J-8_QASP.pdf

Procurement Sensitive, Customs and Border Protection

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Air and Marine Operations Maritime Patrol Aircraft Program Management Office

P-3 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICAL SERVICES

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 Representative

2.3 Designated Agency Representative

2.4 Supervisory Aviation Maintenance Officer

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

4.4 Operational Performance Incentive Calculations

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Performance Management Feedback

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 MONITORING

6.4 Surveillance Performance Standards – Quality/Safety

6.5 Surveillance Performance Standards – Required Reports

ATTACHMENT 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE MONITORING FORM

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 P-3 Aircraft Maintenance and Logistical Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Air and Marine Operations, Maritime Patrol Aircraft Program Management Office will use in ensuring the required performance standards or services levels are achieved by the contractor. The QASP is a “living” document that will be tailored to the contractor selected and evolve during the life of the contract and will be updated as necessary.

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 Program Team, 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 the Air and Marine Operations, Maritime Patrol Aircraft Program Management Office (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 major focus 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. 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 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 PMO and Site Management will use the Air and Marine Operations Maintenance Standardization Handbook as a guide to monitor and assess Contractor performance at the sites. The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will make a determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and the Contracting Officer will 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 (CO) is responsible for monitoring contract compliance, contract administration, and cost control and for resolving any differences between the observations documented by the Program Manager, Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), Designated Agency Representative (DAR), and the Contractor. The CO 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 CO.

2.2 The Contracting Officer’s Representative

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is designated in writing by the CO 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 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 CO for action. The COR/DAR 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.

2.3 Designated Agency Representative

The Designated Agency Representative (DAR) shall carry out surveillance and reporting duties at the sites as directed by the COR. DAR limitations are contained in the written appointment letter. The DAR shall support the COR in administering the contract. The DAR is not authorized to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. The DAR will have the responsibility for completing Quality Assurance monitoring forms used to document the inspection and evaluation of the Contractor’s work performance.

2.4 Supervisory Aviation Maintenance Officer

The Supervisory Aviation Maintenance Officers (SAMO) at the Operational Sites are also designated as a DAR. The SAMO is the government’s management interface with the Aircrew, COR and the Contractor.

3 IDENTIFICATION OF REQUIRED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS & QUALITY LEVELS

The required performance standards and/or quality levels are included in the PWS. The Contractor’s performance will be determined by its ability to support the Operational Flight Schedule (OFS). An Operational Performance Measure (OPM) will be calculated monthly and fees will be paid quarterly.

A Deficiency Reports Measurement System will be used to evaluate and calculate contractor performance measurement to assess the amount of fee. Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a deduction from the fee amount.

3.1.1 All contract/PWS tasks and deliverables, including contract/PWS sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following:

Quality of Product or Service – Assess the contractor’s effort to transform operational needs and requirements into an integrated solution. Areas of focus may include the planning and management of program tasks, the quality of support provided throughout all phases of contract execution, including the management of maintenance programs, the management of technical data and records, and the management of a totally integrated effort of all program management concerns to meet cost, performance, and schedule objectives. Assess how successfully the contractor meets program quality.

Safety – Assess the contractor’s adherence to any required CBP, FAA, DOD, or other federal or state regulations to ensure the safety of contractor employees during maintenance operations as well as CBP personnel in providing airworthy aircraft for missions.

Schedule – Assess the contractor’s adherence to the required delivery schedule by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the assessment period that contribute to or effect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events (i.e., design reviews) discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor’s corrective actions.

Cost Control – Assess the contractor’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost. Is the contractor experiencing cost growth or underrun? If so, discuss the causes and contractor-proposed solutions for the cost overruns. For contracts where task or contract sizing is based on contractor-provided person-hour estimates, the relationship of these estimates to ultimate cost should be assessed. In addition, the extent to which the contractor demonstrates a sense of cost responsibility, through the efficient use of resources in each work effort, should be assessed.

Business Relations – Assess the timelines, completeness, and quality of problem identification, corrective action plans, proposal submittals, the contractor’s reasonable and cooperative behavior, effective business relations, and customer satisfaction.

Management – Assess the contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts. Discuss the extent to which the contractor discharges its responsibility for integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract; identifies and applies resources required to meet schedule requirements; assigns responsibility for tasks/actions required by the contract; and communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the contractor’s risk mitigation plans. If applicable, identify and other management areas that are unique to the contract.

Other areas – Other support such as: janitorial services, grounds keeping, general building maintenance and upkeep of spaces

The evaluation ratings are based on daily, monthly, quarterly and annual inspections as detailed in Attachments 1 and 2 to be completed by the DAR/COR as follows:

Exceptional – Performance exceeds all contractual requirements to the government’s benefit

Good – Performance meets all contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the government’s benefit

Satisfactory – Performance meets all contractual requirements.

