Attachment 3 QASP_MOTT_2025_12MAR2026.docx

Attachment 1

COMNAVAIRPAC N46

TASK ORDER

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

For

Mobile Ordnance Training Team (MOTT)

21 October 2025

Prepared by:

Joseph Shea PO Box 357051 San Diego CA, 92135 619-545-2794 joseph.j.shea2.civ@us.navy.mil

Table of Contents

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

FOR

MOBILE ORDNANCE TRAINING TEAM (MOTT) CONTRACT

1. BACKGROUND

The MOTT effort entails fleet readiness at the intermediate maintenance level as detailed in the Naval Ordnance Maintenance Management Program (NOMMP), (OPNAVINST 8000.16). Evaluation of explosives safety, technical data, procedures, life cycle criteria and material support evolve through intermediate level maintenance.

MOTT’s focus is exporting to the user, ordnance support keyed to providing initial ordnance training in support of OPNAVINST 8020.14 Series and updates for new equipment procedures and policies. This is a continuing task, due to personnel changes, readiness cycles and ordnance evolution/upgrades.

The MOTT analyzes the intermediate level maintenance process for potential shortfalls in personnel certification, equipment and material, recommending solutions and providing technical assistance during readiness reviews.

2. QASP PURPOSE

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is a Government developed and applied document used to make sure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in the administration of the Performance Based Service Contract (PBSC) standards included in this contract and in subsequent task orders issued thereunder. The intent is to ensure that the Contractor performs in accordance with performance metrics set forth in the contract documents, that the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract and that the Government only pays for the acceptable level of services received.

3. AUTHORITY

Authority for issuance of this QASP is provided under Contract Section E – Inspection and Acceptance, which provides for inspections and acceptance of the articles, services, and documentation called for in task orders to be accomplished by the Contracting Officer or his duly authorized representative.

4. SCOPE

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is put in place to provide Government surveillance oversight of the Contractor’s quality control efforts to assure that they are timely, effective and are delivering the results specified in the contract or task order. The QASP is not a part of the contract nor is it intended to duplicate the Contractor’s Management Plan.

5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

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

Contracting Officer - A person duly appointed with the authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Government.

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 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.

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) - An individual designated in writing by the Contracting Officer to act as his authorized representative to assist in administering a contract. The source and authority for a COR is the Contracting Officer. COR limitations are contained in the written letter of appointment.

The COR is responsible for technical administration of the project and assures 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 Contracting Officer for action.

Contractor Personnel The following employees of the contractor serve as the contractor’s Program Manager (PM) and Task Manager for this contract: (Complete this section after the contract award)

Program Manager - <upon award, enter name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

Task Manager - <upon award, enter name> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

Other Key Contract Personnel - <upon award, enter name or delete these lines if not applicable> Title: <enter title> Telephone: <enter number> Email: <enter address>

6. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE

The below listed methods of surveillance shall be used in the administration of this QASP.

Customer Feedback – Customer feedback may be obtained from random customer complaints. Customer complaints, to be considered valid, must set forth clearly and in writing the detailed nature of the complaint, must be signed and must be forwarded to the COR. The COR shall maintain a summary log of all formally received customer complaints as well as a copy of each complaint in a documentation file.

Periodic Inspection – The COR will conduct periodic inspections by verifying documentation from ship’s force and NAVAIR program offices. For the potential tasks identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the COR typically performs the periodic inspection on a monthly basis.

Random Monitoring - The COR will conduct random monitoring by verifying documentation from ship’s force and NAVAIR program offices. For the potential tasks identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the random monitoring shall be performed by the COR.

7. DOCUMENTATION

The COR will, in addition to providing documentation to the Contracting Officer, maintain a complete Quality Assurance file. All such records will be retained for the life of this contract. Information in the Quality Assurance file will be considered when completing the annual CPARS report.

The COR makes an annual report on Contractor Performance (CPARS). The contractor’s failure to achieve satisfactory performance under the contract/task order, reflected in the COR’s annual report, may result in termination of the contract/task order and may also result in the loss of future Government contracts/task orders.

For each item that does not meet acceptable levels, the Government may issue a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR). CDRs will be forwarded to the Contracting Officer with a copy sent to the contractor. The contractor must reply in writing within 5 days of receipt identifying how future occurrences of the problem will be prevented. Based upon the contractor’s past performance and plan to solve the problem, the Contracting Officer will determine if any further action will be taken.

8. IDENTIFIED QA SURVEILLANCE AREAS

The following areas are identified in section 7.0 of the PWS. Each area is made up of items that are identified within the PWS and CDRLS listed in Section XX of the solicitation as Attachments and are to be monitored under this QASP.

