Attachment (3) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) 6 26 26 CLEAN.pdf

PDF 402 KB Posted Jun 30, 2026

Attached to: N00421-26-R-0002
Solicitation number: N00421-26-R-0002
Issued by: Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command Naval Air Warfare Center

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Jun 30, 2026

This is a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for contract N00421-26-R-0002, which governs the delivery of Contracted Air Services (CAS) at Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Kauai, Hawaii. The contract is an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) service support agreement with a four-year and 364-day ordering period, administered by Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) Procurement Group. The contract includes both Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and cost-reimbursable Contract Line Items (CLINs). Services required include medium and heavy lift helicopter operations to support range missions, including target recovery/launch, visual surveillance, range clearing, personnel and equipment transport, and firefighting as needed.

The QASP establishes Government surveillance methods and performance standards organized into five key metrics: (1) Mission Effectiveness—maintaining 85% aircraft availability and crew readiness; (2) Government Furnished Property (GFP) accountability—achieving 95% accuracy with a goal of 100% in accounting for assigned assets; (3) Safety program compliance—maintaining 97% compliance across aircraft mishaps, hazmat policy, and operational procedures; (4) Fuel accountability—ensuring 95% accuracy in fuel consumption tracking with 100% inspection by the CAS Fuel Analyst; and (5) Capability Stand Up—completing all required stand-up elements within the contract-specified timeframe. The COR conducts monthly surveillance, submits quarterly reports to the Contracting Officer, and maintains annual CPARS assessments. Acceptable performance ("Satisfactory" or above) across all measurement areas is required to issue new task orders in subsequent years. The COR may initiate Contract Discrepancy Reports (CDRs) when defects exceed allowable thresholds or performance trends become unfavorable, requiring contractor corrective action plans.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Section_M_N0042126R0002 PMRF 06 29 26 CLEAN.pdf	PDF	Jun 30, 2026
Attachment (5) SBPCD.pdf	PDF	Jun 30, 2026
Attachment (4) Airworthiness Checklist 6 16 26 CLEAN.pdf	PDF	Jun 30, 2026
Draft RFP- N0042126R1010.pdf	PDF	Jun 30, 2026
Exhibit A CDRLs - PMRF Helicopters 6 22 26 CLEAN.pdf	PDF	Jun 30, 2026
Section_L_N0042126R0002 PMRF 6 29 26 CLEAN.pdf	PDF	Jun 30, 2026
Attachment (2) DD254 PMRF Helicopters 6 16 26 CLEAN signed.pdf	PDF	Jun 30, 2026

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

N00421-26-R-0002 Attachment 3

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for Contracted Air Services (CAS) Pacific

Missile Range Facility (PMRF) Helicopters Services

Date: 06/16/2026

1. 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 contract. The intent is to ensure that the contractor performs in accordance with the performance metrics, the Government receives the quality of services required under the contract and that the actual performance results are documented in accordance with 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.

The contract required is for Contracted Air Services (CAS), including providing helicopters in support of the Range at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Kauai, Hawaii. Tasking associated with this requirement will include target recovery/launch, visual surveillance, range clearing, transport personnel and/or equipment to/from ship or shore facilities, and firefighting, if required. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

The resulting contract will be under Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) Procurement Group. The Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) service support contract will have Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs and cost-reimbursable CLINS.

The contract will consist of four (4) years and 364 days ordering period. The Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract that extend past the ordering period of this contract. A properly executed QASP will assist the Government in achieving the objectives of this procurement.

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 the contract and under individual task orders, 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 result specified in each task order under the contract.

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 contracts and is authorized to make 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 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 may 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)/CAS Integrated Product Team Lead (IPTL)/ CAS Fleet & Range Support (F&RS) IPTL – As part of PMA-226, the PM manages and supports specialized and proven aircraft platforms & systems to include CAS acquisition, PAO Declaration and Airworthiness.

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 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 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 product or service, schedule, cost control, business relations, management, small business compliance, 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, 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/CAS/F&RS IPTL – The Program Manager (PM) provides primary program oversight, nominates the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and supports the COR’s performance assessment activities. 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.

The PM for this contract is PMA-226.

6. Methods of QA Surveillance

a. Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) – The successful offeror has a vested interest in the Government generated CPARS rating under this contract. CPARS reports will impact the contractor’s ability to successfully compete on future DoD Helicopter CAS requirements. Additionally, the CPARS ratings will be the determinant in exercising an option or award term. For this procurement the Government will address the quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, management responsiveness, utilization of small business, and other important areas. 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 will 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 provided as Enclosure (4) herein.