Marginal – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

Unsatisfactory – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and corrective actions are not implemented in a timely manner.

4 METHODOLOGIES TO MONITOR PERFORMANCE

4.1 Surveillance Techniques

The primary methods of surveillance are:

• Random monitoring, which shall be performed by the COR/DAR designated inspector.

• Each month, the COR/DAR, shall review all of the generated CDRLs. If the CDRLs are reviewed by the DAR, formal feedback shall be provided to the COR.

• Monthly Inspection – COR/DAR performs the inspection on a monthly basis.

• The COR and Contractor shall reconcile monthly operational readiness reports with daily aircraft status.

• The PM/COR/DAR and contractor shall also identify deficiencies in any of the following:

engineering and technology, quality assurance, procurement/subcontracting/purchasing, finance, property, environmental, export control, safety and health, and security.

4.2 Customer Feedback

The contractor is expected to establish and maintain professional communication between its employees and the aircrew. 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.

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

4.3 Acceptable Quality Levels

The Site Performance Measurements are included in Attachment 1. Critical defects have a significant impact on performance levels and have a weighted impact of 100 percent. Other levels of performance are keyed to the relative importance of the task to the overall mission performance.

4.4 Operational Performance Incentive Calculations

SITE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

The Contractor shall support the Operational Flight Schedule (OFS) issued by the Government.

The number of events/sorties/flights/missions will be determined by operations and published in the OFS in coordination with the DAR to ensure all maintenance is managed in order to support the flight schedule.

The Contractor’s performance measure will be determined by its ability to support the OFS. For the purpose of the Operational Incentive Fee, Operational Performance Measure (OPM) will be calculated monthly and paid on a quarterly average.

The Operational Performance Measure (OPM) is based two variables: Launch Rate (LR) and Mission Completion Rate (MCR).

OPM= LR x MCR

Launch Rate – The Contractor shall meet the monthly OFS by completing 90% or better, of scheduled flight events.

Monthly launch rate is calculated by dividing the number of Missions launched by the number of final CBP schedule launched.

Final CBP launch schedule is calculated by the Original number of CBP scheduled launches, minus the number of launches cancelled by CBP.

For the purpose of this performance metric, a flight event is considered complete when the Pilot-in Command (PIC) has accepted the aircraft and when crew attempted to takeoff.

For the purpose of this metric, flight schedule events that are cancelled as a result of Operations, Projects, Range, weather, or other non-maintenance related reasons – as determined by the government – shall not count as scheduled events.

For the purpose of this performance metric, failure to supply an aircraft will only be assessed against the contractor if the contractor fails the following:

Contractor shall have 2 hours after being notified of the discrepancy to correct and launch.

Contractor can provide an alternate aircraft, meeting the OFS needs, and launch.

At any given time if an aircraft is reported as available by the contractor but not on the OFS, the contractor will be given a 2-hour notice of new event and aircraft launch requirement by CBP.

Mission Completion Rate – The Contractor shall provide aircraft for all assigned missions in accordance with the monthly OFS, by achieving 90% or better Mission Completion Rate.

Mission Completion Rate is calculated by dividing the Mission Completed by Missions Launched (Launch Rate).

For the purpose of this performance metric, a completed mission is defined as all systems under the control of the contractor must have functioned property and not contributed to the inabilities of the crew to complete its assigned mission.

For the purpose of this performance metric, a mission is defined as a flight, or series of flights conducted to completion.

For the purpose of this performance metric, failure to complete the mission will only be assessed against the contractor if the systems under the control of the contractor have not functioned properly and contributed to the inability of the crew to complete its assigned mission.

Deficiency Reports Measurement

Deficiency Reports - The Contractor shall minimize Deficiency Reports, to achieve a standard of zero.

For the purpose of this performance metric, Deficiency Reports are graded on three levels and are applied to all areas of the contract to include Program Management areas.

DEFECT - Any nonconformance of the unit or product with specified requirements. Defects will normally be grouped into one or more of the following classes but may be grouped into other classes or subclasses within these classes:

• Level 1 - DEFECT, CRITICAL - A defect that constitutes a hazardous or unsafe condition, or as determined by experience and judgment could conceivably become so, thus making the aircraft unsafe for flight or endangering operating personnel.

• Level 2 - DEFECT, MAJOR - A defect, other than critical, that could result in failure or materially reduce the usability of the unit or part for its intended purpose.