AREA 1: QUALITY (Comprised of 5 items)

CDRL – Data Item A001, Monthly Financial Statement Measurement/Metric – Accuracy and timeliness Performance Standard – Accuracy – no rejected reports due to major discrepancy Timeliness – within 5 days (defined as working days) after the due date of the last day of the first week of the month.

Maximum Error Rate – 0% Timeliness – 0% Weight – 20% if all above requirements are met. 0% if there are any un-resolved deficiencies.

CDRL – Data Item A002, Monthly Status Report Measurement/Metric – Accuracy and timeliness Performance Standard –Accuracy – no rejected reports due to major discrepancy Timeliness – within 5 days after the due date of the last day of the first full week of the month.

Maximum Error Rate – 0% Timeliness – 0% Weight – 20% if all above requirements are met. 0% if there are any un-resolved deficiencies.

CDRL – Data Item A004, Trip Reports Measurement/Metric – Accuracy and timeliness Performance Standard – Accuracy – all required data points covered (re: 6.2), content correct.

Timeliness – within 5 days of the conclusion of travel as per customer requirements.

Maximum Error Rate – 0% Timeliness – 0% Weight – 20% if all above requirements are met. 0% if there are any un-resolved deficiencies.

CDRL – Data Item A006, Copies of Curriculum Measurement/Metric – Accuracy and timeliness Performance Standard – Accuracy – relevant to publications identified in section 4.0 Timeliness – Upon completion of initial or updated training material.

Maximum Error Rate – 0% Timeliness – 0% Weight – 20% if all above requirements are met. 0% if there are any un-resolved deficiencies.

CDRL – Data Item A007, Copies of Training Lectures Measurement/Metric – Accuracy and timeliness Performance Standard – Accuracy – relevant to publications identified in section 4.0 Timeliness – Upon completion of initial or updated training material.

Maximum Error Rate – 0% Timeliness – 0% Weight – 20% if all above requirements are met. 0% if there are any un-resolved deficiencies.

Area 1 Rating Calculation

Failure to submit any CDRL item identified above will result in an overall rating of unsatisfactory

Exceptional Performance Rating: 90-100% Very Good Performance Rating: 80-90% Satisfactory Performance Rating: 70-80% Marginal Performance Rating: 60-70% Unsatisfactory Performance Rating: 60% or below

AREA 2: SCHEDULE (Comprised of 1 item)

CDRL – Data Item A003, Projected Training/Travel Schedule Measurement/Metric – Accuracy and timeliness Performance Standard – Accuracy – content correct Timeliness – within 5 days of scheduling training/travel as per customer requirements.

Maximum Error Rate – 0% Timeliness – 0% Weight – 100% if all above requirements are met. 0% if there are any un-resolved deficiencies.

AREA 3: COST CONTROL (Comprised of 1 item)

REVIEW OF INVOICES/EXPENSE REPORTS

Measurement/Metric – Contract Funding limits Performance Standard – Meets service and schedule requirements while keeping direct and indirect costs within awarded contract value, and within reason using the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) as a guideline.

Maximum Error Rate – 0% Weight – 100%

AREA 4: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT (Comprised of 1 item)

CDRL – Data Item A005, Copies of Support Equipment Licenses Measurement/Metric – Accuracy and timeliness Performance Standard – Accuracy – IAW NAVSUP Publication 538 Timeliness – After completion of licensing requirements and whenever license is renewed.

Maximum Error Rate – 0% Timeliness – 0% Weight – 100%

AREA 5: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (Comprised of 3 Items)

STUDENT EVALUATION

Measurement/Metric – Student’s evaluation of course /instructor effectiveness Performance Standard – Class Critique Form Timeliness – 5 days after the completion of training or returning from a training trip.

Maximum Error Rate – Weight – 50%

JOB PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Measurement/Metric – Student’s supervisor’s evaluation of weather the course helped the student in the actual performance of his/her duties related to the material taught.

Performance Standard – Supervisor Critique Form Timeliness – N/A Maximum Error Rate – N/A Weight – 25%

CNAP/CNAL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Measurement/Metric – Monitoring of CNAP/CNAL Customer complaints/resolutions Performance Standard – Customer Complaint Record Timeliness – N/A Maximum Error Rate – N/A Weight – 25%

Area 5 Rating – Excellent Performance Rating: 90-100% Very Good Performance Rating: 80-90% Satisfactory Performance Rating: 70-80% Marginal Performance Rating: 60-70% Unsatisfactory Performance Rating: 60% or below

9. Performance Rating Definitions

In evaluating the quality of contractor’s performance, the following performance ratings may be used.

