CBP-RFI-03272024-001-J.08_Draft RFP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan RFI2.pdf

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

MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICAL SERVICES

DRAFT

CBP-RFI-03272024-001

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 Maritime Patrol Aircraft Maintenance and Logistical Services. This plan sets forth the procedures and guidelines the Air and Marine Operations (AMO), Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) Program Management Office (PMO) 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 Aviation Maintenance Officer (AvMO) and MPA PMO to monitor and manage the contractor’s performance to ensure the expected outcomes or performance objectives communicated in the PWS and this QASP 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 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 and this QASP. The contractor will develop and implement a performance management system with processes to assess and report its performance to the designated government representative. This QASP enables the government to take advantage of the contractor’s QC program. The Contractor’s QC program shall be auditable.

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 Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will make a determination regarding incentives based on performance measurement metric data and the Contracting Officer (CO) 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 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, 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 Government representatives 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 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 ensuring 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 Aviation Maintenance Officer (AvMO)

The Aviation Maintenance Officers (AvMO) at the Operational Sites are also designated as a DAR. The AvMO 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 quality levels are included in the PWS and this QASP. The Contractor’s performance will be determined by its ability to support the Operational Flight Schedule (OFS) and Supply Response Time.

Deficiency Reports and a Cannibalization metric will be used in the evaluation and calculation of the contractor performance when assessing the amount of fee. Failure to meet the required service or performance level will result in a fee reduction.

3.1 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 (PWS Appendix 1.7.3) 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 required schedules by assessing the contractor’s efforts during the period of performance that contribute to or affect the schedule variance. Also address significance of scheduled events (i.e., mod completions), discuss causes, and assess the effectiveness of the 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 other management areas that are unique to the contract.

The evaluation ratings are based on daily, monthly, quarterly, and annual reviews 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 and/or Audits, which shall be performed by the COR/DAR or designated person.

• 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 Reviews – COR/DAR performs the review 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 Government. 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.

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 and Supply Response Performance Incentives Calculations

A. Operational Performance Measure (OPM)

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.

Operations coordinates with the DAR to ensure all maintenance is managed to support the OFS.

The Contractor’s OPM will be determined by its ability to support the OFS. For the Performance Incentive Fee, OPM will be calculated and reported monthly and applied to fee as a quarterly average.

The 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.

A launch is defined as a successful aircraft take off (transition from a state of full stop to in air flight) in support of a scheduled mission.

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.

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 Missions Completed by Missions Launched (Launch Rate).

A completed mission is defined as all systems under the control of the contractor must have functioned properly and not contributed to the inabilities of the crew to complete its assigned mission.

A mission is defined as a flight, or series of flights conducted to completion.

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.

B. Supply Response Time (SRT)

Supply Response Time (SRT) - Measures the efficiency and responsiveness of the contractor’s supply system.

As per the PWS, SRT is measured by priority code (PRI 02, PRI 05, and PRI 12) with time thresholds (T) and objectives (O) for the time required for the contractor to (A) forward a Purchase Request (PR) to Inventory Control Management (ICM), (B) subsequent placement of that PR on a fully executed Purchase Order (PO), and

(C) establishment of an Estimated Delivery Date (EDD).

(A) Purchase Request to Inventory Control Management (SRT PR): This is the total number of PRs initiated by the contractor forwarded for generation of a PO. This measure, as per the PWS, contains only a time Threshold corresponding to it Priority Code (PRI 02, PRI 05, or PRI 12). Each initiation of a PR is treated as an individual binary measure in that it either met or failed to the meet the Threshold (T) time standard corresponding to its Priority. The contractor shall record monthly and report quarterly, for each Priority Code, the total number of PRs initiated, and the total number of PRs received by the ICM for action that met the associated PR Priority time Threshold (T). The contractor shall then divide the total number of submitted PRs that met Threshold by the total number of PRs submitted to determine the percentage of PRs submitted that met Threshold (T) time requirements.