• Level 3 - DEFECT, MINOR - A defect that does not materially reduce the usability of the unit or part for its intended purpose or is a departure from standards but which has no significant bearing on the effective use or operation of the unit or part. This classification should also be used to document defects that result in whole or in part by Government imposed restrictions, constraints, or direction as well as failure of Government supplied capabilities

For the purpose of this performance metric, a Level one DR has a 100% weighted impact, Level two DR has a 50 % weighted impact and Level three are considered minimal or 0% impact. For example, if the Contractor receives four (4) Level two DRs during the quarter, the weighted impact against the fee would be two (2).

Operational Performance Fee Calculation

The annual fee pool will be established as the annual target cost multiplied by the target fee percentage. 70% of the total annual incentive fee pool will be set aside for performance incentives, the remaining 30% of the total annual incentive fee pool will be set aside for the cost incentive The following table details the fee calculation:

Count Weighted Count Weighted Qtr 1 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 10.0% 94% 1,575,000$ $1,400,000 (140,000)$ $1,260,000 Qtr 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0% 95% 1,575,000$ $1,575,000 -$ $1,575,000 Qtr 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0% 90% 1,575,000$ $1,050,000 -$ $1,050,000 Qtr 4 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 10.0% 90% 1,575,000$ $1,050,000 (105,000)$ $945,000

Level 1 Full Impact 1/2 of Level One

Level 2

Option Year

(Ful l impact on fee)

DRF ImpactMax Fee Pool

Site DRF data and Fee Calculations (Level 1 @ 100%, Level 2 @ 50% - Adjusted Range)

Incremental DRF Fee Impact OPM Fee Earned Net Fee

Weighted Total DRF

Count

Incentive Fee Matrix for Operational Performance

OPM (LR x MCR) Fee Equivalent for illustration purpose only

95 – 100% 9%MAX

91 - 94% %

90% TBP % Target 85 - 89% %

84 %< 0%MIN

The Incentive fee will be calculated and payed quarterly. At the end of each quarter of the Government Fiscal Year, the contractor shall submit the OPM data to the CBP Management team for review. Once the data has been accepted by the Government, the OPM derived from this data for the quarter will be applied to the incentive fee pool. The annual incentive fee pool as established for the contract period will be apportioned quarterly. This quarterly pool amount will be used to calculate the quarterly fee payable based on the fee percentage in the table above.

5 QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Performance Management Feedback

Performance Management Feedback begins with the communication of expected outcomes. Performance standards are expressed in the PWS and are assessed using the performance monitoring requirements shown in Attachment 1.

5.2 Monitoring Forms

The government’s QA surveillance will accomplished by the COR/DAR. The COR/DAR will document the government’s assessment of the contractor’s performance under the contract to ensure that the required service and quality levels are being achieved.

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

5.2.2 See Appendix 2 for an example of surveillance checklist items.

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

6.1.1 The Government shall use the monitoring methods cited to determine whether the performance standards/service levels/ have been met. If the contractor has not met the minimum requirements, it will be asked to develop a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to show how and by what date it intends to bring performance up to the required levels.

6.2 Reporting

6.2.1 At the end of each month, the DAR 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 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/schedule objectives.

6.3 Reviews and Resolution

6.3.1 The COR may require the contractor’s program manager, or a designated alternate, to meet with the CO/COR and other government Program Management Office (PMO) personnel as deemed necessary to discuss performance evaluation. The PM/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 CO/PM/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

• Issues arising from the performance monitoring processes

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

6.3.3 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 be incorporated as a contract modification.

ATTACHMENT 1: PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Description Applicable Standard(s)

Metric Description and Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)

Method of Surveillance

Performance Definition

Corrosion Control

CBP SOP MP-

CBP01-75P3-6

Periodic Maintenance Information Card

Entree into the Miscellaneous /History (OPNAV 4790/25A form within 24 hours of exposure

Conduct inventory and proper disposal of materials, equipment and tools to support the Corrosion Control Program

Corrosion discrepancies completed within 14 days

Ensure corrosion control inspections are performed per applicable directives

Waivers and extensions maintained and monitored within the applicable directives time-frame

Random Inspections of Log

Review of Monthly Maintenance Plan

See Section 3.1.1

All deficiency reports are to be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Safety and Hazmat Programs

Review the contractors safety and HAZMAT Program to ensure the contractor is complying with OSHA, EPA, AQMID, DOD and contractor procedures of Log

Monthly Reviews

See Section 3.1.1

All deficiency reports are to be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Aircraft Conformity Inspection

CBP01-75P3-6

Periodic Maintenance Information Car

CBP SOP(s)

NAVAIR

Publications

Perform inspection of aircraft for compliance with 14 CFR Part 91 and other FAA, DOD and CBP regulations as required. The Inspection shall include:

records review, configuration control database compliance, conformity to its original type design or properly altered state and in condition for safe operations.

Random inspection of physical aircraft, maintenance management system transactions, and aircraft records.