7. Surveillance

Enclosures (1), (2), and (3) sets forth the performance standards, incentives, data performance and incentives for the contractor and COR while enclosure (4) provided the surveillance activity checklist and means for the COR to document on a monthly basis the results of the surveillance.

Enclosure (4) will be provided to the Contracting Officer on a quarterly basis.

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.

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) – Helicopter retrieving targets Performance Based Standards Enclosure (2) - Data Performance Standards Enclosure (3) - Incentives Enclosure (4) - Surveillance Activity Checklist Enclosure (5) – Contract Discrepancy Report

Enclosure (1) CAS PMRF Helicopter Services

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance Work

Statement (PWS) Task Description

Reference Paragraph(s)

Performance Standards Required and Tied to

CPAR Ratings

Surveillance Method/Measure

Incentives

Provide Medium and Heavy Lift Helicopter Services (flight minutes) which meet requirements within the PWS

3.1 Metric 1

Provide the prescribed aircraft and required crew 85% of the time to be mission effective.

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback.

Example:

Mission Effectiveness is the total sorties flown in which the aircraft functions as required by the PWS and in accordance with scheduled flights prescribed by Scheduling Officer (SO) divided into the total sorties scheduled to achieve percentage (e.g. 49 flown/50 scheduled = 98%).

Excludes canceled sorties by customer or due to weather related occurrences.

95 - 100% = Exceptional 90 – 94.99% = Very Good

See enclosure 3.

85 – 89.99% = Satisfactory

80 – 84.99% = Marginal

<80% = Unsatisfactory

Contractor to maintain 5.0 Metric 2 Contractor shall account for all GFP with a goal of 100% accuracy and a Satisfactory metric of 95%. Reports shall be submitted in accordance with CDRL A007.

98 - 100% = Exceptional 97 – 97.99% = Very Good 95 – 96.99% = Satisfactory 90 – 94.99% = Marginal <90% = Unsatisfactory

Government performed random on-site physical audits combined with 100% inspection by COR of GFP reports submitted per CDRL A007 of Contractor assigned GFP against the contract master list of assigned GFR.

Example:

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%)

Government Furnished 5.1

Property (GFP) accountability IAW DI-

MGMT-81947B

5.2

See enclosure 3.

Safety program compliance 3.4 4.0

Metric 3

Contractor shall maintain compliance with all safety requirements by category:

1. Aircraft air & ground mishaps

2. Compliance with hazmat policy.

3. Compliance with GOPs and FOPs.

Contractor goal is 100% compliance with a Satisfactory metric of 97%

99 - 100% = Exceptional 98 – 98.99% = Very Good 97 – 97.99% = Satisfactory 96 – 96.99% = Marginal <96% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by COR and customer feedback. Example:

Take total days where an incident has occurred and subtract that from the total number of days in the CPAR cycle...then divide that number by total number of days in the CPAR cycle to derive percentage (360/365 = 98.6%).

Sec enclosure 3.

Fuel accountability compliance (fuel consumption report) and receipts

4.2.2 Metric 4

Contractor shall maintain 95% accurate fuel consumption tracking between fuel cards/fuel receipts and flight logs, with a goal of 100% accurate tracking. Discrepant data is that which requires the CAS Fuel Manager to contact the contractor for correction.

98 - 100% = Exceptional 97 – 97.99% = Very Good 95 – 96.99% = Satisfactory 90 – 94.99% = Marginal <90% = Unsatisfactory

100% Inspection by CAS Fuel Analyst, COR and customer feedback.

Example:

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.

See enclosure 3.

Capability Stand Up 3.2 Metric 5 The contractor shall complete a Capability Stand Up period, which consists of all the applicable elements identified in PWS Section 3.2.

Contractor goal is to complete Capability Stand Up no later than the number of months identified in the awarded contract PWS Section 3.2.

Award PWS 3.2 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 PWS 3.2 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 PWS Section 3.2. A score of Satisfactory will be assigned for completion of Capability Stand Up that occurs on or before the timeline specified in the PWS. A score of Unsatisfactory will be assigned for completion of Capability Stand Up greater than the time specified in the PWS.

See Enclosure 3.

Enclosure (2)

DATA PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

PWS/CDRL Task

Description Standard AQL Surveillance

Method/ Measure

Incentives

CDRL A001 -

Airworthiness and Related Substantiation Data