If completed and there are unresolved deficiencies, each will be assigned a weight value:

Complete:

100%/6=16.66%.

Not complete:

0%

Cost Control

10. Performance Reporting

Remedies for Non-Conformance If inspections indicate unacceptable performance, the COR will notify the contractor’s POC of the deficiencies for correction. Use the remedy the government is going to use per what is stated in the Services Summary (SS). If deficiencies are not corrected within the required time frame, the COR should notify the CO for action. If the contractor disagrees with the noted discrepancy and an agreement cannot be reached, the CO shall be notified for a final decision

Performance Assessment Report (PAR) PARs will be used to report ALL minor discrepancies and will be generated by the COR and sent to the contractor for corrective action. Contractors will be given 10 days to correct PARs unless they have requested an extension. If 3 minor discrepancies are found, combine them and process a CAR.

Customer Complaint Form The COR must furnish instructions to the customer receiving the contractor’s service. The customer must retain supporting evidence of complaint or feedback. After the COR validates feedback or complaint demonstrating contractor noncompliance, the COR processes a Performance Assessment Report (PAR) or Corrective Action Report (CAR) to the CO. ALL Customer Complaint forms WILL be validated by the COR prior to notifying the contractor.

Corrective Action Report (CAR) The CAR will be forwarded to the Chief COR for review. The COR will forward the CAR to the CO for action. A copy will be provided to the contractor’s representative by the CO. Most CARs will be corrected within 30 calendar days depending on the complexity of the finding, the contractor may be allowed up to six months (maximum) correcting a CAR. The contractor will be asked the status of the CAR on a monthly basis. The COR will keep an electronic log of all CARs and will keep a hard copy of CARs in the contract oversight file.

Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) CPARS will be initiated annually, documenting contractor performance for this specific contract. More frequent updates may be made as required to document a significant improvement or degradation of the level of contract performance.

Disputes Every attempt will be made to resolve all disputes arising under this contact/plan using the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) as outlined in FAR 33.214. If no resolution can be made under ADR, the CO will render a Contracting Officer’s final decision.

11. ENCLOSURES

Enclosure (1) – Class Critique form Enclosure (2) – Supervisor Critique form Enclosure (3) – Technical Data Survey form Enclosure (4) – Customer Complaint Record (CCR) Enclosure (5) – Corrective Action Report (CAR) Enclosure (6) – Performance Assessment Report (PAR) Enclosure (7) – Class Critique Score Tracker

Enclosure (1)

COMNAVAIRPAC/LANT CLASS CRITIQUE FORM

Please provide an explanation for each item NOT checked at the bottom of this form. Any recommendations for improvement may also be provided below or on the back of the form.

If item is not applicable (N/A), leave blank or write N/A. If N/A, full points will be allowed. Use the following check boxes to agree or disagree.

1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the instructor/operator. (2.5 Points checked, 0 if not) MAX POINTS: 12.5

☐ A. Was prepared to conduct the training session.

☐ B. Provided me with the necessary guidance during the training.

☐ C. Exhibited professionalism at all times.

☐ D. Critique of team performance was adequate in identifying team and individual problems. (N/A if AMMO Sentencing class) ☐ E. Effectively reviewed the material to ensure comprehension.

2. The following questions refer to security/safety (2.5 Points checked, 0 if not) MAX POINTS: 12.5 of the team training session. (N/A if AMMO Sentencing class)

☐ A. All equipment was safe for use.

☐ B. Safety precautions were explained prior to beginning training.

☐ C. My understanding of safety precautions was verified immediately prior to the training session.

☐ D. Safety precautions were reemphasized during training as needed.

☐ E. Security procedures were explained prior to the training session.

3. The following questions refer to overall training experience. (2.5 Points checked, 0 if not) MAX POINTS: 12.5 overall training.

☐ A. The training was relevant to operational needs and covered the right mix of sentencing scenarios and/or weapons.

☐ B. The training materials were adequate to provide a realistic learning experience with a minimum of simulations.

☐ C. The training equipment (tools, protective gear, etc.) was in good condition.

☐ D. The training was delivered in a logical sequence.

☐ E. The training was valuable in preparing me to do my job.

4. The following questions refer to team training effectiveness. (2.5 Points checked, 0 if not) MAX POINTS: 12.5 (N/A if AMMO sentencing class)

☐ A. Instructors/operators were helpful in providing the assistance needed to effectively train the team.

☐ B. The scenario selection was appropriate to meet the needs of the team.