See Section 3.1.1

All deficiency reports are to be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Fuel and

POL

Program

CBP SOP – MP

Monitor the contractor’s reports for compliance with EPA, OSHA, DOD and AQMID regulations (where applicable governing the use of and maintenance of CBP owned fuel storage equipment, fuel trucks, fuel sampling and shelf life.

Random Inspections of records

Monthly Reviews

See Section 3.1.1

All deficiency reports are to be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Foreign Object Damage (FOD) and Things Failing off

CBP SOP –

MP008

Monitor Contractors FOD awareness program for compliance with CBP/Contractor FOD prevention procedures. Ensure all training requirements have been achieved.

Random of records

See Section 3.1.1

All deficiency reports are to be forward to the COR.

Aircraft

(TFOA)

Observe

FOD

inspection

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Tool Control Awareness

CBP SOP – MP

Monitor Contractors Tool Control program for compliance with CBP/Contractor Operations Tool Control procedures.

Conduct random tool box inventories and check work areas. Ensure all tools brought on the site have been inventoried and recorded on the Tool Control Inventory Record (CBPAVP-P3-044). Ensure the minimum tool list for employees have been might.

Inspection

See Section 3.1.1

All deficiency reports are to be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Tool Calibration and Special Tools Program

MP 014 Monitor the Contractor’s reports for tool calibration, special tools and tool control program. Ensure compliance with inspection requirements and proper tracking of requirements

Random Inspection

See Section 3.1.1

All deficiency reports are to be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Annual and Special Inventories

SU-3001 Provide active oversight of contractor’s annual inventory and any special inventories required by the Government.

Ensure accuracy of inventory and reporting.

Random physical sampling of the daily counts and re-counts during the inventory

See Section 3.1.1

All deficiency reports are to be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Facility Inspection - Janitorial

ME-13 Inspection of CBP areas to ensure janitorial service is providing a clean and safe working environment.

Ensure the health and hygiene supplies are provided as needed.

Monthly be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Facility Inspection – Grounds

ME-14 Inspection of CBP grounds keeping (as applicable). Ensure the keeping of the exterior grounds around buildings and aircraft storage areas are clean and uncluttered.

Particular emphasis is placed on storage of materials alongside buildings and providing a clear access to building by Fire and Emergency Equipment.

Bi/weekly

(seasonal) be forward to the COR.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit

Maintenance Inspection Span Time Limit

MP-019 To produce aircraft in an efficient and timely manner through effective management of pre-inspection planning; production floor management;

and parts, tooling, and ground support equipment availability to meet required

Routinely See Section 3.1.1 be forward to the COR.

scheduled maintenance inspection activities.

Large maintenance needs timeframes (e.g., engines, transmissions) will come from OEM estimates and shall be agreed to by the government. Other scheduled maintenance actions or unscheduled action needs (repairs) will follow industry/OEM time standards (flat rate) with those timeframes accepted and approved by the government before use.

Copy to be filed for follow-up audit.

6.4 Surveillance Performance Standards – Quality/Safety

Description Metric Description Method Incentive

Major Discrepancy Report

Metric Description: Major discrepancies, as observed by the Site Aviation Maintenance Officer, and defined as contractual discrepancies that have already resulted in or, if not corrected, have the potential for any of the following:

• Significant personal injury requiring hospitalization or medical intervention

• Injuries or damage due to noncompliance with OSHA regulations.

• Damage to government property (including aircraft).

• Injuries or damage due to noncompliance with HAZMAT requirements (including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local regulations)

• Noncompliance with 14 CFR Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), DOD, or CBP standard operating procedures (including, but not limited to, required aircraft maintenance documentation, e.g., logbooks and other record entries, and the physical airworthiness condition of aircraft).

AQL: Major DR rates are based on total count of documented issues in inspection reports.

Government inspection of physical aircraft, maintenance management system transactions, and aircraft records..

See Section 4.4

Minor Discrepancy Report (DR) Rate

Metric Description: The minor DR classification should become an effective and meaningful classification for the compliance of regulations on all discrepancies with definitions noted as other than a “Major” classification.

Government observation and review of submittals.

• Potential safety or airworthiness practices that can lead to damage to aircraft or injury to personnel.

• Noncompliance with PWS-required processes or procedures.

AQL: DR rates are based on total count of documented issues in inspection reports.

6.5 Surveillance Performance Standards – Required Reports

Report Frequency Date of Submission Distribution

Aircraft Cannibalization Report (parts cannibalized due to Non-availability, by tail number)

Monthly 15th of each Month COR

ACOR

Logistics Managers

Aircraft Deferred Maintenance Report Monthly 15th of each Month COR

ACOR

Site AMO

Aircraft Part Non-availability Report (trend of number of status reports of non-availability of parts for maintenance)

Monthly 15th of each Month COR

ACOR

Logistics Managers

Inventory Aging Report (total inventory that has had no demand in the past 12 months)

Yearly 15th of each October COR

ACOR

Logistics Managers

Component Repair Report (number of parts out for repair and overdue, by shop/vendor;

number of parts awaiting repair funding) This is to include work being done in IHR.