An example of this measure is provided in the table below.

While not directly calculated into fee, individual instances or sustained and chronic failure to achieve the threshold requirements of this measure may result in the issuance of a DRF at a level commensurate with impact on the program which could impact fee.

In addition, the contractor shall present this measure in the form of a time series line graph for data collected over all months of contract performance with a best fit trend lines inserted and present this graph quarterly. An example of a possible graph of this measure is presented below.

(B) Supply Response Time – Purchase Order (SRT PO): This measure of effectiveness directly impacts fee. Each PR is treated as an individual instance measured on whether it made threshold (T) or objective (O) requirements or failed to do. At the end contract quarter, a tally is made, for each priority code, of the total number of PRs initiated, the total number of PRs placed on PO within Threshold (T) but not within Objective (O), and the total number of PRs placed on PO within Objective (O) time. The contractor shall then add the total Threshold (T) and Objective (O) PRs successfully placed on PO. Subsequently, the contractor shall divide the total number of Purchase Requests (T and O) placed on PO by the total number of Purchase Requests initiated to calculate the SRT PO which shall be expressed as a percentage.

This figure shall be used to calculate base SRT PO fee, as explained and calculated in section 4.6.2 SRT PO Fee Calculation, and which is enhanced by an incentive bonus for PRs placed on PO within PWS Objective (O) time standards and decremented in accordance with the calculated Cannibalization Rate (CANN). To support the calculation of the SRT PO incentive fee, the contractor also divides the total number of SRs processed successfully to PO within Objective (O) standards by the total number of PRs initiated. CANN is calculated by taking the count of each CANN action divided by the total number of PR initiated for each Priority level.

An example of these calculations is provided in the table below. They are compiled and presented quarterly.

(C) Supply Response Time Estimated Delivery Date (EDD): This measure intends to assess the contractor’s ability to find suppliers who are responsive to program logistics and supply requirements. Like SRT PR, it does not directly impact SRT fee calculation. Also, like SRT PR, individual instances or sustained and chronic failure to achieve the threshold EDD requirements of this measure may result in the issuance of a DRF at a level commensurate with impact on the program which could therefore negatively impact fee. Though EDD contains Objective (O) performance measures, there is no incentive bonus to make EDD Objective (O). Instead, instances of making EDD (O) shall be used to mitigate missed EDD (T) instances when considering whether to issue a DRF for failure to meet EDD (T).

EDD data shall be compiled monthly and reported quarterly with tables and graphing in a fashion similar to SRT PR above.

EDD does not include normal long-lead time parts and repairs such as those associated with engines, props, mission sensors, etc., which generally require six or more months for completion and delivery. The contractor may request the government to declare an item or service to be Long-Lead Time and thus struck from the measure. In addition, as anomalies occur, the contractor may strike from this calculation no more than 1% of non- Long-Lead Time EDD data points to avoid or mitigate data skew. However, these anomalous EDD strikes should be reported to the government during quarterly reporting.

EDD is calculated by counting, for each PO Priority Level, the total number of POs initiated, the number of POs issued with EDD that meet EDD (T) requirements but do not meet EDD (O) requirements, and POs that meet EDD (O) requirements. The contractor shall then divide the EDD (T) and the EDD (O) tallies by the total number of POs issued to provide EED (T) and EDD (O) percentages, and, finally, add the EDD (T) and EDD (O) percentages to derive a combined EDD (T) + (O) percentage.

The table below provides an example of these calculations.

The contractor shall provide quarterly a like or similar to the above EDD table for each month in the quarter as well as a quarterly summary table for all months in the quarter. In addition, the contractor shall provide a like or similar graph to the one below presenting compilation of EDD monthly data with best fit trends.

4.5 Other Fee Impacts

A. Deficiency Reports

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

Deficiency Reports are graded on three levels and are applied to all areas of the contract to include Program Management.

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 critical defect that could cause death, injury, severe occupational illness, loss or major damage to an aircraft, aircraft sub-systems, government equipment, facility, loss of availability or work stoppage.