☐ C. Training was necessary to prepare the team to function effectively.

☐ D. Training provided was presented at the appropriate level for the team.

☐ E. You were overall satisfied with services provided by the MOTT?

Please provide input on items that found to be particularly useful or you feel could be a possible area of improvement.

Name (optional):_____________________________ Command:_________________________________________________ Class: (circle one) MOTT / QUICKSTRIKE / SENTENCING / VERTREP Instructor:________________ Date:__________

Enclosure (1) Enclosure (1)

COMNAVAIRPAC/LANT SUPERVISOR MOTT CRITIQUE FORM

SUPERVISORS ONLY (12.5 points each if checked, No = 0) MAX POINTS: 25 For Weapons Department supervisor: LPO/LCPO, please provide your inputs on the following items:

1. The course was too long/short to easily incorporate into the ship/activity’s schedule?

☐ Yes ☐No If yes, please specify

2. The training provided enabled subordinate personnel to better accomplish their jobs.

☐ Yes ☐No If no, please provide details

3. Please comment on any additional topics that you feel would increase your department’s personnel job performance.

Name (optional):_______________________________________ Command:________________________________________ Class: (circle one) MOTT / QUICKSTRIKE / SENTENCING / VERTREP Instructor:________________ Date:__________

Enclosure (2) Enclosure (4)

COMNAVAIRPAC/LANT TECHNICAL DATA CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

Please provide an explanation for each item marked C. or D. on the back of this form. Any recommendations for improvement may also be provided on the back of the form. Points scale is A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2

1. Was the MOTT staff courteous and helpful? Points_____MAX: 5

☐ A. Strongly agree ☐ B. Agree ☐ C. Disagree ☐ D. Strongly disagree

2. Staff provided complete, accurate information to you. Points_____MAX: 5

☐ A. Strongly agree ☐ B. Agree

3. A timely response was provided. Points_____MAX: 5

☐ B. Agree

4. My overall experience was positive. Points_____MAX: 5

☐ B. Agree

5. I would recommend MOTT services to a co-worker. Points_____MAX: 5

☐ B. Agree

Enclosure (3) Enclosure (3)

CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RECORD

DATE/TIME OF COMPLAINT

SOURCE OF COMPLAINT

ORGANIZATION

BUILDING NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL

PHONE NUMBER

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

CONTRACT REFERENCE

VALIDATION

DATE/TIME CONTRACTOR INFORMED OF COMPLAINT

ACTION TAKEN BY CONTRACTOR

RECEIVED/VALIDATED BY

Enclosure (4)

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

1. CONTRACTOR

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. TYPE OF SERVICES

4. FUNCTIONAL AREA

5. SUSPENSE DATE

6. CONTROL NUMBER

7. DEFICIENCY |_| MAJOR |_| MINOR

FINDING:

FINDING IMPACT:

Please respond with a written corrective action plan that details the corrective action of the cited deficiency, the cause of the deficiency, and actions taken to prevent recurrence by Suspense Date in Block 5. If date was not entered in Block 5, the contractor is not required to provide a response.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR)

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

9. ISSUING AUTHORITY

TYPED NAME AND GRADE

SIGNATURE AND DATE

10. COR RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR CORRECTIVE ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN TO PREVENT RECURRENCE

11. COR DETERMINATION

|_| ACCEPTED |_| REJECTED

12. CLOSE DATE

Enclosure (5)

Enclosure (7)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (PAR)

(If more space is needed, use reverse and identify by number)

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (COR) SIGNATURE AND DATE

I. PERFORMANCE

7. |_| DEFICIENCY (CHECK ALL BOXES THAT APPLY)

|_| NEW

|_| REPEAT

|_| NO DEFICIENCY NOTED

8. SERVICES SUMMARY or PWS PARAGRAPH ITEM REVIEWED

II. CONTRACTOR VALIDATION

11. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR

12. CORRECTIVE ACTION ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

13. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE OR REASON FOR NON-CONCURRENCE OF COR CITED DEFICIENCY

III. ACTION CORRECTED

14. |_| CONCUR |_| NON-CONCUR COR SIGNATURE AND DATE

15. COR REMARKS (REQUIRED)

6. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE REMARKS

Enclosure (6)

CNAF MOTT CLASS CRITIQUE SCORES (20XX)

MOTT D-500-2007

MOTT E-500-2007

AMMO SENT D-500-2012

AMMO SENT E-500-2012

QUICKSTRIKE D-500-2014

QUICKSTRIKE E-500-2014

VERTREP E-500-2026 (30MU)

VERTREP E-500-2026 (29MS)

LPD MOTT D-500-2050