Weekly Close of Business every Friday

COR

ACOR

Logistics Managers

Chronic Systems Report (top 5 worst performing ATA systems trends based on repeat write-ups >3 for the same system and same reason in one month, by fleet type)

Monthly 15th of each Month COR

ACOR

Logistics Managers

Monthly Sensor Utilization Report Monthly 15th of each Month COR

ACOR

Daily Aircraft Mission Capable Report

Daily Daily COR

ACOR

ATTACHMENT 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE

MONITORING FORM

MAINTENANCE REVIEW/AUDIT CHECKLIST

BRANCH: AB DATE:

IN BRIEF:

Meet with branch chief, aviation maintenance officer (AMO), site supervisor and supply supervisor. Review what is to be accomplished and what areas will be covered during the inspection/audit. Request special reports that will be needed during the review, such as hold bin reports, MQ listings, PMEL listing, NON-RFI report, last daily transaction report, personnel training/qualification listing, and shift duty roster. During this meeting, ask if there are any special problems on-going and if any assistance is required from Headquarters or the contractor's Program Management Office (PMO). Provide a schedule of inspections and arrange to have an out brief at end of the inspection.

MAINTENANCE SECTION:

Start the review with a quick walkthrough of the maintenance facility to get an overview of what maintenance actions are on-going and an initial look at the facility condition, aircraft ground support equipment, and personnel available.

AVIATION MAINTENANCE OFFICER (AMO) YES (OK) or NO

1. Audit Maintenance Standardization Manual (MSM) to ensure all changes have been received/filed.

2. Has AMO inserted the annual element requirements of inspections due?

3. Review AMO’s completed file of required inspections for current year.

4. Review DRFs documented and the corrected action or response from the contractor. Has AMO accepted the completed action or response?

5. Are there any open DRFs? If so why? Is a Program Management Office (PMO) action required to resolve?

6. Does the AMO have any additional duties assigned to him or her by the branch chief or higher management?

QUALITY CONTROL YES (OK) or NO

1. Is a master file of all publications associated with assigned aircraft and equipment maintained?

2. Are annual inventories performed and a copy noting discrepancies forwarded to PMO?

3. Are manuals complete and serviceable?

4. Are the standard operating procedures on site and current?

5. Are aircraft checklists on file and current?

6. Are required maintenance forms (commercial & military) on site to support OGA & Navy aircraft?

7. Are the results of the monthly Contractor’s Quality Control Plan self-audit accurate and reasonably relevant?

CORROSION CONTROL YES (OK) or NO

1. Is the corrosion program in place and being followed?

2. Are aircraft washes being performed and on schedule?

3. Are open lines, fittings, tubing, and electrical connectors protected during maintenance?

4. Are corrosion discrepancies placed on a monitoring program?

FUNCTIONAL CHECK FLIGHTS (FCFs) YES (OK) or NO

1. Are flight crews properly briefed before each FCF about what is required?

2. Who debriefs flight crews on completion of the FCF? Is all necessary documentation completed before the aircraft is released from maintenance?

FOREIGN OBJECT DAMAGE (FOD) YES (OK) or NO

1. Has a FOD program been implemented?

2. Does the site maintain a log of FOD walks to indicate date, time, and results?

3. Are FOD containers clearly identified and located throughout the work site?

4. Are FOD containers emptied daily?

5. Is a missing tool program in place? If so, what procedures are used?

6. Have site personnel complied with the required FOD training?

CALIBRATION PROGRAM YES (OK) or NO

1. Does the site have a record of all equipment that is required to be calibrated?

2. Is a hard copy of the calibration record received with the item from the vendor that accomplished the calibration?

FILES AND RECORDS YES (OK) or NO

1. Are completed aircraft inspection checklists on file and current

2. Are inspections accomplished within established intervals?

3. Are discrepancies properly cleared and inspected as required?

4. Are open discrepancies properly carried forward?

5. Are pre-inspection meeting checklists used and filed with inspection package?

6. Are aircraft and component times correct, and do history cards match the Maintenance

Management System?

