Attachment 16 - Draft FRCASE QASP_20220926.docx

N68520-22-R-0029 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Fleet Readiness Center Aviation Support Equipment (FRCASE) Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) & Logistic Support

1. Purpose This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure the systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the services contract in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW). This contract requirement is for Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul, and Logistics Support of Fleet Readiness Aviation Support Equipment (FRCASE) in Solomons, MD and the other FRCASE locations. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with the metrics and the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract.

2. Authority Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the services and documentation called for in service contracts, 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, not the Government, is responsible for management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth in 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 contract.

4. Government Resources The following definitions for Government resources are applicable to this QASP:

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. 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 service contract. The limitations of authority are contained in a written letter of appointment.

Alternate COR (ACOR) - An individual appointed in writing by the PCO to act as their 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.

5. Responsibilities The following Government resources shall have responsibility for the implementation of this QASP:

Contracting Officer – The Contracting Officer ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures compliance with the terms of the contract and safeguards the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. It is the Contracting Officer who 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

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - The COR 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 will also submit an annual assessment in the Navy’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). For CPARS, the COR assesses general quality of the product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, small business compliance, and other important areas. The COR 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, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

Alternate COR (ACOR) – In the absence of the COR, the ACOR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and assures proper Government surveillance of the Contractor’s performance. The 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, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the Contracting Officer for action.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The market place for maintenance, repair and overhaul support services is very competitive. As such, the successful Offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS under this contract. Additionally, an evaluation using the CPARS format will be performed at the end of each year of performance. This evaluation will be one determinant in performance of each sequential period. The Government for this procurement will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, utilization of small business, and other important areas. As this information may affect future source selections throughout DoD, and future orders, the annual Government assessment will be used appropriately as an additional performance oversight and communication tool with the QASP

QASP - The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used by the COR and ACOR(s) in the technical administration of this QASP.

7. Surveillance Enclosure 1 sets forth the performance standards, definitions, and surveillance methods for the Contractor and COR/ACORs.

Each permanent site will submit a Contractor Monthly Performance Evaluation to the FRCASE COR, unless otherwise delineated in the SOW.

Circumstances or external influences beyond the control of the Contractor that impact the ability of the Contractor to meet performance standards will not affect Contractor performance measurements.

The Performance Standard Definitions section of this QASP describes the metrics used to measure Contractor schedule and performance. The performance data from all FRCASE sites will be aggregated by the FRCASE COR, who will then calculate one score per metric. Once measured, these metrics will be used to arrive at a monthly composite score for the Contractor based on whether Contractor performed the work in an above standard, standard or below standard manner in accordance with the stated goals. All performance evaluations will be entered into the CPARS database by the FRCASE COR.

Contractor work accomplished at FRCASE sites will be scored based upon the types of workload being conducted at each of the FRCASE Sites. Each of the types of workload and their associated performance and/or schedule criteria are outlined in the Performance Standard Definitions of this QASP.

8. Documentation In addition to providing quarterly reports to the Contracting Officer, the COR will maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. 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.

N68520-22-R-0029 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

Enclosure 1

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS

(Sail Plan - applies only to BIC)

See SOW “Material Requirements Ordering” 3.36.11

(NOTE: NIINs that are to be acquired by Open Purchase shall not be included in this metric and will be included in ALRT I).

Contractor achieves a Monthly ALRT II score averaging greater than two days for items to be acquired via DD-1348/N-ERP.

NAVSUP WSS transactions are documented via Transaction Item Reporting (TIR) within 24 hours of the transaction occurrence 97% of the time or greater.

Contractor documents NAVSUP WSS transactions via Transaction Item Reporting (TIR) within 24 hours of the transaction occurrence less than 97% of the time.

Contractor documents NAVSUP WSS transactions via Transaction Item Reporting (TIR) within 24 hours of the transaction occurrence 97% of the time.

Contractor documents NAVSUP WSS transactions via Transaction Item Reporting (TIR) within 24 hours of the transaction occurrence greater than 97% of the time.

PERFORMANCE STANDARD DEFINTIONS

1 – Task Performance Self Explanatory

2 – Staffing Self Explanatory

3 – Schedule Self Explanatory

4 – Contract Deliverables (CDRLs) Self Explanatory

5 – Corrective Action Requests (CARs) Self Explanatory

6 – Workload Standard (WLS) Self Explanatory 7 –SE Scheduled Maintenance Execution

Performance measurement will be based on Workload Standard (WLS), Support Equipment Available for Tasking, Scheduled Maintenance Execution, and Direct Labor Yield.

Performance measurement will be assessed on all SE Rework workload based upon the WLS associated with each CNUM/Maximo Work Order, and NIIN, by Site. All items identified as completed and ready for return to the Fleet in a “Ready for Use/Issue” condition, at the close of business the last working day of the month will be used for the calculation of this measurement. The actual number of hours expended will be compared to the planned WLS hours.

The Government Off-Site Leads and the FRCASE COR will score each item of SE completed during the month using a SE Rework Site Performance Worksheet. Upon the completion of each item, the Government will enter the following information into the worksheet: Date Completed, CNUM / Maximo Work Order, Planned Workload Standard and Actual Hours Expended. The Performance measurement will be scored as follows:

To receive a score of “+1”, or exceeds standard, the Contractor must complete the SE being scored in a number of hours lower than the established WLS.

To receive a score of “0”, or meets standard, the Contractor must complete the SE being scored within the established WLS.

To receive a score of “-1” or unacceptable, the Contractor must complete the SE being scored in an amount of hours above the established WLS.

