Att 4_QASP N0024124R0003 EW Jets.pdf

Attachment (3)

N0042124R0003

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Electronic Warfare (EW) Jet Services

1. Purpose

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a government developed and applied document used to ensure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the performance-based service tasks under the planned contract. The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs In Accordance With (IAW) the performance metrics, the government receives the quality of services required under the contract, and that the actual performance results are documented IAW this plan.

This QASP describes how the government will observe, evaluate and document the contractor’s performance in meeting the critical performance standards identified in the contract and task orders. Specifically, the QASP will identify the government resources responsible for monitoring performance and surveillance methods that will be utilized in determining the quality level of services and products delivered under the contract. The intent is to establish and properly execute a QASP that will assist the government in obtaining services from the contractor.

2. Authority

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under contract Section E – Inspection and

Acceptance, which provides for inspection and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in the contract to be executed by the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

3. Scope

To fully understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties, it is important to first define the distinction in terminology between Quality Control Plan and the QASP. The contractor, and not the government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the contract.

The QASP, on the other hand, is put in place to provide government surveillance oversight of the contractor’s efforts to assure that they are timely, effective, and are delivering the results specified in the order.

4. Government Resources

The following definitions for government resources are applicable to this plan:

Contracting Officer – A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into (Procuring

Contracting Officer) (PCO) or administer (Administrative Contracting Officer) (ACO) contracts and make related determination and findings on behalf of the government. The PCO for this contract is A252600. The ACO will be designated in the resulting contract. Contracting Officers are designated via a written warrant, which sets forth limitations of authority.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their authorized representative to assist in administering the contract. The COR will be appointed in the resulting contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Alternative Contracting Officer Representative (ACOR) – An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as its authorized representative, in the absence of the COR, to assist in administering the contract. The ACOR will be appointed in the resulting contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Government Flight Representative (GFR) – A United States (US) Military Officer or similarly qualified civilian with the responsibility for oversight of public aircraft operations conducted by commercial contractors.

Program Manager (PM) – As part of PMA 226, the PM manages and supports specialized and proven aircraft platforms & systems to include CAS acquisition, PAO Declaration and

Airworthiness.

CAS Integrated Product Team Lead (IPTL) - The IPTL executes the program as the PM’s primary representative.

5. Responsibilities

The following government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this

QASP:

Contracting Officer – The Contracting Officer shall monitor performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the Contracting Officer that assures the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under the contract. The

Contracting Officer is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor’s performance.

COR/ACOR – The COR/ACOR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. In addition to the continuous monitoring of performance, the COR/ACOR will also submit an annual assessment in the Navy’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In CPARS, the

COR/ACOR assesses general quality of the services, schedule, management, and other important areas. The COR/ACOR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any changes on the government’s behalf. Any changes that the contractor deems may affect contract price and terms or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

GFR – The GFR is responsible for surveillance of contractor ground operations involving CAS aircraft. GFR duties and responsibilities are described in DCMA INST 8210.1D, Chapter 7

(NAVAIRINST 3710.1G).

PM – The PM provides primary program oversight, nominates the COR, and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. The PM for this contract is PMA-226.

CAS IPTL - The IPTL executes the program as the PM’s primary representative, which includes designating the Scheduling Officers to execute administrative tasks such as mission scheduling, coordination, prioritization of CAS and invoice inspection.

6. Methods of Quality Assurance Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for

Contracted Air Services is becoming very competitive. As such, the successful offeror has a vested interest in the government generated CPARS rating under this contract.

Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed annually inclusive of all task orders awarded during the applicable annual rating period. This evaluation will be one determinant in the continuation of issuing task orders under this contract. The government will address the quality of the services, schedule, management, and other important areas for this procurement. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and the continuation of the contract, the CPARS evaluation will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP.

b. QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR in the technical administration of this QASP. In addition to the below instructions, the form to be used for documentation of quality assurance surveillance is the Surveillance Activity

Checklist (SAC) provided as Enclosure (4) herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) set forth the CAS performance standards, data performance standards, and incentives for the contractor and the COR. Enclosure (4) provides the checklist and means for the COR to document on a monthly basis the results of the surveillance and shall be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

8. Documentation

In addition to providing monthly reports to the Contracting Officer, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file within the Surveillance and Performance Module (SPM). The file will contain copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations, and any actions related to the government’s performance of the quality assurance function, including the originals of the

Quality Assurance Checklists. All such records will be maintained for the life of the contract.

The COR shall forward these records to the Contracting Officer at termination or completion of the contract.

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a

Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the contractor's task manager or on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP enclosure (5).

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COR. The government will review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.

The COR may initiate a CDR at any time, including whenever the number of monthly recorded defects for a performance standard exceeds the allowable number of defects; anytime unacceptable performance is determined critical in nature and requires formal corrective action;

and, whenever an unfavorable trend is detected in contractor performance.