7. Are aircraft, engine, and propeller logs maintained in accordance with 4790

8. Is the AIM/FAR current?

QUALITY ASSURANCE YES (OK) or NO

1. Do the QA inspectors perform management functions?

2. Does QA inspect and make a final record entry for all major repairs and alterations?

3. Are in-process inspections (IPs) accomplished for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance?

4. Does QA conduct a final inspection on phase inspections and major repair actions?

5. Are discrepancies discovered during final inspections documented? Are trends being observed on final inspections?

6. Are QA inspectors issued identification stamps?

7. Is the QA stamp log maintained?

8. Are unused stamps maintained in a secure location?

9. Does the site have a lost stamp procedure, and is it followed?

10. Do collateral duty inspectors have stamps?

11. Are current airworthiness certificate/registrations in each aircraft and properly displayed IAW

CFR Pt 91?

QUALITY CONTROL YES (OK) or NO

1. Is engine trend monitoring being conducted and recorded as required?

2. Is a hazard communication (MSDS) program in place, and are its requirements known to all personnel?

3. Are personnel trained on use of line and portable fire extinguishers?

4. Are site safety briefings conducted, and are they properly documented?

5. Have personnel been trained, fitted, and provided with the proper respirators to accomplish their tasks? When was the last recurring training done?

6. Are site personnel trained and certified to operate electric hangar doors, and is a list posted about who is authorized?

7. Have the site personnel received radio frequency (RF) radiation training, and are warning signs posted to alert personnel that RF emitting equipment is being operated in the vicinity?

8. Does the site have a safety bulletin board, and is the posted information current?

9. Is a training file established for each technician?

10. Does each training file contain the following items:

• RA FSR on-the-job training (OJT) manual

• Run-up/taxi certification

• HAZMAT handling training (supply only)

• FOD training record

• Oxygen (O2) servicing certification

• Nitrogen (N2) servicing certification

• Freon reclamation certification

• Government-supplied equipment training records

• Tool inventory

• Copy of certificates (FAA, FCC, etc.)

• Certificates of training completed

• Date of last hearing exam

11. Does the site supervisor forecast training requirements?

12. What method is used to collect training data?

13. Is OJT being documented as training is received?

14. Has a hearing Conservation Program been implemented? Are annual hearing examinations current?

MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS YES (OK) or NO

1. Do all site personnel wear the required distinctive uniform and safety equipment when on duty?

2. Does the facility present a clean and well-organized appearance?

3. Is adequate space assigned for the following:

• Maintenance

• Storage of special tools

• Equipment

• Material/parts

• Maintenance personnel tools

• Proper office area to conduct business

4. Are proper maintenance procedures being followed for: towing aircraft, refueling, running up engines, jacking up aircraft, changing tires, washing aircraft, compressor-washing aircraft, or inspecting aircraft (daily/turnaround), etc.?

5. Are inspection requirements accomplished on schedule?

6. Are wash schedules being adjusted when aircraft are being operated in different areas?

7. Is the MQ listing standard by type of aircraft?

8. Are fuel samples performed as required?

9. Is an electrostatic discharge (ESD) program implemented and complied with, and is necessary equipment on site?

10. Are maintenance operational checks being accomplished as required and properly signed off after the flight?

11. Has the site established a maintenance schedule/planning system, such as a VIDS board? Is it current, and does it provide a true picture of maintenance actions in progress/pending?

12. Are aircraft configured to the approved configuration?

13. Are aircraft secured in accordance with CBP regulations?

14. Are A/C keys kept in a secure location?

SAFETY YES (OK) or NO

1. Are site personnel familiar with the company policies regarding aviation and ground safety

(safety manual)?

2. Are hazardous/flammable materials stored in approved cabinets? (29 CFR OSHA)

3. Are hazardous/flammable materials disposed of in an approved manner?

4. Are spaces where combustibles and material stored and used clean, neatly arranged and well ventilated?

5. Are all power tools and equipment approved type with proper grounds?

6. Are power tools and equipment cables/plugs in safe working condition?

7. Are hazardous material/chemical storage areas well marked?

8. Are work areas in hangar and shop areas free of oil/grease/fuel spills, trash, and FOD?

9. Do all personnel have and use eye, hearing, and special protective equipment?

10. Are fire extinguishers available/serviceable and of proper quantity for type of operation?

11. Are personnel familiar with and complying with host base/airport safety policies and procedures?

Are policies and procedures on file?