• Level 2 - DEFECT, MAJOR - A defect, that could result in failure or materially reduce the usability of a unit or part or facility for its intended purpose. A major defect includes administrative non-compliance with policy, procedures, or contractual requirements or internal controls going unchecked that can lead to misalignment or misreporting of data/information. Major defects may also be the result of an accumulation or repetition of otherwise minor defects that are not corrected, especially, but not exclusively, those minor Level – 3 Defects recorded in previous deficiency reports.

• 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 which has no significant bearing on the effective use or operation of the unit or part or service. The defect is less than desirable to the Government but does not adversely affect maintenance or logistic operations.

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).

Weighted DRF Count

Fee Decrease

.1 -1.9 10% 2 – 3.9 20% 4 – 5.9 30%

>6 40%

B. Aircraft Parts Cannibalization

The Contractor shall minimize aircraft parts cannibalization to the maximum extent possible. Each Aircraft Parts Cannibalization Request Form CBPAVP-P3-004 submitted to and approved by the DAR will count as one cannibalization event.

Cannibalization Rate (CR)

Definition: The percentage of time parts requirements are satisfied/met by cannibalization

The purpose should be to reduce the CR, as much as economically possible, and the trend should be downward over time.

Total Cannibalization Total Number of Parts Requested = CR

Example: 7 cannibalizations with 250 total parts requested = (7/250) = 3% CR

4.6 Performance Incentive Fee Calculation

The annual fee pool will be established as the annual target cost of the cost-plus portions of the contract multiplied by the target fee percentage (5%). 80% of the total annual incentive fee pool will be set aside for performance incentives (OPM=40% and SRT=40%) and the remaining 20% of the total annual incentive fee pool will be set aside for the cost incentive.

To promote performance, a variable fee structure provides adjustments off the target fee (5%), to a minimum of 3% (Minimum Fee) and a maximum fee of 9% (Maximum Fee). These adjustments are applied separately to OPM, SRT, and Cost as provided below.

As fee assessments are conducted quarterly, the table below provides an example of the structure of the Quarterly Performance Incentive Fee Structure.

This variable fee structure biases reward for exceeding threshold measures of performance over decrements for missing threshold performance. For example, Maximum Fees are 80% above Target Fees, while Minimum Fees are only 40% below Target Fees.

4.6.1 Calculating OPM Fees

OPM is calculated monthly but assessed quarterly. Calculation of OPM Fee is designed to disincentivize the contractor from falling below the OPM Threshold (T) of 90% and reward the contractor for monthly OPM performance that exceeds OPM (T). At (T), the contractor earns the Target Fee (5%). Below (T), the contractor earns the Minimum Fee of 3%. OPM shall be calculated to two decimal places and shall not be rounded up to make (T), that is 89.99% OPM and below misses OPM (T) and is awarded a 3% fee. At OPM (T) of 90% and above, OPM Fee escalates from Target Fee (5%) at OPM 90% to Maximum Fee (9%) at OPM 100%.

The table below represents the OPM Fee award structure.

To calculate OPM Fee, first calculate the monthly Maximum, Target, and Minimum Fees. This is done by taking the Total Annual Target Cost, multiplying this by 40% which is the OPM share of the Fee Pool, multiplied by the Fee Level (9% for Maximum Fee, 5% for Target Fee, and 3% for Minimum Fee), and then divide by 12. This should produce value for each fee level.

For example, if you wanted to determine the monthly Maximum Fee for any month in a contract year with an Annual Target Cost of $50,000,000, perform the following formula:

Annual Target Cost ($50,000,000,000) x OPM Fee Pool Share (40%) x Maximum Fee Percent (9%)

In this example, monthly Maximum OPM Fee is $150,000.

Next, determine the OPM Base Fee. If OPM for any month is less than Threshold (T) of 90%, OPM Base Fee for that month is the Minimum OPM Fee, or $50,000 in the example above in the case of an Annual Target Cost of $50,000,000.