9. Enclosures

Enclosure (1) – Contracted Air Service Performance Standards

Enclosure (2) - Data Performance Standards

Enclosure (3) - Incentives

Enclosure (4) - Surveillance Activity Checklist

Enclosure (5) – Contract Discrepancy Report

Enclosure (1)

CONTRACTED AIR SERVICES PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance Based

Work Statement

(PBWS) Task

Description

Performance

Standards Required and Tied to CPAR

Ratings

Surveillance Method/Measure Incentives

Provide EW Jet

Services (flight minutes) which meet requirements within the PBWS

Metric 1

Execute complete missions

(weight off wheels to weight on wheels) 95.0% of the time to be mission effective.

98.0 – 100.0% = Exceptional

97.0 – 97.99% = Very Good

95.0 – 96.99% = Satisfactory

90.0 – 94.99% = Marginal

<90.0% = Unsatisfactory

100.0% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Mission Effectiveness is the total sorties flown in which the aircraft functions as required by the PBWS and IAW scheduled flights prescribed by Scheduling Officer (SO) divided into the total sorties scheduled to achieve percentage (e.g. 49 flown/50 scheduled = 98.0%). Excludes canceled sorties by customer or due to weather related occurrences.

See enclosure

3.

Contractor to maintain

Government

Furnished Property

(GFP) accountability

IAW DI- MGMT-

81947B

Metric 2

Contractor shall account for all GFP with a goal of

100.0% accuracy and a

Satisfactory metric of 95.0%.

Reports shall be submitted

IAW CDRL A00D.

95.0 – 96.99% = Satisfactory

90.0 – 94.99% = Marginal

<90.0% = Unsatisfactory

Government performed random on-site physical audits combined with

100.0% inspection by COR of GFP reports submitted per CDRL A00D of contractor assigned GFP against the contract master list of assigned GFR.

Take total number of GFP items issued from the government to the contractor compared to the 1149 list and complete reports submitted. And/or Take total

GFP items accounted for during physical audit and divide by total GFP issued by government to derive percentage (299/300 = 99.7%)

See enclosure

3.

Safety program compliance

Metric 3

Contractor shall maintain compliance with Ground

Operating Procedures (GOPs) and Flight Operating

Procedures (FOPs).

Contractor goal is 100.0% compliance with a

Satisfactory metric of 94.0%

96.0 – 97.99% = Very Good

94.0 – 95.99% = Satisfactory

90.0 – 94.99% = Marginal

<90.0% = Unsatisfactory

100.0% Inspection by GFR.

DCMAINST 8210.1D Change 1 compliance inspection will be conducted by the GFR on a semiannual basis. A score will be derived based on the total number of compliant responses versus the total number of questions in the applicable audit checklist.

See enclosure 3.

Fuel accountability compliance (fuel consumption report)

Metric 4

Contractor shall maintain

95.0% accurate fuel consumption tracking between fuel cards/fuel receipts, flight logs and fuel receipts, with a goal of

100.0% accurate tracking.

95.0 – 96.99% = Satisfactory

90.0 – 94.99% = Marginal

<90.0% = Unsatisfactory

100.0% Inspection by CAS Fuel

Analyst, COR and customer feedback.

Provide evidence that the fuel card charge receipts match with flight log and fuel receipts. Take total fuel transactions (receipt amounts and gallons dispensed) and compare/match aggregate cost & gallons & fuel log & flight log. Perform sample audit each month of transaction IAW MIL-STD-

105E. Divide the total number of errant fuel transactions by the total number of fuel transactions in the

CPAR cycle to derive a percentage.

Capability Stand Up Metric 5

The contractor shall complete a Capability Stand Up period, which consists of all the applicable elements identified in PBWS Section 3.6.

Contractor goal is to complete Capability Stand Up no later than the number of months identified in the awarded contract PBWS

Section 3.6.

Award PBWS 3.6 required

# of months or earlier from contract award =

Satisfactory

Greater than award PBWS

3.2 required # of months =

Unsatisfactory

100.0% Inspection by COR.

Compliance checks with PBWS 3.6 will be conducted by the COR on a continual basis during the Capability

Stand Up period. A rating will be derived based on the total number of months the contractor utilizes to complete the applicable elements of

PBWS Section 3.6, Capability Stand

Up. A score of Satisfactory will be assigned for completion of Capability

Stand Up that occurs on or before the timeline specified in the PBWS. A score of Unsatisfactory will be assigned for completion of Capability

Stand Up greater than the time specified in the PBWS.

Enclosure (2)

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PBWS/CDRL Task

Description Standard AQL

Surveillance

Method/

Measure

Incentives

Test / Inspection

Report

(A001)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

COR and/or

ACOR.

See Enclosure

Airworthiness and

Related

Substantiation Data

(A002)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Integrated Master

Schedule (IMS)

(A003)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Management Plan

(A004)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Airworthiness and

Related

Substantiation Data /

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first

100.0%

Inspection by

Contractor’s PAO

Flight Schedule

(A005) submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

Briefing Material /

Post-Award

Conference Brief

(A006)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Briefing Material /

Program

Management

Review Brief (A007)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Government

Furnished Material

(GFM) Consumption

Report / Fuel

Tracking Report and

Receipts (A008)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Course Conduct

Information Package

/ Fuel / AIR Card

SOU and Training

Certificates (A009)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Mishap Risk

Assessment Report

(A00A)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first

100.0%

Inspection by submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

Contractor’s

Progress, Status and

Management Report

/ Monthly Status

Report (A00B)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Contractor Roster

(A00C)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Government Furnished

Property Inventory and

Forecasting Report

(A00D)

Submission is

IAW the DID cited in the CDRL.