12. Does site have fire notification procedures and fire evacuation plan clearly posted?

13. Are noise warning signs posted in areas that have a potential of noise over 85 dB in 8 hours duration?

14. Are eye wash stations available and are signs posted?

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT YES (OK) or NO

1. Are all history cards and logs being updated after inspections/repairs?

2. Does the MQ report match aircraft records?

3. Is the MK screen updated as required for open/closed work orders?

4. Do in-house repairs (IHR) coincide with the VIDS board in maintenance and supply?

5. Are work orders opened in a timely manner to ensure maintenance actions are properly documented?

SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT YES (OK) or NO

1. Are life rafts (of proper size) and survival kits located securely in the aircraft, and are they readily accessible?

2. Is survival equipment entered on the Aircraft Equipment List and entered on the weight and balance form?

3. Are condition tags attached to indicate inspection condition and date?

4. Are survival radios entered in CARMAC and inspected in accordance with established requirements?

AIRCRAFT LOGBOOKS YES (OK) or NO

1. Are aircraft logbooks properly maintained?

2. Are discrepancies properly entered in accordance with maintenance procedures?

3. Does the corrective action entry clearly describe the work performed?

4. Are ample blank forms available in the logbook?

5. Are log book entries signed off properly?

6. Are current weight and balance forms in the logbook?

LOGISTICS SUPPORT YES (OK) or NO

1. Are tool boxes properly shadowed for quick inventory?

2. Are tools kept in acceptable condition?

3. Are tools properly marked?

4. Are tools inventoried after each job or shift?

5. Are tool boxes free of loose hardware and parts?

6. Are personal PME tools properly calibrated, records maintained, and labels affixed to the tools?

7. Are all tools maintained in a serviceable condition?

GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT YES (OK) or NO

1. Are tools properly marked and condition tags affixed (Red $300 or less; Blue $300 or more)?

2. Do all tools have a designated place, and are they shadowed?

3. Are tool logs/chits utilized to check out tools and equipment?

4. Do all tools requiring calibration have a label or tag affixed that reflects last calibration date and next due date?

5. Are all government-furnished parts that have been loaned or transferred to another site properly tracked in the maintenance management system and tracked with a transfer document?

PARTS AND SUPPLY YES (OK) or NO

1. Are parts properly identified with correct condition tag affixed?

2. Is shelf life of items being monitored?

3. Are parts protected from the elements?

4. Conduct a sample inventory of no less than 25 line items: does the maintenance management system match the bin balance?

5. Do hold bin items have appropriate documents available, are parts traceable to a specific aircraft type or work order, and is a hold bin report provided to maintenance?

6. Are pre-expended bins identified, and are they checked for recurring usage and stock levels?

7. Is supply status tracked and updated?

8. Is the supply document register kept current, and are follow-up actions being recorded?

9. Are spare life rafts, survival vests, and survival kits properly stored and protected, and inspection cycles monitored?

10. Are parts/components removed from the aircraft and equipment tagged with the appropriate status/condition tag and filled out correctly?

• (White - Removed to facilitate maintenance)

• (Yellow - Serviceable RFI)

• (Green - Unserviceable/repairable NRFI)

• (Red - Rejected/condemned)

11. Is the critical item management log accurate?

RECEIVING INSPECTIONS YES (OK) or NO

1. Is material and property inspected upon receipt for the following:

• Proper documentation

• Correct items received

• Shipping damage

• Correct quantity received

• Correct packing material/packing as required?

2. Are receiving documents annotated when a shortage, overage, or damage exists?

3. Do supply personnel sign and date the documents and maintain a copy in the file?

ADMINISTRATIVE YES (OK) or NO

1. Are audiometric tests scheduled in a timely manner?

2. Does the site maintain a current roster with home addresses and phone numbers?

3. Are accident and personnel injury reporting procedures being followed?

4. Is OSHA Form 200 on file for the past five years?

5. Does the site have the results of the last noise level survey on file?

6. Does the site have an aircraft mishap plan available, including checklist, notification of key personnel, and procedures to preserve wreckage and records?

7. Are EDP entries made in a timely manner?

8. Are time sheets reviewed daily, and are corrections made in a timely manner?

OUT-BRIEF:

If possible, conduct an out-brief with the branch chief, branch AMO, site maintenance supervisor, chief QA supervisor, and supply supervisor. At this briefing, review all major findings (if any) and provide an overview of the inspection.

If a final written report cannot be left with the branch chief, provide an estimated date of when the final report will be available.

Out brief Report

Lead inspector:

Date:

Additional Inspectors:

Remarks and/or Findings:

P3 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS SUPPORT INCENTIVE FEE SCHEDULE

Incentive Fees

This contract includes incentive fees that emphasize Operational Performance Measure and Cost Performance. Because the Government considers operational performance more important than Cost Performance, the target incentive fee will be divided as follows: 70% Operational Performance/30% Cost Performance. The target fee will be TBP% of the target cost of the contract, for each year. The maximum fee will be TBP% of the target cost of the contract for each year.

