained either from the results of formal customer satisfaction surveys or from random customer complaints.
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. For critical activities such as those involving Identity Management, the desired performance level is established at 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission of the GSA/18F Identity Management PMO.
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.
The government’s QA surveillance, accomplished by the PM, will be reported using the monitoring forms in Attachment 1. The forms, when completed, will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required results are being achieved. The Procurement Project Manager and COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms.
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.
At the end of each month, the PM will prepare a written report for the COR, summarizing the overall results of the quality assurance surveillance of the contractor’s performance. This written report, which includes the contractor’s submitted monthly report and the completed quality assurance monitoring forms (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.
The PM or COR may require the contractor’s project manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO, COR or PM and other government IPT personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The PM or COR 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 or PM as often as required or per the contractor’s request. The agenda of the reviews may include:
Ø Monthly performance assessment data and trend analysis
Ø Issues and concerns of both parties
Ø Projected outlook for upcoming months and progress against expected trends, including a corrective action plan analysis
Ø Recommendations for improved efficiency and/or effectiveness
The PM and COR must coordinate and communicate with the contractor to resolve issues and concerns regarding marginal or unacceptable performance.
The PM, 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 require approval of the CO.
Required Services Performance Acceptable Quality Methods Incentive (Positive and/or Negative)
(Tasks) Standards Levels of (Impact on Contractor Payments)
**Surveillance**
Submit a PM report of scheduled, completed, and outstanding tasks monthly (PWS 5.3) 100% of reports accurately depict current status 99% File reviews, periodic inspections, and random, observations, customer complaints Negative remarks on contractor CPARS if report is submitted after the 15th of the month more than once during a performance period
Submit Customer Satisfaction reports every month Contractor maintains a level 3 or higher Level 3 or higher Monthly Survey Questionnaire from at least 2 18F team members Negative remarks on contractor CPARS if report is submitted after the 15th of the month more than once during a performance period
SERVICE or STANDARD: To be Developed with Contractor upon award
SURVEY PERIOD:
SURVEILLANCE METHOD (Check):
[ ] Questionnaire
**LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE (Check): **
[ ] Monthly
TEAM MEMBERS SAMPLED EVERY MONTH DURING SURVEY PERIOD: 2
KEY MEASURES:
Reviewer 1: (PRINT NAME)
Reviewer 2: (PRINT NAME)
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:
Service Provider’s Performance (Check): [ ] Meets Standards [ ] Does Not Meet Standards
Narrative of Performance During Survey Period:
PREPARED BY: (PRINT NAME)
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
SERVICE or STANDARD:
SURVEY PERIOD:
DATE/TIME COMPLAINT RECEIVED:
SOURCE OF COMPLAINT: (NAME)
(ORGANIZATION)
(PHONE NUMBER)
(EMAIL ADDRESS)
NATURE OF COMPLAINT:
RESULTS OF COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION:
DATE/TIME SERVICE PROVIDER INFORMED OF COMPLAINT:
CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN BY SERVICE PROVIDER:
RECEIVED AND VALIDATED BY:(PRINT NAME)
SIGNATURE:
DATE: