Quality Assurance

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedin

Quality Assurance

USI ensures that demanding customer expectations are met by utilizing a proven Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). This plan outlines Performance Based Standards (PBS), Quality Assurance (QA) policies and procedures, and encourages continuous process improvement. It is used to monitor and track all functions of the program from staffing and scheduling, to task management and execution. USI believes that providing elite and quality services requires a premeditated and systematic process, one which uses metrics to determine internal responsiveness and external results. In the execution of SeaPort-e Task Orders (TO) USI mitigates risk by utilizing a QA Process that has proven successful with many current and past customers.
Our QA process uses a proactive and communicative approach, which is specifically tailored to customer needs. This process is broken down into three (3) phases: 1) Pre-Award, 2) Post-Award, and 3) Contract Lifecycle. USI believes that in order to achieve ultimate quality, planning must begin as soon as a Task Order is solicited; Quality Control (QC) is exercised on a continuing basis.

  • Phase 1: With available information and researched data, a draft QASP is designed and assessed prior to making a final decision to compete for a TO. If USI is not confident that the PBS will be met or exceeded, a decision is made to not bid on the contract. The QASP sets PBS’s for all areas of the contract; including quality of product/service, schedule, cost control, time management, business relations, and personnel management.
  • Phase 2: Post-award, the QASP is immediately provided the Procuring Contractor Officer (PCO) for initial review. USI is committed to a highly interactive discussion with all stakeholders to ensure that the proposed QASP satisfies all party expectations. Our PM works with the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and PCO to confirm an appropriate set of quantitative metrics is used to measure program success over time against established goals. The PM also works with the government to develop documents used to record the activities and document the metrics information for future review and analysis. Once the COR and PCO approve the QASP, Key Management is trained on how to execute and maintain lifecycle QC in accordance with the plan.
  • Phase 3: Recognizing a good QASP must change and adapt as the mission grows and tasks change, USI treats it as a living document and reviews it with the government on a regular basis. Over the course of the contract USI conducts frequent quality evaluations and provides monthly status reports. Our PM makes all records available for review upon request and during formal evaluations. Evaluations include an analysis of metrics data and subsequent recommendations to improve contract execution, increase awareness and effectiveness of performance, and increase cost savings to the USG. Using this continuous process improvement approach, we are able to formulate and apply lessons learned to maintain an effective plan that evolves with the demands of the program and meets or exceeds government expectations for the duration of contract performance. The process is flexible enough to accommodate changes, yet rigid enough to maintain focus.

The main objective is to provide a mechanism by which the execution of a program can be subject to a systematic and consistent plan. Our goal is to create a trusting relationship where the government is confident that they are receiving the highest level of quality service. We are so committed to this goal that we obligate ourselves to at least 90% PBS compliance for each position throughout the contract’s lifecycle. USI’s prevention-based, low-risk QASP utilizes an established and proven QC process that results in early stage and complete lifecycle customer satisfaction.

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

USI avoids any appearance of OCI by agreeing to refrain from participating in any contracts that may result from recommendations and efforts made under this contract. We acknowledge that we are familiar with FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, and agree to avoid, neutralize or mitigate conflicts in accordance with the principles set forth in the FAR. Finally, we will carefully evaluate with the PCO and the COR any potential DoD work that might result in a possible or perceived conflict with the scope of work of any other DoD contract that we are performing on.