95.0% acceptable on first submission to government;

100.0% acceptable on

2nd submission to government

100.0%

Inspection by

Enclosure (3)

INCENTIVES

Assessment Period

Acceptable

Performance

Definition

How Measured

Incentives

Year 1 All measurement areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period (12 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for receiving additional task orders*

(+) Receives a positive assessment

(CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

(-) Does not meet the performance definition as a condition for receiving additional task orders.*

(-)Receives a negative assessment

(CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 2 All measurement areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period (24 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for receiving additional task orders*

(+) Receives a positive assessment

(CPAR), appropriate performance definition as a condition for receiving additional task orders.*

(-)Receives a negative assessment

(CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 3 All measurement areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period (36 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for receiving additional task orders*

(+) Receives a positive assessment

(CPAR), appropriate performance definition as a condition for receiving additional task orders.*

(-)Receives a negative assessment

(CPAR), appropriate

Year 4 All measurement areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Annual assessment period (48 months into contract period) evaluation using the

CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Meet the acceptable performance definition as a condition for receiving additional task orders*

(+) Receives a positive assessment

(CPAR), appropriate performance definition as a condition for receiving additional task orders.*

(-)Receives a negative assessment

(CPAR), appropriate for the quality of service provided.

Year 5 All measurement areas rated**

"Satisfactory" or above.

Assessment period

(96 months into contract period) evaluation using the CPARS format covering the previous 12 months.

(+) Receives a positive assessment

(CPAR), appropriate

(-)Receives a negative assessment

(CPAR), appropriate

* The government may not issue additional task orders unless all regulatory requirements are met and the contractor meets at least the “satisfactory” rating levels for the performance metrics identified in this QASP.

**Evaluation Ratings will be IAW FAR 42.1503.

All PBWS/CDRL tasks, including PBWS/CDRL sub-tasks, will be assessed focusing on the following:

Quality of the Services – 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, the integration of program management specialties, management of interfaces, 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.

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 affect the schedule variance.

Also address significance of scheduled events discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of contractor corrective actions.

Management – Assess the contractor’s success with timely award and management of subcontracts, including whether the contractor met small/small disadvantaged and women-owned business participation goals. 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 contract; communicates appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. Assess the contractor’s risk mitigation plans. If applicable, identify any other management areas that are unique to the contract.

Other areas – Assess additional evaluation areas unique to the contract, or that cannot be captured elsewhere.

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Exceptional – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal - Performance does not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the task and sub-task being assessed reflect a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only 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 of the task or sub-task contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s actions appear or were ineffective.

Enclosure (4)

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY CHECKLIST

Monthly Surveillance Format Used:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of Quality, Schedule, Management Responsiveness, and Other Areas as applicable utilizing the CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in

Enclosure (3).

Surveillance

Method/Meas ure

Date

Plann ed

Date

Comple ted

Quality

Metric

Schedule

Metric =

Mgmt

Metri c

CPAR

Utilizati on of

Small

Business

(yes/no)

Other

Areas

As described above in

Enclosure

1& 2

100%

Inspection by COR and customer feedback

TBD

100%

Inspection by

COR and customer feedback

TBD

100%

Inspection by

COR and customer feedback

TBD

100%

Inspection by

COR and customer feedback

TBD

100%

Inspection by

COR and customer feedback

TBD

100%

Inspection by

COR and customer feedback

TBD

Monthly Summary of Ratings:

Quality of Service Schedule

Number of Exceptional ____ Number of Exceptional ____

Number of Very Good ____ Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____ Number of Satisfactory ____

Number of Marginal ____ Number of Marginal ____

Number of Unsatisfactory ____ Number of Unsatisfactory ____

Management Other Areas

Number of Exceptional ____ Number of Exceptional ____

Number of Very Good ____ Number of Very Good ____

Number of Satisfactory ____ Number of Satisfactory ____

Number of Marginal ____ Number of Marginal ____

Number of Unsatisfactory ____ Number of Unsatisfactory ____

Surveillance:

The COR will perform an annual assessment of overall contract performance utilizing the

CPARS evaluation rating definitions listed in Enclosure (3) and the monthly summary of ratings.

Surveillance

Method/Measure

Date

Planned Date Completed

Summary

Rating/Results

Quality of the

Services

Review of Monthly

Ratings.

Schedule Review of Monthly

Ratings.

Management

Ratings

Other Areas

Ratings

Enclosure (5)

Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR)

1. Contract Number:

2. TO: (Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative)

3. FROM: (Name of COR)

4. Date and time observed discrepancy:

5. DISCREPANCY OR PROBLEM:

6. Corrective action plan:

A written corrective action plan (is/is not) required.

The written Corrective Action Plan will be provided to the undersigned not later than 7 days after receipt of this CDR.

Prepared by: COR

Signature – Contracting Officer’s Representative Date

Received by:

Signature - Contractor Representative Date