Build a PWS, a PRS, and a QASP

A performance work statement (PWS) describes what the Government is buying in terms of required results rather than how the contractor should do the work. FAR 37.602 requires that, and requires the description to allow performance to be assessed against measurable standards. This tool writes the full standard PWS outline, the performance requirements summary, and the quality assurance surveillance plan together from one set of performance objectives, so the three documents cannot describe different work. Sections it cannot fill from what you wrote, such as hours of operation or security requirements, are printed and marked to be supplied by the requiring activity rather than invented. You can answer those in the tool if you want a fuller draft. The PWS narrative is a draft to read and verify: the source tags protect the standards and the quality levels, and prose cannot be checked the same way.

The PRS is the table a contracting officer signs against: each required service, the performance standard, the acceptable quality level, and the deduction that applies when performance falls below it. It is Part 2 of what this tool produces, and it is the same objectives as the PWS narrative rendered as a table.

A QASP is the document that says how the Government will verify a contractor met the requirements of a performance-based service contract. FAR 46.401(a) says the plan should be prepared alongside the statement of work and should specify all work requiring surveillance and the method of surveillance. FAR 46.401(b) adds that each contract shall designate where the Government reserves the right to perform quality assurance.

The four in common use: 100 percent inspection, random sampling, periodic inspection, and customer complaint. The tool chooses one per objective and states why. 100 percent inspection suits low-volume high-consequence work, random sampling suits high-volume repetitive work and needs a sample size defensible against your AQL, periodic inspection suits continuous services, and customer complaint is usually a supplement rather than a primary method.

No, and that is deliberate. An acceptable quality level decides how much deviation the Government will tolerate before performance is unacceptable, and it governs what a contractor is paid. Where you have not supplied one, the tool marks it as your decision rather than filling in a plausible number. Anything it does propose is labelled, and if you export without accepting it, the value is flagged in the document itself so no reader can mistake it for your decision.

It reads the whole package back and argues with it. It reports three things: places where the work statement, the requirements summary and the surveillance plan cannot all be true at once; judgments worth looking at again before they bind a contractor, such as an acceptable quality level so tight the contractor prices in the risk; and anything the drafted narrative added that you never asked for. That last one matters most, because the source tags protect the table cells and nothing protects the prose. Where a fix needs no information you have not given, it offers the exact replacement wording and you can take it in one click. The review is advisory. It does not approve the package, it does not block the download, and it changes nothing unless you tell it to.

No account, and nothing is stored against your name. Drafting a package uses one of three free credits, and you earn one more every week. Add your email and you get five more straight away, and opting in raises it to three a week up to ten. Everything after the draft is free and always will be: answering the decisions, analyzing any one of them, the review at the end, editing every field, and having the finished package emailed to you. The draft is the only thing that costs, because it is the only call that costs us anything meaningful.

The plan sets the standard once. Executing it means producing a surveillance record every period for the life of the contract, measured against those same criteria, and being able to compile them when someone asks for the on-time rate. That is a different job from writing the plan, and it is what ArcCompose does. How surveillance records work.