If OPM meets OPM (T) of 90% or above, the OPM Target Fee is awarded.

Next, If OPM achieved is above (T) 90%, take the OPM percent level achieved, subtract 90% to find the OPM percentage achieved above Threshold, multiply this with OPM Base Fee, and then multiply that figure by 8. This figure is the OPM Bonus Fee.

The formula for this calculation is:

OPM Bonus Fee = (OPM Percent > 90% Achieved – 90%) x OPM Target Fee x 8

Finally, add the OPM Base Fee and the OPM Bonus Fee to determine the total Fee for the month.

The table below provides a hypothetical example of these OPM Fee calculations based on a $50,000,000 Annual Target Cost and OPM percentages achieved in January, February, and March 2026 of 87.30%, 94.30%, and 100% respectively.

4.6.2 Calculating SRT PO Fees

Unlike OPM Fees, SRT PO Fees are both calculated and assessed quarterly against SRT PO (T) and (O) percentages. SRT PO (T) performance establishes the SRT PO Base Fee which cannot be below 3% while SRT

PO (O) performance establishes the foundation for calculation of a SRT PO (O) Incentive Fee Bonus. In addition, SRT PO is broken down to and assessed by Priority Code (02, 05, and 12). The intent of this fee structure is to incentivize both SRT PO (T) and (O) performance, especially at the higher Priority Levels. In addition, SRT PO fees are decremented by the cannibalization actions performed during the quarter, thus establishing a disincentive to cannibalize. SRT (T) and (O) Fees are decremented by the cannibalization percentage. Thus, if the contractor earned $100 in combined SRT PO (T) and (O) fees, a 10% CANN would reduce this fee by 10%, or, in this example, $10.

In no circumstances can the SRT PO with CANN Decrement fall below the Minimum Fee (3%). Maximum Fee (9%) can only be earned for SRT PO if all (100%) of the PRs initiated are processed into fully executed POs within SRT PO (O) with no cannibalization actions for the quarter assessed.

Quarterly SRT PO Fee and CANN decrements are derived from the accumulated SRT PO and CANN Rate data collected as per section 4.5 above. An example SRT PO Fee Calculation data sheet is provided below for ease of reference for the following instructions. CANN decrement calculations will be discussed later.

To calculate SRT PO Fee,

(A) Enter the number of PRs initiated by Priority 2, 5, and 12 (column A).

(B) By PR Priority, enter the number of PRs successfully processed into a PO within the SRT PO (T) time requirements but not within the SRT PO (O) time requirements (column B)

(C) By PR Priority, enter the number of PRs processed to POs within the SRT PO (O) time requirements (column C).

(D) By priority, add columns B and C together to determine the total number of PRs processed to POs within both SRT (T) and (O) time requirements.

(E) By priority, determine the SRT percentage by dividing the total number of PRs processed to POs within the time requirements for SRT PO (T) and (O) by the total number of PRs initiated (columns D divided by A).

(F) By priority, calculate the SRT (O) percentage that will be used to calculate the SRT (O) Incentive Fee Bonus by dividing, by priority, the number of PRs processed within SRT (O) time limits by the total number of PRs initiated (column C divided by column A).

(G) By priority, calculate the SRT Quarterly Target Fee which is the Annual Target Value / 4 x the SRT Fee Pool Share of 40%.

(H) By priority, calculate the SRT PO Base Fee by multiplying the SRT Quarterly Target Fee by the SRT PO Percent (column G x column E)

(I) By priority, determine the SRT PO (O) Incentive Fee by multiplying the SRT Quarterly Target Fee by the SRT (O) percentage (column G x column F)

(J) Finally, by priority, to arrive at the Total SRT PO Fee, add column H (SRT PO Fee) to Column (I) SRT PO

(O) Incentive Fee and find the sum of all figures entered.