Operational Performance Incentive (70%):

Fees relating to Operational Performance will be awarded quarterly based upon the calculation of fees described in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The Operational Performance Incentive Fee Schedule is as follows:

Ph as e In

Operational Performance Measure 84%< (Min Fee) 85-89% 90% (Target Fee) 91-94% 95% > (Max Fee) Fee Earned Performance Period

Dec. 1, 2019 - Mar 31, 2020

B as e Ye ar Apr 1, 2020 – Jun 30, 2020

Jul 1, 2020 – Sep 30, 2020 Oct 1, 2020 – Dec 31, 2020 Jan 1, 2021 – Mar 31, 2021

Total

O pt io n

Yr

Apr 1, 2021 – Jun 30, 2021 Jul 1, 2021 – Sep 30, 2021 Oct 1, 2021 – Dec 31, 2021 Jan 1, 2022 – Mar 31, 2022 io n

Yr

Apr 1, 2022 – Jun 30, 2022 Jul 1, 2022 – Sep 30, 2022 Oct 1, 2022 – Dec 31, 2022 Jan 1, 2023 – Mar 31, 2023 io

Apr 1, 2023 – Jun 30, 2023 Jul 1, 2023 – Sep 30, 2023 Oct 1, 2023 – Dec 31, 2023 Jan 1, 2024 – Mar 31, 2024

Attachment 1: Incentive Fee Schedule

Performance Period 84%< (Min Fee) 85-89% 90% (Target Fee) 91-94% 95% > (Max Fee) Fee Earned pt io

Apr 1, 2024 – Jun 30, 2024 Jul 1, 2024 – Sep 30, 2024 Oct 1, 2024 – Dec 31, 2024 Jan 1, 2025 – Mar 31, 2025

Total

O pt io

Apr 1, 2025 – Jun 30, 2025 Jul 1, 2025 – Sep 30, 2025 Oct 1, 2025 – Dec 31, 2025 Jan 1, 2026 – Mar 31, 2026 io

Apr 1, 2026 – Jun 30, 2026 Jul 1, 2026 – Sep 30, 2026 Oct 1, 2026 – Dec 31, 2026 Jan 1, 2027 – Mar 31, 2027 io

Apr 1, 2027 – Jun 30, 2027 Jul 1, 2027 – Sep 30, 2027 Oct 1, 2027 – Dec 31, 2027 Jan 1, 2028 – Mar 31, 2028 io

Apr 1, 2028 – Jun 30, 2028 Jul 1, 2028 – Sep 30, 2028 Oct 1, 2028 – Dec 31, 2028 Jan 1, 2029 – Mar 31, 2029 io

Apr 1, 2029 – Jun 30, 2029 Jul 1, 2029 – Sep 30, 2029 Oct 1, 2029 – Dec 31, 2029 Jan 1, 2030 – Mar 31, 2030

Total

GRAND TOTAL (ALL YRS)

The following is an example of how the quarterly performance incentive would be calculated for a contract with the following parameters:

Target Cost = $100,000,000

Sample Performance Fee Calculation for Quarterly Incentive Fee Pool:

A) Exceed the Target Operational Performance Measure

Quarterly Target OPM = 90% Actual OPM = 94% (8% Fee) Quarterly Performance Fee = $100,000,000*.08 = $8,000,000*.70 = $5,600,000 / 4 = $1,400,000

B) Target Operational Performance Measure with Deficiency Report

Quarterly Target OPM = 90% Actual OPM = 94% (8% Fee) Quarterly Performance Fee = $100,000,000*.08 = $8,000,000*.70 = $5,600,000 / 4 = $1,400,000 Deficiency Report = 1.5 Total Performance Fee Pool = $1,400,000 – ($1,400,000*.10) = $1,260,000

Cost Incentive (30%):

Fees relating to cost performance will be awarded following the completion of the appropriate period of performance by applying the cost sharing ratio formula that relates total allowable costs incurred to the Target Cost. The offeror is expected to propose a Target Cost, Target Fee and a Maximum Fee percentage. The proposed Maximum Fee percentage shall not exceed nine percent (9%). The minimum cost incentive fee is $0. The Cost Incentive Fee Schedule is as follows:

Fiscal/Contract Year Performance Period Minimum Fee Target Fee Max Fee Fee Earned Phase In Dec. 1, 2019 - Mar 31, 2020

Base Year Apr 1, 2020 – Mar 31, 2021

Option Year 1 Apr 1, 2021 – Mar 31, 2022

Option Year 2 Apr 1, 2022 – Mar 31, 2023

Option Year 3 Apr 1, 2023 – Mar 31, 2024

Option Year 4 Apr 1, 2024 – Mar 31, 2025

Option Year 5 Apr 1, 2025 – Mar 31, 2026

Option Year 6 Apr 1, 2026 – Mar 31, 2027

Option Year 7 Apr 1, 2027 – Mar 31, 2028

Option Year 8 Apr 1, 2028 – Mar 31, 2029

Option Year 9 Apr 1, 2029 – Mar 31, 2030 Grand Total

The following is an…