Each site’s individual CNUM/Maximo Work Order Scores are then grouped by NIIN and added to determine each NIIN Score. Each of the individual NIIN scores are then added together to identify a Site NIIN Total. The Site NIIN Total is then scored as follows: if the sum is zero, the score is “0”; if the sum is a positive number, the score is “+1”; if the sum is a negative number, the score is “-1”. The result of the scoring becomes the Site’s Monthly Score.

This Metric will be weighted according to type of workload by the FRCASE COR on the Contractor's Monthly Performance Measurement Report.

All FRCASE workload to include NAVAIR Support Equipment Rework Control Numbers (CNUM) NAVSUP Quick Engine Change and Component Repair program Transaction Item Reporting (TIR) numbers and other workload will be included in the monthly performance evaluation. Once measured, these metrics will be used to arrive at a monthly score for the Contractor based on whether they did not meet, met, or exceeded the stated goals. Only items identified as completed and ready for return to the Fleet in a “Ready for Use/Issue” condition, at the close of business the last working day of the month will be used for the calculation of this measurement.

8 - SE Available for Tasking - Sail Plan (Applies only to BIC)

For each site that is conducting workload associated with the Sail Plan, the Government will monitor the associated workload utilizing the SE Available for Tasking Worksheet. The SE Available for Tasking Worksheet identifies the quantity of each type of equipment planned for upload to each ship and the quantity of each type of equipment available for redeployment/upload at the end of the maintenance evolution. A score for this work is assigned based upon the percentage of total amount of equipment available for redeployment/upload. This metric is only reported in the month that the SE reload is completed. The Government Off-Site Leads and the FRCASE COR will determine the scores as follows:

To receive a score of “+1”, or exceeds standard, the Contractor shall have completed the required scheduled maintenance, and have 98-100% of the SE ready for reload/upload according to the Sail Plan.

To receive a score of “0”, or meets standard, the Contractor shall have completed the required scheduled maintenance, and have 95 – 97% of the support equipment ready for reload/upload according to the Sail Plan.

To receive a score of “-1”, or unacceptable, the Contractor shall have completed the required scheduled maintenance, and have less than 95% of the support equipment ready for reload/upload according to the Sail Plan.

Note: Reporting on availability of SE to meet ship schedules will only be reported at the end of the month in which all work associated to a specific Sail Plan has been completed.

This Metric will be weighted according to the type of workload by the FRCASE COR on the Contractor’s Monthly Performance Measurement Report.

9 - First Pass Fill Rate Measured by taking the total number of inventory requisitions issued upon first pass from inventory stock divided by the total number of inventory requisitions for materials issued during the month.

10 through 12 - Inventory Accuracy Rate Measured by taking the total number of accurate items inventoried divided by the total number of items inventoried.

13 - No Losses in Excess of 2% Measured by taking the total number of items inventoried with losses divided by the total number of items inventoried.

14 - Reorder Points (ROPs) and Economic Order Quantities (EOQs) Self Explanatory

15 - Inventory Turn Rate Measured by the number of times an item is issued from the warehouse.

16 - Monthly Kit Effectiveness Measured by taking the number of kits shipped during the month with 100% of the required contents divided by the total number of kits shipped during the month.

17 - Monthly Kit Average Days to Ship Measured by taking the sum of the total number of days between kit order date and kit ship dates for all kits shipped during the month divided by the total number of kits issued during the month.

18 - Monthly Requisition Validity Measured by taking the total number of outstanding requisitions with valid requisition status divided by the total number of outstanding number of requisitions, including those without valid requisition status (i.e., over 15 days no status, supplier EDD exceeds current date, over 30 days since shipped).

19 - Monthly Average Logistics Response Time I (ALRT I) Measured by taking the total number of requisitions ordered during the month divided by the total number of work days to place items on order by the Open Purchase process. This metric is measured from the time the Purchase Requisition is created and in Approved status (APPR) until the time the item is submitted to the GPC Office for order.

20 - Monthly Average Logistics Response Time II (ALRT II) Measured by taking the total number of requisitions ordered during the month via the N-ERP DD-1348 process divided by the total number of days to place all requisitions during the month on order via the N-ERP DD-1348 process. This metric is measured from the time the Purchase Requisition is created and in Approved status (APPR) until the time that it is recorded as ordered in Maximo.

21 - Transaction Item Reporting (TIR) for NAVSUP WSS Measured by taking the total number of NAVSUP WSS transactions changing status and reported via TIR within 24 hours of changing status divided by the total number status changes reported during the period. Data Source for this information is the Certificate of Completion and Acceptance (COCA) form.

All SOW/CDRL efforts 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 efforts, 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 effect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events, discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of Contractor 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 contract where task or contract sizing is based upon 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, including whether the Contractor met small/small disadvantage 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.

Utilization of Small Business – Assess the Contractor’s success in utilizing and meeting small business goals / concerns.

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

EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

The evaluation ratings are as follows:

Above Standard Performance: Contractor’s performance of all contract requirements consistently exceeds the acceptable standards and in addition provides numerous significant, tangible or intangible, benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). The few areas for improvement are all minor. There are no recurring problems. Contractor’s management initiates effective corrective action whenever needed.

Standard Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements meets the acceptable standards with some tangible or intangible benefits to the Government (e.g., improved quality, responsiveness, increased timeliness, or generally enhanced effectiveness of operations). Although there are some areas of above standard performance, these are more or less offset by below standard performance in other areas.

Below Standard Performance: Contractor’s performance of most contract requirements is inconsistent and frequently does not always meet acceptable standards. Quality, responsiveness, and timeliness in many areas require attention and action. Corrective actions have not been taken or are ineffective.