4.6.2.1 Cannibalization (CANN) Rate Decrements to SRT PO Fee

To disincentivize the use of cannibalization to meet supply demands, the Total SRT PO Fee is reduced by the percentage of cannibalization actions to total PRs initiated by Priority. A cannibalization is the act of removing a part or component of one aircraft in possession for use in another aircraft in lieu of receipt of parts from the supply system. This does not include removal of parts from one aircraft not in possession or from an aircraft in possession but undergoing scheduled maintenance.

The calculation for the CANN Rate Decrement to SRT PO Fee is straight forward. Divide the number of CANN actions for each priority by the total number of PRs initiated. Multiply the resulting percentage by the calculated SRT PO Fee for each priority and subtract the result from the SRT PO Fee.

SRT PO Fee – ((# CANN actions / PRs Initiated) x SRT PO Fee)

The table below provides an exemplar calculation sheet.

The result of the quarterly CANN Rate Decrement to the SRT PO Fee is the final SRT fee calculation for assessment and payment of SRT portion of the Fee Pool.

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 be accomplished by the COR and DAR. The COR and 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.

The COR will retain a copy of all completed QA surveillance forms. See Attachment 2 for an example of a maintenance review checklist

6 ANALYSIS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Determining Performance

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

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

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 or 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 and 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

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

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

Corrosion Control

CBP SOP

Corrosion Control and Prevention Program

CBP01-75P3-6

Periodic Maintenance Information Card

Entry 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

Random Inspections of Log

Review of Monthly Maintenance Plan

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 timeframe

Safety and Hazmat Programs

CBP SOP Hazardous Waste Management Program

Review the contractor’s safety and HAZMAT Program to ensure the contractor is complying with OSHA, EPA, AQMD, DOD and contractor procedures

Random Inspections of Log

Monthly Reviews

Fuel and

POL

Program

CBP SOP Aircraft Fuel Operations and Surveillance Program

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

Foreign Object Damage (FOD) and Things Falling off Aircraft

(TFOA)

CBP SOP Foreign Object Damage (FOD) and Things Falling Off Aircraft

(TFOA)

Prevention

Monitor Contractors FOD awareness program for compliance with CBP and Contractor FOD prevention procedures.

Ensure all training requirements have been achieved. IAW SOP.

Random Inspections of records.

Observe FOD inspection

Tool Control Awareness

CBP SOP P-3

Operations Tool Control Program

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

Random Inspection

Conduct random toolbox 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 met.

Tool Calibration and Special Tools Program

CBP SOP

Calibration Program

Monitor the Contractor’s reports for tool calibration, special tools and tool control program. Ensure compliance w i t h inspection requirements and proper tracking of requirements

Random Inspection

Annual and Special Inventories

CBP SOP Annual, Specific, and Periodic Inventories of Accountable Assets

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

Maintenance Inspection Span Time Limit

CBP SOP

Maintenance Planning Management

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 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.

Continuously Monitor

Required Status Updates

Status Update

Frequency Date of Submission Distribution

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 (Email) Close of Business every Friday

COR

ACOR

Logistics Managers

Daily Aircraft Status Report

Daily (Email) Daily MPA PMO Director MPA PMO Deputy

COR

ACOR

ATTACHMENT 2: MAINTENANCE REVIEW CHECKLIST

EXAMPLE

BRANCH: DATE:

IN BRIEF:

Meet with branch chief, aviation maintenance officer (AvMO), 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 (AvMO) YES (OK) or NO

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

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

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

4. Review DRFs documented and the corrected action or response from the contractor. Has

AvMO 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 AvMO 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 relevant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. 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?

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

16. Is a training file established for each technician?

17. Does each training file contain the following items:

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

18. Does the site supervisor forecast training requirements?

19. What method is used to collect training data?

20. Is OJT being documented as training is received?

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

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?

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 DRAFT

• 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. Do the CBP Aircraft Maintenance Management System (TBD) reports match aircraft records?

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

4. 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 CBP Aircraft Maintenance Management System 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…